Very thoughtful article.
Heres a question....
Lets say you, me, and another 78 people happen to have shared access to 1 million dollars.
Lets say, i want all of it. So do at least 10 other people. A few others think we should split it, a bunch of others don't care.
Other then violence, without voting, how can this situation be resolved in a way that i personally would accept?
I suggest this as a possible way to fairly resolve this issue without voting or violence: Divide $1,00,000.00 by 78. Give each of the 78 $12,820.51. that would be fair in every possible sense and no voting or violence needed. In this example the only things required would be a sense of fairness and a functioning intellect. Then, since you want all of it, you can go around to each individual and ask them to give you their share. Since you state, 10 others want all of it too, you might not get all that you want but they too could go around also and ask for others to give to them.
The question, can this be resolved "in a way that you personally would accept?" Is a loaded question and indicates you may be gaming crystal spider. How could that be answered without knowing you? Are you a sane, honest, reasonable adult human being who believes in fairness? Then more than likely you would accept. But if you have a damaged heart and maybe psychopathic tendencies, then of coarse you would be unlikely to accept anything fair or rational.
Well the direct controllers of the account would have to make the final decision it sounds like. If everyone has equal control of it, youd want to avoid taking it all without asking permission, if you dont want to anger people. What I would do is go around asking people I know permission to use some of it, and give them the reason or purpose. Then let them think and get a general sense of how they feel. You could even do a vote or poll to gather data. But I wouldnt rely completely on the vote or poll, as it is not a perfect representation of all the factors. The people who dont care obiously will not miss the funds, and are not raising objections, but Id avoid using the money in a way that will hurt them, because they can become retroactively angry about it. If multiple people want some or all of it, you could discuss with each of those people and other people too to see how much general support each person’s idea has. You could even have a multi-option poll or vote to see what that process says. But again, dont use the vote or poll as the only justification, just something to factor in. The group should start to narrow down their support, so that certain ideas seem to have more excitement and support behind them. Give those ideas a proportion of the funds that is proportional to the estimated emotional support level, that way you make the least amount of people angry. The ideas which have very little support would receive very little money, although they could receive some. This approach obviously requires some right brain thinking and acting, because emotional support levels cannot be measure with instruments other than human bodys, minds, and hearts. The key would be having lots of discussion, and not acting prematurely.
This obviously would not work in a cryptocurrency, since it is all automated, and would at the very least, be difficult to model using a data structure.
But then again, currency would not be such a big deal if it weren't for people blindly obeying it and enforcing it on each other. This is the pressure that police put on people when they perform evictions and arrest people who do not pay fines and taxes. Crypto-currency alone may not be able to heal this order-following mentality that so many people are stuck in.