bitcoin as a global medium of exchange (was Re: Interesting take on Sanjuro's Assassination Market)
We can certainly agree on that! The new currency should be as anonymous as Zerocoin. (I can think of an application that will require robust anonymity.) Jim Bell ________________________________ From: David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com> I have faith that additional cryptocurrencies will be launched/released that are substantially better and different from bitcoin. Bitcoin is just the beginnning, and ultimately I don't think it will make more than a few years farther before there is an unquestioned replacement. On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 1:53 AM, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote: On 2013-11-26 11:43, David Vorick wrote:
Andy, the problem isn't the denomination, the problem is that Satioshi
has 5% of all the currency, and the Winklevoss twins have another 0.5%. If bitcoin becomes worth 100 trillion dollars, they've got a solid 500 billion for being nobody and doing nothing. That's a problem to me.
Five hundred billion for freeing the world financial system from US domination without bloodshed. Sounds mighty cheap to me.
I am, however worried that bitcoin can be dominated by a small group. As the total transaction volume increases, the number of people that are full and equal participants in recording and facilitating transactions must diminish.
This was my original objection, scaling failure, way back in the beginning, and it is now coming true.
But even if my worst fears are realized, that is still a whole lot better than what we have now.
On 11/26/13 08:51, Jim Bell wrote:
We can certainly agree on that! The new currency should be as anonymous as Zerocoin. (I can think of an application that will require robust anonymity.) Jim Bell
But even if my worst fears are realized, that is still a whole lot better than what we have now.
Since Money == Power, and Unaccounted Power == Corruption, the problem lies with unaccounted use of Power. If a politician takes a bribe, that is done without accountability to the public. With accountable transactions, the briber cannot give some anonymous Money, they have do more visible things, like offering a (no-show) job after the politician went through the revolving door. This makes a single bribe much longer visible. I prefer to have all my wielding of Power (money transactions) visible if it means that I can equally monitor those wielding other Power (politicians, government officials in duty). Currently, with our fiat-money, I can't monitor my politicians while they are monitoring mine. Accountability (responsibility) is the other side of the coin of Freedom (pun intended). You can't have one without the other. On the assassination market ideas, I find it evil. Killing politicians for unaccounted wielding of power (corruption) doesn't deter. It makes it worse as, after the first bribe, the politician has nothing more to lose. Instead of killing, we give them a fair trial and jail that politician and the bribing jail owner in their own jail for a long time. That's sweet revenge! Guido Witmond.
fuck politicians, we will 'vote' on that protocols that we want to run in our society by mining. On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com> wrote:
Democracy does not work. With bribery, we at least get the best
At 10:02 AM 11/26/2013, James A. Donald wrote: politicians money can buy.
Nonsense - you should be able to buy much better politicians than the current clowns.
2013/11/28 Martin Becze <mjbecze@gmail.com>
fuck politicians, we will 'vote' on that protocols that we want to run in our society by mining.
Why not just submit to the wealthy without this noisy waste of electricity?
On 2013-11-30 01:19, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
2013/11/28 Martin Becze <mjbecze@gmail.com <mailto:mjbecze@gmail.com>>
fuck politicians, we will 'vote' on that protocols that we want to run in our society by mining.
Why not just submit to the wealthy without this noisy waste of electricity?
Capitalism works very well, crony capitalism sucks. The finance sector of the economy has grown to alarming size on government favor. Bitcoin, or its succesors, may well do something about this.
If democracy doesn’t work, what are people suggesting? Is this when the Libertarian masks come off? From: Lodewijk andré de la porte Lodewijk andré de la porte Reply: Lodewijk andré de la porte l@odewijk.nl Date: November 26, 2013 at 4:18:34 PM To: dan@geer.org dan@geer.org Subject: Re: bitcoin as a global medium of exchange (was Re: Interesting take on Sanjuro's Assassination Market) 2013/11/27 <dan@geer.org> > Democracy does not work. With bribery, we at least get the best > politicians money can buy. I am betting that you define an honest politician as one who having been bought stays bought. And best by "agrees with the richest guy in the room" -- Al Billings http://makehacklearn.org
On 2013-11-27 10:26, Al Billings wrote:
If democracy doesn’t work, what are people suggesting? Is this when the Libertarian masks come off?
