I don't have the right to be completely free if a ruling power is required
to grant me rights in first place. All the literature on 'human rights' was
written under statist societies, validating my point.
2016-01-27 3:17 GMT+01:00 Cristina [efecto99] <efecto99@???>:
> On 26/01/16 22:27, Pablo wrote:
>
> You can't have equality and freedom at the same time, those are in direct
> conflict.
>
>
> Yes you can.
> No, they aren't.
> You will find the difference btw "popular" meaning of equality and real
> meaning -even when I don't agree with a lot of things of the UN- in
> documents about the term by UN and CADH (Convención Americana sobre
> Derechos Humanos) [0]
> In SP: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derecho_a_la_igualdad: "El derecho a
> la igualdad es aquel derecho humano a ser reconocidos como iguales ante la
> ley y de disfrutar de todos los demás derechos otorgados de manera
> incondicional, es decir, sin discriminación por motivos de nacionalidad,
> etnia, creencias o cualquier otro motivo."
>
> and on google translator EN: "The right to equality is one human right to
> be recognized as equal before the law and enjoy all other rights granted
> unconditionally, ie, without discrimination on grounds of nationality,
> ethnicity, beliefs or otherwise."
>
> Obviously there are tons of people who have written about it, I don't want
> to make a large discourse but to point out that your affirmation is a
> misinterpretation of the concepts of equality and freedom.
>
> Cristina (99)
>
> [0]
> https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convenci%C3%B3n_Americana_sobre_Derechos_Humanos
> [1] more https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igualdad_ante_la_ley
>
>
>
>
> 2016-01-27 2:02 GMT+01:00 psy <epsylon@???>:
>
>> 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@???>
>> cuco.saa@???>:
>> >
>> >> 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@???>
>> 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@???>
>> 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>http://unsystem.net
>> >>>>>>> <https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem>
>> 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
>> >>>>>>
>>
>
> --
> Esta comunicación puede ser ilegalmente recogida y almacenada por la
> Agencia Nacional de Seguridad de los EEUU (NSA) + otras, en secreto y no.
> bla bla bla: si a esta altura no sabes, lee https://wikileaks.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>
::
Re: [unSYSTEM] Censorship on mailin…
