I still think that good government is possible, its just that it requires a highly enlightened civilization and culture in order for it be functional. Cryptocurrency has changed my ideological objective you could say since it has made possible what was previously impossible, in regards to political theory.
There cannot be "good government", because by definition "government" is based on the idea of the legitimacy of involuntaryism. When you wake up to who and what you are you understand that you are sovereign, and nobody can or ever has ruled/governed you. Why don't you watch that short video and tell me what you think about it?
This has changed my ideology over the last year, so I presently describe myself as a crypto anarcho libertarian. The goal is anarchism (freedom), this possibility is enabled through crypto (technology), and the practical strategy is libertarianism where we shrink the government down over a long period of time until it possibly ceases to exist completely, most likely in more then a century from now.
Hey, you said something smart! So it's not really that you don't have a clue, it's that you are being extremely selective with the sources of information you expose yourself to, and very focused on one particular subject. You see, the reality is -- and this is why I referred you to that short video of those two gentlemen deconstructing this poisonous superstitious belief -- is that there really is no "government". There are only people calling themselves "government". Nobody has any rights ("authority") that you don't have, and you cannot delegate a right you do not have to anyone else. See how obvious that is?
I would further add that it is actually irrelevant what my own personal political philosophy is in regards to this discussion.
I'll tell you why it's relevant, and why it's always relevant. Suppose for a moment that you only exposed yourself to Marxist sources of information, and were therefore completely convinced that communism is a reasonable system of human organization. You would then tend to support whatever ideas you perceive to be closest to that idea. This is how human minds are herded into desired destructive geopolitcal goals, by means of compartmentalization and control of information sources people are exposed to, and repetition of particular ideas (propaganda). Ideology is not your friend; it's the invisible prison of your mind.
... and join the human race.
Yet you are the the one attempting to dehumanize me.
What I'm saying is that you aren't quite a full human being until you have come to understand your sovereignty, and therefore the sovereignty of every other human being.
Well, let's then test whether that is true. You obviously have a lot of spare time (or is it work time?), given your posts on this forum, so certainly you have time to increase your "true knowledge" regarding "political philosophy" by researching the information from other researchers who also have "a thirst for true knowledge". So let's start with these two:
Mark Passio Interviews Larken Rose - The Religion of Statism (a very short video)
All right -- I gotta stop you right there.
I have had direct, face-2-face convos with Larken dating back to the last millennium. Yes, he (intermittently) uses Bitcoin. But what exactly are you trying to convey here, that has anything whatsoever about the discussion at hand?
Tell me how this particular interview with Larken has anything to do with the 'death of bitcoin due to starvation' vs. 'death to bitcoin due to centralization' debate.
Or are you just trying to steal some unearned 'my lib is better than your lib' cred?
You took out the quote I was replying to, by VeritasSapere, thus de-contextualizing my post, how clever! I recommend that video to your attention as well, if you are still somehow under the impression that there is such as a thing and could ever be such a thing as a "legitimate government".
Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.
Only the authoritarians are not brave/honest enough to live by the free market they
claim they espouse to. People calling themselves libertarians, but demanding protectionism in what's supposed to be an open and permissionless system, free from restrictions. I'm pretty left wing myself, you'd probably even call me "statist", but apparently even I have more stomach for an open market than you do, coward.
[...]
I crave the opposite of authority, you're the one who thinks they can tell other people what kind of software they can and can't run to suit your own agenda. You're the authoritarian fascist here. I say let the chips fall where they may, because I embrace a free and open market. I don't fear it as you do. Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run. If you don't want people to have a choice, a closed-source coin would be far better suited to your goals.
So you openly admit that you're a statist (i.e. an involuntaryist, an advocate of slavery), but you call other people "authoritarian"
WTF?
That was an attempt at mockery, seeing as people like hdbuck, icebreaker and a few of the other hardcore MP fanboys seem to enjoy calling everyone with even the slightest left-wing leaning a statist. And the jab remains that I still respect the free market more than fake libertarian pretenders like them.
Which is the more authoritarian attitude in your mind?
a) Unilaterally changing network parameters is a threat to the network and should be derided ridiculed dismissed etc.
or
b) Any user can unilaterally change any network parameters as they wish because it's an open and permissionless system.
I'm of the opinion that hdbuck's view, "a)", is authoritarian. My view, "b)", is the complete opposite of authoritarian. Thus concludes another edition of "
why do I always have to spell it out for people like they're not all there upstairs?"
That's not quite what's happening, though. You are essentially dumbing down the situation to soundbites, MSM-style. And the reason you're doing that is, I would suggest, because you're not actually paying attention. Or, rather, you are only paying attention to one side of the argument. You are going with what sounds/feels good to you rather than examining the technicalities involved (which requires, you know, research). You can have a look in Technical Discussion or onr/Bitcoin, e.g.
here. Poster spoonXT sums up the situation perfectly:
Yes, I think the urgency pushed by larger block proponets plays into a power grab. Right now they are fighting against Core's roadmap that is sufficient to take the pressure off; it also lays the groundwork to solve the rest of the problem in successive stages.