Monarchy, anarcho capitalism, anarcho piratism, military dictatorship. Or perhaps a republic with the franchise limited to property owning heads of households with good credit records. Observe that police in wealthy neighborhoods are much better than police in poor neighborhoods. Do you think that is the result of voting? You presumably agree that the people's popular democracies were not all that democratic, because they made sure that everyone voted communist, and a party member always got elected, and it did not matter who got elected anyway since actual decisions were made elsewhere. Well that is pretty much the system we have in the western democracies. The actual decisions are made by the permanent and fireproof bureaucracy. If the elections come out wrong, they ignore the result and work to make sure the next elections come out right. Brainwashing in school, population replacement, and if that does not work, the permanent and unelected government just ignores the outcome of the vote, as for example the various votes on affirmative action and immigration. One demotic regime, turns out in practice to be remarkably similar to another demotic regime.
James A. Donald wrote: One demotic regime, turns out in practice to be remarkably similar to another demotic regime. When do you move to Belarus? -- Al Billings http://makehacklearn.org
On 11/26/2013 08:39 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2013-11-27 10:26, Al Billings wrote:
If democracy doesn’t work, what are people suggesting? Is this when the Libertarian masks come off?
...Or perhaps a republic with the franchise limited to property owning heads of households with good credit records.
Well... I believe this is what we had in the inception of the US. Nothing like good wealthy land owners to run a country well. Would could be more telling of a person's privilege (nay, right!) to rule others than a history of wealth? Because war, slavery, genocide, were definitely not byproducts of having a homogeneous in-group that controlled all areas of wealth and power... F-- would not read your emails again.
On 2013-11-27 13:18, Hashem Nasarat wrote:
Nothing like good wealthy land owners to run a country well. Would could be more telling of a person's privilege (nay, right!) to rule others than a history of wealth?
Because war, slavery, genocide, were definitely not byproducts of having a homogeneous in-group that controlled all areas of wealth and power...
The level of warfare, slavery, and genocide seems to have increased steadily with the decline of kings as the world got more demotic Those mightily indignant about slavery that substantially increased the living standards of those lucky enough "to catch the boat", as Mohammed Ali famously phrased it, just loved slavery that caused a hundred million or so to starve to death. We also saw all the gliterati and the progressive intellectuals gathered to support Mengistu's slave state. War increased from the days of the Restoration until World War II, after which we got the pax atomica, the peace of terror, the nuclear peace. Things were, during the nuclear peace, if not quiet, comparatively quiet. Let us look at the middle east. Would anyone be worried if one the monarchies had nukes? No, they would be mightily relieved, confident that the Kings would keep the fanatics quiet. But when the nearest thing to democracy in the middle east reaches for nuclear weapons, looks like the peace of terror may finally end in terror.
Ha ha ha. Omfg. Crypto-monarchists and slavery apologetics. This *is* the list that keeps on giving. Someone cue the randroid ubermensch.
On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 20:25 -0800, Al Billings wrote:
Ha ha ha. Omfg.
Crypto-monarchists and slavery apologetics.
This *is* the list that keeps on giving.
Someone cue the randroid ubermensch.
It's not really crypto-monarchism if the answer to "What else if not democracy" is "Monarchism." That's just... monarchism. -- Sent from Ubuntu
Well, to be fair Ted, no one said, “What we really need is to have Emperor Napoleon back…” From: Ted Smith Ted Smith It's not really crypto-monarchism if the answer to "What else if not democracy" is "Monarchism." That's just... monarchism. -- Al Billings http://makehacklearn.org
Well, it's crypto-monarchism if nobody knows who or where the Queen is right? But they recognise the edicts of the divinely ordained ruler by her signatures, or a zero-knowledge proof of crypto-crown ownership? Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 20:25 -0800, Al Billings wrote:
Ha ha ha. Omfg.
