Because of my recent wedding I applied for Asgardia citicenship with my future surname. I am currently doing the paper work and will get new identitfication documents. I filled out the form, but i assume the reader is a bit confused because I use two names. There is no way to explain the situation because the application form does not provide the extra space for remarks. You need to change that!

digital signature are good since they are not self created,  it need a external authority who's well known for secure and access at the key who said it isn't a fake one.

it exist some  system who use private and public key to certificate user, but they are  hard to make and use if you haven't use it quite often.

I don't have any experience with this stuff, so don't take my word for it, but virtual signatures are very problematic. As far as I know it's really easy to steal identity with them, fake them and just go around using them. The only positive thing I heard of them is that they are very comfortable to use. I'm pretty sure we will need to find another way of accessing Asgardian digital part without endangering ourselves and/or Asgardia.
But as I said - I'm only speaking from things I heard and read. If someone who knows better could prove me wrong or support my words it would be highly appreciated.

The tyranny of group think cannot be underestimated. A perfect democracy works best for a tiny group in the same geographic region. Out in space, we'll need a balance between group vote and leadership votes. We'll have to decide what kinda leadership we need aka representative (leader is the megaphone for the people) vs elected (leader uses their own judgement to fulfil role requirements). Those two can and do co-exist however the challenge will be bringing harmony to that role. It will rely on trust above all else. Can we trust leaders to do their duty?

An absolute democracy would devolve into tyranny or anarchy pretty quickly I think. Group think isn't always correct and it can easily lead to the 51% to do whatever they want to the 49%.

So I assume you're mainly talking about a constitutional democracy? So we'd be protected by rights that would prevent the majority from harming the minority?

Also, in a dire situation, I would think it would be more difficult for an individual to make a vote for what's best for humanity if voting against would save their own life. I believe sometimes you need that leader to make the tough decision of what's best for humanity. In space I bet though choices would become more frequent, or I'm just watching too much of "The 100". :)

Just putting some thoughts out there, playing devil's advocate. The blockchain idea is great though. We should integrate that technology into our Asgardian systems.

Hi @pizzapal, I couldn't agree more. I can also tell you that there has been a project proposal submitted already to Official in developing an app. We're still waiting on a status for the go ahead, but if you'd like to volunteer, let me know and I'll send an invite to the Discord channel for you to join.

Thanks, Leo.

i hvae already knew that EyeR would do something like hacking the forum ... (because i would do something similar to prove that our data security is a joke)

sincerely Asgardia actually is too far from the objective (like we cant even stop spammers or stop a simple hacking, we can really bring peace to something or make a nation if or security is this simple? i have see free forums with great more security that our forum, you can say that we will work in this or that IT team will do this , but forum security should be the first thing that we needed to do as we created the forum)....i have only 3 years of programation expertise and i can say that i could easily force our forum to do a total shutdown ,using various ips to access the forum at the same time ,our Data security is a great problem EyeR as saying this as far long time, you can say that he have make a mistake using things like hacking the forum to show that he as saying the true , BUT sometimes we only learn after we are "hurt"...

In reply to Phicksur :

Oh. I did not realize he did not want to come back. Shame though; as I said, this guy contributed heavily to the community, both scientifically and otherwise. Maybe one day he might come back.

Welp... guess that finishes this off then.

EyeR reached out to me. Thankfully, I am really easy to find out in the wild, wild Internet.

He did, indeed, hack the forums. He did a non-destructive hack to demonstrate the things he has been saying all along about how insecure the website is. In essence, he was trying to 'do us a favor' in a manner that makes sense from a 'making a point' perspective, but not from a 'being a part of Asgardia' perspective.

I will not advocate for EyeR's return, and he doesn't want us to do so. He has no intentions on coming back, even if he receives, as it were, a 'full pardon'. He sent me a PGP signed message that is posted on the Internet but, in accordance with what I am going to presume is forum policy (since that's a grey area these days), I won't post a link here. If you really want to get a link to it, get in touch with me via Skype, Discord, or any of the other innumerable methods I can be reached outside these forums.

I will, however, post one paragraph that should put an end to this Free EyeR movement, because it is his own words.

The #FreeEyeR movement amuses me, highly - If I wasn't so against docile media I'd of botted up and had that trending
by now, just for the lulz - but in all seriousness, should it be granted I would refuse it. I don't move backwards, and 
that's the only place that's headed. Maybe there's hope for change - but I personally don't see it, I was trying to ignore 
many flags under the understanding it was new and they have no experience. This was naive of myself.

