https://medium.com/@_unwriter/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-cash-experiment-... Libertardians enjoying their scammy experiment
On Sun, 02 Dec 2018 20:05:44 +0000 furrier <furrier@protonmail.ch> wrote:
https://medium.com/@_unwriter/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-cash-experiment-...
Libertardians enjoying their scammy experiment
LMAO! The guy who wrote that article is an 'ex' bcrash supporter who is crying because bcrash is 'now' centralized. Except, bcrash was centralized from day zero so the author is a lying asshole. Unsurprisingly the author is a typical fake libertarian, true fascist babbling about 'economics' and showing his true colors here 'Google didn’t need to be friends with Tim Berners Lee, neither did Facebook. They just built something valuable. And people came" What kind of anti libertarian asshole would say that sort of thing? And there's more : "The United States of America demonstrated how a new economic superpower can be born from an implementation of capitalism" But wait, here's the bottom line "Bitcoin SV is the Real Bitcoin" YES!!!! that retarded scam from the scamming fucktard craig wright who is the REAL SATOSHI, except, he doesn't know how to sign a message with his 'private' 'bitcoin' keys hi hi hi. furrier <furrier@protonmail.ch> is some faketoshi bot. Hi there!
FYI I don't give a flying fuck about BSV and I consider Faketoshi an idiot and dangerous scammer but I really enjoyed this guy's breakdown of the BCH problems that were made apparent after the split. Instead of making assumptions, you could just ask. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, December 2, 2018 11:54 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2018 20:05:44 +0000 furrier furrier@protonmail.ch wrote:
https://medium.com/@_unwriter/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-cash-experiment-... Libertardians enjoying their scammy experiment
LMAO! The guy who wrote that article is an 'ex' bcrash supporter who is crying because bcrash is 'now' centralized. Except, bcrash was centralized from day zero so the author is a lying asshole.
Unsurprisingly the author is a typical fake libertarian, true fascist babbling about 'economics' and showing his true colors here
'Google didn’t need to be friends with Tim Berners Lee, neither did Facebook. They just built something valuable. And people came"
What kind of anti libertarian asshole would say that sort of thing?
And there's more :
"The United States of America demonstrated how a new economic superpower can be born from an implementation of capitalism"
But wait, here's the bottom line
"Bitcoin SV is the Real Bitcoin"
YES!!!! that retarded scam from the scamming fucktard craig wright who is the REAL SATOSHI, except, he doesn't know how to sign a message with his 'private' 'bitcoin' keys hi hi hi.
furrier furrier@protonmail.ch is some faketoshi bot. Hi there!
On Sun, 02 Dec 2018 23:25:52 +0000 furrier <furrier@protonmail.ch> wrote:
FYI I don't give a flying fuck about BSV and I consider Faketoshi an idiot and dangerous scammer but I really enjoyed this guy's breakdown of the BCH problems that were made apparent after the split. Instead of making assumptions, you could just ask.
My mistake, I apologize then. However, the article is unimpressive because the author tries to present himself as "politically unbiased" while in reality he's a partisan for the worst bitcoin faction, that of wright. All 3 bitcoin factions are less than ideal but wright's is by far the worst.
I will disagree with you here. Craig may be an idiot and the fact that he holds patents makes him dangerous but he does not have the network effect that the BCH "community" has. They are all over the place when it comes to fake libertarianism. I attended Anarchapulco last February, these guys are FAR MORE DANGEROUS than Faketoshi. Both of these shitcoins are meant to go down. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, December 3, 2018 12:49 AM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2018 23:25:52 +0000 furrier furrier@protonmail.ch wrote:
FYI I don't give a flying fuck about BSV and I consider Faketoshi an idiot and dangerous scammer but I really enjoyed this guy's breakdown of the BCH problems that were made apparent after the split. Instead of making assumptions, you could just ask.
My mistake, I apologize then.
However, the article is unimpressive because the author tries to present himself as "politically unbiased" while in reality he's a partisan for the worst bitcoin faction, that of wright. All 3 bitcoin factions are less than ideal but wright's is by far the worst.
On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:37 PM, furrier <furrier@protonmail.ch> wrote:
I will disagree with you here. Craig may be an idiot and the fact that he holds patents makes him dangerous but he does not have the network effect that the BCH "community" has. They are all over the place when it comes to fake libertarianism. I attended Anarchapulco last February, these
Did you get to watch Jim Bell speak ? :P
guys are FAR MORE DANGEROUS than Faketoshi. Both of these shitcoins are meant to go down.
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, December 3, 2018 12:49 AM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2018 23:25:52 +0000 furrier furrier@protonmail.ch wrote:
FYI I don't give a flying fuck about BSV and I consider Faketoshi an idiot and dangerous scammer but I really enjoyed this guy's breakdown of the BCH problems that were made apparent after the split. Instead of making assumptions, you could just ask.
My mistake, I apologize then.
However, the article is unimpressive because the author tries to present himself as "politically unbiased" while in reality he's a partisan for the worst bitcoin faction, that of wright. All 3 bitcoin factions are less than ideal but wright's is by far the worst.
On Saturday, December 8, 2018, 7:37:50 AM PST, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:37 PM, furrier <furrier@protonmail.ch> wrote:
I will disagree with you here. Craig may be an idiot and the fact that he holds patents makes him dangerous but he does not have the network effect that the BCH "community" has. They are all over the place when it comes to fake libertarianism. I attended Anarchapulco last February, these
Did you get to watch Jim Bell speak ? :P
My speech at Anarchapulco 2018 was punctuated by two memorable things: One, an audio artifact "gunshot", which they informed me that had occurred with at least one previous speaker as well. The second, about 5 minutes before my speech was intended to end, was an earthquake, maybe it was magnitude 7, but the epicenter was a hundred or so miles south of Acapulco, so it was only a mild shaking locally. Still, it was quite memorable. Jim Bell
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. I am against the whole idea, it's the same thing as cracking down on cryptocurrency or dark markets to fight terrorism. If you want to fight terrorism, build a society where terrorism is mute. 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! Anyway, to stay on-topic, FUCK BCH ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, December 8, 2018 7:37 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Saturday, December 8, 2018, 7:37:50 AM PST, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:37 PM, furrier <furrier@protonmail.ch> wrote:
I will disagree with you here. Craig may be an idiot and the fact that he holds patents makes him dangerous but he does not have the network effect that the BCH "community" has. They are all over the place when it comes to fake libertarianism. I attended Anarchapulco last February, these
Did you get to watch Jim Bell speak ? :P
My speech at Anarchapulco 2018 was punctuated by two memorable things: One, an audio artifact "gunshot", which they informed me that had occurred with at least one previous speaker as well. The second, about 5 minutes before my speech was intended to end, was an earthquake, maybe it was magnitude 7, but the epicenter was a hundred or so miles south of Acapulco, so it was only a mild shaking locally.
Still, it was quite memorable.
Jim Bell
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?
[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?
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?
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?
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. 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?
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 13:31:38 +0000 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Came up with a counterargument:
The rich few already control the many perhaps via lobbying, bribing, black markets,
the rich and the government akready have vast powers. The thieving oligarchy also know as 'the rich' don't really operate on black markets, black markets being somewhat more honest that the 'free', completely rigged, mainstream market.
but AP makes the process transparent, resulting in an environment that is actually safer than before.
AP only makes sense if it allows ordinary people to kill government-corporate criminals. However if AP can be used against innocent people, then it obviously becomes more problematic...
Karl
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
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:24:10 -0500 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
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.
Don't worry! There will be no dystopia for the masses because there will be no masses. Once the ruling class has enough 'artificially inteligent' robots at their disposal they will get rid of the human robots, who are clearly a potential threat. That is exactly the destination that 'society' is 'progressing' to and it's quite rich that 'techno optimists' cheer for it on 'libertarian' grounds.
On Friday, December 14, 2018, 2:20:10 PM PST, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:24:10 -0500 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
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.
Don't worry! There will be no dystopia for the masses because there will be no masses. Once the ruling class has enough 'artificially inteligent' robots at their disposal they will get rid of the human robots, who are clearly a potential threat.
This sounds like a variant on the Terminator series of movies. Jim Bell
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 06:16:51 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Friday, December 14, 2018, 2:20:10 PM PST, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:24:10 -0500 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
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.
Don't worry! There will be no dystopia for the masses because there will be no masses. Once the ruling class has enough 'artificially inteligent' robots at their disposal they will get rid of the human robots, who are clearly a potential threat.
This sounds like a variant on the Terminator series of movies.
It does - I don't claim any originality =) So, in the terminator series people create 'autonomous' machines and then the machines decide to get rid of the human race. More or less the same scenario is discussed here and not as pure fiction : "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/ by bill joy, (co)founder of sun microsystems. I think the stories about out-of-control machines are really dumb. They are a transparent piece of diversion and propaganda. People like bill joy, who play the 'good' cop, and the vast majority of technocrats who don't even pretend to be good, came up with this silly idea that "the machines are to blame" to try to hide the fact that "the machines" are just the tools they are using to serve their own political ends. And tools are not moral agents. The people who use the tools are. IF you read the bill joy article linked above you will notice that the best part of it was NOT written by joy "On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite—just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes "treatment" to cure his "problem." Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or make them "sublimate" their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they will most certainly not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals" That's from a guy named Kaczynski.
Jim Bell
My comments inline. Jim Bell On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, 3:29:14 AM PST, 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.
I searched, and found a number of messages about "Public Shielded Work Room", but that was all I found in 2018. What was the date you sent the message? Was it to the CP list, or to me directly? You could send it to me again, at my email address.
