I totally agree. What's more important to me is the fact that you can build
an opt-in socialist state in a free society (even if I think it would
fail), but you can't have a free society under the control of a
totalitarian socialist state.
2016-01-26 23:54 GMT+01:00 Diego Saa <cuco.saa@???>:
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>
::
Re: [unSYSTEM] Censorship on mailin…