So, I am asking the OP to request this thread be locked, because what you are asking for is against EyeR's wishes.

SGA

As it already been said here - there should be religion theory. It is important to know what religion is, where it came from, what kind of religions there are and what are the consequences, but not making it the center of your life if you're willing to move forward in to space. It doesn't work together - space progress and high religion-ism.

The defense systems in our new world are different with defense system in earth. If some systems in earth can use there but I don't think lot, we need develop and build new defense systems. Start today, we must think, planning and build our defense systems as soon as possible.

I too would be looking at the position of minister for defence for asgardia at the minute I'm currently still serving I have 18 years experience and counting ..my main role is reconnaissance and intelligence gatehering but inalso have many other positions throught my career including communications and CBRN and aircraft crash rescue service . I have yet to upload my blog but full details will be up asap

As Asgardia develops as a state, the role of an minister of defence will be among the most unique and challenging roles of any country. Mainly due to the fact of the majority of the territory of our nation will be in space. This unique situation from a strategic bering will make us both safe and vulnerable ato the same time. The vast majority of countries military capacity will not be able to reach Asgardias territory. Obviously as technology develops (especially when there is nation and established spaced nation) this in its own right will cause nations to develop space based weapons and tactics.

Every nation has the right of self defense. Defensive strategies and technology will be required and continually developed just to keep up with other nations technology capable of potentially attacking us.

But overall at least for the short term, the best way to maintain the safety of Asgardia is to develop strong diplomatic ties and perhaps look towards forming alliances to deter other not so friendly states from conducting such aggressive actions.

I had sent a request to renounce my Asgardia citizenship on March 3, 2017. On March 7, 2017, I received an e-mail assuring me that it would be done, but give about 10 days.

Here it is one week into May and nothing has been done. I can still access this forum and my login and citizenship notice remain in force.

Perhaps they will get around to it after the space station has been built, - after all, that is probably consuming all their time and effort right now.

I think by the time people are 13 or 14 years old because by then they know what they want to vote. Otherwise the voting age could be by the kids responsibility, have them take some sort of test to see how responsible they are and if they are responsible then they can vote, and they have the choice to vote if they are responsible enough.

The Argument for a Fixed Age of Majority as Opposed to Sociological Test of Maturity

When considering the legal age of majority, there is a debate between the concept of a static age and maturity tests. I think there are very good reasons for choosing a static age. The primary reason is that a definitive time frame is given for planning. The second reason is that a specific age provides protection to minors. The third reason is more an argument against maturity tests.

Regardless of the age decided upon by a culture, having a static age of majority gives a minor, and indirectly her/his guardians, a reliable time-frame within which to plan the transition process from child to adult. Having age milestones in a culture allow us to gauge maturity, intellectual capacity, physical development, sociological adjustment, and many other aspects of growth. This is one of the most difficult transitions in life and having a set point when that transition is complete has proven to be beneficial to individuals and society at large.

A very important aspect of static ages of majority in a society is the protection it brings to minors, especially in relation to adults who would abuse thier power and knowledge to manipulate others less mature or experienced than themselves. In situations where minors are coerced into financial, sexual, or emotional situations they aren't mature enough to handle, a static age of maturity protects them by law and unwritten social contracts. Without these protections we would expose children to harm which is easily avoidable.

The last reason for a static age of maturity actually is in concern of the nature of maturity tests. Any test based on objective facts is an easy to administer and easy to grade test. Any maturity test would not only be subjective, but also decides whether the individual taking it has access to the basic rights of a society. That is a problematic mix. We have disagreements on who would design the test, who would judge results, and what do we do with those who are unable to pass even well into what is currently considered adulthood. Most importantly, it is this question of who decides what determines maturity that concerns me. There is too much potential for maladjusted people to deny rights to others through corruption of the process.

Despite the fact that there may be people who are denied options that they are mature enough to handle and these same options are provided to people who may never be ready to handle them, having a static age of majority has benefits that outweigh this inconvenience. Having a reliable time-frame for planning the transition to adulthood and the protections provided against predators are strong enough reasons to advise patience to those who are mature enough, but not old enough, to be adults. And, if they don't have the patience to wait, maybe they don't have the maturity after all.