WHY??? Why must you push those big shiny buttons when I'm dead!! (J.k). I'm going to eat. Then I'm going to sleep. Then I'm going to celebrate my son's seventh birthday.

After that, I'm going to start writing. Economics actually led me to anarchy (agorism), and I can answer all of the questions you and crumbs and several others have posed in great detail. This is my obsession. I have written about three quarters of a book called "anarchy is not chaos", and it addresses most of this. Unfortunately, right now if my wife yelled "Kevin!" I might not realize she was talking to me, or about me for that matter. Don't get old. You lose the creativity of insomnia.

Actually, I'm just very tired. I didn't deliberately imply any such thing. As I said above, I'll revisit this when I'm more alert. Probably type something up offline over the next couple days. It's an extremely complex subject.

Probably. But if they have their own spaces, like minded people will gather. They may even decide to form coercive governments. But if decentralization is common, and people have learned to be independent, those will be pockets.

Sorry, I've been up for close to two days. I'll revisit this later. It's something I have been thinking about and preaching for nearly 20 years, but right now I can't come up with a cogent response

I could go on at great length on this subject.

First off, I will say that anarchy on a grand scale was probably impossible prior to the existence of the internet. (For the record, the government did NOT invent the internet, but they did finance the development of the backbone structure {DARPANET))

The problem with an anarchic worldview prior to the 'net was speed of communication. That problem no longer exists. The largest part of our lives are anarchic to begin with, but that too is something of a digression.

Why would decentralized government be better?

First off, it's not an anarchic principle, but it is related. What you posit is usually called "minarchy", and it is better because it eliminates a huge amount of power being concentrated in few hands. That's the short version.

A better idea of it would be this. In a small to medium community, it is likely that those governing, however they got their power, would know most if not all of the people they govern. This takes away the depersonalization that allows massive wars, as all but the most callous do not send people they know off to die for money. (all wars are economic at root. Again, something that requires a great deal of elucidation. Don't take my word for it, just accept that I view it as axiomatic for the nonce). This lack of depersonalization means that they are far more likely to be responsive the needs and wants of the governed than a monolithic central government in which the "people" are at best an abstract, and at worst (most cases) viewed as a disposable resource.

Anarchy takes this a step further, positing that an individual will act in their own interest, and that it is in their own interest to not piss off their neighbors constantly, nor particularly to aggress against them. Obviously, there would be exceptions, and this is where communication comes in. Ostracism is the preferred method of punishment for most crimes among the majority of anarchists I have encountered, and we are rather extreme about it. You make restitution for your crimes, or you literally do not get to interact with ANYONE. With proper communication, this can spread for a rather large, if not global, distance. It provides a rather strong incentive for someone who has transgressed against his neighbor to settle the issue.

Utopia means "no place". I have yet to meet an anarchist who is utopian, even in the sense of Sir Thomas Moore's book. It was far more communist or socialist than anarchic, but that's neither here nor there.

What we instead posit is that men can live among one another, peaceably, with rather minimal rules that are generally agreed upon, and that differing groups with different ideas can go their own way WITHOUT INTERFERENCE so long as they are not forcing anyone else to do as they do. Those with the better ideas will win the day, for the most part, as they will be emulated. Again, communication is key.

It is my considered opinion that most of those opposed to anarchic experiments are not afraid that we will fail, but rather the opposite. Because if we succeed, we demonstrate that humans do not need kings. The ideas will spread.

As for dismantling a government overnight, yes, it would cause chaos. It has, many times. BUT!!! the afflicted regions always recover. Usually pretty quickly. The times of most freedom are those times just after a failure of government, and people spontaneously organize themselves. Some lead, some follow, some go their own way, but they find a way to survive. We are a tough and adaptive species.

