All those who think crypto-currency should be unregulated are implicit (de facto) members of the Dark Enlightenment, and are delusional if they think it can happen without anonymity being built-in to the coin.

The linked article in the OP implies the powers-that-be (not politicians, I mean the truly powerful who control the DEEP STATE) are aware they need to regulate Bitcoin.

Agreed. Politics legislates that which can not be controlled top-down, magically promising the people what they think should be but either can not or not sustainably. Equality and social justice means plunder and the redistribution of wealth.

An insidious form of redistribution that enables many aspects of the political illusion is borrowing from the predicted future using debt to redistribute capital FROM necessary real-time demand, e.g. currently TO excess consumption (west) and excess fixed investment (china). Compared to binding to years of prediction, real-time feedback loops have orders-of-magnitude higher fitness (dynamic adaptability to dynamic opportunities) due the geometrically permuted network effects of real-time degrees-of-freedom. Unfitness manifests as inefficiency, laziness, ignorance, inability, corruption, brutality, etc..

If I am correctly interpreting esr’s summary of Olson, it implies the special interests groups are a minority, however they comprise the entire population playing the political game.

Why do you protest against politics, given it is a natural form of human competition? Anarchism would unrealistically require that everyone is a pure sigma (the sigma in PUA theory)– not libertarians who think we can legislate liberty.

Sigmas are successful when they reject political capital (and money as much as practical) and make innovations or insights in the free market. When they drift to relying on the monetary or political capital they’ve earned from those innovations or insights, they are falling away from their optimum efficacy.


When it is done in the private sector then it does not fall victim to the Olson failure, see khanacademy.org and codecademy.com (the future of education).

Compare the fitness of accomplishments in the competitive free market, versus the blindness of legislating with no market feedback what other people should do.

Non-sigmas don’t think they can get all their desired results without some politics. The alphas serve their demand to be deluded on the efficacy of political action.

Well their efficacy in the role of sigma to maximize individual freedom and fitness. This is not to say that alphas, betas, etc are not effective in the complex game of evolution. I should not assert that some sprinkling of alpha mode could not be evolutionary advantageous for a sigma.

The unfitness of debt and political action is apparently evolutionary necessary or optimum, else it wouldn’t be natural and someone would devise a private sector solution.

For example, from the perspective of debt money as the antithesis of gold, they compete and balance the opposing disadvantages, e.g. gold encourages burying savings in hole and rewards non-production.

Even if the masses held physical gold (i.e. well distributed wealth), then the money supply could not expand fast enough for financed production to outpace the natural population growth rate. And with that inherent deflation, conservative savers are either motivated to hold the physical thus removing it from the circulating money supply, or to deposit it in return for an interest rate in which case mathematically the banks must do fractional reserve banking.

Debt is natural and required.

Infinite degrees-of-freedom (perfect fitness) could not be observable in any reality. There are no absolutes. Contrast requires imperfection. Existence requires perception. Perception requires contrast. Full circle to my early comment.

Ah the baiting of the soul with the “gold will save us” emotional trap.

History has shown that the stored value medium for money is always debased, regardless whether it is gold, paper, Tally sticks, electronic digits, etc..

An insoluble fact is that debasement is always assured with politics, because the costs of the voters’ desires is obfuscated in the debasement of all citizens, instead of applied individually w.r.t. individual performance.

Don’t confuse the desire to work and get paid, or to start a business and earn a profit, with the political promises made to voters. Don’t confuse “economic value” with “I saw jobs, prosperity being created”. Economic value is a network of feedback loops from investment followed by profit or bankruptcy. The more individually directed these investments are, the more chances of finding the profitable ones that fit the economic demand. The collective politics has an incentive (to earn votes) to invest in everything voters want, economic or not.

This insoluble power vacuum (that sucks in a leader who can make the political promises) can not be wished away just because it is repulses a person’s emotions. There is no possible mechanism to remove it.

