BCH finally hit the fan

[Karl]

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 at 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 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?
>>
>>
>