Cryptocurrency Dark Side, Voting, Anarchism, Government with McAfee, Rose, Passio and more

juan juan.g71 at gmail.com
Sun Nov 11 12:14:23 PST 2018


On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 23:36:02 -0500
grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:


> Crypto already much harder to kill than fiat, fiat's kill point
> being exchanges known as local and central banks.


	well if we want to kill fiat money we need to win a civil war against the powers that be. It's not just the central bank. On the other hand if govcorp wanted to kill crypto all they have to do is jail/kill a few users and watch support for crypto disappear overnight. 



> 
> > soldier-child-mutderer as 'bodyguard'.
> 
> He's not hiring them to murder children, but
> to defend selves against incoming aggression.


	The point is that he hires 'ex' child murderers and brags about it. He could have hired other people instead of navy scum.


> Ask the military scum their brass and political
> schemers why they not talk about their murder.

	They are all morally responsible.  However the soldiers are both morally and materially responsible. But hey if your CV says "imperial child murderer' then you get hired by 'libertarian' mcafee.
	

> 
> It's still a question to be answered though.
> 
> > eggs are not a good "medium of exchange".
> 
> They're fine within their limited expiry time,
> they last longer in the form of hatched chickens.

	No, eggs are not fine as commodity money, they pretty much lack any properties that a commodity requires if it's to be used as money. So,  putting eggs and metals in the same basket sounds funny, but if you look closely the joke is on you =)



> 
> > coins, are vastly superior to
> > any 'crypto currency' in many aspects. .....
> 
> Old news.


	Well, my point is that it doesn't seem to be old news for people like stornetta (and a few other crypto cheerleaders)


> Same as knowing their storage and movement
> costs are much higher than crypto. 

	Are they? Is it more expensive to store some ounces of gold at home than to store private keys? How about the risks? What's the difference between being asked at the point of a gun "where's your gold" and "what's your private key" ? 

	on the other hand yes, as far as transmitting value goes, digital systems have clear advantages. Though of course the infrastructure costs are huge and at the moment the hardware is sabotaged. 


> And that one cannot
> store them in their brain or other mechanisms like crypto.

	
> 
> > 'technology' because it's the most dangerous enabler of totalitarianism
> > ever.
> 
> Duh.

	well it's something that the likes of stornetta or the retarded cunt who inverviewd him seem to royally miss. 
	


> 
> > sound money ... 'gold standard' ... counterfeited
> 
> Not so much. While it's much harder to print gold than
> worthless fiat paper, 

	the only way to print gold that I can think of is to use astronomical amounts of energy to synthetize a few gold atoms. So, not practical to say the least. 


> any marked gold issuance marketed
> as being serialized valuable controlled whatever can be
> cloned by duplicating marks. 

	Oh, it may be possible to cheat some people who stupidly regard markings as proof of purity, but that's not a general argument. 

	But \printing' gold leaf? Good luck with that.


> And secret under / over reporting
> of mining and diversions can occur, and no one really knows
> who has how much existing gold where in secret vaults.


	the secret vaults are govcorp  vaults and the gold in them was confiscated after the govt itself destroyed the gold standard. So the problem isn't metals per se but government, as ever.


> 
> Known issuance crypto beats gold there.


	Does it? We may know how many cryptocoins have been 'issued' BUT we don't know if the coins still exist. As a matter of fact bitcoin's case is especially fucked since it is 'believed' that something like 1 million coins may be owned by 'satoshi'....or maybe he lost the keys. 
	
	Or, you have stuff like bitcoin cash where it's sensible to assume that ver and bitmain own a good chunk of the 'supply'.

	Also IIRC zcash or a similar system had a 'bug' that allowed for unlimited, undetectable counterfeiting? 


> And any vaults aren't thousand years old, only 10.
> 
> They both suffer from infinite divisibility, which makes it
> unlikely that top secret hoards will be drawn down and
> dispersed in market by any demand to get various sizes
> of currency into circulation... they'll just let adoption divide
> them and remain even larger kings.

	well divisibility is one of the reguired  properties of money (and one of the reasons why eggs or chickens don't make good money). 

	anyway, the fact that the distribution of gold, bitcoins or wealth in general is fucked isn't so much a technical problem but a direct consequence of organized crime aka government and government protected businesses.


> 
> > 	Bottom line :  you cannot beat the 'decentralization' and privacy of
> > trading metals in person
> 
> Given the paperwork and chokepoints in both fiat and
> metals, crypto is actually on par to better than them.


	I mean, I was comparing metals to digital money in a hypothetical free market. Commodity money can be transacted 'peer to peer'. Digital money requires a unique 'ledger' and every single transaction has to go into that ledger. The ledger management may be decentralized to various degrees but there still is one single central ledger.  Well, unless you use something like the lightning network...but it remains to be seen if the LN will actually work as intended. And p22 channel payments still require onchain settlement.



> 
> Yes, in person is different.
> 
> > NSA-backdoored microelectronics.
> 
> How many fucking times do people have to be told
> of the profits and win waiting to be had here before
> they go and found a few of them...


	just for fun, consider auditing a piece of gold leaf, and auditing a crypto system. 	To make sure you have real gold you do a trivial flame test. To make sure your crpyto system isn't compromised you need to audit  1) the crypto primitives 2) the protocol 3) the implementations 4) the OS  5) the hardware. 


