Message Channels a Smidge was: Re: Whites going ape for Blacks in America -- Re: Soros' BLM

[Karl]

Everything is looking right now with the archives and my inbox on my end
over here.  I was possibly getting a cached archives page somehow around
the 4th.  Sorry if this potentially-false alarm was taxing.

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020, 7:05 PM Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Note: I am not set up with pgp, so this message may be corrupt.
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020, 2:58 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks at tfwno.gf>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 1 hi5:41:34 -0400
>> Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Punk, do you know how often the cypherpunks archive is updated?
>>
>>         usually in real time, or a few minutes.
>>
>> > I seem to be disconnected from the list; didn't get the last archived
>> > email yet, and recent posts aren't showing up.
>>
>>         sometimes the confirmation messages get lost, but your messages
>> are posted to the list anyway.
>>
>
> I've been having the opposite.  I'm getting confirmation messages, but
> many threads haven't been showing up in the archives.  The last email I
> have from this thread in the archives was
> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-August/081663.html :
> none of our bitcoin history emails are showing up for me, but I have
> acknowledgement emails for them.  I emailed Greg a few days ago but no
> reply.  Maybe it wasn't received or I got his email address wrong.
>
> Below messages are related to politics and blockchains.  Blockchains
> provide more reliable message delivery than email.
>
> >
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> > The businesses are siding with BLM due to the effort of thousands of
>> > american activists pressuring people to notice what's up in the flag
>> > of violence against blacks, if it matters.  It seems something else
>> > may have mysteriously helped, too.
>> >
>> > The position you describe is in line with Trump, who lumps the
>> > mainstream with the left.
>>
>>
>>         Not sure what position you're referring to. You mean my
>> observation that US govcorp is pretending to be 'anti racist'?
>>
>
> Kind of a merging and mutual learning between some fringe and right wing
> behaviors that started before trump was elected, and then accelerated with
> his election.
>
> It's meaningful for me because some of the professors who spoke out
> against Trump's more oppressive policies experienced targeted bullying by
> misled people with some similarity to what I experienced after taking
> action against international energy pipelines and large banks.
>
> > It was a very minority view until he was
>> > elected; mostly held by rural demographics near major business
>> > enterprises in the areas I'd visited.
>>
>>
>>
>> > > > 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.
>> >
>> > Not with full nodes: the network is invalid if any information at all
>> > is missing.  But yes, you need a miner to accept it, and you could be
>> > identified, posting it
>>
>>         the bare minimum is something like monero where amounts, senders
>> and recipients are hidden(at least in theory). A system like monero leaks
>> less information than bitcoin so it makes it harder for miners to censor.
>>
>
> Zcash has a messaging app, too.  Reference client is written in node,
> which can scare some hackers away if it isn't ported to another language
> yet.
>
> >
>> > There's a way to push miner acceptance: you can make future
>> > transactions require old ones.  Like, you can post a special message,
>> > and then buy or sell a product in a way that the purchase only goes
>> > through if the "special message" is also mined.  Once that money is
>> > spent for something else, it is required that _all_ preceding
>> > transactions go through, for the entire lifetime of the blockchain.
>> > Censorship is actually incredibly hard if the protocol is used
>> > properly.
>>
>>
>>         is that something that works with BTC? do you have a reference?
>>
>
> Yes, that works with most chain protocols including btc.  Apparently
> because the usual issue is fee related not content related, google says
> this technique is called "child pays for parent".  Here's an article on its
> use at coinbase, but I haven't read the article:
> https://blog.coinbase.com/improving-bitcoin-reliability-through-child-pays-for-parent-77e771bb04d6
>
> > > >> 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...
>> >
>> > This has already been shown to my satisfaction repeatedly.  What would
>> > demonstrate it to you?
>>
>>         I mean, we'll see how well cryptocurrencies fare when attacked by
>> govcorp. So far they have been tolerated or even encouraged.
>>
>
> In USA they were severely discouraged and attacked for many years.  I was
> briefly in the development team of the blockchain qora before the dev team
> was dispersed after publishing a nonworking client.  This happened after I
> posted publically that the system made deletion of information impossible.
>
> >
>> > > 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'.
>> >
>> > This is another thing the devs seemed to realize too late that would
>> > be changed if there were focused, productive harmony in their
>> > community.  They made Jim's error of believing money was held by the
>> > people, not the leaders, and better capitalism would provide freedom.
>>
>>         Some developers may have made a mistake, while others are