Crypto-monarchists and slavery apologetics.
This *is* the list that keeps on giving.
Someone cue the randroid ubermensch.
It's not really crypto-monarchism if the answer to "What else if not democracy" is "Monarchism."
That's just... monarchism. -- Sent from Ubuntu
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Oh no. Please not this. I forsee a grim future in which the fairy tails are rewritten to have cryptoknights riding out to rescue cryptoprincesses and return them to their cryptocastles... all sealed with a cryptokiss... *shudder* On 11/27/2013 12:08 PM, Cathal Garvey (Phone) wrote:
Well, it's crypto-monarchism if nobody knows who or where the Queen is right? But they recognise the edicts of the divinely ordained ruler by her signatures, or a zero-knowledge proof of crypto-crown ownership?
F-- would not read your emails again.
:D Hashem Nasarat <hashem@riseup.net> wrote:
On 2013-11-27 10:26, Al Billings wrote:
If democracy doesn’t work, what are people suggesting? Is this when
On 11/26/2013 08:39 PM, James A. Donald wrote: the
Libertarian masks come off?
...Or perhaps a republic with the franchise limited to property owning heads of households with good credit records.
Well... I believe this is what we had in the inception of the US.
Nothing like good wealthy land owners to run a country well. Would could be more telling of a person's privilege (nay, right!) to rule others than a history of wealth?
Because war, slavery, genocide, were definitely not byproducts of having a homogeneous in-group that controlled all areas of wealth and power...
F-- would not read your emails again.
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Methinks you are conflating "elected representation" with "democracy". Election of tenured representatives is only one (failure) mode of democracy, one so terrible the old Athenians likened to oligarchy. Other modes exist: some have been extensively stress tested, such as sortition (Athens). Others haven't seen as much testing because they aren't really possible to implement without modern networking, and even so require very careful implementation, such as liquid/direct democracy without tenure. Saying "democracy doesn't work" is meaningless. Democracy means, in ideal, "rule by the governed". If your examples don't fit that criteria, they're not really democracies, just as the USSR wasn't really socialism, England isn't really monarchism, and The Republic of Ireland (not currently concerning itself with matters of the res publica/ public interest) isn't really a Republic. "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
If democracy doesn’t work, what are people suggesting? Is this when
On 2013-11-27 10:26, Al Billings wrote: the
Libertarian masks come off?
Monarchy, anarcho capitalism, anarcho piratism, military dictatorship. Or perhaps a republic with the franchise limited to property owning heads of households with good credit records.
Observe that police in wealthy neighborhoods are much better than police in poor neighborhoods. Do you think that is the result of voting?
You presumably agree that the people's popular democracies were not all
that democratic, because they made sure that everyone voted communist, and a party member always got elected, and it did not matter who got elected anyway since actual decisions were made elsewhere.
Well that is pretty much the system we have in the western democracies.
The actual decisions are made by the permanent and fireproof bureaucracy. If the elections come out wrong, they ignore the result and work to make sure the next elections come out right. Brainwashing in school, population replacement, and if that does not work, the permanent and unelected government just ignores the outcome of the vote, as for example the various votes on affirmative action and immigration.
One demotic regime, turns out in practice to be remarkably similar to another demotic regime.
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Saying "democracy doesn't work" is meaningless.
That is because the term "democracy" itself is meanignless.
Democracy means, in ideal, "rule by the governed".
See? "rule by the governed" is a contradiction in terms.
If your examples don't fit that criteria, they're not really democracies, just as the USSR wasn't really socialism, England isn't really monarchism, and The Republic of Ireland (not currently concerning itself with matters of the res publica/ public interest) isn't really a Republic.
"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
If democracy doesn't work, what are people suggesting? Is this when
On 2013-11-27 10:26, Al Billings wrote: the
Libertarian masks come off?
Monarchy, anarcho capitalism, anarcho piratism, military dictatorship. Or perhaps a republic with the franchise limited to property owning heads of households with good credit records.