For example, some claim that Hitler and Lincoln or recently Iceland and China, took the power from the banking establishment and gave it to the citizens, by handing the control over the creation of paper money to the national treasury. Hitler and Confederate notes both debased their society by spending on uneconomic projects. China is doing the same now. Hitler initially made the people happy with lavish public works spending (e.g. the road network and health care), promising the people more than the economic value of the projects could sustain. When he could not get enough oil to sustain it, he was forced to expropriate via war in order to fulfill the collective social promises. That summary probably misses some complexities, but the essential point remains valid.

Since the masses don’t hold most of the wealth, if the society enforces a strict gold standard, then the masses don’t get what they want. This is why gold standards are always subverted by politics.

A strict gold standard would over time concentrate relative wealth from the consuming middle class to the wealthy, who save say 99% and consume 1% of their income. Politics demands debasement, because the rich concentrate wealth (with or) without debasement.

Some refer to the Byzantine era as an example of a sustainable gold standard. I have not studied the period intensely. Apparently gold was being imported into the economy by their trade surplus, so perhaps political promises were less attractive to citizens who were finding sufficient opportunities to be busy and prosperous. Unlike China’s current situation, their trade surplus was not due to a mercantile policy of debasement of their currency, rather apparently due to some situational and technological advantages, e.g. their cannon spraying flaming oil on pirates. Further insight on this would be appreciated.

I posit the taxonomy of male social order types from PUA type theory applies to this power vacuum. I asserted that the alphas get their power from public politics and/or Theory of the Firm (corporate politics), with the lower order male types (betas, gammas, omegas) employing politics to fight back. They can band together with politics to fight the rich with political promises including Doublethink such as equality and social justice, which actually end up as debasement and plunder. The sigmas don’t play the class warfare delusion, instead create technology to empower individuals.

Stored wealth is ephemeral and depleting. It should be this way, otherwise people become unmotivated to continue producing. The rate of growth of relative wealth of the rich decelerates as they grow richer and less in tune with the markets invested in, i.e. smaller things grow faster because of the fitness. I don’t hate the bankers+politicians because I don’t want to hate most people (i.e. the symbiotic borrowers+voters). Why hate what can’t be changed? Why be bitter and perceive the glass as half-empty? The inspiring fact is that despite the booms and busts (and occasional resultant atrocities and wars) caused by the political promises, everyone gets wealthier over time. The cost of commodities is inexorably declining as a relative share of the global GDP. In 323 B.C. iron was a precious metal. Technology, innovation, and art (i.e. knowledge) is the savior of mankind.

Atrocities repulse all of us. Religion is not the only cause. To entirely prevent them, we would have to somehow eliminate political promises and the Doublethink they create. Unfortunately I don’t see how such a goal is possible or congruent with evolution.

@Greg, we are both correct. Agreed stored wealth should not disappear too fast to discourage saving and planning. It should deplete fast enough so that we remain competitive. Planning too far into the future or managing too much capital, reduces degrees-of-freedom and fitness. For dynamic systems, the best strategy is often an incremental adaptive approach of plan, implement, re-evaluate and repeat. I suppose divergence could be an issue in some cases.

I posit that Eric is smart enough to recognize his mistake. Eric, you are conflating the mathematical duality of the inductive construction of the universe with the coinductive construction of infinity.


Indeed it would be impossible to construct an INSTANCE that is simultaneously all good, all powerful, and all knowing, because nothing imperfect could be constructed. Perfection would require infinite degrees-of-freedom, thus a dynamic, competitive world could not exist– the Second Law of Thermodynamics could not exist.

In type theory, top is the inductive bound and bottom is the coinductive bound. Top is the intersection of all types and bottom is the union of all types. Thus bottom can never be constructed as an instance, yet it exists as type bound.

Shift your frame-of-reference into the type of types domain of the universe to find the existence you claim is impossible.

Note that the operations (e.g. methods of a class) of an inductive type are a coinductive type and dually vice versa, e.g. the top class type contains the union of all methods of all types in the universe, thus can not be constructed. And dually, the bottom class type contains the intersection of all methods of all types, thus can be constructed.

