Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech

[Punk-Stasi 2.0]

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 18:30:28 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>  On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 09:45:06 AM PST, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:
>  
>     
> >    Using 'crowdfunding', anonymous comms and virtual 'money' to coordinate defensive actions against govcorp would be typically cypherpunk, obviously. Though my personal view is that there's no way govcorp would allow THEIR 'technology' to be used against them.
> 
> Is that an argument that we, the public, shouldn't even try?

	No, it's just an observation. Just like I observe that expecting privacy from the tor network is incredibly naive (read, completely retarded).

	So whoever tries AP should plan the thing very well unless their aim is to end up like Ross Ulbricht.


> 
> 
> >    On the other hand, Jim's 'political theory' is clearly nonsense with little connection to liberal anarchy. He  has never studied the topic, despite claiming he's a 'libertarian' and now an 'anarchist', because he 'invented'...nothing and has 'solved'...nothing. Political assassination and 'dark markets' are certainly not 'his' ideas so his claim to 'intellectual property' is bullshit...ignoring for a second that 'intellectual property' itself is bullshit.
> 
> First off, my impression is that at least a large minority, and quite possibly a majority, of people who call themselves "anarchists" are merely big-government-loving leftists, 


	Yes, but I'm obviously not talking about those fake anarchists. And since you mentioned them, I'd point out that 99% of 'libertarians' are actually right wing fascists who want the world to be ruled by google and goldman sachs...with the help of a 'private' army of course. You know 'big businesses are amerika's most persecuted minority'...

	Out of curiosity, what's your take on fake libertarians, like ayn rand?


>but have become 'politically-homeless' (at least by label) because Communism and Socialism have failed so miserably over the last 30, and even the last 100 years.  That sounds like a major internal contradiction, and it certainly is, but that isn't a contradiction I am somehow responsible for.  

	Yes, left-wing, fake  anarchists. I don't  see why they are relevant here. 
	


> Secondly, I strongly suspect that a huge majority of so-called "anarchists" have never even heard of David Friedman's "Hard Problem",  

	can you stop invoking that amoral fucktard please? 


>  https://voluntaristicsociety.liberty.me/national-defense-the-hard-problem/   

	there's no national defense under anarchism because by its very definition, anarchism excludes 'nations' - aka states. 


>The idea that it would be extremely difficult for a society based on anarchism and/or libertarianism principles to defend itself against external attack 
>by more-conventional regions.  (the ones which have governments which can tax their citizens.)  So, very few anarchists have ever realized that 'anarchy' is hopelessly unstable and could never possibly work.......


	Ok, so now you're arguing against anarchy? Some libertarian you are. 


> At least, not until I invented my AP idea, 

	So you do not understand that the libertarian argument for anarchy is that government violates natural rights? This is not an utilitarian problem. The typical RADICAL STATIST garbage about anarchy being "hopelessly unstable and could never possibly work" is well, that. Statist garbage.


>which will allow people in anarchic regions to take down the governments (and militaries, and nuclear bombs)  that are in other, conventional-government nations.  Not that the citizens of those other nations won't want to help getting rid of "their own" governments, too!


	So, if you realized that AP doesn't work you'd be back to being a criminal statist cheering for the state's murderers, right? You ARE actually an statist because you think that anarchy(as proposed by actual 19th century liberals) could never work.


> Tim May, and others, seem to have invented the concept of the "murder market", certainly a concept worthy of debate.  But their market amounted to "anonymous person A anonymously hiring anonymous per son B to kill named person C".  

> I was the person who, unaware of their discussions (except, very indirectly) added the concepts currently known as "crowdfunding" and "crowdsourcing" to the mix, long before those terms had been invented:
>    "Thousands or millions of anonymous persons A1, A2, A3, etc offering to hire anyone in the world B1, B2, B3, etc, to kill named person C, and offering to pay in a form that cannot be used to identify either the A's or the B's, and yet be able to prove to the public that the person who eventually got the reward was the same person who correctly 'predicted" C's date (or circumstances, etc) of death. "
> Other than to simply deny this, 


	deny what? Ah, your claim to that particular application of May's or cypherpunk's  anonymous markets? 



> can you actually explain why you think this won't work?   Particularly since the tools to accomplish it are not, as they were in 1995, unknown today.


	I explained why it's unlikely to work, many times, including this message. For starters there's no anonimity network that works. As a matter of fact the HIGH LATENCY remailers from the 90s are better than the current 'low latency' PENTAGON OWNED tor network, which is THE only fake-anonymous system out there.