When dealing with urgent emergencies, one must keep in mind the USA PATRIOT Act, the Reichstag Fire Decree, and Problem-Reaction-Solution in general.
Regarding why not 2MB now, there is a known validation DDoS attack (chewing CPU), that must be addressed first. It could delay blocks by more than 10 minutes if the blocksize were 2MB. Core devs will never allow it, until they've rolled out the fix, as planned in their roadmap.
You probably don't even know what "Problem-Reaction-Solution" refers to, do you, DooMAD?
Poster Ilogy also sums it up very well:
I thought things were looking relatively bright with segregated witness, in particular, an exciting development that likely flowered into existence because of the healthy and measured way the community approached all of this without resorting to falling for the FUD. The scaling Bitcoin conferences and the intrinsically decentralized, communal nature of this approach toward reaching consensus, rather than relying on a CEO, seems to me to have spoken directly to what is good about Bitcoin.
But then you Gavin and Hearn and the community behind them. Their method is not to participate in the larger community's discussion -- they didn't attend the last scaling Bitcion conference at all, for instance -- but instead they created a hard fork which in lay men's term is simply, "it's our way or the highway."
In other words, they want us to hand Bitcoin over to them. That is their solution to the complicated nature of open source, let's just install a CEO. Essentially, they are saying, "give up on the community, no one at those conferences matter . . . give us power, scrap Bitcoin and come over to our new Bitcoin." That's scary, at least to me.
I could understand XT, as it certainly spawned an urgency that otherwise wasn't being addressed with enough haste, and I applaud them for that. But then when things are looking bright, and the urgency far less dramatic, they just rekindle the fight with even more desperation in the form of "Bitcoin Classic." There is something else going on here. Why the urgency? Why the desperation? Why do we need to restart the civil war?
What further disturbs and concerns me is that Mike Hearn, one of the two brains behind XT along with Gavin, actually gladly accepted the position of developing R3, the block chain being created by the coordinated effort of the international bankers. He works for the banks. This demonstrates a mindset intent on power.
Mikey Hearn also
openly reveals how much of a pro-bankster pro-"authority" brown-noser he is:
Ive spent more than 5 years being a Bitcoin developer. The software Ive written has been used by millions of users, hundreds of developers, and the talks Ive given have led directly to the creation of several startups. Ive talked about Bitcoin on Sky TV and BBC News. I have been repeatedly cited by the Economist as a Bitcoin expert and prominent developer. I have explained Bitcoin to the SEC, to bankers and to ordinary people I met at cafes.
From the start, Ive always said the same thing: Bitcoin is an experiment and like all experiments, it can fail. So dont invest what you cant afford to lose. Ive said this in interviews, on stage at conferences, and over email. So have other well known developers like Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik.
But despite knowing that Bitcoin could fail all along, the now inescapable conclusion that it has failed still saddens me greatly. The fundamentals are broken and whatever happens to the price in the short term, the long term trend should probably be downwards. I will no longer be taking part in Bitcoin development and have sold all my coins.
This guy isn't aware of the existence of the control system, and thinks the world is all fine and dandy, that humans aren't being oppressed at all. He is so mainstream he hardly needs to have been or ever be co-opted. He's already a mind-controlled asset.
One of Hearn's main problems with Theymos' moderation policy censorship is this:
[...]
The release of Bitcoin XT somehow pushed powerful emotional buttons in a small number of people. One of them was a guy who is the admin of the bitcoin.org website and top discussion forums. He had frequently allowed discussion of outright criminal activity on the forums he controlled, on the grounds of freedom of speech. But when XT launched, he made a surprising decision. XT, he claimed, did not represent the developer consensus and was therefore not really Bitcoin. Voting was an abomination, he said, because:
One of the great things about Bitcoin is its lack of democracy
Yeah, that's exactly right. "Democracy", as with all forms of "government", is a euphemism for "legitimized" violence and slavery. The slavish reactionary sheep who like to believe that Bitcoin is some kind of "democracy" are the ones whose energy is easily herded and harnessed into the planned "solution" (in the Problem-Reaction-Solution stratagem) that the creators of the "problem" (urgent need for increasing max block size) are hoping for.
After the failure of XT Gavin moved to "Bitcoin Classic" and he calls it the vision of Satoshi.
Gavinista 9 months ago: "We need 20MB blocks Right Fucking Now, or Bitcoin is dooomed!!1!"
*Bitcoin continues to thrive*
Gavinista 6 months ago: "We need 20MB 8MB blocks Right Fucking Now, or Bitcoin is dooomed!!1!"
*Bitcoin continues to thrive*
Gavinista 1 month ago: "We need 20MB 8MB 2MB blocks Right Fucking Now, or Bitcoin is dooomed!!1!"
There is only one plausible/parsimonious explanation for such an utter lack of concern about their continual loss of credibility, which is that they are executing a 'thin wedge' strategy.
The Gavinistas would be happy with 1.001MB blocks, because such a hard fork would get their camel's nose into the tent.
The point isn't larger blocks will save Bitcoin from certain dooom, it's to undermine the socioeconomic majority's diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient system. It's about sending a message, that Bitcoin's engineering decisions can be controlled by manufacturing dissent.
Nailed it! +1
