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

grarpamp grarpamp at
Fri Nov 16 02:24:25 PST 2018

End of Empire with Keys to Freedom Sanders, Birch, and Berwick

Pre 10 Years

> 	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.

More than a few were jailed and killed and Dark Markets
still haven't disappeared. Even if legalized they'd still
have support for tax and licensing reasons. Same
goes for Fiat itself... no one but the Fiateers actually
wants Fiat, they just haven't grown woke enough balls
yet to start doing something about it.

Though rare in history, Civil Wars of ideology, which
is what Cryptocurrency Anarchism are, can be won
without mass casualty gunfire.

Cryptocurrency is great for personal small
businesses, the distributed nature and
numbers of them are pointless to kill.
Grassroots adoption grows upward.

And go head to head in their own lobbying halls.

Go multi pronged.

> hires murderers and brags about it.

Joint heartfelt statements could embark a new true course,
but none were made on the subject, thus any message
from them on NAP remains internally conflicted.

> putting eggs and metals in the same basket

They all have value on various timescales,
quantities, distribution distances, etc.

>> 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" ?

One issue is that arbitrary quantities of metals occupy
linear quantities of physical space, cryptocurrency
have no such restraints.

> 	on the other hand yes, as far as transmitting value goes, digital systems
> have clear advantages. Though of course the infrastructure costs are huge

Bullshit. Add it *ALL* up, *everything* involved in Fiat...

Banker and Government salaries, their buildings construction
maintenance heating cooling water, their lawmakers, regulators,
police, their cars and fuel, servicing companies, health insurance,
retirements, their Wars, etc, etc... all of everything that goesinto
Fiat, globally, multiple incarnations of them. A complete waste.

Then consider cryptocurrency and its few areas of
already extremely well optimized tech efficiencies...

- Sand (Silicon)
- Electrons (From whatever sources)
- Internet (Sand + Electrons)

Fiat will always be *hundreds* of times more costly and
forceful than any set of adopted true cryptocurrencies.

> and at the moment the hardware is sabotaged.

No shit. All these cache bugs were spy features.
People should fix that and get rich while they're at it too...

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

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

Too bad people *still* orgasm over centralized spy
and control brain numbing tech. That shit is old school,
been there, done that.

>> > 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.

Gold mining from earth by slave labor and mining tech from secret
reserves is essentially printing it, albeit harder than printing fiat.

Gold is an element, not a molecule, it can't be synthesized without
atomic slow yield and risk, or stellar amounts of energy and time.
Mining gold from seawater is perhaps relatively efficient to atomic synthesis.

If proof of <whatever> in cryptocurrency is sufficiently
distributed among all users, and all users are adherent
to not permitting devaluing themselves, both of which are
less or more true today, and with the right education, likely
to remain true... cryptocurrency will continue to resist falling
to these topics.

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

Foil in wallet could be interesting.

Higher values still require linear weight and space as above.

> 	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.

Which then begets problems of liberating and distributing
it, versus alternative issues of creating and distributing

>> 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'.

Irrelavant. Whatever they hold is but a drop in the monthly
exchange and usage volumes, with any influence on
such times of exchange pricing further becoming moot
as adoption soaks up more value from other sources
such as Fiat.

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

Which is why Zcash and others have now researching
and deploying some periodic gatekeeping functions.

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

I take the meat and you the feathers, that's fair division.

> 	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.

Gov or not, no distribution method is really fair,
and once it enters economies it's anyone's game.

Right now in early days, best distribution of cryptocurrency
you can ever hope for is to get some now, even a small amount,
and keep shifting it every couple years to whatever is leading
the adoption board at those times, until five or so make
it to true adoption decade from now.

Unfortunately this also applies to all the centralized shitcoins
that make up much of todays market. Of course if they reach
exclusive adoption more than the distributed cryptocurrencies,
you'll be as rich, but still remain a slave. That would be sad.

Like it or not, cryptocurrency will become a thing.
If you want to be free, best teach others which
ones to choose.

> 	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.

Yes, serialized tokens, weights values denominations,
all person to person p2p... whatever.

Yet other attempts at decentralized / distributed digital
currencies emulating that seem to have failed
technologically to do that.

And plenty of centralized ones have both failed tech,
and been jailed.

The authenticating and resolving process of the
Satoshi ledger seems to be necessary magic,
at least currently until some other invention.

Feel free to link to digital currencies that don't need

And now such ledgers seem to be reasonably protected
with Zero Knowledge sort of advances.

