>
> 2016-01-27 2:02 GMT+01:00 psy <epsylon@???
> <mailto:epsylon@riseup.net>>:
>
> Ok"!. We want: 'freedom' ;_)
>
> Pablo:
> > 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.
>
> You are using a classic deductive fallacy argument about "A" or "B".
> Btw, whatever form of totalitarism is a problem. What about a free
> society under the control of itself?
>
> > 2016-01-26 23:54 GMT+01:00 Diego Saa <cuco.saa@???
> <mailto:cuco.saa@gmail.com>>:
> >
> >> Who wants equality anyway?
>
> ME !!!
>
> Because along with fraternity maybe we can reach 'real' freedom.
>
> And when I speak of freedom I do not mention the simple utopia word
> frequently used when conversation. Who does not want freedom?.
>
> Here the debate is on how to get it equally. Where all human beings
> agree on where it begins and ends each.
>
> >> What humanity needs is freedom.
>
> Freedom without equality does not hold.
>
> >> On Jan 26, 2016 4:12 PM, "Pablo" <pablovidal85@???
> <mailto:pablovidal85@gmail.com>> 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@???
> <mailto:epsylon@riseup.net>>:
> >>>
> >>>> 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@???
> <mailto:hozer@hozed.org>>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 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@???
> <mailto:odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>>
> >>>>>>> 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@??? <mailto:hozer@hozed.org>
> >>>>>> 7 elements earth::water::air::fire::mind::spirit::soul
> >>>>>> grid.coop <http://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
> >>>>>>
>
no. bla bla bla: si a esta altura no sabes, lee
::
Re: [unSYSTEM] Censorship on mailin…