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?
Well, it kinda-sorta gives life-and-death power to just about everyone, in small parts. And superficially, it looks like people who have more money will have more such influence. People who are fixated on the issue of "inequality" will initially find this to be either a fatal flaw or at least a major drawback. In the pre-AP world, achieving political change requires speaking out, identifying yourself. That potentially makes such people targets. In the post-AP world, nobody has to speak out publicly. And what speech occurs can probably be made anonymous. How would "the rich" target their "enemies" if they cannot identify them? Further, I think it can accurately be said that government is used to maintain inequality, although the means of doing so is normally hidden from public view and awareness. Government provides favors to those who "play" the game. Get rid of government, at least the massive bloated one America (for example) currently has, and how would anybody make money off of it? The current U.S. military budget of over $700 billion is an excellent example of this. Using an AP-type system, why can't the region formerly known as "America" defend itself on a figure 100x smaller than this, or maybe $7 billion dollars? After all, if it costs,say, $10 million to kill a threatening leader, you could kill 700 such threatening leaders with $7 billion dollars. No need to buy tanks, bombers, jet fighters, or any of that expensive military hardware.
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?
If AP can be said to be "biased" in any way, that "bias" is in the direction of tearing down involuntary heirarchical power structures. It isn't clear how AP can be used to build up such power structures, instead. Anybody who exercises power openly will tend to make others his enemies, and they would be able to use AP to counter such a person. That doesn't exclude the possibility of exercising power secretly, but it is a reasonable question how that trick might be accomplished. You said, "a few select people control the many?". How would that come about? Who would be "the select few"? (We might suspect that at least initially, they would be "the rich", at least those people who are currently rich.) But how would they "control" the large masses? They would no longer be able to use the structures of government to maintain their positions, I think. They wouldn't be able to identify those in "the many", at least not the relative few that those "in control" would consider their enemies. Taxing them would be a problem. Passing onerous and discriminatory laws shouldn't even be possible, since the governments that would do so, and enforce them, will be dismantled. There should be a free market, ideally a truly free market,, and not the 'crony-capitalism', and 'crony-socialism' we now have in America and Europe. Am I being too optimistic? I won't claim to be unbiased, as I am the person who thought up the AP concept initially. But large numbers of people have been exposed to the AP idea, and I continually do Google-searches for such appearances. (Such as Google "jim bell" "assassination".) Myself, I would greatly welcome further discussion. Yes, these issues ought to be debated. Although, I think that relatively few people who are familiar with AP doubt that there is going to be an actual problem. At least, I haven't seen that.
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.
Keep in mind that I think I discovered AP, rather than INVENTING it. (See the question of whether mathematics was discovered or invented. Example commentary: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/great-math-mystery/ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/derek-abbott/is-mathematics-invented-o_b_3895... ) I can describe how I think AP ought to be implemented, but I've always pointed out that nothing would stop a different person or organization from starting an AP-type system that works with different rules. So, I can't force an agenda on an AP-system. I believe that implementing an AP system, like I describe, will lead to a truly-free market and individual freedom. It will do so, first, by eliminating governments as we currently know them. I think that should eliminate the method by which many in current society maintain their positions of power, including inequality. Jim Bell 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?
Jim, Thanks for your reply. I think I'm beginning to understand some of where you come from. It sounds like you blame our problems on the presence of legal government. I believe government is mostly just expressing the wishes of those with the power to influence votes and laws. I see money as the biggest source of votes and laws, so I don't see things changing too much with the introduction of AP. I believe money also provides greater anonymity and ability to surveil than e.g. Tor provides for the masses. More responses in-line. On 12/11/18, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I searched, and found a number of messages about "Public Shielded Work Room", but that was all I found in 2018. What was the date you sent the message? Was it to the CP list, or to me directly? You could send it to me again, at my email address.
Sorry, I tried to contact you before I began participating in this list. I submitted a comment to the AP website, but I'm not sure what e-mail address I used, so it's nothing to worry about. I'm happy you got this e-mail here.
As it offers a market, doesn't AP give life-and-death power to those with the most money?
Well, it kinda-sorta gives life-and-death power to just about everyone, in small parts. And superficially, it looks like people who have more money will have more such influence. People who are fixated on the issue of "inequality" will initially find this to be either a fatal flaw or at least a major drawback.
Inequality is relevant here, because in a free market, people try to make the largest profit, and this will be provided by the highest payout. A relatively small price by many people on a leader will be swamped by a price of $40 billion by one wealthy individual on their opposition. The people with exponentially inequal finances can then directly control the political presence of the world.
In the pre-AP world, achieving political change requires speaking out, identifying yourself. That potentially makes such people targets. In the post-AP world, nobody has to speak out publicly. And what speech occurs can probably be made anonymous. How would "the rich" target their "enemies" if they cannot identify them?
I agree that providing for more anonymous dissent is greatly helpful. I worry that focusing on it so strongly here can be misleading, though: "the rich" can hide and hunt exponentially better than the masses can, who are surveilled daily by e.g. spyware controlled by groups more powerful than them, and can't hire people or push legal systems to do things for them. "The rich" could target enemies by (A) targeting the systems that facilitate their discourse, (B) outbidding them, and (C) using their immense resources to hunt them down. Additionally, there are likely tricks to put a ton of pressure on something, like informing to the FBI that an offer was made by a terrorist.
Further, I think it can accurately be said that government is used to maintain inequality, although the means of doing so is normally hidden from public view and awareness. Government provides favors to those who "play" the game. Get rid of government, at least the massive bloated one America (for example) currently has, and how would anybody make money off of it? The current U.S. military budget of over $700 billion is an excellent example of this. Using an AP-type system, why can't the region formerly known as "America" defend itself on a figure 100x smaller than this, or maybe $7 billion dollars? After all, if it costs,say, $10 million to kill a threatening leader, you could kill 700 such threatening leaders with $7 billion dollars. No need to buy tanks, bombers, jet fighters, or any of that expensive military hardware.
What's to stop a major investor in a military weapons corporation putting their profits into AP offers for assassinations of the operators of servers allowing access, until nobody can access it? This would be a profitable move for them, if AP would make their military weapons obsolete.
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?
If AP can be said to be "biased" in any way, that "bias" is in the direction of tearing down involuntary heirarchical power structures. It isn't clear how AP can be used to build up such power structures, instead. Anybody who exercises power openly will tend to make others his enemies, and they would be able to use AP to counter such a person. That doesn't exclude the possibility of exercising power secretly, but it is a reasonable question how that trick might be accomplished.
AP itself provides a method to exercise power secretly. People with more money can put bigger prices on their opponents' heads. If people start putting a price on them in return, they can look at the media sources resulting in those opinions, and assassinate those people to sway opinion. Additionally, a wealthy person can likely exercise a wide variety of secret power, via e.g. bribes and black markets. I see financial power as a major involuntary hierarchical power structure.
You said, "a few select people control the many?". How would that come about? Who would be "the select few"? (We might suspect that at least initially, they would be "the rich", at least those people who are currently rich.) But how would they "control" the large masses? They would no longer be able to use the structures of government to maintain their positions, I think. They wouldn't be able to identify those in "the many", at least not the relative few that those "in control" would consider their enemies. Taxing them would be a problem. Passing onerous and discriminatory laws shouldn't even be possible, since the governments that would do so, and enforce them, will be dismantled.
Laws are no longer needed. The rich can assassinate not only anybody who publicly disagrees with them, but also anybody facilitating anonymous communication channels that could be used to privately disagree. This could facilitate violent dictatorships.
There should be a free market, ideally a truly free market,, and not the 'crony-capitalism', and 'crony-socialism' we now have in America and Europe. Am I being too optimistic? I won't claim to be unbiased, as I am the person who thought up the AP concept initially. But large numbers of people have been exposed to the AP idea, and I continually do Google-searches for such appearances. (Such as Google "jim bell" "assassination".) Myself, I would greatly welcome further discussion. Yes, these issues ought to be debated. Although, I think that relatively few people who are familiar with AP doubt that there is going to be an actual problem. At least, I haven't seen that.
I found AP so incredibly inspiring when I read some of its marketing. It is additionally so inspiring to see how the strength of blockchain technology can provide for software solutions to make real change in the world. I AP provided a way for people to have logical discourse around decisions, rather than voting with their dollar. Additionally, I worry that focusing on assassination could push away large groups of possible supporters. I imagine a blockchain app focused on permanent storage of 'proposals' with 'reasons', with each reason providing for more reasons that support why it is or is not valid, all accumulated in a decentralized manner by people who have an opinion on a proposal. If analysis of such a graph of discourse could create economically-incentivized change, it could move a lot of things forward in the world.
I believe that implementing an AP system, like I describe, will lead to a truly-free market and individual freedom. It will do so, first, by eliminating governments as we currently know them. I think that should eliminate the method by which many in current society maintain their positions of power, including inequality.
I'm hearing that you directly associate truly free markets with individual freedom. I see a free market as a hierarchical system, where those who start with more money call the shots, as they provide the jobs and can directly change demand with their dollars. I feel governments are great for really rich people, because such people can buy laws, and that governments are hence likely to only be replaced by something more stringent as long as those with more money have more power. I agree with you on debate, though. It sounds like we have really different experience and assumptions. Karl
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, 2:18:45 PM PST, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I'm beginning to understand some of where you come from. It sounds like you blame our problems on the presence of legal government.