>> actually happy with the current situation...
>>
>
> A lot of overlap there.  We are all still learning that billionaires don't
> care about money.
>
> >
>> > Instead they produced a mess of cryptoanarchic millionaires which is
>> > still quite helpful.
>>
>>         well, I don't think they are too helpful. Even roger ver who has
>> somewhat clear ideas is more ultimately more concerned about all his money
>> than freedom .
>>
>
> I guess yeah.  I'm not sure who finances Steem, but I think it managed to
> form a smidge of improved communication between techheads and oppression,
> just slightly.  Many of these new blockchain businesspeople are against
> cover-up and have a technology to prevent it.  Doesn't mean they don't get
> covered up and stigmatized.
>
> > Blockchains still show a single programmer can change the whole world,
>> > by stepping into the digital cultural spaces that people leave
>> > unaddressed, and automating them.
>> >
>>
>>         we'll see. Also automation isn't good per se.
>>
>
> Yeah automation is deadly.  This list is mostly programmers.  I see that
> bitcoin already has changed the world, by trending financial distribution
> and economic discourse farther from government control.
>
> > >
>> > >         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.
>> >
>> > Nice pairing of names.  This is just because Satoshi was making the
>> > Jim fallacy I mentioned above.
>>
>>
>>         Question is, was that a honest mistake, or part of the 'design'?
>>
>
> Both.  We're referencing a political issue.  People raised in capitalism
> believe it to mean freedom.  Within it, it can be, which moves capitalist
> power around a lot. For people who don't value money and can influence
> that, there's a lot of space the people who do value it are not worrying
> about at all.
>
>
>> > It takes a very long time for bitcoins to merge with amazon-nsa.  They
>> > don't like them: the dollar seems more predictable and familiar, and
>> > the dollar makes it much easier for them to keep secrets.
>>
>>         The fact that bitcoin's supply can't be manipulated makes it
>> unappealing to govcorp. However, other bitcoin features aren't as governmnt
>> unfriendly as that one. Bitcoin as a surveillance tool with unerasable
>> records is something that govcorp likes.
>>
>
> I like how it surveils everyone equally in that permanent record.  Govcorp
> has a lot of secrets.
>
> It is easy for a skilled developer to add privacy to blockchains
> comparable to other private systems if needed, see monero, zcash.
>
>
> > > > 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'.
>> >
>> > I don't know what you mean here.  Economic discrimination and miner
>> collusion?
>>
>>         yes, miners can even mine empty blocks if they want and sitll be
>> paid for it(block reward).
>>
>
> Mmm it doesn't sound like you have a good handle of the protocol.  The
> design is such that nobody does that.  Block rewards shift exponentially
> towards being proportional to included transactions as years pass.  It
> takes a long time to mine a block.
>
> > >
>> > >         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.
>> >
>> > This required agreement from the entire dev team and is exactly how
>> > blockchains die.  Note that ethereum is big enough that the original
>> > chain is still easy to acquire in its entirety.  Bitcoin is much
>> > bigger.
>>
>>         yeah the original chain is likely to survive. My point is that it
>> may be possible for govcorp to take an existing system and force a mahority
>> of people to accept 'new rules'.
>>
>
> Yeah, they've been pushing that stuff, as could possibly be my references
> following.
>
>
>> > Disruptive forking has already happened to bitcoin with bch, bsv, etc.
>> > It doesn't mean any information is lost, though: each one of those
>> > chains has the entire history prior to the fork.
>>
>>         True. But those forks were not really attacks but rather
>> competition.
>>
>
> Aren't these exactly what you describe above, with people deciding on new
> rules without agreement as rational collective decisions reduce alongside
> negative media etc?
>
> > All the people who
>> > trusted the blockchain to preserve something, in bitcoin and ethereum
>> > prior to their unexpected forks, have that trust still honored,
>> > without any regard to the content: except for the one person whose
>> > permanent impact was hacking the ethereum community itself.
>>
>>         True.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > 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.
>> >
>> > Economic war is happening.  But bitcoin still has friendly communities
>> > who will trade with you in person for cash.  Most of the exchanges
>> > appear run by millionaire cryptoanarchists, learning business and the
>> > intense difficulties the situation entails.
>>
>>
>>         I don't think any big exchange is run by anarchists. On the othre
>> hand, something like coinbase is run by literal US govt agents.
>>
>
> I believe those two sets to overlap.
>
> Cryptocurrencyophiles call themselves cryptoanarchists but they are
> generally pro-capitalism and pro-blockchain-businesses.  Many many
> cryptoanarchy business out there, see smart contracts, but often small
> yeah.  The first exchange, mtgox, was run by a guy from the Bitcoin
> community; I wasn't around much after that.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 18133 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20200811/f000e6d5/attachment.txt>