Now the (Dark) enlightenment pushes us from the order into the decentralized disorder (where in Shannon entropy disorder means maximizing the number of least probable possibilities i.e. maximizing degrees-of-freedom and diversity).
This is the pendulum of Contentionism that CoinCube and I have been theorizing about. Except that your analogy is flawed, showing a flawed understanding of decentralisation on your part. The canonical spelling according to Merriam-Webster and other prominent dictionaries is 'decentrali zation'. A far better analogy for "nodes of small independent currency producers and maintainers" would be atomised water droplets which tend to form clouds when there's enough of them.
...
Each droplet has some H2O molecules that are confined at a boundary between a 'soup' of high-entropy free floating H20 and the surrounding atmosphere. The tendency for each droplet to maximise its entropy is what is behind "surface tension". The droplets naturally pull themselves towards a spherical shape to minimise the number of molecules stuck on the surface, which maximises the droplet's overall degrees of freedom.
Indeed and it is analogous to what I wrote, wherein I said the degrees-of-freedom would increase by peeling away independent bottom-up actors from the top-down order, yet these actors would in of themselves show increasing top-down order e.g. a Benevolent Dictator For Life for an altcoin that kicks Bitcoin's sorry little ass. The reason for this is simple. The top-down socialism has maxed out on its ability to increase degrees-of-freedom by providing higher economies-of-scale for its constituent parts. The analogy is if all the world's water was aggregated, the surface area would be minimized but the capacity (i.e. possibilities) of the water to do useful work will have greatly diminished. You've been reading my theory for several months and you still can't wrap your mind around a very simple and consistent concept. However, unless there's some repulsive force like an unbalanced electric charge pushing the droplets away from each other (as is likely the case with clouds), they will tend to merge. As the droplets merge, their entropy increases.
Earth's ecosystem is a great example of this, whereby nearly all of the water consists of liquid oceans, not clouds.
Yet the most productive work done by water (not other things in the water) is when it is peeled away for other possibilities. We truthfully calculate the bath of the ocean provides immense degrees-of-freedom for the other things in the water, yet we don't find all the schools (traveling groups) of fish merged into one school. Ditto birds migrating. Etc. Now, decentralized disorder (where in Shannon entropy disorder means maximizing the number of least probable possibilities i.e. maximizing degrees-of-freedom and diversity). Can you see where you've been going wrong? The decentralisation you seek is actually less diverse, not more. A cloud of water vapour has a far greater surface area and less degrees of freedom than an equivalent volume of ocean. A droplet of water can't do much useful work. A single human can. The is exactly Contentionism in that structures oscillate between different balances of top-down and bottom-up order as they interact with the dynamic degrees-of-freedom in the environment. The human environment has radically changed because we invented the internet, which enables a single human to a lot more productive than in the agricultural or industrial age. For example, I all by myself programmed and marketed CoolPage.com (including the download web page editor with its one-click publishing to the free hosts of that era, e.g. Yahoo GeoCities, which was in some sense the first social network) in 1998 and obtained over a million users and 335,000 verified websites back when the internet was only about 100 million people. Before that, the most I had obtained was about 8,000 unit sales (maybe it was 30,000 including the European distributors I forget) of WordUp in the 1980s due to physical shipment of shrink wrapped software distribution. Of course I'm not suggesting that decentralised structures don't have their place, but your entropy argument is completely wrong.
The entropy of the water increases as the water molecules move closer together because the forces at the surface are reduced and so the molecules have greater degrees-of-freedom within the aggregate volume of the bath. The degrees-of-freedom for an individual molecule to fly off in any direction away from other molecules is out weighed by the fact that an individual molecule is essentially useless to its environment, thus water molecules have a very high surface tension (opportunity cost) to motivate them to form baths. However, as the baths become too large, the surface tension becomes very small per molecule capita in the bath volume, thus they have a motivation to exit the bath in groups in order to accomplish more useful work in the environment which is higher degrees-of-freedom overall. This is precisely Contentionism. Entropy is relative like everything else in our universe. This is why sometimes a top-down order is more efficient than bottom-up chaos. |
|
|
|
|
The NSA, GCHQ, etc may have their hackers working overtime to push Bitcoin towards regulation.