I don't know why you added the word "legal" before the word "government". A redundancy? Or are you trying to distinguish between "legal government" and some sort of "illegal government"? I hope you are not using the word "legal" as a stand-in for "legitimate". But yes, I do blame "government" for much of the problems society has today. " I believe government is mostly just expressing the wishesof those with the power to influence votes and laws." The devil is in the details, no doubt. One major problem is that the total number of such people is much less than even a majority of the population. One commonly-cited statistic is that the top 1% of Federal taxpayers pays 37% of the total Federal income taxes. Many people don't seem to have a problem with that, but I wonder: Would they have a problem with those 1% of taxpayers having 37% of the influence over the policies of the Federal Government? Myself, I think it would have been far better if the 16 Amendment (the Income Tax amendment) had been limited to, for example, a maximum of 5% tax, rather than it being unlimited. Limit it to 5%, and the Federal government would be far smaller than it is today, maybe one-fifth as large.
I see money as the biggest source of votes and laws, so I don't seethings changing too much with the introduction of AP.
I believe money also provides greater anonymity and ability to surveil than e.g. Tor
Okay, what do you think would happen? provides for the masses. How would that work? Jim Bell More responses in-line. On 12/11/18, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I searched, and found a number of messages about "Public Shielded Work Room", but that was all I found in 2018. What was the date you sent the message? Was it to the CP list, or to me directly? You could send it to me again, at my email address.
Sorry, I tried to contact you before I began participating in this list. I submitted a comment to the AP website, but I'm not sure what e-mail address I used, so it's nothing to worry about. I'm happy you got this e-mail here.
As it offers a market, doesn't AP give life-and-death power to those with the most money?
Well, it kinda-sorta gives life-and-death power to just about everyone, in small parts. And superficially, it looks like people who have more money will have more such influence. People who are fixated on the issue of "inequality" will initially find this to be either a fatal flaw or at least a major drawback.
Inequality is relevant here, because in a free market, people try to make the largest profit, and this will be provided by the highest payout. A relatively small price by many people on a leader will be swamped by a price of $40 billion by one wealthy individual on their opposition. The people with exponentially inequal finances can then directly control the political presence of the world.
In the pre-AP world, achieving political change requires speaking out, identifying yourself. That potentially makes such people targets. In the post-AP world, nobody has to speak out publicly. And what speech occurs can probably be made anonymous. How would "the rich" target their "enemies" if they cannot identify them?
I agree that providing for more anonymous dissent is greatly helpful. I worry that focusing on it so strongly here can be misleading, though: "the rich" can hide and hunt exponentially better than the masses can, who are surveilled daily by e.g. spyware controlled by groups more powerful than them, and can't hire people or push legal systems to do things for them.
"The rich" could target enemies by (A) targeting the systems that facilitate their discourse, (B) outbidding them, and (C) using their immense resources to hunt them down. Additionally, there are likely tricks to put a ton of pressure on something, like informing to the FBI that an offer was made by a terrorist.
What's to stop a major investor in a military weapons corporation
I still don't understand how you expect "the rich" to know who their enemies are. It's hard to target what you can't identify. putting their profits into AP offers for assassinations of the operators of servers allowing access, until nobody can access it? This would be a profitable move for them, if AP would make their military weapons obsolete. Ethereum has been implemented in the last few years. It's a distributed computer system that, I suppose, anyone can 'join'. A great idea. When I thought of my AP idea, in 1995, I imagined a hidden server protected by some sort of anonymization. Vaguely like a TOR-protected Dark Market. Plausible, but Ethereum seems to have the power to supplant it. Rather than the AP server running at one specific, hidden location, under Augur and Ethereum, AP will run 'everywhere', potentially on hundreds of thousands or even millions of computers. It would be pointless to try to take thousands or even tens of thousands of computers offline.
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?
If AP can be said to be "biased" in any way, that "bias" is in the direction of tearing down involuntary heirarchical power structures. It isn't clear how AP can be used to build up such power structures, instead. Anybody who exercises power openly will tend to make others his enemies, and they would be able to use AP to counter such a person. That doesn't exclude the possibility of exercising power secretly, but it is a reasonable question how that trick might be accomplished.
AP itself provides a method to exercise power secretly. People with more money can put bigger prices on their opponents' heads.
If people start putting a price on them in return, they can look at the media
You keep ignoring the question: How do people know who "their enemies" actually are? sources resulting in those opinions, and assassinate those people to sway opinion. I can't argue with that!!! The biased MSM certainly angers a large segment of the population. The MSM would have to change its tune greatly. There will still be a market for news, of course, but not biased news of the type we've seen.
Additionally, a wealthy person can likely exercise a wide variety of secret power, via e.g. bribes and black markets. Who would they bribe? For what outcome?
I see financial power as a major involuntary hierarchical power structure.
To the extent that the existence of government allows some segment of the population to make money off the rest, that will be eliminated or drastically reduced.
You said, "a few select people control the many?". How would that come about? Who would be "the select few"? (We might suspect that at least initially, they would be "the rich", at least those people who are currently rich.) But how would they "control" the large masses? They would no longer be able to use the structures of government to maintain their positions, I think. They wouldn't be able to identify those in "the many", at least not the relative few that those "in control" would consider their enemies. Taxing them would be a problem. Passing onerous and discriminatory laws shouldn't even be possible, since the governments that would do so, and enforce them, will be dismantled.
Laws are no longer needed. The rich can assassinate not only anybody who publicly disagrees with them, but also anybody facilitating anonymous communication channels that could be used to privately disagree. This could facilitate violent dictatorships.
I guess we're talking past each other.
There should be a free market, ideally a truly free market,, and not the 'crony-capitalism', and 'crony-socialism' we now have in America and Europe. Am I being too optimistic? I won't claim to be unbiased, as I am the person who thought up the AP concept initially. But large numbers of people have been exposed to the AP idea, and I continually do Google-searches for such appearances. (Such as Google "jim bell" "assassination".) Myself, I would greatly welcome further discussion. Yes, these issues ought to be debated. Although, I think that relatively few people who are familiar with AP doubt that there is going to be an actual problem. At least, I haven't seen that.
I found AP so incredibly inspiring when I read some of its marketing. It is additionally so inspiring to see how the strength of blockchain technology can provide for software solutions to make real change in the world. Blockchain is indeed a major breakthrough. Most people think of it as simply a basis to implement various types of digital cash, but it can be so much more than that.
I AP provided a way for people to have logical discourse around decisions, rather than voting with their dollar. Additionally, I worry that focusing on assassination could push away large groups of possible supporters.
I suspect most people who consider themselves opponents (or at least, non-supporters) of AP don't claim they really like today's world, but at the same time they can't figure out any alternative mechanism to fix it.
I imagine a blockchain app focused on permanent storage of 'proposals' with 'reasons', with each reason providing for more reasons that support why it is or is not valid, all accumulated in a decentralized manner by people who have an opinion on a proposal. If analysis of such a graph of discourse could create economically-incentivized change, it could move a lot of things forward in the world.
I believe that implementing an AP system, like I describe, will lead to a truly-free market and individual freedom. It will do so, first, by eliminating governments as we currently know them. I think that should eliminate the method by which many in current society maintain their positions of power, including inequality.
I'm hearing that you directly associate truly free markets with individual freedom. I see a free market as a hierarchical system, where those who start with more money call the shots, as they provide the jobs and can directly change demand with their dollars.
I feel governments are great for really rich people, because such
I distinguish between involuntary heirarchical structures and voluntary heirarchical structures. Employment (i.e. companies) will probably remain heirarchical for a long while, but people generally aren't forced to take a specific job. people can buy laws, and that governments are hence likely to only be replaced by something more stringent as long as those with more money have more power. That's a good reason to want to weaken governments. I think governments, at most, should only be asked to do what must be done collectively, even where they do that.
I agree with you on debate, though. It sounds like we have really different experience and assumptions.
I've tried to stir debate about AP since 1995. Particularly due to the Ethereum/Augur/Death-prediction market, I think society will have to have that debate! Jim Bell
Any answer from Karl or Furrier? Naturally, I'm genuinely interested to find out if my AP idea has any flaws. Many people could say, and no doubt many of them have said, 'I just don't LIKE your AP idea, Jim!'. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Or that it isn't necessary. A person could really make a name for himself if: 1) He figured out a distinct flaw in the AP idea, such that it wouldn't work.. OR 2) He figured out a solution that would make AP unnecessary. Has anybody done this? I haven't seen it. Jim Bell On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, 5:52:45 PM PST, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, 2:18:45 PM PST, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I'm beginning to understand some of where you come from. It sounds like you blame our problems on the presence of legal government.
I don't know why you added the word "legal" before the word "government". A redundancy? Or are you trying to distinguish between "legal government" and some sort of "illegal government"? I hope you are not using the word "legal" as a stand-in for "legitimate". But yes, I do blame "government" for much of the problems society has today. " I believe government is mostly just expressing the wishesof those with the power to influence votes and laws." The devil is in the details, no doubt. One major problem is that the total number of such people is much less than even a majority of the population. One commonly-cited statistic is that the top 1% of Federal taxpayers pays 37% of the total Federal income taxes. Many people don't seem to have a problem with that, but I wonder: Would they have a problem with those 1% of taxpayers having 37% of the influence over the policies of the Federal Government? Myself, I think it would have been far better if the 16 Amendment (the Income Tax amendment) had been limited to, for example, a maximum of 5% tax, rather than it being unlimited. Limit it to 5%, and the Federal government would be far smaller than it is today, maybe one-fifth as large.
I see money as the biggest source of votes and laws, so I don't seethings changing too much with the introduction of AP.