> like the lightning network LN

Lots of videos say Bitcoin Core Lightning Network
is and will be junk solution and become controlled,
censored, tracked.

> 	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.

Both metals and distributed private cryptocurrencies are
relatively equally hard problems to fuck with compared
to central single point Fiats. Use whichever combination
of the former two suits you.

>> 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.

As before... you need to push your adoption much faster and
harder than your opponent, otherwise yes you will lose.

Cryptocurrency, vs Fiat, has wasted *YEARS* of time
allowing themselves being distracted by short term riches
instead of focusing on long term wealth that comes by
pushing adoption.

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

> 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.

Companies like Apple chose to deploy stronger crypto
which might in some ways help evaporate the State,
the State being a major thorn in Corporate ass too.

Now the people must awake to corp control
schemes like Facebook too.

Apple may yet turn interesting in crypto and
open hardware over the long term...

> 	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.

Yes, though they easily could be, Apple is not compliant with...

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

> 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.

And in the case of cryptocurrencies, they can be rare,
which like stupid non "usables" such as shiny things
and art, people have always assigned value to, ie: a price.
Like it or not, there is a strange "faith" factor. Rather than
get trapped up in attempting to define the exclusive properties
of money for some book, let the market sort it out.

> 	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.

You funded them, and taught others to do so, and they took
you over. That was stupid. Now you need to doubly raise and fund,
and teach others to raise and fund, a different army that will
both evaporate them, and not take you over.

People say, political infiltration, and defunding through financial
route around, may work, and be the only peaceful means left.
You can suggest additional or other means.

>> 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.
> 	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.

Remains to be seen who and what will win.
Grab a few coins and a big bowl of popcorn.
This fight is going to have at least a few good rounds.
Should be fun.

>> In the long term, adoption removes their influence.
>> So go adopt.

> 	So,  gold bitcoins and chickens =P

Those three would be fine.

Though "Bitcoin" is not a good term to teach
people with, "Cryptocurrency" is probably best.

>> > 	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.

As before... it's expected, and thus not a negative to see.
If Goldman drops $10B in buys across all the crypto exchanges,
price will go "crazy volatile" up, same for if they pull out.
That is *expected* and *natural* reaction of the crypto
markets as they exist today. They were "volatile" when
someone dropped $20 in pizza on them years ago.
And ten years from now when those markets are the
size of Fiat's forex today, it'll take $10T before people
can try FUDing that bullshit "volatility" argument.

The $USD is only as "stable" as it is because it's dug
in N layers deep, including behind derivatives, debt, etc.
And all the fucked up Fiats smooth each other out,
not just on the forex market, but the geopolitical market
as well. And there's a lot of people who still think it's backed
by something other than guns pointed at them, so they still
throw their hard assets and work into it.

If you set say BTC to 1 and look at graph of how much
of any Fiat you can buy with it, fiat looks volatile
as hell, and dropping long term.

OMG Fiat "volatile" they cry, who would ever use that.

Bottom line, people are making large moves
in a thin market, no big deal...

> 	Though I guess it could be argued that the long term steady rise in price
> is the result of 'genuine' adoption.

Now if that changes to a genuine drop, which will take
roughly equally long term amounts of time to become
apparent, then people might have something to say.

With Cryptocurrencies now competing with Fiats, people
should base their [crypto] currency comparison charts
with an accepted commodity goods basket set to 1.
ie: $USD dropped in actual buying power since inception.

> 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

It's history is correlated to the usual things
- Cycles of news penetration yielding lots of buying
- Same buyers discovering limited spending options and selling
- Reasonable long and short term speculative moves
- Growing background of usage

Humans do that. That's normal.

Companies rock and pop on stock exchanges all
the time, some in a year, some in 100 years.

> uncertainty so is not really good.

Yes uncertainty is reflected, but no one can say that
uncertainty is *unexpected* at this stage.

> And clearly wild price fluctuations are a bad thing for something that
> is supposed to be used to 'measure' value.

Depends on what you're trading... goods, services, fiat...
float times of the transaction... hold times of the traded item...
your short and long term projections, interests, goals, etc.

Maybe you'd perform 20% of your work, or trade item,
for crypto, maybe someday 5% if it was "disposable",
or 73% if it was "hodl". Up to you.

The whole "volatility" anti cryptocurrency argument [without
being coupled with any sort of "expected" explanation] is
nothing but a statist FUD play upon the non thinking sheeple
to keep them from adopting against Fiat. Beware those speaking it.

Do own research.
Make own choices.

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list