I will say that a great many anarchists fall into the "all or nothing" mindset, and that is both foolish and wrong. Those of us who think, rather than just dream, are all about forming small independent communities and experimenting. What works, will be adopted by others. What doesn't will be discarded. Small organizations are significantly more ABLE to do this than large ones. Think how long it takes to turn a supertanker, vs. a skiff. I believe that serious anarchists (I am one) would be content if we could purchase a fairly small area, and divide it amongst the participants and just be left to do our thing. We would trade with the outside world, and amongst ourselves, and we would not bother those of you who wish to be ruled, save to talk about our own deal. The major difference between an anarchist and a statist is that the anarchist does not wish to force his views upon others who believe differently. We only want to try our way unmolested by your force. Belief in the non aggression principle is not universal among us, but it is very widely held. Given the disparate people who are anarchists, this is remarkable. I doubt very much that you would find nearly so widespread a belief in any single axiom among any other group of people. We are not your enemies. We are trying to advance the evolution of human society by peaceable means. It has been done on a small scale more than once, and generally successfully for a time. And unlike coercive governments, anarchists do not go to war to keep their adherents. If you don't like what we do, we invite you to leave us, and we mean it. Most of us will use violence only in self defense or the defense of our family, friends, and neighbors. We will not take your hard earned wealth and give it to those who won't work or use it to kill people in foreign lands. We simply think we have a better way of interacting, and we want to prove it. All that prevents us from trying is the fiat of governments. And even that don't work all the way.

If you want to observe a successful, functioning anarchic society within the United States, look to the rainbow society. I have lived among them. Their life is not the form I would want, but they are successful, and they want technology about as much as I want to be primitive. But they do little harm, nearly none, and they live outside of the mainstream altogether, only interacting with it by choice from time to time. Most people do not understand them, and fear them. I found that they would give you the shirt off their back if they thought it would help you, and expect only that you would do the same for someone else in need. There is no reason their system would not work in a technological society, except that most of you fear it.

My bad. I thought you were looking for one for the little terminals in the post I first replied to. Molex requires a different tool, and probably more expensive. Or you could solder the wires to the terminals, which is what I've done in the past. Picky, but not terribly difficult.

Funny thing about that. Our 'dear leaders' are in violation of their oaths of office simply by HAVING a large standing army. It's specifically illegal, absent a congressional declaration of war, and supposed to be disbanded after two years even in that event (unless the war is still going on, and congress AGAIN votes to keep it). None of these preconditions have been met. The american military was supposed to disband down to levels consistent with maintenance by the end of 1946.

The reason, and this is not speculation, was exactly as stated above. Standing armies are a temptation to those with a lust for power. Making it difficult to have them at all was supposed to limit that temptation. But hey, as a recent unlamented parasite said of the constitution of the United States of Imbecilies err... America.... "It's just a goddamn piece of paper".

Centralization simply doesn't work for large populations. It works well for those at the top, but nobody else. Even with good intent. Which is sorely lacking in the ruling class.

Not mine. I agree one hundred percent. But it was, prior to the constitution, a good start. The dream didn't die as quickly as the revolution, but by 1791 it had been crucified. By 1899 the good that had been done was fully on the run. By 1913 the parasites were firmly in control of the host. Now we have Rome, only even more corrupt.

Here's a link on Amazon, but these are walmart items in the US. I would think you can find something similar for cheap in the UK. The more expensive ones are professional tools, made to stand up to the abuse of a pissed off electrician. Thus expensive. The cheapo hobby ones work just fine, except that under daily constant use they'll wear out fast. (My father is an electrician. There is a significant difference in strength between his Klein crimping tool and my POS like the link below. Both do the job.)

http://www.amazon.com/Neiko-Solderless-Terminal-Connection-Stripper/dp/B000K7GRCI/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1385144210&sr=8-6&keywords=electrical+crimping+tool

I grew up using those. You should use a proper crimping tool. They are cheap as hell at wal mart and a myriad other places. you CAN do it with a pair of basic pliers, but it's difficult.

Your post perpetuates a common misunderstanding of anarchic philosophy. Anarchy is NOT a system, it's a rejection of centralization, with all that implies.

Anarchy works, every day, everywhere, right now. You did not ask my permission to post this thread, nor did I seek yours to reply to it. In all of your interactions with people (aside from those who have given up their individuality to become drones... err, public officials) you are acting on your own authority and mostly respecting their right to do the same. Anarchy is the NATURAL STATE of human interaction.

Well put. I'm one of those who blame the USA for getting involved in the first place. It has never worked out well for us, and has often (regardless of intent) prolonged and exacerbated the conflicts.

The original foreign policy of the united states worked very well. Be the cheerleaders of liberty, trade with all, and entangling alliances with none. Our nation became the biggest powerhouse in the world via this policy, and has spent the last 114 years dismantling that progress.

