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

juan juan.g71 at
Sun Nov 18 11:44:46 PST 2018

On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 05:24:25 -0500
grarpamp <grarpamp at> wrote:

> > 	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.

	That's a good point. Black markets are a form of civil resistance so - good, but they are less than ideal, and necessary small.

> 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.

	Yeah the problem is conceptually simple, but fixing it isn't that simple...

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

	I'm kinda skeptical - we'll have to wait and see...

> >> 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.

	True. You can put billions of dollars in some kind of handheld device, or in a piece of paper. On the other hand, that's convenient for people who have billions of dollars, and that's  not 'us' I believe. But if wealth  was evenly distributed, something which should happen in the absence of govcorp, then relatively small amounts of precious metals should store a fair amount of value. 

> > 	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...

	But I wasnt talking about fiat =P - I was comparing cryptomoney to free market commodity money. 

> 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, 

	Indeed the true costs of using govt money are huge and measured in millions of dead people. I'm pointing out that the costs of digital infrastructure are not negligible either, but granted,  a lot smaller than the cost of government, and digital infrastructure unlike government, can be least when used for good. 

> 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...

	Oh of course.

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

	Haha, except, in reality, the fabs that use sand as raw material cost 5000 millions each. The transcontinental fiber optic links cost obscene amounts of money as well and all this infrastructure is owned by govcorp. (although we paid for it)

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


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

	Yeah no doubt the people who benefit from those schemes are quite happy about them. 

> >> > 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.

	Well in that case the problem is slave labor. The profits for the gold 'printer' come from exploiting people not from increasing the gold supply. 

	Thing is, commodities have value as commodities, so increasing their supply always has some benefit, whereas increasing the supply of paper money is simply a wealth transferring mechanism which doesn't add any 'value'.

> 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.

	Yeah maybe using 'nanomachines' - Or maybe the amount of energy/time needed to extract  gold from seawater is too high/long. Who knows.

> 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.

	Yeah well, the "proof of xxx" schemes aren't completely straightforward. The first and biggest cryptocurrency is backed by tons of hardware and energy usage. Pretty much like gold. Except that unlike gold, cryptocurrencies require constant 'mining' or they cease to exist. It remains to be seen if there's a viable alternative to proof of work.

> > 	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
> cryptocurrencies.

	True. In that regard using something that hasn't been monopolized is better. 

> >> 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. 

	lol how is it irrelevant? You can't have it both ways =P 

> Whatever they hold is but a drop in the monthly
> exchange and usage volumes, 

	If 'satoshi' has 1 million btc and bch then he has 1/17 of the whole supply.  That isn't exactly a 'drop'. 

> with any influence on
> such times of exchange pricing further becoming moot
> as adoption soaks up more value from other sources
> such as Fiat.

> > 	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.

	Well commodity money in a free market can be closer to fair. 

> 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.

	I'm not sure anything is leading the adoption board...

> 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 guess one can eliminate the vast majority of scams and garbage like ripple...And what's left? 

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

	Yeah but it really doesn't look like magic. More like a brute force solution. 

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

	Hehe =) - There isn't any as far as I know and that's my whole point. 

> 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.

	So sounds like you didn't do any research at all? "jewtube videos say"  - is that your argument? 

> >> 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.

	That's a lot easier to say than do. The majority of stuff that gets 'mass adopted' is based on fraud and force. So it's 'adopted' because people are forced to use it. After people have been forced to use mainstream garbage they have little interest in better stuff.

> 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.

	Hm. I don't think there's or there ever was a critical mass of people who can 'push adoption'. Not many people involved in crypto, and a few of them are 'crypto anarchists' or even close. 

> >> 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,

	lol - are you saying that with a straight face? What the fuck are you talking about. 

> the State being a major thorn in Corporate ass too.

	dude. The state and apple are two sides of the same coin. What the hell are you talking. about. 

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

	oh but hasnt fukerberg 'deployed' 'strong crypto' too? You know, signal, funded by the US govt.

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

	are you drunk ? 

> > 	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...

	not compliant? They are the exact opposite and enemy of 
        #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.

	The properties required for good money are not elusive. It's a well researched subject.

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

	why not

> >
> > 	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.

	It may be expected but that doesn't mean it's good. 

> 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. 

	it may be 'expected' - but again it's not good. As to 'natural', well sort of. It's 'natural' for GS scum to do that sort of thing just like it's natural for other forms of cancer to kill organism I suppose? 

> 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.

	I don't think it's bullshit and I'm certainly not using it to convince people to stick to govt money.

> The $USD is only as "stable" as it is because it's dug
> in N layers deep, 

	of course. And again I'm not comparing crypto to govt money. 

> 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, 

	yeah that's a good point, or at least half of it. Because if you looked at all the rest of prices denominated in govt money you would see less volatility. Prices of ordinary stuff don't jump 20% overnight, all of the time. 

> and dropping long term.


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

	Except as I mentioned the prices of all goods and service measrued in govt money are hardly volatile when compared to crypto. 

> 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.

	Notice that the long term uptrend is NOT volatile. So far, in the long, term bitcoin has gone up, by a lot. 

> With Cryptocurrencies now competing with Fiats, people
> should base their [crypto] currency comparison charts
> with an accepted commodity goods basket set to 1.

	Do that and you'll see big daily changes in the price of cryptocurrencies against your goods basket. 

> 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.

	'normal' means shit. 'normal' is what sheep do on average.

> 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.

	yeah well : expected uncertainty isn't good either.

> > 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 

	lol - as far as I'm concerned I can point out a weakness in cryptocurrencies without being a statist...


> 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