Seems like a large increase in hacking recently.
|
|
|
|
And yet again my prophesy is coming true: Initially this might be done separately in separate jurisdictions. The chaos of this will cause the community to demand global unification. Thus Bitcoin without strong anonymity (as it stands now) is assisting the demand for global authority for governance and the dilution of national and local authority.
Japan says regulation should be international: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=491240.msg5415129#msg5415129 |
|
|
|
These threads are wordy and confusing. My question is do you think it would be a good idea to have all buyers/sellers to verify their mailing address, phone #, or whatever to prevent from hacking or stealing LTC/BTC in the future? I don't want that. I want the decentralized, unregulated wild west. But most people will prefer perceived security over liberty. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."-- Ben Franklin |
|
|
|
has a BTC thief ever actually been tracked down and caught before? Hell yeah. Trendon T. Shavers Charlie Shrem Ross Ulbricht Many others will join the list. What percentage of all stolen money has been recovered (or equivalent restitution paid) in all known and known cases? |
|
|
|
The idea of taint with time will quickly go away. Imagine trying to seize every dollar out there with traces of 'taint' on them.
The services that 'seize' tainted coins will quickly find themselves in lawyers fees up to their noses.
I completely agree, and addressed this with my opening paragraph. The government can provide immunity against civil lawsuits, by declaring it to be a legal or even required activity. |
|
|
|
He did it again. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. It amazes me the way this thread has gone off topic  . I guess this discussion is more interesting than the OOB untainting. Yes, I have failed as a moderator! I don't like deleting comments, but it is important to keep the thread on topic. This thread is about using out-of-band transactions and large mining fees to untaint coins. Edit: I just deleted a post from AnonyMint, but then it hit me that with a slight twist it was actually on topic and a good idea (now I've really failed as a moderator lol). Instead of sending the tainted coins with a large mining fee using a non-public backchannel, just send the coins normally to the untainting service. They would then perform the large-mining fee transaction themselves. The fee they charge for the service would already take into account the expected loss to the orphaning. In other words, you are exchanging old coins from the miner for newly-created coins (at a small fee). The miner doesn't care about taint because the chain of taint breaks using the large-mining-fee method that I proposed earlier. And who took it off topic? (look in the mirror) Then you did exactly what you were writing you weren't going to do (delete my post) You change the facts as fits to your errors and necessary covering of your arse. |
|
|
|
14:52:39 <MagicalTux> note that the process we are in right now also allows us to start a process where everyone's debt is converted to share holding of the company, however this requires approval of at least half of the customers (around 500k people)
This has the signature of the official bail-in plans published by the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the EU, etc.. Starting to see pattern here, as I suspected as to who is really in control right now. |
|
|
|
Well there he goes censoring posts as he said he wouldn't  A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. It amazes me the way this thread has gone off topic . I guess this discussion is more interesting than the OOB untainting. Tainting won't be solved by the idea in the OP. (besides it is silly, easier to just buy the newly minted coins from he miner) It will only be solved by adding something like Zerocoin to the blockchain + very strong building IP address obscurity. Thus the relevance of the impossibility to fork Bitcoin and the importance of freedom to make a better altcoin (even it is just really Bitcoin 2.0). Btw, here is some more technical insight on my prior post about Zerocoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg5508024#msg5508024https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=500994.msg5518821#msg5518821 |
|
|
|
I have long studied the mechanisms of Dark. For example, the curious Dark Switches on the wall that when turned in the down position, suck all the light out of the room. These can be noted to be connected to the active mechanism, the Dark Bulb, for for the newly energy conscious, the Dark Noodle. There is a massively huge Dark which orbits the Earth and vacuums up light on a 24 hour basis. It was once believed that all of these minor Dark entities originate from the Dark Side of the Moon. Now we know that verily, it is the Poles of the Moon which shelter the Craters of Eternal Dark, where for billions of years only the light of far away stars has impacted. Then there are Books, which cannot even be read in the Dark, which proves their transient nature and even worse, computer screens the abject enemy of Dark, intruding into every corner with luminiscent glowing horrror. Taken together with my immediately prior post, indeed there is always a mathematical dual lurking ("JustSaying" is me). The (Bright) enlightenment of the Renaissance was to raise society from the dark anarchy of decentralized warlordism