Observe that police in wealthy neighborhoods are much better than police in poor neighborhoods. Do you think that is the result of voting?
You presumably agree that the people's popular democracies were not all
that democratic, because they made sure that everyone voted communist, and a party member always got elected, and it did not matter who got elected anyway since actual decisions were made elsewhere.
Well that is pretty much the system we have in the western democracies.
The actual decisions are made by the permanent and fireproof bureaucracy. If the elections come out wrong, they ignore the result and work to make sure the next elections come out right. Brainwashing in school, population replacement, and if that does not work, the permanent and unelected government just ignores the outcome of the vote, as for example the various votes on affirmative action and immigration.
One demotic regime, turns out in practice to be remarkably similar to another demotic regime.
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Welp, I got you to concede in favour of semantic frippery, so I'm done here. :) Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Saying "democracy doesn't work" is meaningless.
That is because the term "democracy" itself is meanignless.
Democracy means, in ideal, "rule by the governed".
See? "rule by the governed" is a contradiction in terms.
If your examples don't fit that criteria, they're not really democracies, just as the USSR wasn't really socialism, England isn't really monarchism, and The Republic of Ireland (not currently concerning itself with matters of the res publica/ public interest) isn't really a Republic.
"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
If democracy doesn't work, what are people suggesting? Is this when
On 2013-11-27 10:26, Al Billings wrote: the
Libertarian masks come off?
Monarchy, anarcho capitalism, anarcho piratism, military
dictatorship.
Or perhaps a republic with the franchise limited to property owning heads of households with good credit records.
Observe that police in wealthy neighborhoods are much better than police in poor neighborhoods. Do you think that is the result of voting?
You presumably agree that the people's popular democracies were not all
that democratic, because they made sure that everyone voted communist, and a party member always got elected, and it did not matter who got
elected anyway since actual decisions were made elsewhere.
Well that is pretty much the system we have in the western democracies.
The actual decisions are made by the permanent and fireproof bureaucracy. If the elections come out wrong, they ignore the result and work to make sure the next elections come out right. Brainwashing in school, population replacement, and if that does not
work, the permanent and unelected government just ignores the outcome of the vote, as for example the various votes on affirmative action and
immigration.
One demotic regime, turns out in practice to be remarkably similar to another demotic regime.
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On 2013-11-27 21:04, Cathal Garvey (Phone) wrote:
Methinks you are conflating "elected representation" with "democracy". Election of tenured representatives is only one (failure) mode of democracy, one so terrible the old Athenians likened to oligarchy.
Other modes exist: some have been extensively stress tested, such as sortition (Athens).
Athenian democracy self destructed much more rapidly than American democracy did, and for the next couple of millennia everyone pointed at Athens as proof that democracy was a very bad idea. Elected officials have a very short time horizon. Thus, for example, Obama said a whole lot of stuff that he knew would blow up in his face after the next election, because he was only worried about stuff that would blow up before the next election. This was the big problem with Athenian democracy before its defeat in the Pelopenessian wars, the invasion of Sicily being an example of Athenian decision making ruled by short term political advantage without concern for the longer term consequence of catastrophic defeat and enormous loss of life. Because of this problem, power tends to slide from their hands into the hands of a permanent and unelected elite, which is the situation we now have in America. In the short term this alleviates the problems of democracy, but in the longer term, which is to say now, discipline within the permanent unelected elite breaks down, and they all steal from each other and the public, they succumb to the tragedy of the commons, which is the situation we now have.
On 2013-11-28 09:56, I wrote:
Because of this problem, power tends to slide from the hands of elected officials into the hands of a permanent and unelected elite, which is the situation we now have in America.
In the short term this alleviates the problems of democracy, but in the longer term, which is to say now, discipline within the permanent unelected elite breaks down, and they all steal from each other and the public, they succumb to the tragedy of the commons, which is the situation we now have.
Oligarchy suffers from the problem of tragedy of the commons, which problem often winds up being solved by military dictatorship. Thus democracy tends to wind up in the rule of one man, either directly, as in the election of Napoleon the third, or by way of oligarchy, as with Napoleon the first.
