The internet functions because of network integrity. When we start to
give preference to traffic, censor websites or corrupt domain names
then we affect network integrity in a huge way. It really distorts the
effectiveness of these systems and undermines their potential for
empowerment.

Corruption seeps in. It wedges its foot in the door and then pushes
and pushes. Regulation is ALWAYS a creeping thing.

Bitcoin needs no single point of failure to protect the integrity of
the network.

Bitcoin needs to remain neutral and uncensored. Otherwise the
potential for egregious abuse will open up, and the neutrality of the
network will be lost causing distortions in the functioning of Bitcoin.

On 16/06/13 12:50, Jaromil wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, Juraj Bednar wrote:
>
>> I hate when people do this - claim, even sarcastically, to
>> understand what is going on in other peoples' minds. They are
>> usually wrong.
>
> apologies for my rather aggressive analysis. I admit that, by
> having experienced mostly conflict situations, my analysis often
> ends up shaping its discourse in terms of conflict. It is hopefully
> not needed here and you are right on Gavin's merit. Ultimately mine
> here is the attitude of a chess player, or somehow a war
> strategist, while I understand why you hate it.
>
>>> But out of this personal dimension, which is undoubtely
>>> governed by
>>
>> I will let Dan Dennet speak for a while:
>>
>>
>> "When you're reading or skimming argumentative essays, especially
>> by philosophers, here is a quick trick that may save you much
>> time and effort, especially in this age of simple searching by
>> computer: look for "surely"
>
> I don't know Dennet, but this looks like a good approximative
> technique to skim through texts and find such linguistic fulcra.
> However, once found, their existance doesn't confutes their
> validity, which has still to be challenged out of emphasis.
>
>>> outside its territory. In such a scenario a tool like Bitcoin,
>>> in which many have seen a chance for liberation, will transform
>>> in its nemesis, a rapacious tool for the global control of
>>> value transactions by the central entity pulling its strings.
>>
>> I really doubt value can be controlled this way. Value is
>> subjective perception of people participating in an exchange.
>
> the network that makes value cirtulate is not, and cannot be ever,
> neutral: not even Bitcoin is, or the Internet itself,, while having
> the merit of aiming to be more neutral than other existing
> networks...
>
> Value flows have been controlled for example by Wall Street, where
> broad access was given to certain values instead of others. It is
> not a coincidence that BRIC countries today are interested in
> starting their own stock market infrastructure, because the one in
> place and based on euro/dollars is biased for the advantage of
> former colonial empires.
>
> if Bitcoin is under the control of the same forces, it will not be
> to protect it from "criminal activities" (which are overly present
> in every system anyway, they work just like a witchunt against new
> communication tech) but to protect it from the political
> determination of emerging constituencies.
>
> however, the abstraction and approximation of my sentences here
> make me somehow uncomfortable, I'd rather discuss this in person
> over a coffee or beer. what I'm trying to state aided by broader
> geopolitical examples is that it does not exist an infrastructure
> of exchange that is open and purely constituted out of the equal
> sum of subjective perception and participation: this is a rather
> unrealistic utopia that omits the crucial question of network
> neutrality and ultimately power from the picture.
>
>>> The most important thing for all of us now is that the code
>>> stays open source, so that others can challenge this process.
>>> Another important thing would be indeed that Gaving resigns
>>> from his role because unable to fulfill the mission of bitcoin,
>>> rather than betraying it and at the same time fostering its
>>> usage among many people who don't know.
>>
>> I agree that there should be no Bitcoin foundation and thus no
>> Gavin in it.
>>
>> I don't agree that Gavin should resign from the project. He has
>> contributed a lot of time and effort to Bitcoin, probably more
>> than most of us on this list. Again - if Bitcoin truly is robust
>> and decentralized, it should not fall or rise based on what a
>> developer thinks or does. If this is the case, that's what needs
>> to be fixed, that's the vulnerability - not kicking people out,
>> but making sure they can't do anything really bad
>> systematically.
>
> well put. yet I don't see how such a project can survive a
> backdoor inserted by the lead developer on behalf of a national
> espionage agency inside the main implementation of the tech. Maybe
> the way out can be that other implementations become the central
> reference?
>
>> I agree he should not try to represent Bitcoin users. And I
>> understand that we are all sick of people trying to represent and
>> explain what we think to others (and then find that we are doing
>> the same thing, which is even worse).
>>
>>> scheme), while Bitcoino - an invention that hails the
>>> disappearance of its own author and of leadership and control -
>>> was always governed by a centralized hierarchy among its
>>> developers since its very early days... its almost romantic
>>> today to note how a few have fought this situation since the
>>> beginning, among them Amir.
>>
>> I like to think of this as creating, not fighting. Fighting has
>> casualties. Creating makes things better :)
>
> Another trace of my conflict-oriented thinking. You are right in
> pointing it out.
>
>> (Sorry to all, that's just me trying not to endorse phrases like
>> "battlefield of science" or "war on evil". It's not a fucking
>> war, it's a distributed database of transactions - revolutionary?
>> yes. are people dying or suffering? no :).
>>
>>> The main question I'm interested to have answered now is
>>> whether the hacker culture at large, which bootstrapped Bitcoin
>>> to its size today, will be able to steer this narrative in
>>> other directions, or will let it be appropriated by some
>>> centralizing foundation or venture capital scams. I guess in
>>> our case the answer might be visible in graphs of value
>>> fluctuations.
>>
>> I guess we could see it, but I see value fluctuation as noise
>> more than anything. Noise that's coming from people's action, but
>> I don't think we can infer from it backwards. It's butterfly
>> effects - multiplied again and again and again.
>
> my knowledge of trading platforms is very scarce, your skepticism
> looks valid to me here, in line with many economists critical of
> financiarization and its role in governance. I agree with this
> point now.
>
>> I am also curious how will all of this proceed and I hope for the
>> best, but I don't think hacker culture is responsible for any
>> narratives.
>
> but i disagree with this. from the most recent example of Wikileaks
> to other less globalized episodes in the past, hacker culture is a
> motor for narration.
>
>> Sorry for being so blunt, I did not want to hurt your feelings in
>> any way, it's just I sometimes see the world differently and for
>> some strange reason I had to express it today. I love you
>> anyway.
>
> no offence taken whatsoever: coming myself from a critical
> thinking background I can only appreciate your well argued
> criticism, while enjoying the conversation and learning from it.
>
> ciao _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM
> mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>