@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

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

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

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)