From: Guido Witmond <guido@witmond.nl> On 11/26/13 08:51, Jim Bell wrote:
We can certainly agree on that! The new currency should be as anonymous as Zerocoin. (I can think of an application that will require robust anonymity.) Jim Bell
But even if my worst fears are realized, that is still a whole lot better than what we have now.>Since Money == Power, and Unaccounted Power == Corruption, the problem lies with unaccounted use of Power.
If a politician takes a bribe, that is done without accountability to the public. With accountable transactions, the briber cannot give some anonymous Money, they have do more visible things, like offering a (no-show) job after the politician went through the revolving door. This makes a single bribe much longer visible.
Look what has happened to Bill Clinton after leaving office. It's said he's worth $100 million (In USD, presumably). Mostly this comes in the form of 'speaking fees': As much as $700 in Nigeria. This is not-so-thinly-disguised bribery. One solution that would slow him down would be a 95% tax rate on an ex-president's income, at least that above $400,000 per year.
I prefer to have all my wielding of Power (money transactions) visible if it means that I can equally monitor those wielding other Power (politicians, government officials in duty).
I prefer that politicians not exist. Ideally, deter them from becoming politicians in the first place, of if that doesn't work, reward others for taking them out of office.
Currently, with our fiat-money, I can't monitor my politicians while they are monitoring mine. Accountability (responsibility) is the other side of the coin of Freedom (pun intended). You can't have one without the other.
On the assassination market ideas, I find it evil. Killing politicians for unaccounted wielding of power (corruption) doesn't deter. It makes it worse as, after the first bribe, the politician has nothing more to lose.
Your statement makes no sense. "Killing politicians for unaccounted wielding of power doesn't deter"? It's hard to imagine that it WOULDN'T deter that! It would certainly prevent that, at least future such exercises of power, by the target...er...person in question. You also seem to disregard the idea that such a system would deter people from entering politics, at least those with the intention of being corrupt. (Full disclosure: I view 'politics' as being _inherently_ 'corrupt', being a libertarian.)
Instead of killing, we give them a fair trial and jail that politician and the bribing jail owner in their own jail for a long time. That's sweet revenge! Guido Witmond.
How often does that actually work? The people in power, the ones actually making the rules, have every incentive to try to make prosecutions of that kind as rare as possible. And there are countries in which prosecution of the political opposition is virtually a national sport, such as Russia. I think your proposed 'solution' simply isn't a solution at all. At least, it hasn't worked yet, and there is no prospect for it working in the future, anywhere. Jim Bell
What do you bribe an ex-president (out of office since the millennium) to do for you when lecturing? From: Jim Bell Jim Bell Reply: Jim Bell jamesdbell8@yahoo.com Date: November 26, 2013 at 10:26:25 AM To: Guido Witmond guido@witmond.nl, cypherpunks@cpunks.org cypherpunks@cpunks.org Subject: Re: bitcoin as a global medium of exchange (was Re: Interesting take on Sanjuro's Assassination Market) Look what has happened to Bill Clinton after leaving office. It's said he's worth $100 million (In USD, presumably). Mostly this comes in the form of 'speaking fees': As much as $700 in Nigeria. This is not-so-thinly-disguised bribery. One solution that would slow him down would be a 95% tax rate on an ex-president's income, at least that above $400,000 per year. -- Al Billings http://makehacklearn.org
(Note: I meant to type "$700,000" in Nigeria, below, not "$700.) Oh, non-perceptive one, I seek to enlighten you. While the payment for bribery normally is thought of as occurring _before_ (or during) the payback desired, as a practical matter it isn't very practical to bribe an American president while he is in office. But since the office of President will continue to exist, and the people who are inclined to get favors will continue to exist, and they all know this (see 'game theory'), a logical solution is to delay the bribe payment until the office-holder is out of office. Obviously, while a president may wonder what would motivate a briber to actually pay the bribe after he leaves office, the reality is (remember reality?) is that word of