I believe money also provides greater anonymity and ability to surveil than e.g. Tor
Okay, what do you think would happen? provides for the masses. How would that work? Jim Bell More responses in-line. On 12/11/18, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I searched, and found a number of messages about "Public Shielded Work Room", but that was all I found in 2018. What was the date you sent the message? Was it to the CP list, or to me directly? You could send it to me again, at my email address.
Sorry, I tried to contact you before I began participating in this list. I submitted a comment to the AP website, but I'm not sure what e-mail address I used, so it's nothing to worry about. I'm happy you got this e-mail here.
As it offers a market, doesn't AP give life-and-death power to those with the most money?
Well, it kinda-sorta gives life-and-death power to just about everyone, in small parts. And superficially, it looks like people who have more money will have more such influence. People who are fixated on the issue of "inequality" will initially find this to be either a fatal flaw or at least a major drawback.
Inequality is relevant here, because in a free market, people try to make the largest profit, and this will be provided by the highest payout. A relatively small price by many people on a leader will be swamped by a price of $40 billion by one wealthy individual on their opposition. The people with exponentially inequal finances can then directly control the political presence of the world.
In the pre-AP world, achieving political change requires speaking out, identifying yourself. That potentially makes such people targets. In the post-AP world, nobody has to speak out publicly. And what speech occurs can probably be made anonymous. How would "the rich" target their "enemies" if they cannot identify them?
I agree that providing for more anonymous dissent is greatly helpful. I worry that focusing on it so strongly here can be misleading, though: "the rich" can hide and hunt exponentially better than the masses can, who are surveilled daily by e.g. spyware controlled by groups more powerful than them, and can't hire people or push legal systems to do things for them.
"The rich" could target enemies by (A) targeting the systems that facilitate their discourse, (B) outbidding them, and (C) using their immense resources to hunt them down. Additionally, there are likely tricks to put a ton of pressure on something, like informing to the FBI that an offer was made by a terrorist.
What's to stop a major investor in a military weapons corporation
I still don't understand how you expect "the rich" to know who their enemies are. It's hard to target what you can't identify. putting their profits into AP offers for assassinations of the operators of servers allowing access, until nobody can access it? This would be a profitable move for them, if AP would make their military weapons obsolete. Ethereum has been implemented in the last few years. It's a distributed computer system that, I suppose, anyone can 'join'. A great idea. When I thought of my AP idea, in 1995, I imagined a hidden server protected by some sort of anonymization. Vaguely like a TOR-protected Dark Market. Plausible, but Ethereum seems to have the power to supplant it. Rather than the AP server running at one specific, hidden location, under Augur and Ethereum, AP will run 'everywhere', potentially on hundreds of thousands or even millions of computers. It would be pointless to try to take thousands or even tens of thousands of computers offline.
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?
If AP can be said to be "biased" in any way, that "bias" is in the direction of tearing down involuntary heirarchical power structures. It isn't clear how AP can be used to build up such power structures, instead. Anybody who exercises power openly will tend to make others his enemies, and they would be able to use AP to counter such a person. That doesn't exclude the possibility of exercising power secretly, but it is a reasonable question how that trick might be accomplished.
AP itself provides a method to exercise power secretly. People with more money can put bigger prices on their opponents' heads.
If people start putting a price on them in return, they can look at the media
You keep ignoring the question: How do people know who "their enemies" actually are? sources resulting in those opinions, and assassinate those people to sway opinion. I can't argue with that!!! The biased MSM certainly angers a large segment of the population. The MSM would have to change its tune greatly. There will still be a market for news, of course, but not biased news of the type we've seen.
Additionally, a wealthy person can likely exercise a wide variety of secret power, via e.g. bribes and black markets. Who would they bribe? For what outcome?
I see financial power as a major involuntary hierarchical power structure.
To the extent that the existence of government allows some segment of the population to make money off the rest, that will be eliminated or drastically reduced.
You said, "a few select people control the many?". How would that come about? Who would be "the select few"? (We might suspect that at least initially, they would be "the rich", at least those people who are currently rich.) But how would they "control" the large masses? They would no longer be able to use the structures of government to maintain their positions, I think. They wouldn't be able to identify those in "the many", at least not the relative few that those "in control" would consider their enemies. Taxing them would be a problem. Passing onerous and discriminatory laws shouldn't even be possible, since the governments that would do so, and enforce them, will be dismantled.
Laws are no longer needed. The rich can assassinate not only anybody who publicly disagrees with them, but also anybody facilitating anonymous communication channels that could be used to privately disagree. This could facilitate violent dictatorships.
I guess we're talking past each other.
There should be a free market, ideally a truly free market,, and not the 'crony-capitalism', and 'crony-socialism' we now have in America and Europe. Am I being too optimistic? I won't claim to be unbiased, as I am the person who thought up the AP concept initially. But large numbers of people have been exposed to the AP idea, and I continually do Google-searches for such appearances. (Such as Google "jim bell" "assassination".) Myself, I would greatly welcome further discussion. Yes, these issues ought to be debated. Although, I think that relatively few people who are familiar with AP doubt that there is going to be an actual problem. At least, I haven't seen that.
I found AP so incredibly inspiring when I read some of its marketing. It is additionally so inspiring to see how the strength of blockchain technology can provide for software solutions to make real change in the world. Blockchain is indeed a major breakthrough. Most people think of it as simply a basis to implement various types of digital cash, but it can be so much more than that.
I AP provided a way for people to have logical discourse around decisions, rather than voting with their dollar. Additionally, I worry that focusing on assassination could push away large groups of possible supporters.
I suspect most people who consider themselves opponents (or at least, non-supporters) of AP don't claim they really like today's world, but at the same time they can't figure out any alternative mechanism to fix it.
I imagine a blockchain app focused on permanent storage of 'proposals' with 'reasons', with each reason providing for more reasons that support why it is or is not valid, all accumulated in a decentralized manner by people who have an opinion on a proposal. If analysis of such a graph of discourse could create economically-incentivized change, it could move a lot of things forward in the world.
I believe that implementing an AP system, like I describe, will lead to a truly-free market and individual freedom. It will do so, first, by eliminating governments as we currently know them. I think that should eliminate the method by which many in current society maintain their positions of power, including inequality.
I'm hearing that you directly associate truly free markets with individual freedom. I see a free market as a hierarchical system, where those who start with more money call the shots, as they provide the jobs and can directly change demand with their dollars.
I feel governments are great for really rich people, because such
I distinguish between involuntary heirarchical structures and voluntary heirarchical structures. Employment (i.e. companies) will probably remain heirarchical for a long while, but people generally aren't forced to take a specific job. people can buy laws, and that governments are hence likely to only be replaced by something more stringent as long as those with more money have more power. That's a good reason to want to weaken governments. I think governments, at most, should only be asked to do what must be done collectively, even where they do that.
I agree with you on debate, though. It sounds like we have really different experience and assumptions.
I've tried to stir debate about AP since 1995. Particularly due to the Ethereum/Augur/Death-prediction market, I think society will have to have that debate! Jim Bell
Your idea sucks because creating a tool to murder people is not adding anything new to the picture. We already have it and it's called "the goverment". Like any other violence-provocative tool that fits the status quo, the more powerful people are going to take control of it and use it for their own purposes more effectively that you will. If you want to change the world, create first and foremost human-respecting tools and systems, that are also voluntary, decentralized, censorship-resistant, and provide utility to everyone with as fair access as possible. You wouldn't know but some cryptocurrencies fit as example. Community initiatives around the world that are based within the community and seek alternative ways to reach consensus about things and live a respecting life are moving along those lines. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, December 13, 2018 11:05 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Any answer from Karl or Furrier?
Naturally, I'm genuinely interested to find out if my AP idea has any flaws. Many people could say, and no doubt many of them have said, 'I just don't LIKE your AP idea, Jim!'. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Or that it isn't necessary.
A person could really make a name for himself if:
1) He figured out a distinct flaw in the AP idea, such that it wouldn't work..
OR
2) He figured out a solution that would make AP unnecessary.
Has anybody done this? I haven't seen it.
Jim Bell
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, 5:52:45 PM PST, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, 2:18:45 PM PST, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I'm beginning to understand some of where you come from. It sounds like you blame our problems on the presence of legal government.
I don't know why you added the word "legal" before the word "government". A redundancy? Or are you trying to distinguish between "legal government" and some sort of "illegal government"? I hope you are not using the word "legal" as a stand-in for "legitimate".
But yes, I do blame "government" for much of the problems society has today.
" I believe government is mostly just expressing the wishes of those with the power to influence votes and laws."
The devil is in the details, no doubt. One major problem is that the total number of such people is much less than even a majority of the population. One commonly-cited statistic is that the top 1% of Federal taxpayers pays 37% of the total Federal income taxes. Many people don't seem to have a problem with that, but I wonder: Would they have a problem with those 1% of taxpayers having 37% of the influence over the policies of the Federal Government?
Myself, I think it would have been far better if the 16 Amendment (the Income Tax amendment) had been limited to, for example, a maximum of 5% tax, rather than it being unlimited. Limit it to 5%, and the Federal government would be far smaller than it is today, maybe one-fifth as large.
I see money as the biggest source of votes and laws, so I don't see things changing too much with the introduction of AP.
Okay, what do you think would happen?
I believe money also provides greater anonymity and ability to surveil than e.g. Tor provides for the masses.
How would that work?
Jim Bell
More responses in-line.
On 12/11/18, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I searched, and found a number of messages about "Public Shielded Work Room", but that was all I found in 2018. What was the date you sent the message? Was it to the CP list, or to me directly? You could send it to me again, at my email address.
Sorry, I tried to contact you before I began participating in this list. I submitted a comment to the AP website, but I'm not sure what e-mail address I used, so it's nothing to worry about. I'm happy you got this e-mail here.
