Who wants equality anyway?
What humanity needs is freedom.
On Jan 26, 2016 4:12 PM, "Pablo" <pablovidal85@???> wrote:
> Not pessimistic at all, at most, realistic. Speculation and usury, while
> being disgusting for you, are just the rational version of greediness, a
> survival strategy found in many other organisms that is useful to maximise
> the organism's survival probability. In this regard I don't see how humans
> are particularly special or capable of 'evil' acts more than ants, for
> example. If you support bitcoin, ultimately you're supporting the
> impossibility of currency debasement and tax collection, effectively
> helping the capitalists to operate out of democratic control. Cryptography
> (and any system derived from it) is about privatising information and that
> is in direct conflict with the objective of socialism, which is to abolish
> private property. Don't be fooled by the fact that bitcoin uses a p2p
> network, that part was introduced only to make it byzantine fault tolerant,
> even if it did end up giving a false illusion of 'equality between peers'.
>
> 2016-01-26 13:55 GMT+01:00 psy <epsylon@???>:
>
>> I partially agree.
>>
>> Because I understand the pessimistic view of human hand representing the
>> Bitcoin (BTC).
>>
>> But I think we should not confundig the dilemma of the tool, with the
>> possibilities of it: A free tool can be managed by a closed community.
>> Or a community with questionable ethics. Ok. It is a community problem,
>> not the tool.
>>
>> The problem is that BTC allows two human disgusting acts occur: usury
>> and speculation. They are problems of human nature. In order to solve
>> them using the technology, techniques must write rules based on moral
>> standards.
>>
>> For example, the 'fee' for BTC can be used to spread the wealth.
>> Somehow, making the most equitable result. So maybe we should see the
>> BTC as a first prototype, a great idea to build something better. The
>> full protocol serves to create other infrastructure. And that alone
>> should be sufficiently positive to solve the problem of speculative
>> human behavior through technology itself.
>>
>> Pablo:
>> > Pessimistic for you. I wouldn't have joined in first place if I knew the
>> > protocol may be changed by popular vote. To me, the fact that the system
>> > can't scale is by far way less important than the fact that the protocol
>> > can be changed just through politics and brain washing. If "wealth
>> > redistribution" (the euphemism for taxes) was systematic and impossible
>> to
>> > avoid, I wonder then who will produce it in first place, before we all
>> end
>> > up being slaves of yet another totalitarian regime.
>> >
>> > 2016-01-25 20:22 GMT+01:00 Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@???>:
>> >
>> >> I think the real outlook is far more pessimistic than Hearn is.
>> >>
>> >> Bitcoin was never a 'transparent and open community'. Go look up any
>> >> discussion about altcoins or changing the money supply algorithm and
>> >> you'll find plenty of censorship and attacks on any perception or
>> >> discussion that might redistribute value from those that have hoarded
>> >> bitcoins to those that actually create value by using the currency.
>> >>
>> >> Bitcoin (and most altcoins) still follow the same 'vulture capital'
>> >> start-up model where the first 5 people end up with 95% of the wealth
>> >> and everyone else begs for scraps.
>> >>
>> >> So what do we need to do in order to have a real grass-roots movement
>> >> that recognizes that wealth can really only be sustainable generated
>> >> and held when there is a reasonable and transparent
>> wealth-redistribution
>> >> mechanism from those that have orders of magnitude more than they need
>> >> for food and shelter, and those that are dying for lack of the money
>> >> to buy food and shelter?
>> >>
>> >> The problem is very few of the wealthy seem to understand how big of
>> >> a problem they are creating by hoarding wealth. My experience is I've
>> >> seen the worst of this among the folks that get press and attention
>> >> around Bitcoin.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 07:15:27AM +0200, Margus w. Meigo wrote:
>> >>> Probably You have read Mike Hearn <https://medium.com/@octskyward>
>> last
>> >>> post by now, but here it is once more for fresh insight
>> >>>
>> >>> I would say he is slightly pessimistic
>> >>> But what is reply to my local LHV bank here who want to get updates on
>> >>> solid bitcoin future? ?
>> >>> As it is like last our country own bank, would not wanna let anyone
>> screw
>> >>> them over.
>> >>>
>> >>> How is the solutions and what he wrote is something that was told to
>> be
>> >>> impossible (and on what, was people warned few years ago..)
>> >>>
>> >>> So what are hes most true points to worry about ?
>> >>> When we will have complete power to shut of anyone we want and hang
>> them
>> >>> who stops truth about what is needed to be done.. what Would You Do?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> *Here is picks from long post:*
>> >>>
>> >>
>> https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> "In the span of only about eight months, Bitcoin has gone from being a
>> >>> transparent and open community to one that is dominated by rampant
>> >>> censorship and attacks on bitcoiners by other bitcoiners. This
>> >>> transformation is by far the most appalling thing I have ever seen,
>> and
>> >> the
>> >>> result is that I no longer feel comfortable being associated with the
>> >>> Bitcoin community."
>> >>>
>> >>> "From the start, I’ve always said the same thing: Bitcoin is an
>> >> experiment
>> >>> and like all experiments, it can fail. So don’t invest what you can’t
>> >>> afford to lose. I’ve said this in interviews, on stage at conferences,
>> >> and
>> >>> over email. So have other well known developers like Gavin Andresen
>> and
>> >>> Jeff Garzik."
>> >>>
>> >>> "Why has Bitcoin failed? It has failed because the community has
>> failed.