> 
> #OpenFabs , #OpenHW , #OpenSW , #OpenDev , #OpenBiz

	indeed



> 
> 
> >> Distributed technology is and will continue to disrupt
> >> and evaporate legacy power structures.
> >
> > 	That's mostly backwards. Distributed technology REQUIRES decentralized
> > political power. If power is centralized (as it obviously is) then
> > 'technology' is controlled by a small corrupt technocratic mafia, as it is
> > today.
> 
> Actually depends on who can continually create and bank
> upon marginal advantages over the other.

	More like : it takes some time for govcorp to close the loopholes? Overall I don't see any progress being made on the liberty cause, either through 'technology' or any other means. 

	Of course there's bitcoin and dark markets and plans for prediction markets, etc but in practice none of these things have had much of an impact yet - whereas the global, digital-surveillance police state gets stronger by the day.



> 
> The technocrats probably do not yet understand what they
> could actually do by turning their tech to various evaporative
> purposes.

	Nor sure what an evaporative purpose is? =P - You mean to vaporize people? I think the technocrats are well aware of the countless enhancements that 'technlogy' provides for their totalitarian schemes. 


> 
> Apple seems to begin to know what it can do with strong
> crypto in its phones.


	oh yes, the 'strong crypto' on their phones totally and completly LOCKS OUT the fucktards who use crapple products (like roger ver). The only reason crapple uses crypto is to fully protecte themselves from their users and to prevent the users from having any control over crapple's  hardware. 
	


> 
> > 	well, that's yet another problem with 'money' based on a 'ledger'. These
> > ledger based systems are NOT commodity money so their units don't have any
> > 'intrinsic' price.
> 
> Chickens and gold have no intrinsic price either.
> Calling something money is nothing more than the
> process of estimating its past current and future value


	except that money isn't created by magically calling something money. Chickens and gold do have market prices derived from their use as commodities. Numbers on a ledger do not have such a property, hence no 'intrinsic' price.



> in relation to other things (also money candidates) on
> a market, and using that data to decide however much
> of it you want to put in your wallet or warehouse...
> relatively aka faith.

	that's  part of the picture. And I don't think there's  'faith' involved in the process.


> 
> It's only the fuckery of Governments that tries to assign a
> value to some so called money other than its true market value.

	yes.
	

> Only reason their scam continues working is because
> they're pretty good at it such that the masses don't lose faith,

	they are good at propaganda, but their fraud is ultimately backed by lethal force (you know, soldiers). If govt didn't have an army of cops and soldiers they wouldn't last a week. 


> simply they tolerate outright theft and evaporation of their money
> so long as they can still use it to buy beer and tv.
> 
> If they woke up, they'd drop fiat for metal and crypto.

	true that
	

> 
> Convertible ledgers are fine so long as they hold true.
> History shows they often turn into scams.

	indeed 


> 
> True cryptocurrency (ie: below)  probably won't, however
> creating or finding one that is true will likely be rare.
> 
> > Now, if bitcoin was widely used, then its price would be
> > more stable but at the moment bitcoin isn't really a 'currency'(it's not
> > widely accepted or 'current')
> 
> Mostly duh.
> 
> However any volume_tx and volume_pairing stats will tell
> you BCH ZEC and all the other cryptos are clearly being
> used for something. Doesn't really matter what.


	If I had to guess,they are used for gambling by greedy retards. Now, that may be fine if ultimately a critical mass of 'assets' end up being transferred to crypto, and when govt attacks it, then the people 'holding' coins have enough of an incentive to fight back. But that hasn't happened yet, ovbiously. 

	On the other hand there are cancers like coinbase and xapo which are basically very succesful attacks on bitcoins. 
	


> 
> > it's used by gambler assholes who call
> > themselves 'traders' for gambling.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that.
> Unless you're a statist regulator.
> So ignore it.

	I think it can be good as described above, but if that doesn't happen then the gamblers are just dead weight and likely teh sort of retards who want more regulation. 



> 
> In the long term, adoption removes their influence.
> So go adopt.
> 
> Or stick with chickens, gold and whatever else.


	So,  gold bitcoins and chickens =P


> 
> > 	so not sure what you mean by 'nonintrinsic negative'? Volatility is
> > intrinsic and is negative...
> 
> No it's not a negative thing, it's greenfield early days discovery.


	Nah, that may be true in a free market, not in the highly corrupt system we live in. In other words, some of the price movements may be explained by genuine 'market forces' whereas crazy 'volatility' is the result of manipulation by goldman sachs and co.

	Though I guess it could be argued that the long term steady rise in price is the result of 'genuine' adoption. So, we'll see...



> 
> For a truly distributed anarchistic privacy uncontrollable
> uncensored ungoverned known issuance etc cryptocurrency...
> volatility is expected during run up to full steady state mass adoption,


	I suppose that depends on how it gets adopted. Gradual adoption would result in a steady price increase. But if you look at bitcoin's price, in realtive short terms, it's all over the place, and more important, it isn't really 'correlated' to anything, despite what all the charlatans and scammer 'experts' say. 



> thus volatility is intrinsic, or at least uncontrolled for. That's ok.
> Presence of volatility is a positive thing, 


	Volatility is the result of manipulation and uncertainty so is not really good. And clearly wild price fluctuations are a bad thing for something that is supposed to be used to 'measure' value. Stating those facts doesn't mean I want to 'regulate' anything =P - and long term, so far, the price has only gone up so no volatility there.


> as without seeing it one
> must wonder what sort of control fuckery is in place making it flatter.

> 
> Though part of this depends on whether humanity, and multiple
> players, when dumped into an open market pot, do or do not,
> tend to adopt smoothly, or chaotically.


> 
> For cryptocurrency in total, chaotically upward seems to be
> the case so far.


	true as matter of fact so far =P






More information about the cypherpunks mailing list