As it offers a market, doesn't AP give life-and-death power to those with the most money?
Well, it kinda-sorta gives life-and-death power to just about everyone, in small parts. And superficially, it looks like people who have more money will have more such influence. People who are fixated on the issue of "inequality" will initially find this to be either a fatal flaw or at least a major drawback.
Inequality is relevant here, because in a free market, people try to make the largest profit, and this will be provided by the highest payout. A relatively small price by many people on a leader will be swamped by a price of $40 billion by one wealthy individual on their opposition. The people with exponentially inequal finances can then directly control the political presence of the world.
In the pre-AP world, achieving political change requires speaking out, identifying yourself. That potentially makes such people targets. In the post-AP world, nobody has to speak out publicly. And what speech occurs can probably be made anonymous. How would "the rich" target their "enemies" if they cannot identify them?
I agree that providing for more anonymous dissent is greatly helpful. I worry that focusing on it so strongly here can be misleading, though: "the rich" can hide and hunt exponentially better than the masses can, who are surveilled daily by e.g. spyware controlled by groups more powerful than them, and can't hire people or push legal systems to do things for them.
"The rich" could target enemies by (A) targeting the systems that facilitate their discourse, (B) outbidding them, and (C) using their immense resources to hunt them down. Additionally, there are likely tricks to put a ton of pressure on something, like informing to the FBI that an offer was made by a terrorist.
I still don't understand how you expect "the rich" to know who their enemies are. It's hard to target what you can't identify.
What's to stop a major investor in a military weapons corporation putting their profits into AP offers for assassinations of the operators of servers allowing access, until nobody can access it? This would be a profitable move for them, if AP would make their military weapons obsolete.
Ethereum has been implemented in the last few years. It's a distributed computer system that, I suppose, anyone can 'join'. A great idea. When I thought of my AP idea, in 1995, I imagined a hidden server protected by some sort of anonymization. Vaguely like a TOR-protected Dark Market. Plausible, but Ethereum seems to have the power to supplant it. Rather than the AP server running at one specific, hidden location, under Augur and Ethereum, AP will run 'everywhere', potentially on hundreds of thousands or even millions of computers. It would be pointless to try to take thousands or even tens of thousands of computers offline.
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?
If AP can be said to be "biased" in any way, that "bias" is in the direction of tearing down involuntary heirarchical power structures. It isn't clear how AP can be used to build up such power structures, instead. Anybody who exercises power openly will tend to make others his enemies, and they would be able to use AP to counter such a person. That doesn't exclude the possibility of exercising power secretly, but it is a reasonable question how that trick might be accomplished.
AP itself provides a method to exercise power secretly. People with more money can put bigger prices on their opponents' heads.
You keep ignoring the question: How do people know who "their enemies" actually are?
If people start putting a price on them in return, they can look at the media sources resulting in those opinions, and assassinate those people to sway opinion.
I can't argue with that!!! The biased MSM certainly angers a large segment of the population. The MSM would have to change its tune greatly. There will still be a market for news, of course, but not biased news of the type we've seen.
Additionally, a wealthy person can likely exercise a wide variety of secret power, via e.g. bribes and black markets.
Who would they bribe? For what outcome?
I see financial power as a major involuntary hierarchical power structure.
To the extent that the existence of government allows some segment of the population to make money off the rest, that will be eliminated or drastically reduced.
You said, "a few select people control the many?". How would that come about? Who would be "the select few"? (We might suspect that at least initially, they would be "the rich", at least those people who are currently rich.) But how would they "control" the large masses? They would no longer be able to use the structures of government to maintain their positions, I think. They wouldn't be able to identify those in "the many", at least not the relative few that those "in control" would consider their enemies. Taxing them would be a problem. Passing onerous and discriminatory laws shouldn't even be possible, since the governments that would do so, and enforce them, will be dismantled.
Laws are no longer needed. The rich can assassinate not only anybody who publicly disagrees with them, but also anybody facilitating anonymous communication channels that could be used to privately disagree. This could facilitate violent dictatorships.
I guess we're talking past each other.
There should be a free market, ideally a truly free market,, and not the 'crony-capitalism', and 'crony-socialism' we now have in America and Europe. Am I being too optimistic? I won't claim to be unbiased, as I am the person who thought up the AP concept initially. But large numbers of people have been exposed to the AP idea, and I continually do Google-searches for such appearances. (Such as Google "jim bell" "assassination".) Myself, I would greatly welcome further discussion. Yes, these issues ought to be debated. Although, I think that relatively few people who are familiar with AP doubt that there is going to be an actual problem. At least, I haven't seen that.
I found AP so incredibly inspiring when I read some of its marketing. It is additionally so inspiring to see how the strength of blockchain technology can provide for software solutions to make real change in the world.
Blockchain is indeed a major breakthrough. Most people think of it as simply a basis to implement various types of digital cash, but it can be so much more than that.
I AP provided a way for people to have logical discourse around decisions, rather than voting with their dollar. Additionally, I worry that focusing on assassination could push away large groups of possible supporters.
I suspect most people who consider themselves opponents (or at least, non-supporters) of AP don't claim they really like today's world, but at the same time they can't figure out any alternative mechanism to fix it.
I imagine a blockchain app focused on permanent storage of 'proposals' with 'reasons', with each reason providing for more reasons that support why it is or is not valid, all accumulated in a decentralized manner by people who have an opinion on a proposal. If analysis of such a graph of discourse could create economically-incentivized change, it could move a lot of things forward in the world.
I believe that implementing an AP system, like I describe, will lead to a truly-free market and individual freedom. It will do so, first, by eliminating governments as we currently know them. I think that should eliminate the method by which many in current society maintain their positions of power, including inequality.
I'm hearing that you directly associate truly free markets with individual freedom. I see a free market as a hierarchical system, where those who start with more money call the shots, as they provide the jobs and can directly change demand with their dollars.
I distinguish between involuntary heirarchical structures and voluntary heirarchical structures. Employment (i.e. companies) will probably remain heirarchical for a long while, but people generally aren't forced to take a specific job.
I feel governments are great for really rich people, because such people can buy laws, and that governments are hence likely to only be replaced by something more stringent as long as those with more money have more power.
That's a good reason to want to weaken governments. I think governments, at most, should only be asked to do what must be done collectively, even where they do that.
I agree with you on debate, though. It sounds like we have really different experience and assumptions.
I've tried to stir debate about AP since 1995. Particularly due to the Ethereum/Augur/Death-prediction market, I think society will have to have that debate!
Jim Bell
Furrier: You show your biases when you say "creating a tool to murder people". Arguably, the AP as a new tool (as I foresee it) would also allow people to defend themselves from aggression, and I define "aggression" to include being victimized by governments. Most weapons can be misused. A gun can protect, but yes, it also can murder. Or, you can also accidently drop it, on rare occasions it will fire, and the bullet might go through a flimsy apartment-complex wall and strike somebody next door. Does that make entirely illegitimate the concept of a gun? You seem to think so, that merely because a weapon can be used to 'murder', there is something inherently wrong in making and using it for self-defense. And while you go on to concede that 'the government' causes problems, you don't say how to eliminate government. I, at least, claim a system that seems to have the ability to do so. At least, plenty of people have had the ability to consider the matter, and nobody that I'm aware of has proposed that an AP-type system couldn't be implemented that could stop current governments. At least, not since about 2002 when a guy named Bob Murphy made a stab at it. That's 16 years. http://www.anti-state.com/the-politics-of-destruction/ Also, see: https://libertarianinstitute.org/blog/can-libertarian-society-provide-nation... × His friend, Bob Vroman, took the opposite position. http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=009ape%C3%82%C2... although that link seems to have been deleted. Try the Wayback Machine, I suppose. This one seems to still work correctly: https://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks-moderated@minder.net/msg02068.html And for what seems to have been the most 'professional' analysis, you could see: https://idsa.in/strategicanalysis/CryptologyDigitalAssassinationandtheTerror... But it, too, is no longer directly available. See the Wayback Machine, I suppose. ×These are referred to in: https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2015-September/024894.html Ironically, on January 2, 2018 Murphy actually argued the case in favor of privatized defense systems, against another who claimed that such defense should be left in the hands of monopolized, government-like entities. https://attackthesystem.com/?s=bob+murphy Although I don't think Murphy mentions the AP system by name. (perhaps the 'not-invented-here' syndrome at work?) Murphy's 2002 position was long before even Bitcoin was invented, and TOR was not nearly as well-known as it is today. Simple doubts about whether an AP-type system could be implemented are not unreasonable, but the passage of another 16 years has changed things. You said, "If you want to change the world, create first and foremost human-respecting tools and systems". Fine words. Can you be more specific? You went on to say, "that are also voluntary, decentralized, censorship-resistant, and provide utility to everyone with as fair access as possible." The version of AP I've long advocated would have those characteristics, I believe. With the one exception that AP wouldn't be "voluntary" to those it will eventually target, but for a good reason: They will be the ones who have been aggressing against the rest of us. It could be said, however, that even AP would be "voluntary" those those people too: They will have the choice to stop aggressing against the rest of us. Stop, and live. Don't stop, and die. You also said: "You wouldn't know but some cryptocurrencies fit as example." Yes, Zerocoin has good anonymity.But, but don't forget the government may intrude. For example, a few years ago the US Federal government decided that 'we' should pay tax on the illusory 'gains' of people whose digital cash has appreciated in value. This is inconsistent with their treatment of foreign currencies: If you buy a Euro, a British Pound, a yen, a ruble, etc, if the value of those currencies go up, the IRS doesn't claim you have to pay "income tax" on the value of that asset. But if you buy digital cash, and the value goes up, they demand that you pay tax on the 'gain'. Show us a flaw in an AP-type system, one that appears not to be able to be fixed, and you will make a major name for yourself. Or, design a system to get rid of today's governments, and people will remember your name forever. Jim Bell On Sunday, December 16, 2018, 1:52:20 PM PST, furrier <furrier@protonmail.ch> wrote: Your idea sucks because creating a tool to murder people is not adding anything new to the picture. We already have it and it's called "the goverment". Like any other violence-provocative tool that fits the status quo, the more powerful people are going to take control of it and use it for their own purposes more effectively that you will. If you want to change the world, create first and foremost human-respecting tools and systems, that are also voluntary, decentralized, censorship-resistant, and provide utility to everyone with as fair access as possible. You wouldn't know but some cryptocurrencies fit as example. Community initiatives around the world that are based within the community and seek alternative ways to reach consensus about things and live a respecting life are moving along those lines. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, December 13, 2018 11:05 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: Any answer from Karl or Furrier? Naturally, I'm genuinely interested to find out if my AP idea has any flaws. Many people could say, and no doubt many of them have said, 'I just don't LIKE your AP idea, Jim!'. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Or that it isn't necessary. A person could really make a name for himself if: 1) He figured out a distinct flaw in the AP idea, such that it wouldn't work.. OR 2) He figured out a solution that would make AP unnecessary. Has anybody done this? I haven't seen it. Jim Bell On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, 5:52:45 PM PST, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, 2:18:45 PM PST, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I'm beginning to understand some of where you come from. It sounds like you blame our problems on the presence of legal government.
