On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:31:38PM +0000, Karl wrote:
Came up with a counterargument:
The rich few already control the many perhaps via lobbying, bribing, black markets, but AP makes the process transparent, resulting in an environment that is actually safer than before.
I think it largely depends on what percentage of the population, thats Joe Six-pack, would actually contribute to a directed assassination program against their beloved gubment. How would the the money which that percentage of the population can come up with stack up against the money that the ruling-class oligarchs can come up with, should they choose to take advantage of and subvert an AP system for themselves? I don't think there are enough people willing to actively contribute to AP to make it happen, I just get the feeling that the average American isn't going to chip in $5 to have their local police station blown up (or whatever). Of course, this is all presuming that any of the police states we live in would ever let such a thing get off the ground. The technology is not there yet. Will it ever be there, when the government is tapped into central peering points all over the fucking world, and has top talent hackers working around the clock to track down and disrupt this kind of shit? I'm cynical - about AP, about humanity, about the chances of ever divesting ourself of what seems to be the plotted destination for civilization: dystopia for the masses.
Karl
On 12/11/18, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jim Bell,
I sent you a message some time ago when I heard about this idea, but I didn't get a reply.
If you receive this e-mail, this is my misunderstanding:
As it offers a market, doesn't AP give life-and-death power to those with the most money?
Wouldn't this provide for the set of people with the most money to bend power more and more towards themselves, eventually producing a situation where a few select people control the many?
Personally, I support cryptocurrency, but I foremost support power to be given to those with good _reasons_, rather than strong _financial_ resources, and systems to be put into place allowing these reasons to be discussed without censorship.
Thanks, Karl
On 12/11/18, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
furrier <furrier@protonmail.ch> Furrier: I notice that you haven't responded to my comment. Do you not have any answer? You claim to not "agree" with me. If that were the case, you should be able to explain why. Why don't you think AP could work? What do you believe wouldn't work about it? Jim Bell
On Sunday, December 9, 2018, 11:22:37 PM PST, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
[apparently the address for the CP list wasn't the one I normally use] My comments inline:
On Sunday, December 9, 2018, 3:23:09 PM PST, furrier <furrier@protonmail.ch> wrote:
I watched you live both in Acapulco and Prague. I don't agree with you and I don't understand how can people be so naive to think that AP can actually work.
Prior to the invention of the RSA encryption system (public-key) the vast majority of the population would not have understood how such a thing could work.Prior to the invention of the TOR system, the vast majority of the population would not have understood how such a thing could work.Prior to the invention of Bitcoin, the vast majority of the population would not have understood how such a thing could work.Prior to the invention of Ethereum, the vast majority of the population would not have understood how such a thing could work. But does the opinion of the public determine whether a given invention can work? Your statement implies that the opinion of the masses is somehow determinative of whether a technical advance should work. Can you explain why you think that AP shouldn't work? Today? Your position would have sounded plausible in 1995-96. Then, your technical ignorance approximated virtually everyone else's. But a lot has happened since then.
I am against the whole idea
I am fond of pointing out that governments killed about 250 million people in the 20th century. See "Democide". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide (although, the definition varies; some people don't consider people killed in war to be victims of Democide. I consider that position to be insanely foolish.) Were you against that? If you were, how important do (or did) you think it was that this murder be stopped? If you agree that it was wrong that governments murdered 250 million people in the 20th century, then it is inaccurate to say you are against the WHOLE idea of AP. Because most people seem to agree that if AP was implemented, governments would no longer be able to kill people in such vast numbers, ever again. Maybe your (confused) position is that you don't want governments to kill people, but you cannot figure out how to stop that from occurring. Well, you can't, but I can. Am I really wrong?
, it's the same thing as cracking down on cryptocurrency
You do not explain that connection.
or dark markets to fight terrorism.
You do not explain that connection.
If you want to fight terrorism
That depends on the definition of "terrorism". The U.S government doesn't define "terrorism" as mere random violence against innocents, but adds the condition that the motivation of the terrorist is to change laws or government, or both. But to the extent that terrorism attacks innocents, I agree it is wrong. And must be stopped.
build a society where terrorism is mute.
How about building a tool that makes "terrorism" completely unnecessary. Tim McVeigh didn't have a "magic bomb" which, when detonated, killed only the top 30 government employees responsible for the Waco massacre, even though they might have been hundreds of miles away from each other. Do you think that if McVeigh HAD access to such a "magic bomb", he would have preferred instead to destroy an entire building in Oklahoma city filled with innocents and relative-innocents? I consider such a position preposterous, and probably you'd agree as well. AP can be described as a "magic weapon" that can be used to target precisely the actual problem-causers, with little and probably no collateral damage. Please explain your precise objection to implementing it as I advocate.
Similar, if you want to fight politicians, build a society where politics are either mute or they don't affect our lives so much. Wake up people!
If you can explain how to do that, speak up. I am reminded of a joke, where a comedian says he bought a book titled "How to be a successful millionaire!". The first page of the book simply contained the words, "First get a million dollars". But how?
-- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7