I understood your tripartite impossibility claim to be that a good God would not be powerless to make good all that is in the universe.

The claim is illogical in several orthogonal ways.

1. Good does not exist without evil. Perception requires contrast.
2. Good is evil, and vice versa, from different perspectives.
3. Some cases of global or greater good require local or lesser evil.

Essentially by implication you claimed that infinity (infinite degrees-of-freedom to attain good at all possible perspectives) must be observable, else it is impossible. Or by implication you claimed that we can prove the universe is finite, thus the necessary degrees-of-freedom would be observed and achieved by such a God.

Some theories of the universe posit that infinity exists as an unreachable bound in some domain, e.g. entropy, space, time, or precision. True or not, we can not prove that infinity does not exist as unreachable bound. Your claim of impossibility is too strong. Such a God can not provably exist, because we can’t observe for infinite time, precision, etc..

A possible interpretation of your linked essay on math, is that an infinite universe can not be completely described by any finite set of theories or axioms.

Infinity can not constructed inductively from a starting point, because infinity (final unreachable bound) can not be observed.

Whether it exists or not, infinity or the finite bound is decomposed co-inductively as observations directed towards its final unreachable or finite bound that we can not prove is final.

How sad a finite universe would be, where the scientific method could be shelved and knowledge would cease to expand at some finite bound. The scientific method requires that we never trust a bound (e.g. Planck’s constant precision) as final and continue searching and testing forever.

 Wow - sounds like you had it really rough - what with them black folk touching your hair and everything  

You sound to me like a borderline trustafarian

- over here the PM's wife (aristocrat Samantha Cameron), used to make a big noise about when she used to hang around with Tricky - back in the day, when she'd slum it as a student in the wrong part of Bristol. Tricky has to this day never heard of the woman - let alone played pool with her  


Yeah - and I tried to have some of my best friends as gay  

You really need to educate yourself buddy. Have a look at Adorno/the Frankfurt School and the "culture industry" - you might then have some understanding of why the patronising ramblings of egotistical rock stars have absolutely fuck all to do with socialism

- and indeed, if you are able to make the connections, why in turn socialism has absolutely fuck all to do with the US driven debt problem.

We recently had floods in the UK due to a shift in the jet stream and exceptional levels of precipitation. I suppose this had something to do with "socialism" as well, right ?

Hold on a minute    Wouldn't this mean that the women would have had to have had sex with fewer men, not more.

FWIW I read the article - you were, as indeed I was, educated to first degree level (to a greater or lesser extent) in Mathematics - nothing more than that. So I understand the language, if you like. But all I can see is a disjointed rambling, without a clear or cited aim/intention - the majority merely describes what we already know, but attempts to link it altogether in a way that is clearly tenuous and over ambitious.

In short, I'm not sure there's many here has the slightest idea WTF you are going on about.

As William James said in the Unheresy link, “The essence of genius is to know what to overlook”.

He tried. He disappeared.

Logic. And logic. And logic. And logic.

Of course he would use his own name because he was only contributing an idea. His paper even did not name it bitcoin.

Things only started to become complicated at least several years later when he realized how much a heat he created and how rich he could be... Then he disappeared.

I don't understand how hard this is to think through.

This is most amusing. You're under the delusion I have voted on this poll while I merely made an observation about how you and others in this thread are greatly upset by not receiving a 100% no vote.
You appear to consider yourself highly intelligent while having done nothing but resort to petty insults. From this I can't help but assume you're angry.
Angry enough to insult anyone in this thread intruding on your circlejerk.

However, I am sorry for intruding on the circlejerk going on in this thread. I shall take my popcorn elsewhere.
Enjoy your continued discussion about the great discovery of fitting a square peg into a square hole.

Useless poll, watch: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/did-newsweek-uncover-the-wrong-nakamato-jQlEjzLuQ~6aEKN4NhDgow.html

They clearly state already, how they "found" him. Best is the explanation, why he must be the right one: "Because there is no reason, why he isn't".