Expecting software to solve all our problems is a huge mistake, one we are idealistic coders always make. Software cannot replace balls. If we had balls we would not need the blockchain. As it is right now all the blockchain can do is diffuse the need for balls so they don't have to come from a single source which is easy to take down.

balls aside, someone who "gets it" has to build this software. Satoshi got it. Notice how social he is... No one in this scene can really handle the truth which is why it will not evolve past level one. Only a spiritual understanding to the problem can create the tools necessary to help fix it.

If satoshi told the whole truth he'd prob just get a "cool story bro" like the one dude who tol the truth here once got. Lol


> On Dec 22, 2014, at 6:46 AM, odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@???> wrote:
>
> > tl;dr?
>
> If you can get to binary this shit ain't gonna matter much.
>
> TecZ:
>> odinn, Ok, point made. You are happy with being on level 1.01 of
>> the rabbit hole. Congrats on that .01 Considering how little you
>> said with so many words i think you have a fine future in politics.
>> Bravo.
>>
>> Is anyone here ready for some actual truth? Send a sign please.
>> Gettin' real lonely on level 7 ova ere.
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 22, 2014, at 5:23 AM, odinn
>>> <odinn.cyberguerrilla@???> wrote:
>>
>>
>> TecZ:
>>>>> Is it really about money?
>>
>> No, it is what is done with the store of value... The debt and the
>> nature of the effort which is related to that debt and how any
>> resultant conflict is directed in a way is turned into business
>> which helps those who generally are charged with managing
>> investments and large scale business holdings.
>>
>> I have lived abroad for a few years and seen some ugly things. In
>> that regard I am no different than a lot of people. Here then I
>> will keep it short...
>>
>> I am trying to keep this very short because of my back and it is
>> eaarly in the AM here where I am at. I think the best way to sum
>> it up is from the International. What's interesting is how so on
>> point they made it in this movie.... so I'll just focus on what the
>> actor said to the lady who was inquiring of him right before he
>> was assassinated. Interestingly, the assassin was himself supposed
>> to be assassinated, by a police officer. In The International, all
>> the lower level players were intended to be disposable ~ there was
>> supposed to be some sort of sick, disposable system, which
>> actually was more or less true to how it usually works out....
>>
>> Anyway, here is how the line was described in the movie:
>>
>> " [In explaining the "true" nature of banking in the world] The
>> IBBC is a bank. Their objective isn't to control the conflict, it's
>> to control the debt that the conflict produces.
>>
>> You see, the real value of a conflict, the true value, is in the
>> debt that it creates. You control the debt, you control
>> everything. You find this upsetting, yes? But this is the very
>> essence of the banking industry, to make us all, whether we be
>> nations or individuals, slaves to debt. ~ Umberto Calvini"
>>
>> It struck me after watching that film some while back, that either
>> a long-term mercenary or a very experienced politician (and perhaps
>> a banker) may have been given a few moments with the pen for those
>> lines. But who can say such things, really?
>>
>> On the other hand, this line, as it was written, from the
>> perspective of the character Umberto Calvini, was quite true in
>> 2009 when The International was made. Today, with hundreds of
>> d-cent currency-ish systems in use around the world today, and with
>> 2015 marking the inflection point of the release (and further
>> development of) anonymity tech the likes of which we have not yet
>> seen, it is safe to say that the notion of "slaves to debt" as a
>> line in a film must be reinterpreted. Indeed, what that means, and
>> what is a store of value, and whether we wish to be a slave to it
>> at all, need not be ceaselessly in someone else's hands, but should
>> be much more in our own and further, we should be closer to being
>> each able to enabling others to snap their own shackles. The
>> notion of slavery need not merely be tied to "isms," but we may as
>> one example conclude that the old and traditional notion of slavery
>> is the result of a lack of compassion, and sharing. and that it is
>> more pervasive than we'd like to admit ~ while at the same time
>> examining that the new and multiple meanings of slavery also imply
>> that we have the ability to break them all.
>>
>> Today, the debt is in our minds.
>>
>> Respect,
>>
>> -O
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Serious question...
>>>>>