I see money as the biggest source of votes and laws, so I don't see
I believe money also provides greater anonymity and ability to surveil than e.g. Tor
I don't know why you added the word "legal" before the word "government". A redundancy? Or are you trying to distinguish between "legal government" and some sort of "illegal government"? I hope you are not using the word "legal" as a stand-in for "legitimate". But yes, I do blame "government" for much of the problems society has today. " I believe government is mostly just expressing the wishes of those with the power to influence votes and laws." The devil is in the details, no doubt. One major problem is that the total number of such people is much less than even a majority of the population. One commonly-cited statistic is that the top 1% of Federal taxpayers pays 37% of the total Federal income taxes. Many people don't seem to have a problem with that, but I wonder: Would they have a problem with those 1% of taxpayers having 37% of the influence over the policies of the Federal Government? Myself, I think it would have been far better if the 16 Amendment (the Income Tax amendment) had been limited to, for example, a maximum of 5% tax, rather than it being unlimited. Limit it to 5%, and the Federal government would be far smaller than it is today, maybe one-fifth as large. things changing too much with the introduction of AP. Okay, what do you think would happen? provides for the masses. How would that work? Jim Bell More responses in-line. On 12/11/18, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I searched, and found a number of messages about "Public Shielded Work Room", but that was all I found in 2018. What was the date you sent the message? Was it to the CP list, or to me directly? You could send it to me again, at my email address.
Sorry, I tried to contact you before I began participating in this list. I submitted a comment to the AP website, but I'm not sure what e-mail address I used, so it's nothing to worry about. I'm happy you got this e-mail here.
As it offers a market, doesn't AP give life-and-death power to those with the most money?
Well, it kinda-sorta gives life-and-death power to just about everyone, in small parts. And superficially, it looks like people who have more money will have more such influence. People who are fixated on the issue of "inequality" will initially find this to be either a fatal flaw or at least a major drawback.
Inequality is relevant here, because in a free market, people try to make the largest profit, and this will be provided by the highest payout. A relatively small price by many people on a leader will be swamped by a price of $40 billion by one wealthy individual on their opposition. The people with exponentially inequal finances can then directly control the political presence of the world.
In the pre-AP world, achieving political change requires speaking out, identifying yourself. That potentially makes such people targets. In the post-AP world, nobody has to speak out publicly. And what speech occurs can probably be made anonymous. How would "the rich" target their "enemies" if they cannot identify them?
I agree that providing for more anonymous dissent is greatly helpful. I worry that focusing on it so strongly here can be misleading, though: "the rich" can hide and hunt exponentially better than the masses can, who are surveilled daily by e.g. spyware controlled by groups more powerful than them, and can't hire people or push legal systems to do things for them.
"The rich" could target enemies by (A) targeting the systems that facilitate their discourse, (B) outbidding them, and (C) using their immense resources to hunt them down. Additionally, there are likely tricks to put a ton of pressure on something, like informing to the FBI that an offer was made by a terrorist.
What's to stop a major investor in a military weapons corporation
I still don't understand how you expect "the rich" to know who their enemies are. It's hard to target what you can't identify. putting their profits into AP offers for assassinations of the operators of servers allowing access, until nobody can access it? This would be a profitable move for them, if AP would make their military weapons obsolete. Ethereum has been implemented in the last few years. It's a distributed computer system that, I suppose, anyone can 'join'. A great idea. When I thought of my AP idea, in 1995, I imagined a hidden server protected by some sort of anonymization. Vaguely like a TOR-protected Dark Market. Plausible, but Ethereum seems to have the power to supplant it. Rather than the AP server running at one specific, hidden location, under Augur and Ethereum, AP will run 'everywhere', potentially on hundreds of thousands or even millions of computers. It would be pointless to try to take thousands or even tens of thousands of computers offline.
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?
If AP can be said to be "biased" in any way, that "bias" is in the direction of tearing down involuntary heirarchical power structures. It isn't clear how AP can be used to build up such power structures, instead. Anybody who exercises power openly will tend to make others his enemies, and they would be able to use AP to counter such a person. That doesn't exclude the possibility of exercising power secretly, but it is a reasonable question how that trick might be accomplished.
AP itself provides a method to exercise power secretly. People with more money can put bigger prices on their opponents' heads.
If people start putting a price on them in return, they can look at the media
You keep ignoring the question: How do people know who "their enemies" actually are? sources resulting in those opinions, and assassinate those people to sway opinion. I can't argue with that!!! The biased MSM certainly angers a large segment of the population. The MSM would have to change its tune greatly. There will still be a market for news, of course, but not biased news of the type we've seen.
Additionally, a wealthy person can likely exercise a wide variety of secret power, via e.g. bribes and black markets.
Who would they bribe? For what outcome?
I see financial power as a major involuntary hierarchical power structure.
To the extent that the existence of government allows some segment of the population to make money off the rest, that will be eliminated or drastically reduced.
You said, "a few select people control the many?". How would that come about? Who would be "the select few"? (We might suspect that at least initially, they would be "the rich", at least those people who are currently rich.) But how would they "control" the large masses? They would no longer be able to use the structures of government to maintain their positions, I think. They wouldn't be able to identify those in "the many", at least not the relative few that those "in control" would consider their enemies. Taxing them would be a problem. Passing onerous and discriminatory laws shouldn't even be possible, since the governments that would do so, and enforce them, will be dismantled.
Laws are no longer needed. The rich can assassinate not only anybody who publicly disagrees with them, but also anybody facilitating anonymous communication channels that could be used to privately disagree. This could facilitate violent dictatorships.
I guess we're talking past each other.
There should be a free market, ideally a truly free market,, and not the 'crony-capitalism', and 'crony-socialism' we now have in America and Europe. Am I being too optimistic? I won't claim to be unbiased, as I am the person who thought up the AP concept initially. But large numbers of people have been exposed to the AP idea, and I continually do Google-searches for such appearances. (Such as Google "jim bell" "assassination".) Myself, I would greatly welcome further discussion. Yes, these issues ought to be debated. Although, I think that relatively few people who are familiar with AP doubt that there is going to be an actual problem. At least, I haven't seen that.
I found AP so incredibly inspiring when I read some of its marketing. It is additionally so inspiring to see how the strength of blockchain technology can provide for software solutions to make real change in the world.
I AP provided a way for people to have logical discourse around decisions, rather than voting with their dollar. Additionally, I worry that focusing on assassination could push away large groups of
Blockchain is indeed a major breakthrough. Most people think of it as simply a basis to implement various types of digital cash, but it can be so much more than that. possible supporters. I suspect most people who consider themselves opponents (or at least, non-supporters) of AP don't claim they really like today's world, but at the same time they can't figure out any alternative mechanism to fix it.
I imagine a blockchain app focused on permanent storage of 'proposals' with 'reasons', with each reason providing for more reasons that support why it is or is not valid, all accumulated in a decentralized manner by people who have an opinion on a proposal. If analysis of such a graph of discourse could create economically-incentivized change, it could move a lot of things forward in the world.
I believe that implementing an AP system, like I describe, will lead to a truly-free market and individual freedom. It will do so, first, by eliminating governments as we currently know them. I think that should eliminate the method by which many in current society maintain their positions of power, including inequality.
I'm hearing that you directly associate truly free markets with individual freedom. I see a free market as a hierarchical system, where those who start with more money call the shots, as they provide the jobs and can directly change demand with their dollars.
I feel governments are great for really rich people, because such
I distinguish between involuntary heirarchical structures and voluntary heirarchical structures. Employment (i.e. companies) will probably remain heirarchical for a long while, but people generally aren't forced to take a specific job. people can buy laws, and that governments are hence likely to only be replaced by something more stringent as long as those with more money have more power. That's a good reason to want to weaken governments. I think governments, at most, should only be asked to do what must be done collectively, even where they do that.
I agree with you on debate, though. It sounds like we have really different experience and assumptions.