welshing will surely get back to the subsequent office-holder(s), poisoning the well for the almost-but-not-quite-briber in the future. No doubt, for example, America's First Muslim President will pick up tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars doing the rubber-chicken circuit in the (Muslim) Middle-east. Do you wonder why Obama hasn't 'jawboned' the Arab oil producers to drop oil prices to, say, $60 per barrel? Do you wonder why he hasn't made more threats to open up the spigots of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? Or why he hasn't approved the construction of the Keystone oil pipeline? That's right: Obama is carrying-water for the very people he expects to be bribed by about 3.5 years hence. Jim Bell ________________________________ From: Al Billings <albill@openbuddha.com> To: "cypherpunks@cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@cpunks.org>; Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>; Guido Witmond <guido@witmond.nl> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:29 AM Subject: Re: bitcoin as a global medium of exchange (was Re: Interesting take on Sanjuro's Assassination Market) What do you bribe an ex-president (out of office since the millennium) to do for you when lecturing? ________________________________ From: Jim Bell Jim Bell Reply: Jim Bell jamesdbell8@yahoo.com Date: November 26, 2013 at 10:26:25 AM To: Guido Witmond guido@witmond.nl, cypherpunks@cpunks.org cypherpunks@cpunks.org Subject: Re: bitcoin as a global medium of exchange (was Re: Interesting take on Sanjuro's Assassination Market) Look what has happened to Bill Clinton after leaving office. It's said he's worth $100 million (In USD, presumably). Mostly this comes in the form of 'speaking fees': As much as $700 in Nigeria. This is not-so-thinly-disguised bribery. One solution that would slow him down would be a 95% tax rate on an ex-president's income, at least that above $400,000 per year. -- Al Billings http://makehacklearn.org
Well, you’ve already accused me of being a government shill, Jim, since I don’t think you’re a special flower. You don’t need to educate me. I’m clearly in on it. From: Jim Bell Jim Bell Reply: Jim Bell jamesdbell8@yahoo.com Date: November 26, 2013 at 11:21:29 AM To: Al Billings albill@openbuddha.com, cypherpunks@cpunks.org cypherpunks@cpunks.org Subject: Re: bitcoin as a global medium of exchange (was Re: Interesting take on Sanjuro's Assassination Market) (Note: I meant to type "$700,000" in Nigeria, below, not "$700.) Oh, non-perceptive one, I seek to enlighten you. While the payment for bribery normally is thought of as occurring _before_ (or during) the payback desired, as a practical matter it isn't very practical to bribe an American president while he is in office. But since the office of President will continue to exist, and the people who are inclined to get favors will continue to exist, and they all know this (see 'game theory'), a logical solution is to delay the bribe payment until the office-holder is out of office. Obviously, while a president may wonder what would motivate a briber to actually pay the bribe after he leaves office, the reality is (remember reality?) is that word of welshing will surely get back to the subsequent office-holder(s), poisoning the well for the almost-but-not-quite-briber in the future. No doubt, for example, America's First Muslim President will pick up tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars doing the rubber-chicken circuit in the (Muslim) Middle-east. Do you wonder why Obama hasn't 'jawboned' the Arab oil producers to drop oil prices to, say, $60 per barrel? Do you wonder why he hasn't made more threats to open up the spigots of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? Or why he hasn't approved the construction of the Keystone oil pipeline? That's right: Obama is carrying-water for the very people he expects to be bribed by about 3.5 years hence. Jim Bell