a.k.a. feudalism into the collective light of art, culture, finance, governance, central banking, usury and top-down order. Now the (Dark) enlightenment pushes us from the order into the decentralized disorder (where in Shannon entropy disorder means maximizing the number of least probable possibilities i.e. maximizing degrees-of-freedom and diversity). This is the pendulum of Contentionism that CoinCube and I have been theorizing about. I've stumbled onto an analogy in my recent work on improving Zerocoin. It appears that all public key cryptography hinges on two dual forms, those based on number-theory (e.g. factoring of logarithms or elliptical curves) where the whole is collected into a monolith, or on random oracles where the whole is equipartitioned into its constituent parts (e.g. Lamport signatures). The former is an inductive and latter is a coinductive function (although to make them practical they are not unbounded oracles). We are headed into the coinductive age where the advances are to destructively peel off freedom from the monolithic whole, instead of constructively structure the chaos in collected forms. In the small, in Dark enlightenment (phase of the cyclical contentionism model) we have a plurality of inductive structures constructively growing within the context of the proliferation of structures destructively peeled away from the monolith increasing the economies-of-scale in the small (i.e. networking effects). Whereas in the dual of Bright enlightenment, in the small we are destructively peeling away small inductive structures and binding them together constructively to produce higher economies-of-scale in the large (i.e. fixed capital allocation). P.S. And this post was to get you to realize I was really serious when I said this topic is for the highly intellectual. Please don't be offended by Damned truth. |
|
|
|
Is Dark Enlightenment a set of ideas destined to become a real political movement?
It seems to be against top-down governance, so any politics would be decentralized and fractured. Thus it is going to sneak up on everyone and will actually already be taking over the world before any one realizes it is. Actually it already is. That is why it is so powerful. http://www.starfishandspider.com/The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations. |
|
|
|
|
You moved the goal posts, but I am in agreement with where you placed them now.
|
|
|
|
It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.
Sorry for bumping this old thread. I find this post of satoshi very intriguing. It is one of the few posts of him that is not about coding. If i interpreter this right we could say that we could throw away all the theories about bitcoin being secretly launched by some government. What are your thoughts? edit: And indeed that he got scared because of this and backed off. Doesn't follow logically as the only possible explanation. I had seen this post before and had the following thought. To maintain his anonymity he would want to bail out before the popularity would increase those trying to hack his anonymity methods. |
|
|
|
How about just calling it bitgold like the original proposal bitcoin certainly looks to be based on?
I've had several people tell me that pisses them off because it slanders what gold is. The more the issue of taint rises, the more I agree with that perspective. |
|
|
|
Your analysis in this thread claims (wrongly) that innocent purchasers of stolen bitcoins will be liable to return them. No that is not what I wrote. Try to read it again and see if you can wrap your mind around more than 1 simultaneous variable. The article you cite refers to the possibility of private insurance against accidental loss or theft of bitcoins.
I fail to see the link.
My analysis concluded the government will be tasked with taxing to creating an FDIC. I have no idea how you failed to read that. |
|
|
|
It isn't a bill either.
Agreed. Then what is it?  |
|
|
|
Nevermind that, *I* told Satoshi to call it "Compudoughbucks" and he IGNORED ME! And NOW LOOK at what's happened because it's called "bitcoin." What a dummy!
Compudoughbucks looks a bit like Commodore. Is not too bad  I guess Monatari and MoanAtari were already taken by the monks and Playdoughs. I came within proximity of Jack Tramiel at CES 1989 (?) and met Sam Tramiel at their HQ in the valley. Seriously though I would have gone for Digithingamajig.   |
|
|
|
Is there any post that you don't sound like an angry psychopath? Someone might mistake you for Anonymint, since you're both angry egomaniacs, but there's at least some substance in what he posts.
Hey I took the sociopath test. Egomaniac
A person whose ego exceeds both his intelligence and his capacity to see beyond his own personal interests. The jury is still out on whether my capacity exceeds my statements and revelations thus far. I love when people underestimate me. Rather I think what is going on is the hurt ego of others projecting onto my (nearly) always logically correct statements. Humbleness is admired and actions speak louder than words. But it seems it stirs up a hornets' nest to post unorthodox revelations. So one must expect to be labeled an egomaniac for telling a large group they are myopic. It is presumed it can't be true that one person would see so many things that a large group does not. I am actually surprised by it too, but now am coming to realize this is the normal state of affairs of life. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
