Donate to Dyne.org

      This Bauwens article, was wrote some weeks ago and is not related
      with fair.coop in any way.
      Otherwise, I am collaborating with him from last months and i have
      better experiences than you. For intance i dont liked
      also the partner state reference, and i confirmed with him that it
      was needed in the context of Flok society project
      to include the funder in the proposal, but he agreed with me and
      like more that this transition can be done without the state.
      We, as a CIC, are going to work together with p2p-f, in a
      transition plan from below without governments, to generate a more
      p2p alternative to the first process.
      Also, i see as a  phalacy to critize fair.coop plans because p2p-f
      is involved, because
      the 99% of the plan and ideology behind it, comes from me and
      other Cooperativa Integral Catalana related comrades. (some of
      there also related to dark wallet)
      So please, if you want to critize, fair.coop, do this  in base of
      our background,and the concret plan that we are going to do.
      In relation between institutions and protocols. I dont see
      contradiction, because we are going to create a open participatory
      process
      responsible to agree about protocols. Therefore collective
      organization could be able to create p2p tools that becames useful
      to all the decentralized network
      i can see that this has been done succesful diferent times (for
      example, FSF with defending free software...).
      In this sense the decition process, is very less centralized than
      the current practices of a lot of groups that could be involved
      foundation or other bitcoin representative organizations
      regs
      enric
      El 19/09/14 11:12, Nicolas Mendoza escribió:
                beginning of the text. That is there only to make it
                seem like an honest and impartial analysis. But it is
                not, as the manipulation of distribution figures, lack
                of dates and references, and use of heavily biased
                terminology show.
                This is just more Krugman from someone who is unable to
                understand Bitcoin and unwilling to think beyond the
                rigid framework imposed by Marxist terminology. As
                someone relatively close to Bauwens and the P2P
                foundation, I have tried for years to make him see how
                it is the Dollar-USArmy dynamics that perpetuates
                Empire, or how politically controlled currency by
                definition fosters an elite class that dominates
                society. But such notions are way too close to actual
                reality to make a dent in a mind that is already shaped
                by a quite rigid abstract universal model and by the
                vocabulary in which it is rooted. Trying to reason
                Bitcoin with Bauwens has been a very frustrating
                experience, since we always come back to some liberal
                catchword that is meaningless in the context of the
                blockchain.
            After working with/for P2P Foundation for some time, I've
            grown disillutioned by the direction it has, because the
            underlying project is not really P2P. For instance a term
            that is being pumped isÂ  "The Partner State", which I think
            speaks for itself. The Partner State is the contradiction of
            the very notion of P2P. In addition to the Partner State,
            P2PF discourse has steered towards proposing a society based
            on the conformation of a series of institutions that are
            aligned with their ideology. This, again, is far from being
            a real P2P project. I have expressed repeatedly that for
            real P2P we must go beyond platforms, and think in terms of
            protocols. As you can see in FairCoin, the important part is
            not really the Coin, but the control institutions attached
            to it. It's more of the same.
          I think it's a combination of ideological rigidity (even if
          disguised as a P2P guy, a liberal will always be a liberal),
          the inability to think differently due to decades of
          ideological conditioning, and sheer lack of imagination.
        For the record, I too think Bitcoin is massively flawed, and at
        the same time I've been holding some since 2011 for obvious
        reasons. The point I want to make is not that Bitcoin is
        perfect, but that the Bauwen's critique is irelevant because it
        originates exclusively from the fact that Bitcoin differs from
        his liberal ideology, and it does not further explore the
        complexities, paradoxes and strangeness of Bitcoin in the real
        world.
              much more important, but that is another story.
          Platzer 
          wrote:
                  of fascism as defined by its inventor, Benito
                  Mussolini:
                  power."
                  youÂ and tell me what kind of system we live in!
                      unSYSTEM &lt;
                      im Auftrag von Tim Patrick &lt;
                      21:12
                      evaluation of Bitcoin by M. Bauwens
                          bring about the negative consequence of
                          fascism....
                            at 8:38 AM, Enric Duran Giralt 
                              &lt;
                            wrote:
                              read
                              regards
                              Enric
                              unSYSTEM mailing list: 
            _______________________________________________
            unSYSTEM mailing list: 
        -- 
          China PDR - HKSAR

Diese Nachricht ist Teil des folgenden Threads:
	Der komplette Thread sortiert nach Datum
	Nicolas Mendoza am
	Nicolas Mendoza am