>> >>> What was meant to be a new, decentralised form of money that lacked
>> >>> “systemically important institutions” and “too big to fail” has become
>> >>> something even worse: a system completely controlled by just a
>> handful of
>> >>> people. Worse still, the network is on the brink of technical
>> collapse.
>> >> The
>> >>> mechanisms that should have prevented this outcome have broken down,
>> and
>> >> as
>> >>> a result there’s no longer much reason to think Bitcoin can actually
>> be
>> >>> better than the existing financial system."
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> "In other cases, entire datacenters were disconnected from the
>> internet
>> >>> until the single XT node inside them was stopped. About a third of the
>> >>> nodes were attacked and removed from the internet in this way.
>> >>> Worse, the mining pool that had been offering BIP101 was also attacked
>> >> and
>> >>> forced to stop. The message was clear: anyone who supported bigger
>> >> blocks,
>> >>> or even allowed other people to vote for them, would be assaulted.
>> >>> The attackers are still out there. When Coinbase, months after the
>> >> launch,
>> >>> announced they had finally lost patience with Core and would run XT,
>> they
>> >>> too were forced offline for a while."
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> "Bogus conferences
>> >>> Despite the DoS attacks and censorship, XT was gaining momentum. That
>> >> posed
>> >>> a threat to Core, so a few of its developers decided to organise a
>> series
>> >>> of conferences named “Scaling Bitcoin”: one in August and one in
>> >> December.
>> >>> The goal, it was claimed, was to reach “consensus” on what should be
>> >> done.
>> >>> Everyone likes a consensus of experts, don’t they?
>> >>> The fact that the first conference actually banned discussion of
>> concrete
>> >>> proposals didn’t help."
>> >>>
>> >>> "Think about it. If you had never heard about Bitcoin before, would
>> you
>> >>> care about a payments network that:
>> >>> Couldn’t move your existing money
>> >>> Had wildly unpredictable fees that were high and rising fast
>> >>> Allowed buyers to take back payments they’d made after walking
>> out of
>> >>> shops, by simply pressing a button (if you aren’t aware of this
>> “feature”
>> >>> that’s because Bitcoin was only just changed to allow it)
>> >>> Is suffering large backlogs and flaky payments
>> >>> … which is controlled by China
>> >>> … and in which the companies and people building it were in open
>> >> civil
>> >>> war?
>> >>> I’m going to hazard a guess that the answer is no."
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> "In case you haven’t been keeping up with Bitcoin, here is how the
>> >> network
>> >>> looks as of January 2016.
>> >>> The block chain is full. You may wonder how it is possible for what is
>> >>> essentially a series of files to be “full”. The answer is that an
>> >> entirely
>> >>> artificial capacity cap of one megabyte per block, put in place as a
>> >>> temporary kludge a long time ago, has not been removed and as a result
>> >> the
>> >>> network’s capacity is now almost completely exhausted."
>> >>>
>> >>> "You may have read that the limit is 7 payments per second. That’s an
>> old
>> >>> figure from 2011 and Bitcoin transactions got a lot more complex since
>> >>> then, so the true figure is a lot lower."
>> >>>
>> >>> "At a stroke, this makes using Bitcoin useless for actually buying
>> >> things,
>> >>> as you’d have to wait for a buyer’s transaction to appear in the block
>> >>> chain … which from now on can take hours rather than minutes, due to
>> the
>> >>> congestion.
>> >>> Core’s reasoning for why this is OK goes like this: it’s no big loss
>> >>> because if you hadn’t been waiting for a block before, there was a
>> >>> theoretical risk of payment fraud, which means you weren’t using
>> Bitcoin
>> >>> properly. Thus, making that risk a 100% certainty doesn’t really
>> change
>> >>> anything.
>> >>> In other words, they don’t recognise that risk management exists and
>> so
>> >>> perceive this change as zero cost"
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> "If that didn’t convince you Bitcoin has serious problems, nothing
>> will.
>> >>> How many people would think bitcoins are worth hundreds of dollars
>> each
>> >>> when you soon won’t be able to use them in actual shops?"
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> "Conclusions
>> >>> Bitcoin has entered exceptionally dangerous waters. Previous crises,
>> like
>> >>> the bankruptcy of Mt Gox, were all to do with the services and
>> companies
>> >>> that sprung up around the ecosystem. But this one is different: it is
>> a
>> >>> crisis of the core system, the block chain itself.
>> >>> More fundamentally, it is a crisis that reflects deep philosophical
>> >>> differences in how people view the world: either as one that should be
>> >>> ruled by a “consensus of experts”, or through ordinary people picking
>> >>> whatever policies make sense to them.
>> >>> Even if a new team was built to replace Bitcoin Core, the problem of
>> >> mining
>> >>> power being concentrated behind the Great Firewall would remain.
>> Bitcoin
>> >>> has no future whilst it’s controlled by fewer than 10 people. And
>> there’s
>> >>> no solution in sight for this problem: nobody even has any
>> suggestions.
>> >> For
>> >>> a community that has always worried about the block chain being taken
>> >> over
>> >>> by an oppressive government, it is a rich irony."
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> In article the links also, and rest of it..
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 4:36 AM, odinn <
>> odinn.cyberguerrilla@???>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Mike Hearn
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Armastusega,
>> >>> Margus
>> >>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> >>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Troy Benjegerdes 'da hozer'
>> >> hozer@???
>> >> 7 elements earth::water::air::fire::mind::spirit::soul
>> >> grid.coop
>> >>
>> >> Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel,
>> >> nor try buy a hacker who makes money by the megahash
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>
::
Re: [unSYSTEM] Censorship on mailin…