>>>>> If the central bankers can create trillions at will then is
>>>>> money really their motivation ? Or just a tool they use to
>>>>> motivate the greed of corporations, middle management and
>>>>> survival instinct of the peseantry?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the central bankers don't value money then why do they do
>>>>> what they do? Fear? Greed? Greed for what? Why do they want
>>>>> so much control? To calm their fear???
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we are just back at the beginning of their psycho mind
>>>>> trip. If they are making plans over the course of 100 years
>>>>> then they are motivated by far deeper things...
>>>>>
>>>>> Those of us that keep babbling on about money and
>>>>> corporations have zero hope of ever getting to the bottom of
>>>>> the problem here. We need to acknowledge that this is a
>>>>> spiritual battle...
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets all go and do some REAL research about history and keep
>>>>> the 180 degree rule in mind, else we will fritter away the
>>>>> chance bitcoin is giving us to affect real change. Hoping
>>>>> this reaches at least ONE person who can read between the
>>>>> lines....
>>>>>
>>>>> Peace
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 21, 2014, at 11:26 PM, snakecharmr
>>>>>> <snakecharmr1024@???> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everybody wants freedom for themselves. Tyrants aren't
>>>>>> willing to give freedom to others, usually because they are
>>>>>> terrified of everyone (thinking of Stalin's paranoia).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think turning up the resolution beyond "rich vs poor"
>>>>>> will demonstrate more complex strategies at work here.
>>>>>> When governments propose "taxing the rich", it's usually
>>>>>> the 0.0001% who actually write the laws (not necessarily
>>>>>> gov) asking the bottom 80% to support putting obstacles up
>>>>>> to block the top 10% (the controller's competitors) from
>>>>>> actually overtaking them. So "taxing the rich" doesn't tax
>>>>>> all the rich, because the people who write the laws always
>>>>>> put loopholes in for them and their friends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the money supply is fair, not rigged, then the only way
>>>>>> the super wealthy can cash in on their wealth is by giving
>>>>>> it to others in exchange for goods. Then they have less
>>>>>> wealth and the only way for them to get it back is to do
>>>>>> things for other people. If they never do things for other
>>>>>> people, then they go bankrupt after a while.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Money is just supposed to encode how much you've
>>>>>> contributed to the economy minus how much you've taken.
>>>>>> It's not perfect, and the fiat system skews it beyond
>>>>>> recognition, but that's the idea of money. It's just
>>>>>> memory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 21, 2014, at 6:16 AM, lalu <lalu@???>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think the number of rules is the problem, more so
>>>>>>> the common belief that the pile of $ they sit on is worth
>>>>>>> something ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once this change, we can start building a world in which
>>>>>>> we measure success not only by reading GDP charts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Long road ahead though !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 20. 12. 14 20:45, ben wrote: Are we to think that
>>>>>>>> lower taxes on the rich is going to make them give to
>>>>>>>> the poor of their free will now? I just dont think that
>>>>>>>> giving have ever been a strong tendency for the rich,
>>>>>>>> and I dont see how that will make the wealthgap
>>>>>>>> shrink?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Im for less regulations by all means, but can somebody
>>>>>>>> enlighten me on how giving the people that already are
>>>>>>>> fucking up the world with corporations running amok
>>>>>>>> less rules is going to fix this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2014-12-19 18:52 GMT+01.00, Amir Taaki
>>>>>>>> <genjix@???>:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/rise-new-libertarians-meet-britains-next-political-generation-1469233
>>
> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>>>>>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>
> _______________________________________________
>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
>> list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
> - --
> http://abis.io ~
> "a protocol concept to enable decentralization
> and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
> https://keybase.io/odinn
> > _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem