us - public system

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 10:51:28AM +0000, other.arkitech wrote:
> Zenaan, you said:
> 
> > Your communications on this list so far, seem to suggest that:
> >
> > -   you have not spent sufficient time to understand the basic
> >     "security" issues which all humans presently face when
> >     interacting on the Internet
> >
> > -   security, vs privacy, vs authentication, vs transparency
> > -   why would people on this cypherpunks list want taxation?
> >
> >     Most fundamentally, to be taken seriously with any supposed
> >     "advance", you might need to present that you properly understand the
> >     current shortcomings with current systems.
> >
> >     It's all very well to have a public chat about something that
> >     inspires you, but you have made certain proclamations (we can call
> >     them "challenges" or "assertions"), and the lack of background might,
> >     to some people, come across as though you are being a bit lazy,
> >     wanting us to do all the work of educating you about all the above
> >     things, and plenty more besides.
> >
> >     If you want to be taken seriously, you need to spend some serious
> >     time understanding current problems.
> >
> >     We use certain phrases to highlight things which appear as
> >     "flippant", such as the phrase "hand waving" - so e.g. when you
> >     replied with the following phrase:
> >
> >     "typical reaction to this is nah, you choose tax or anonymity,
> >     not both. Well, that's it, it can be done"
> >
> >     those words you chose to use, come across as flippant, or hand
> >     waving (imagine the Queen waving her hand), or not serious.
> >
> >     The words you used might make it seem "obvious" to some people that
> >     you don't really understand what you are talking about.
> >
> >     Words which demonstrate a little humility, might be good for you to
> >     start using, if you want more relevant responses to the things you
> >     say, e.g.: instead of "it can be done", you could have asked a
> >     question, e.g.:
> >
> >     Person ABC has claimed in the past that anonymous
> >     taxation collection is not possible - see this link:
> >     http://example.url/anonymous-taxation-is-not-possible.html
> >
> >     Based on my current understanding, anonymous taxation collection
> >     should be easy, just using an Ethereum algorithm which collects a
> >     little 'gas' on each transaction - am I missing something, or is
> >     it really this easy?
> >
> >     Then people can hopefully start to see your thinking, and you might
> >     get more relevant responses.
> >
> 
> I'll extend my answer to anonymous taxation in more detail if that is what you claim. These hand waving words are in the question, (they wasnt said by me), I agree the response might seem lazy and lacking of signs of humility, but there is actually a response on this:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Q: Why do you think crypto anarchists would be interested in 'automating' taxation (theft) and 'public budgets'
>    (distribution of stolen goods)
>
> A: It forms part of a fight against centralized governments which are expensive and do not respect privacy and
>    financial freedom.

This is a good foundation intention.


>    Let's say there exist a real need to have roads, or public health or, more close to cryptoeconomy, a need to have
>    financial services, any fundamental need that is potentially subject to mass consumption.

OK.

To help the discussion, please list some of the "financial services"
you are thinking of, because with more detail, we can get to the
heart of the things that are needed to discuss to think about your
system.


>    This is run by what we call a public system, this is understood.

Actually, need to be very cautious - may be some understand, may be
some don't.

We should probably take smaller steps in the conversation, so people
like me can follow along - I get lost if too many assumptions are
assumed, sorry... so I have no option but to slow the conversation
down if I want to participate.

I think the easy solution, is to take one "system" at a time, e.g.
roads, or "public health" etc, and discuss just that one system for a
little bit, and how DC and crypto tech might apply for that system.


>    I felt the need to try solve the problem using computers.

The feeling and intention and actions to solve real problems, is an
honourable thing. On behalf of all humans, thank you for your
intentions and actions :)


>    I saw how a system not specifically crafted to that particular purpose doubles as low-cost public system.

You might be right, but I am struggling to understand your concepts
at the moment - sorry.


>    It is all about improving or replacing the establishment with technological alternatives.

This is a good idea in principle.

One thing we should be careful about is thinking in the context of
current system, and thinking that just replacing it, but without
overhead of "democratic government" would be better - truth is that
probably would be better, and it might be a good transition strategy,
and we might even end up with something that looks like that.

But, there might be similar or different pathways, and may be end
goals which look quite different.

Let's take example public health:

Public implies a system applied to everybody.

Libertarians/ voluntarists/ anarchists, usually say nothing should be
compulsory, all should be voluntary.

So public health means "many people contributing to a money pool, so
those people who get sick and do not have money, can get medical
care".

OK, so compulsory taxation is a mechanism.

Voluntary donations is another mechanism.