The topic has derailed from accoubtability and transperancy to American politics with just you two guys talking. Borderline r/Conspiracy. (Note: I meant to type "$700,000" in Nigeria, below, not "$700.) Oh, non-perceptive one, I seek to enlighten you. While the payment for bribery normally is thought of as occurring _before_ (or during) the payback desired, as a practical matter it isn't very practical to bribe an American president while he is in office. But since the office of President will continue to exist, and the people who are inclined to get favors will continue to exist, and they all know this (see 'game theory'), a logical solution is to delay the bribe payment until the office-holder is out of office. Obviously, while a president may wonder what would motivate a briber to actually pay the bribe after he leaves office, the reality is (remember reality?) is that word of welshing will surely get back to the subsequent office-holder(s), poisoning the well for the almost-but-not-quite-briber in the future. No doubt, for example, America's First Muslim President will pick up tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars doing the rubber-chicken circuit in the (Muslim) Middle-east. Do you wonder why Obama hasn't 'jawboned' the Arab oil producers to drop oil prices to, say, $60 per barrel? Do you wonder why he hasn't made more threats to open up the spigots of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? Or why he hasn't approved the construction of the Keystone oil pipeline? That's right: Obama is carrying-water for the very people he expects to be bribed by about 3.5 years hence. Jim Bell ------------------------------ *From:* Al Billings <albill@openbuddha.com> *To:* "cypherpunks@cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@cpunks.org>; Jim Bell < jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>; Guido Witmond <guido@witmond.nl> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:29 AM *Subject:* Re: bitcoin as a global medium of exchange (was Re: Interesting take on Sanjuro's Assassination Market) What do you bribe an ex-president (out of office since the millennium) to do for you when lecturing? ------------------------------ From: Jim Bell Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com> Reply: Jim Bell jamesdbell8@yahoo.com Date: November 26, 2013 at 10:26:25 AM To: Guido Witmond guido@witmond.nl, cypherpunks@cpunks.org cypherpunks@cpunks.org Subject: Re: bitcoin as a global medium of exchange (was Re: Interesting take on Sanjuro's Assassination Market) Look what has happened to Bill Clinton after leaving office. It's said he's worth $100 million (In USD, presumably). Mostly this comes in the form of 'speaking fees': As much as $700 in Nigeria. This is not-so-thinly-disguised bribery. One solution that would slow him down would be a 95% tax rate on an ex-president's income, at least that above $400,000 per year. -- Al Billings http://makehacklearn.org
I will bow out. Jim and I already dislike one another. No need to continue. From: Jayvan Santos Jayvan Santos Reply: Jayvan Santos jayvansantos@gmail.com Date: November 26, 2013 at 11:39:31 AM To: Jim Bell jamesdbell8@yahoo.com Subject: Re: bitcoin as a global medium of exchange (was Re: Interesting take on Sanjuro's Assassination Market) The topic has derailed from accoubtability and transperancy to American politics with just you two guys talking. Borderline r/Conspiracy. -- Al Billings http://makehacklearn.org
On 2013-11-27 04:29, Al Billings wrote:
What do you bribe an ex-president (out of office since the millennium) to do for you when lecturing?
When he is in power, you put large sums of money under his effective control, but not under his name. Out of power, the money gets laundered to him by various means, among them inflated speaking fees.
Citation needed. From: James A. Donald James A. Donald On 2013-11-27 04:29, Al Billings wrote:
What do you bribe an ex-president (out of office since the millennium) to do for you when lecturing?
When he is in power, you put large sums of money under his effective control, but not under his name. Out of power, the money gets laundered to him by various means, among them inflated speaking fees. -- Al Billings http://makehacklearn.org
On 11/27/13 00:04, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2013-11-27 04:29, Al Billings wrote:
What do you bribe an ex-president (out of office since the millennium) to do for you when lecturing?
When he is in power, you put large sums of money under his effective control, but not under his name. Out of power, the money gets laundered to him by various means, among them inflated speaking fees.
Bitcoin cannot stop corruption but it may make it harder to hide. Hence, easier to detect. My hope is that Bitcoin is transparent enough for action groups to investigate and bring the dirty laundry into the sunlight. My worry is that by using intermediate payment providers, this transparency gets lost due to 'banking sectrets'. My point was that money == power and power needs to be checked. Not by those in power. Now we disagree on the method of doing something against those that abuse the money. :-) Guido.
On 2013-11-27, Guido Witmond wrote:
Bitcoin cannot stop corruption but it may make it harder to hide.