I've tried to stir debate about AP since 1995. Particularly due to the Ethereum/Augur/Death-prediction market, I think society will have to have that debate! Jim Bell
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, December 17, 2018 8:58 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Furrier:
You show your biases when you say "creating a tool to murder people". Arguably, the AP as a new tool (as I foresee it) would also allow people to defend themselves from aggression, and I define "aggression" to include being victimized by governments. Most weapons can be misused. A gun can protect, but yes, it also can murder. Or, you can also accidently drop it, on rare occasions it will fire, and the bullet might go through a flimsy apartment-complex wall and strike somebody next door. Does that make entirely illegitimate the concept of a gun? You seem to think so, that merely because a weapon can be used to 'murder', there is something inherently wrong in making and using it for self-defense.
Don't dilute my message. I am not against protecting private property. AP is not that kind of a tool.
And while you go on to concede that 'the government' causes problems, you don't say how to eliminate government. I, at least, claim a system that seems to have the ability to do so. At least, plenty of people have had the ability to consider the matter, and nobody that I'm aware of has proposed that an AP-type system couldn't be implemented that could stop current governments. At least, not since about 2002 when a guy named Bob Murphy made a stab at it. That's 16 years. http://www.anti-state.com/the-politics-of-destruction/ Also, see: https://libertarianinstitute.org/blog/can-libertarian-society-provide-nation... ×
"human-respecting tools and systems, that are also voluntary, decentralized, censorship-resistant, and provide utility to everyone with as fair access as possible."
You said, "If you want to change the world, create first and foremost human-respecting tools and systems".
Fine words. Can you be more specific? You went on to say,
Tools that do not harm others physically or mentally. Tools that have as low social cost as possible while providing real utility (not Brave New World-style utility).
"that are also voluntary, decentralized, censorship-resistant, and provide utility to everyone with as fair access as possible."
The version of AP I've long advocated would have those characteristics, I believe. With the one exception that AP wouldn't be "voluntary" to those it will eventually target, but for a good reason: They will be the ones who have been aggressing against the rest of us. It could be said, however, that even AP would be "voluntary" those those people too: They will have the choice to stop aggressing against the rest of us. Stop, and live. Don't stop, and die.
Human-respecting and voluntary are the most basic aspects of the tools I am advocating for really.
Show us a flaw in an AP-type system, one that appears not to be able to be fixed, and you will make a major name for yourself. Or, design a system to get rid of today's governments, and people will remember your name forever.
I don't need to. AP is flawed by design and it's never going to be implemented (at best you get something like Augur).
On Sunday, December 16, 2018, 1:52:20 PM PST, furrier <furrier@protonmail.ch> wrote:
Your idea sucks because creating a tool to murder people is not adding anything new to the picture. We already have it and it's called "the goverment". Like any other violence-provocative tool that fits the status quo, the more powerful people are going to take control of it and use it for their own purposes more effectively that you will.
If you want to change the world, create first and foremost human-respecting tools and systems, that are also voluntary, decentralized, censorship-resistant, and provide utility to everyone with as fair access as possible. You wouldn't know but some cryptocurrencies fit as example. Community initiatives around the world that are based within the community and seek alternative ways to reach consensus about things and live a respecting life are moving along those lines.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, December 13, 2018 11:05 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Any answer from Karl or Furrier?
Naturally, I'm genuinely interested to find out if my AP idea has any flaws. Many people could say, and no doubt many of them have said, 'I just don't LIKE your AP idea, Jim!'. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Or that it isn't necessary.
A person could really make a name for himself if:
1) He figured out a distinct flaw in the AP idea, such that it wouldn't work..
OR
2) He figured out a solution that would make AP unnecessary.
Has anybody done this? I haven't seen it.
Jim Bell
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, 5:52:45 PM PST, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, 2:18:45 PM PST, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I'm beginning to understand some of where you come from. It sounds like you blame our problems on the presence of legal government.
I don't know why you added the word "legal" before the word "government". A redundancy? Or are you trying to distinguish between "legal government" and some sort of "illegal government"? I hope you are not using the word "legal" as a stand-in for "legitimate".
But yes, I do blame "government" for much of the problems society has today.
" I believe government is mostly just expressing the wishes of those with the power to influence votes and laws."
The devil is in the details, no doubt. One major problem is that the total number of such people is much less than even a majority of the population. One commonly-cited statistic is that the top 1% of Federal taxpayers pays 37% of the total Federal income taxes. Many people don't seem to have a problem with that, but I wonder: Would they have a problem with those 1% of taxpayers having 37% of the influence over the policies of the Federal Government?
Myself, I think it would have been far better if the 16 Amendment (the Income Tax amendment) had been limited to, for example, a maximum of 5% tax, rather than it being unlimited. Limit it to 5%, and the Federal government would be far smaller than it is today, maybe one-fifth as large.
I see money as the biggest source of votes and laws, so I don't see things changing too much with the introduction of AP.
Okay, what do you think would happen?
I believe money also provides greater anonymity and ability to surveil than e.g. Tor provides for the masses.
How would that work?
Jim Bell
More responses in-line.
On 12/11/18, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I searched, and found a number of messages about "Public Shielded Work Room", but that was all I found in 2018. What was the date you sent the message? Was it to the CP list, or to me directly? You could send it to me again, at my email address.
Sorry, I tried to contact you before I began participating in this list. I submitted a comment to the AP website, but I'm not sure what e-mail address I used, so it's nothing to worry about. I'm happy you got this e-mail here.
As it offers a market, doesn't AP give life-and-death power to those with the most money?
Well, it kinda-sorta gives life-and-death power to just about everyone, in small parts. And superficially, it looks like people who have more money will have more such influence. People who are fixated on the issue of "inequality" will initially find this to be either a fatal flaw or at least a major drawback.
Inequality is relevant here, because in a free market, people try to make the largest profit, and this will be provided by the highest payout. A relatively small price by many people on a leader will be swamped by a price of $40 billion by one wealthy individual on their opposition. The people with exponentially inequal finances can then directly control the political presence of the world.
In the pre-AP world, achieving political change requires speaking out, identifying yourself. That potentially makes such people targets. In the post-AP world, nobody has to speak out publicly. And what speech occurs can probably be made anonymous. How would "the rich" target their "enemies" if they cannot identify them?
I agree that providing for more anonymous dissent is greatly helpful. I worry that focusing on it so strongly here can be misleading, though: "the rich" can hide and hunt exponentially better than the masses can, who are surveilled daily by e.g. spyware controlled by groups more powerful than them, and can't hire people or push legal systems to do things for them.
"The rich" could target enemies by (A) targeting the systems that facilitate their discourse, (B) outbidding them, and (C) using their immense resources to hunt them down. Additionally, there are likely tricks to put a ton of pressure on something, like informing to the FBI that an offer was made by a terrorist.
I still don't understand how you expect "the rich" to know who their enemies are. It's hard to target what you can't identify.
What's to stop a major investor in a military weapons corporation putting their profits into AP offers for assassinations of the operators of servers allowing access, until nobody can access it? This would be a profitable move for them, if AP would make their military weapons obsolete.
Ethereum has been implemented in the last few years. It's a distributed computer system that, I suppose, anyone can 'join'. A great idea. When I thought of my AP idea, in 1995, I imagined a hidden server protected by some sort of anonymization. Vaguely like a TOR-protected Dark Market. Plausible, but Ethereum seems to have the power to supplant it. Rather than the AP server running at one specific, hidden location, under Augur and Ethereum, AP will run 'everywhere', potentially on hundreds of thousands or even millions of computers. It would be pointless to try to take thousands or even tens of thousands of computers offline.
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?
If AP can be said to be "biased" in any way, that "bias" is in the direction of tearing down involuntary heirarchical power structures. It isn't clear how AP can be used to build up such power structures, instead. Anybody who exercises power openly will tend to make others his enemies, and they would be able to use AP to counter such a person. That doesn't exclude the possibility of exercising power secretly, but it is a reasonable question how that trick might be accomplished.
AP itself provides a method to exercise power secretly. People with more money can put bigger prices on their opponents' heads.
You keep ignoring the question: How do people know who "their enemies" actually are?
If people start putting a price on them in return, they can look at the media sources resulting in those opinions, and assassinate those people to sway opinion.
I can't argue with that!!! The biased MSM certainly angers a large segment of the population. The MSM would have to change its tune greatly. There will still be a market for news, of course, but not biased news of the type we've seen.
Additionally, a wealthy person can likely exercise a wide variety of secret power, via e.g. bribes and black markets.
Who would they bribe? For what outcome?
I see financial power as a major involuntary hierarchical power structure.
To the extent that the existence of government allows some segment of the population to make money off the rest, that will be eliminated or drastically reduced.
You said, "a few select people control the many?". How would that come about? Who would be "the select few"? (We might suspect that at least initially, they would be "the rich", at least those people who are currently rich.) But how would they "control" the large masses? They would no longer be able to use the structures of government to maintain their positions, I think. They wouldn't be able to identify those in "the many", at least not the relative few that those "in control" would consider their enemies. Taxing them would be a problem. Passing onerous and discriminatory laws shouldn't even be possible, since the governments that would do so, and enforce them, will be dismantled.
Laws are no longer needed. The rich can assassinate not only anybody who publicly disagrees with them, but also anybody facilitating anonymous communication channels that could be used to privately disagree. This could facilitate violent dictatorships.
I guess we're talking past each other.