When we have a "universal" system - e.g. every txn is taxed, and tax
goes into a pool, then we must think about how to allocate the money
from that pool - public medical care, national defence, etc, and who
gets to make those decisions - and these sound like really
fundamental questions which we should probably think about, before
jumping into a particular technical proposal.

(Of course, a technical system might be interesting and worthy of
discussion by itself - but you have presented a high minded (good
thing) 'big solution for A, B and C' type of conversation, so you
lead us automatically into these fundamental questions, the
philosophical questions.)



> >     Next, you should get an idea of what the intentions for this
> >     cypherpunks list are - for example, a place to discuss anarchy or
> >     anarchism, as well as (actual) libertarianism.
> >
> >     So, in the context of this expectation, why do you say we should care
> >     or be interested in a system which will collect tax?
> >
> 
> Your question can be answered with the paragraph above which was located just below the one you commented. you've not understood my approach to libertarianism and to anarchy, which I am akin with.

Thank you. Yes I do not understand, that is why I am trying to slow
down and simplify the conversation, so I can understand :)


> You're confused with my use of the word taxation, which for you it

Probably.


> might sort of tabu,

Yes, for voluntarists/ anarchists/ libertarians, any compulsory
taxation just sounds bad from the start - so not the best marketing
for your system :)


> but for me is something that deserves to be
> discussed more in a way of how bad current Govs are collecting them
> paying common services, and how new approaches could work
> respecting privacy and anonymity.

Yes, might be very productive conversation, but must be much slower
for me to join in sorry - I have had to put a lot of brown paper bags
over my head in the past, so unless I go slow, it's too embarrassing
to join in conversation :D


> Anyway this is only one of the features that can improve the status quo of the society, which compared to the main one, the electronic cash system with renewed tech, which I also try to write about, is perhaps the most interesting one.

OK.


> I am not lazy, I work hard, I surface little.

I believe you. I'm sorry, my previous words might not have been clear
- I think it's a bit of a language barrier problem - I was really
just saying "you need to go slower, because people might hear the
words you have used, in the wrong way".

Please be patient with me - I have not been following your thoughts
for the last X years, only just now, so I will be even slower than
usual to catch up :)


> >     Finally, you really should try to understand about anonymity on the
> >     Internet (it's --really-- hard); and also about human motivations -
> >     if you think people will start using your anonymous taxation system,
> 
> It is not a taxation system, this is a misunderstanding.

OK.

When we understand your system better, we can suggest better words to
describe it, which will reduce barriers for people who might turn
away because of the word "taxation".


> It was a remake of bitcoin at the beginning which turned to be quite different at the end.
> 
> 
> >     which people are the people you think will use it?
> 
> Anyone who values anonymity, privacy, technology, there is no exclusion.
> 
> >
> >     You need to be ready to answer these questions, and try to answer the
> >     questions people ask - if someone asks the question, and you don't
> >     seriously try to answer, with some depth and detail, then some people
> >     will not even bother to keep 'talking' with you, because it is too
> >     much effort or too much work - some people might try, but others will
> >     just say to themselves "he is being much too lazy, asking me to do
> >     all the work to explain to him what he does not understand and to
> >     extract out of him even the basic understandings about what he is
> >     trying to do".
> >
> >     Good luck,
> >
> 
> In general this post is ackward. Saying I lack of basic knowledge
> is a bit rude for someone who said forefront that has spent 3 years
> working on the development of system.

Sorry - you misunderstood me, again, language barrier.

I was saying, people might find it difficult to get the knowledge out
of you, because you go to fast (with the words you chose to use). I
did not mean to say you -lack- knowledge - that would be silly thing
to say about your own system.


> I don't have a clue of why you would say I want to learn the basics
> from you. In fact I'm always opening to learning on top of me
> having pretty good knowledge and training on all topics surrounding
> cryptocurrency and hi-tech.

Privacy on the Internet is really, really, really hard.

If the benefits of your system depend on privacy on the Internet,
then we need to slow that part of your conversation down, so that we
can understand what you are saying.

So, perhaps better to read "hand waving" only as "you are going much
too fast, and so people cannot follow you".

Language barrier means people in other language will need you to go
slower than normal, I think.

If you understand the many difficulties of privacy on the Internet,
and how we might solve them, that is great!

We have had people before you, who thought privacy on Internet was
really easy, and it sounded like you were also suggesting that this
privacy of digital communications is easy.


> I also empathize with the culture of this list.
> I apologize if my wording confused you about my background.
> Thanks for taking your time to answer.

No need to apologize, just go slower ;)

And remember, take -nothing- personally - as long as conversation
continues, there might be benefits of understanding (for you, or for
the other people participating or listening).

Good luck,