You can't be truly free if you have a determined set of actions that you
call 'freedom'. The rest of stuff you talk about is more about respecting
other living beings, which is a choice that everyone of us has to make.
2016-01-27 16:20 GMT+01:00 Cristina [efecto99] <efecto99@???>:
> 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@???>:
>
>> 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>
>> https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igualdad_ante_la_ley
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2016-01-27 2:02 GMT+01:00 psy < <epsylon@???>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@???>:
>>> >
>>> >> 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@???> 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@???>
>>> 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>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>
>>> 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@???>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@???>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/>
>> https://wikileaks.org/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.nethttps://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/>
> https://wikileaks.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>
::
Re: [unSYSTEM] Censorship on mailin…
