On 26/01/16 23:52, Pablo wrote:
> 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.
Again: I'm not validating your point at all.
1st because you could never be "completely free", in the sense of
unlimited freedom, ever, on Earth, unless we were talking about
*internal* freedom[0], and not a "freedom to do what you desire no
matter what happens with the other people around you".
The only possibility is to live in isolation, and even that, your
complete freedom will be limited by the nature.
That is not freedom on community: human freedom on community assumes the
respect for others freedom (BECAUSE they are beings and not objects than
exists only to satisfy us) and that necessary limited you. And before
modern society and after that on oriental and tribal communities,
always, there were RULES (call them laws, agreements, tabues, as you
like) to engage the balance between "my" desire and the desire of the
others.
That is what we learn when we +/- 7 years old age and progressively
become people who can interact without having an adult telling us where
are the limits. And we develop *discernment*.
Before that age a child can do "whatever he/she wants" without thinking
about if that is good or bad even for him/her self. Moralism apart.
But ok: you can be a person who don't want to accept this fact and to do
whatever you like passing through above the rights of others... (and
after I read your last email I understand you still believe on the
jungle's rule). If for you that is to be "complete free" we are not
talking about the same values.
Of course I know "All the literature on 'human rights' was written under
statist societies" but I had the intuition that talking about mysticism
would not be welcome on the list, or on this tread.
I can do that, and tell you than in Occident until the so called
Iluminism stated the "modern" concepts of freedom, equality and
fraternity to replace the dimension of the intelect by the rationality,
people got the complety freedom inside themselves, not by domination of
the materia. And had rules for coexistence, different in each culture. I
avoided to go so deep.
Your concept of complete freedom remember me the dangerous thought what
made us became our worst predator.
And I will leave this thread saying: "No porque algo pueda ser hecho, es
que deba ser hecho" ["Just because something can be done, it is that it
should be done" ]
That prevent wise people to damage themselves, the ones around them, and
the planet were we inhabit.
Cristina (99)
[0] the only one than really counts for me
>
> 2016-01-27 3:17 GMT+01:00 Cristina [efecto99] <efecto99@???
> <mailto:efecto99@riseup.net>>:
>
> 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@???
>> <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@???>:
>> >>>
>> >>>> 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 <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
>> >>>>>>
>>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
--
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/
::
Re: [unSYSTEM] Censorship on mailin…