There should be a free market, ideally a truly free market,, and not the 'crony-capitalism', and 'crony-socialism' we now have in America and Europe. Am I being too optimistic? I won't claim to be unbiased, as I am the person who thought up the AP concept initially. But large numbers of people have been exposed to the AP idea, and I continually do Google-searches for such appearances. (Such as Google "jim bell" "assassination".) Myself, I would greatly welcome further discussion. Yes, these issues ought to be debated. Although, I think that relatively few people who are familiar with AP doubt that there is going to be an actual problem. At least, I haven't seen that.
I found AP so incredibly inspiring when I read some of its marketing. It is additionally so inspiring to see how the strength of blockchain technology can provide for software solutions to make real change in the world.
Blockchain is indeed a major breakthrough. Most people think of it as simply a basis to implement various types of digital cash, but it can be so much more than that.
I AP provided a way for people to have logical discourse around decisions, rather than voting with their dollar. Additionally, I worry that focusing on assassination could push away large groups of possible supporters.
I suspect most people who consider themselves opponents (or at least, non-supporters) of AP don't claim they really like today's world, but at the same time they can't figure out any alternative mechanism to fix it.
I imagine a blockchain app focused on permanent storage of 'proposals' with 'reasons', with each reason providing for more reasons that support why it is or is not valid, all accumulated in a decentralized manner by people who have an opinion on a proposal. If analysis of such a graph of discourse could create economically-incentivized change, it could move a lot of things forward in the world.
I believe that implementing an AP system, like I describe, will lead to a truly-free market and individual freedom. It will do so, first, by eliminating governments as we currently know them. I think that should eliminate the method by which many in current society maintain their positions of power, including inequality.
I'm hearing that you directly associate truly free markets with individual freedom. I see a free market as a hierarchical system, where those who start with more money call the shots, as they provide the jobs and can directly change demand with their dollars.
I distinguish between involuntary heirarchical structures and voluntary heirarchical structures. Employment (i.e. companies) will probably remain heirarchical for a long while, but people generally aren't forced to take a specific job.
I feel governments are great for really rich people, because such people can buy laws, and that governments are hence likely to only be replaced by something more stringent as long as those with more money have more power.
That's a good reason to want to weaken governments. I think governments, at most, should only be asked to do what must be done collectively, even where they do that.
I agree with you on debate, though. It sounds like we have really different experience and assumptions.
I've tried to stir debate about AP since 1995. Particularly due to the Ethereum/Augur/Death-prediction market, I think society will have to have that debate!
Jim Bell
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 19:58:38 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote, replying to gmkarl
And what speech occurs can probably be made anonymous. How would "the rich" target their "enemies" if they cannot identify them?
Jim, you are taking anonimity for granted it seems, but in reality the current system is a surveillance state and it gets worse by the day.
I still don't understand how you expect "the rich" to know who their enemies are. It's hard to target what you can't identify.
Except we live in a global surveillance state.
Rather than the AP server running at one specific, hidden location, under Augur and Ethereum, AP will run 'everywhere', potentially on hundreds of thousands or even millions of computers. It would be pointless to try to take thousands or even tens of thousands of computers offline.
That's a good point. After all, the key property of things like bitcoin and ethereum is that they are 'permisionless' or 'censorship resistant' gmkarl >> AP itself provides a method to exercise power secretly. People with >> more money can put bigger prices on their opponents' heads.
You keep ignoring the question: How do people know who "their enemies" actually are?
Or you keep ignoring the fact that we don't have anonimity at all. Under the current system, the government and the corporations that reason.com love so much have complete control over the communications infrastructure. The way to fix that is to overthrow govcorp...but in order to attack them using AP we need anonimity. So unless you can destroy govcorp you won't get anonimity, but you need anonimity to destroy govcorp. Seems problematic.
That's a good reason to want to weaken governments. I think governments, at most, should only be asked to do what must be done collectively, even where they do that.
as a side note, what you said is the standard 'justification' for complete communism or any other form of totalitarianism. Because of course the phrase "what must be done collectively" is meanignless and can cover anything and everything any particular social engineer likes.
creating a tool to murder people
No. AP is really only invoked as legitimate defensive action to aggression, as would any other existing and well calibrated natural response to same. Most fail to recognize the important early mechanism of AP... that *well* before such defensive measures need or are ever applied, before any exact prediction is made, an AP system properly acts in its native form as a strong and escalating *discouragement* to those considering or acting out various levels of aggression, theft, force, murder, etc upon others. Simply put, any would be aggressor would be crazy to risk continuing down a course of action that might attract any number of rational funders and predictors into the market. For the vast majority of situations, the very few proof of functions warranted upon defense aside, AP could be a rather effective and in fact nonviolent tool for change for the better Two other often noted scenarios are... - Boss equivalents playing game of Mutual Assured Destruction among themselves... often a generally pointless expense to begin with. - Random statistical noise of cheap / easy predictions accepted by nutbags, crack addicts, oppurtunity, fame, etc. That's the game called life, no different than all of history, AP is agnostic and moot there. Try funding predictions for mental and physical healthcare, work, housing, defense, whatever, to lower those rates of occurance.
You fail to understand that society is not comprised only by rational actors and is more complex than a simple if-else statement. Adding one more thing to spread fear and death is redundant. On a massive scale this ends up being at best a PR disaster for the people backing it up. Besides, you already have general prediction markets already out there working like Augur as I mentioned earlier. What are your thoughts on that? ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 6:47 AM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
creating a tool to murder people
No.
AP is really only invoked as legitimate defensive action to aggression, as would any other existing and well calibrated natural response to same.
Most fail to recognize the important early mechanism of AP... that well before such defensive measures need or are ever applied, before any exact prediction is made, an AP system properly acts in its native form as a strong and escalating discouragement to those considering or acting out various levels of aggression, theft, force, murder, etc upon others.
Simply put, any would be aggressor would be crazy to risk continuing down a course of action that might attract any number of rational funders and predictors into the market.
For the vast majority of situations, the very few proof of functions warranted upon defense aside, AP could be a rather effective and in fact nonviolent tool for change for the better
Two other often noted scenarios are...
- Boss equivalents playing game of Mutual Assured Destruction among themselves... often a generally pointless expense to begin with.
- Random statistical noise of cheap / easy predictions accepted by nutbags, crack addicts, oppurtunity, fame, etc. That's the game called life, no different than all of history, AP is agnostic and moot there. Try funding predictions for mental and physical healthcare, work, housing, defense, whatever, to lower those rates of occurance.
Besides, you already have general prediction markets already What are your thoughts on that?
There are a great many games out there, more and more everyday (as open tech rightly hath no pause itself), many of which many fail to understand. Play on, merrily, my friends and fiends.
Oddly, I just looked at my browser's (Yahoo) spam folder, and I noticed that all the messages from grarpam were there. I did not do that, and certainly not intentionally. At least as far back as Nov 13. Presumably all messages before that got auto-deleted from the spam folder. Anyway, thanks for the backup. Jim Bell On Monday, December 17, 2018, 9:48:55 PM PST, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
creating a tool to murder people
No. AP is really only invoked as legitimate defensive action to aggression, as would any other existing and well calibrated natural response to same. Most fail to recognize the important early mechanism of AP... that *well* before such defensive measures need or are ever applied, before any exact prediction is made, an AP system properly acts in its native form as a strong and escalating *discouragement* to those considering or acting out various levels of aggression, theft, force, murder, etc upon others. Simply put, any would be aggressor would be crazy to risk continuing down a course of action that might attract any number of rational funders and predictors into the market. For the vast majority of situations, the very few proof of functions warranted upon defense aside, AP could be a rather effective and in fact nonviolent tool for change for the better Two other often noted scenarios are... - Boss equivalents playing game of Mutual Assured Destruction among themselves... often a generally pointless expense to begin with. - Random statistical noise of cheap / easy predictions accepted by nutbags, crack addicts, oppurtunity, fame, etc. That's the game called life, no different than all of history, AP is agnostic and moot there. Try funding predictions for mental and physical healthcare, work, housing, defense, whatever, to lower those rates of occurance.
On Sun, 09 Dec 2018 23:23:05 +0000 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. I am against the whole idea, it's the same thing as cracking down on cryptocurrency or dark markets to fight terrorism.
I think killing trump, the 'ceos'/owners of amazon, apple, google, facebook, goldman sachs, military 'leaders' and other politicians would have a very healthy effect on 'society'. Besides, killing those animals is simply an act of justice. The problem with AP is of course how to implement it. Given the fast progress towards a complete, global, police-surveillance state where every person is tracked in realtime (see radar satelites for instance) the chances of ever implementing AP seem minimal though.
If you want to fight terrorism, build a society where terrorism is mute. Similar, if you want to fight politicians, build a society where politics are either mute or they don't affect our lives so much.
Well, killing them is one way to reduce their influence =) Wake up people!
Anyway, to stay on-topic, FUCK BCH
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, December 8, 2018 7:37 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Saturday, December 8, 2018, 7:37:50 AM PST, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:37 PM, furrier <furrier@protonmail.ch> wrote:
I will disagree with you here. Craig may be an idiot and the fact that he holds patents makes him dangerous but he does not have the network effect that the BCH "community" has. They are all over the place when it comes to fake libertarianism. I attended Anarchapulco last February, these
Did you get to watch Jim Bell speak ? :P
My speech at Anarchapulco 2018 was punctuated by two memorable things: One, an audio artifact "gunshot", which they informed me that had occurred with at least one previous speaker as well. The second, about 5 minutes before my speech was intended to end, was an earthquake, maybe it was magnitude 7, but the epicenter was a hundred or so miles south of Acapulco, so it was only a mild shaking locally.
Still, it was quite memorable.
Jim Bell
participants (6)
-
furrier -
grarpamp -
jim bell -
John Newman -
juan -
Karl