How, precisely, compared to what we have now?
My hope is that Bitcoin is transparent enough for action groups to investigate and bring the dirty laundry into the sunlight.
My and most cryptoanarchist's hope, I believe, is the precise opposite. At least I think BitCoin is woefully inadequate in the anonymity department, and should be made better so that no action group, government, anybody at all, can trace godfuck about what happened with it. Most certainly that "dirt" is just the killer app for any and all crypto currency. Not a bug, but the primary feature of the arrangement.
My worry is that by using intermediate payment providers, this transparency gets lost due to 'banking sectrets'.
I on the other hand worry about how much transparency such intermediates still afford. Because there should be none at all. Full opaqueness is what we ultimately strive for. Or why do you think anybody would want to go with crypto in the first place?
My point was that money == power and power needs to be checked. Not by those in power.
Good money is *individual*, *distributed* power. Not power in the sense of a central despot. It's power in the sense of power to the people, individual and several. -- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - decoy@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:52:33PM +0200, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On 2013-11-27, Guido Witmond wrote:
Bitcoin cannot stop corruption but it may make it harder to hide.
How, precisely, compared to what we have now?
Transactions are in a global ledger. You might not be able to link warm bodies to a specific account directly, but indirectly (especially, if they engage in transactions, or want to convert their currency). This is more difficult with banknotes, even if you have the serial numbers on record. Banknotes do not globally broadcast their current location.
My hope is that Bitcoin is transparent enough for action groups to investigate and bring the dirty laundry into the sunlight.
My and most cryptoanarchist's hope, I believe, is the precise opposite. At least I think BitCoin is woefully inadequate in the anonymity department, and should be made better so that no action
This is the tradeoff of having a practical system. I personally think that anonymous cash is orthogonal to the digital cash issue. It can be done in a different system, or use an anonymization layer like Tor, I2P or cjdns operates on top of TCP/IP.
group, government, anybody at all, can trace godfuck about what happened with it. Most certainly that "dirt" is just the killer app for any and all crypto currency. Not a bug, but the primary feature of the arrangement.
On 11/27/13 11:52, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On 2013-11-27, Guido Witmond wrote:
Bitcoin cannot stop corruption but it may make it harder to hide.
How, precisely, compared to what we have now?
Any direct transactions between bribers and bribees will be visible in the blockchain. It forces politicians to get other mechanisms, such as the public speaking arrangements like those of ex-presidents.
My worry is that by using intermediate payment providers, this transparency gets lost due to 'banking secrets'.
I on the other hand worry about how much transparency such intermediates still afford. Because there should be none at all. Full opaqueness is what we ultimately strive for. Or why do you think anybody would want to go with crypto in the first place?
My worry is that the transparency of these 'banks' is one way only, towards the despots. Not towards the people. Just like the problem with SWIFT. My payment records get hauled to the US, what can I learn at SWIFT of the US-payments? We needed a whistle blower to learn about the black budget.
My point was that money == power and power needs to be checked. Not by those in power.
Good money is *individual*, *distributed* power. Not power in the sense of a central despot. It's power in the sense of power to the people, individual and several.
Most people don't regards money as power. They regard it as property. That's why calls to 'vote with your wallet' are unsuccessful. When we have transparent money, people will realise their power, and learn of the consequences. It sucks when you cheat on your wife and the whole world can find out about it. It might also lead to more local currencies where a group of people have the privacy of their group against the rest of the world. That certainly diminishes the power of despots. Just like we can use cash to buy our daily groceries. These local currencies mustn't grow to be big banks, otherwise the circle is complete and we're back at square one. Guido.
participants (16)
-
Al Billings -
Bill Stewart -
Cathal Garvey (Phone) -
dan＠geer.org -
Eugen Leitl -
Guido Witmond -
Hashem Nasarat -
James A. Donald -
Jayvan Santos -
Jim Bell -
Juan Garofalo -
Lodewijk andré de la porte -
Martin Becze -
Mike Gogulski -
Sampo Syreeni -
Ted Smith