Whites going ape for Blacks in America -- Re: Soros' BLM

[Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 17:50:28 -0400
Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:



> No tone cues for sarcasm on the internet.

	So to sum up, James is an arch-right-winger trying to pose as some kind of 'libertarian'. He's the typical corporate apologist, pretending in typical randroid fashion that "big business are amerikkkas' most oppresed minority". But NOW he's complaining that his dear 'meritocratic' big businesses are siding with BLM. Which in turn tells you that BLM is just controlled opposition and which makes James' position even more ridiculous.



> I know that all bitcoin transactions are public,
> 
> 
> Right.  That aids censorship resistance.  You can put things on a
> blockchain that nobody can delete, change, or even hide.


	Transactions being public doesn't aid censorship resistance. Rather, it's what makes censorship possible. 

 
> You could also use cryptography to make those things private, and mixing
> layers to increase your anonymity, but that's not what I mean to worry
> about here.

	But that's the thing. The more public information there is, the easier it becomes for censors to decide which transactions to reject. 


> 
> and I know that 'miners' get to decide which transactions are included in
> > the chain.
> 
> 
> Partly true.  _Any one_ miner can accept a transaction for it to get
> included in the chain, 

	yeah, so all miners would have to cooperate to censor a transaction. But such cooperation isn't far fetched. Also, if the majority of miners become censors, then the network would be censored most of the time. You would have to wait for your transaction to be mined by a 'good' miner, but that would take a lot longer.



>> I also know that mining isn't too 'distributed'
> 
> 
> What's relevent is that it is still distributed enough to defend
> information in the face of a nation state adversary.

	We'll see...

 
> The 'distributed' reducing problem reflects a situation where the corporate
> and government spookies attacked the development and mining communities,
> halting the expected curve of software development as demand increased.  

	Unless you change the proof of work algorithm, bitcoin mining is going to be centralized because of economic forces. The underlying economic system is pretty centralized and controled by govcorp, so only big mining operations can be 'profitable'. 


> It
> is an incredibly hard fight for them because cryptocurrencies are
> incredibly lucrative and widely supported.


> and that the supposed creator of bitcoin wasn't bothered by mining being
> > done in the NSA datacenter.
> 
> 
> This would be because the protocol was designed to be robust in the face of
> arbitrary groups mining.  The NSA has to play by the rules of the network,
> or they are kicked out and ignored automatically.


	My comment was somewhat obscure. What I meant is that 'satoshi' wasn't worried about mining being centralized...and wasn't worried about 'scaling' either. Here's the pertinent bit  

	https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

	"as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware" 

	...you know, like amazon-NSA.



> 1. Bitcoin is hugely valuable and is designed to rise in value exponentially
> 2. The design is such that censoring it e.g. by miner collusion also lets
> people steal money
> 3. There are more creative thieves than creative censors
> 4. When the protocol is attacked, it becomes obvious on the network: the
> whole network is told


	the protocol doesn't allow double spending, but it certainly allows 'discrimination'. 


> 5. So, people are increasingly financially motivated to protect the
> essentials of the protocol, and many fixes have gone in over the years.  If
> fixes ever stop completely, somebody loses a lot of money and takes action
> on it.
> 
> You need to run a "full node" to participate in the censorship-free
> network.  And due to the harm to the communities the situation does slowly
> get a little more confusing and a little more delicate.


	even if you run a full node and  have direct access to the 'true' chain, miners still decide what gets in the blocks.

	Look at ethereum. The chain was 'forked' and the majority of people went to the chain that had some 'bad' transactions reverted. Same thing could happen to bitcoin. 


> It is still impossible enough to erase things on the Bitcoin blockchain,
> for now, 

	True, for now. On the other hand, look at all the cancer that grows around bitcoin like coinbase-mosad-GCHQ-NSA. Bitcoin 'exchanges' are worse than banks. 


> that if you could afford it you could broadcast a video of all the
> world leaders having a naked orgy and it would never go away.


> 
> > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 1:25 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks at tfwno.gf>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 21:12:40 +1000
> > > > jamesd at echeque.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > -BLM support from EVERY MAJOR CORPORATION ON THE PLANET
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >         That's your beloved capitalist libertarian heros James. You
> > > > wouldn't be complaining about the actions of the Capitalist Masters of
> > the
> > > > Universe would you?
> > > >
> >
> 
> K
> 
> -
> 
> There is proof inside many peoples' electronics.  Proof that a marketing
> group would contract development of a frightening virus.  A virus that
> responds to peoples' keystrokes and browsing habits, and changes what
> people see on their devices.  A virus that alters political behavior en
> masse, for profit.