Jonny Mack
@nonlinear.eth
@balajis.eth what happens to a so called network "state" when guys with guns show up? violence is what defines the line between a country and a country club, no? ofc one can point to places like singapore but these are the historical exception, not the rule
7 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
balajis
@balajis.eth
Some answers: 1) Decentralized networks are hard to invade. You can get physically attacked in N places but take refuge in the other K. 2) Crypto networks are also hard to rob 3) You can contract with local states for protection 4) Many netizens will retain dual citizenship for a while, just as people hold BTC & USD
4 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
cy
@cy
The network itself is, but if the network provides no physical safety then it is reliant upon the existence of nation states to keep each node safe then? Imagine that there is only 1 state in which “hosting” a node is safe, it would then no longer be a network state, it would rely on this one states physical protec
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
balajis
@balajis.eth
Sovereignty is a continuum — so yes, at first every network state is reliant upon its surrounding state(s) for physical security. The fundamental question is whether at sufficient scale it can eventually gain diplomatic recognition — and become sovereign over *some* of the pieces it owns. There is precedent (1/2)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
balajis
@balajis.eth
I recognize that there's controversy that attends this, but — Israel was a reverse diaspora that started as people buying private property in British Palestine. And they eventually attained full sovereignty from the British. https://lessons.myjli.com/survival/index.php/2017/03/26/land-ownership-in-palestine-1880-19
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Luke Weaver
@lukeweaver.eth
What is the minimum viable property ownership for a network state? Single buildings purchased in different states?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
