@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

I'll write more about this in book v2, but see the image here. 

Just like a decentralized currency, a decentralized country is hard to invade. Individual nodes of a network state can also choose to not be globally visible.

https://thenetworkstate.com/the-network-state-in-one-image https://i.imgur.com/9hVym60.png

1) agreed but what about those people in N places? what do you propose they do?
2) what if annihilation is the goal (as it has often been throughout history), not theft?
3) outsourced market solutions (a la rothbard) makes sense but is also kind of dystopian?
4) dual citizenship in order to inherit physical protection?

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

david friedman goes through some examples on how that might work in the machinery of freedom.

centralized or decentralized, owned or shared, large scale or small, coordinated or uncoordinated—all superfluous to the central question: what happens when guys with guns show up?

What if the physical land the network state carves out is decentralized?

What if they own small plots of land in different states or different countries even? So showing up with guns would need coordinated effort from every state/nation.

building a network city @cabin | jonhillis.com

what you call narrow is in fact the default across all of human history. believing the future will be different requires a radical theory as to why

the Hobbesian state of nature is not irrelevant, but it's a narrow view of the future of international relations. possible alternatives:

1. defense becomes a thin layer of the state stack you buy a la carte
2. modern technology creates sovereign individuals/small groups
3. economic power creates de facto protection

ODM Spaces Host. Host of Decentral Lens. https://decentralpod.com/ 
nf.td/chicag0x

historically, the rule of thumb has been: no new country without revolution. given how extremely lindy this has been i'm skeptical of claims the future will be magically different

This is the question I wrestle with. Love the idea of the Network State but if we can create some powerful, decentralized network groups, the path to success and real, defensible land ownership would have to come by transforming countries from within and becoming its leadership.

Infinite money. Endless health. Calm mind. Unconditional love. ☀︎ Writing at http://network0.vc ☀︎ Don't Die

network states would still be compromised of people tho, right? and people create and consume physical resources, yes?

what would a network state trade in exchange for its physical protection? what happens when there are no buyers?

You really can't have a state without "resources" and for Network States those resources are digital, thus not physically confiscatible.

Like any other small state which is able to maintain control over its resources, in engages in trade, and forms alliances with the local superpower for protection.

tap the 🔔 to be notified when $PERL game starts. 🕹️: perl.xyz 💬: /perl 

I think decentralization may help protect the Network, but it seems much easier to commit “terrorism” by picking off individuals

will people want to be part of a state that won’t protect them?

you fight back with guns

but I'd expect this situation to be exceedingly rare among network states since their power isn't due to a monopoly on violence. 

I think it's safe to assume traditional states have more of a tendency towards external violence vs network states built by citizens that freely opt in