BCH finally hit the fan

[Karl]

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 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  furrier <furrier at 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 at 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 at 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?
>
>