Only if you take Bar as some authority figure (in the logical fallacy sense, not discounting his knowledge).

Otherwise it's a strong opinion from an informed man. It's one I tend to disagree with, because if a pool operator starts pulling shenanigans, given how (possibly rightly) paranoid miners are, it's a matter of SECONDS to pull your rigs to another pool or even to solo mining. I cannot see a pool operator successfully attacking the network for more than a minute or two. I personally see this as somewhere between a bogeyman and a cause for monitoring, not a critical issue to bitcoin. When pools were new and the network small, perhaps. Not so muich now, and not due to the honesty of pool operators (which from my observations has been pretty good).

I would be far more worried about somebody with a lot of money developing their own equipment and hitting the net all at once. Someone with the resources of Bill Gates or Sir Richard Branson could do this easily if they were so inclined. Both men I mentioned are unlikely to, as they both have good reasons not to, but the level of wealth is the point. Given that, I don't think that pool operators are a large threat. I see the above and excessive regulatory horseshit as the more likely threats to the success of bitcoin.

Which brings me to why this is on topic. Those of you wanting the asic manufacturers to hold off have a good point, but in light of the above, for the long term success of bitcoin, they should actually ramp it up somewhat to make such a proposition exceedingly difficult and expensive.

I am trying. It's why I preach what I believe, so that others might take up the banner as well. The principles that the revolution were fought over, most of them, were lost before the nascent country was even 100 years old. So long as the majority are complacent (even if they see the problems, they are unwilling to see alternatives), then it will continue to spiral out of control until it breaks altogether. Then there will likely be a bloodbath, which is what I, and like minded men, are trying to head off. This system has run it's course, and it has failed the people completely. Not the politicians, it's doing quite well by them, but US, the people. Violent revolutions play into the hands of the politicians, but simply withdrawing your consent, one at a time and all over the place, will hurt them more than any number of bullets.

Jumpin' Jesus! And I thought I had a bad month

I think I can speak for almost everybody involved in saying good luck, sorry about your luck, and glad to hear from ya!

I do hope you'll still drop some of your wisdom on us from time to time. I'm a hobbyist, and long out of the loop, so I loved this project even though I couldn't participate directly. You and the other brainiacs working on this gave me a hell of a lot of education, all for the price of lurking on a forum I was gonna be lurking on anyway.

I've crashed a few bikes in my time. On a "good" crash, it still hurts. Take your time and recover. I think most of us just wanted to know you were ok.

Kevin Biomech

I have exactly one problem with your strategy. Pure jealousy. I missed out, due to not being able to raise the money.

I think reinvesting in the mining equipment is a great long term strategy. I also think that if it were me, my first reinvestment would be in off grid power. Probably a combination of solar and hydro, since here in Idaho you can get remote land for very little money that has a stream or more running through it. Water wheels are cheap, and alternators aren't much more expensive. Batteries are the biggest investment, and they have a pretty good life these days. Getting the electric cost to near zero would make even the initial miners valuable for a long time, as they would simply continue to add to your hashpower as you added in more equipment 9both miners and electric generation).

This is the strategy I want to follow, assuming I can turn the financial disaster that is my current life around.

I am an american. Deliberately not capitalised. I did NOT vote for Obama. Nor his "rival". If he had not been deliberately shut out, I would not have voted for Ron Paul either, even though I think he's the closest thing to a good man in politics. When you are given a choice of two pistols to shoot yourself with, the correct answer is "NO!". If you vote, you can't bitch, because you HAVE accepted the clearly illegitimate system as legitimate. As Emma Goldman said, if voting could make a difference, they would outlaw it.

I would like to say to the non americans who read this, the Imperial Court in the foreign nation called the District of Columbia does NOT represent America in any meaningful way, other than being our defacto owners. We have about as much choice in their decisions as any slave, but we are given a biannual illusion of participation that doesn't even hold as much realism as a good Hollywood movie. Or a bad one, really.

Unfortunately, and I have been all over the country, most americans either turn a blind eye to the system, or, more frequently, feel that there isn't anything they can do about it. I'm not sure what should be done, but shrugging your shoulders and bending your knee isn't the answer. As near as I can tell, the last time that the american people had any real control over their nation was 1788. For damn sure it ended in 1861.

thanks for the reply anonymint, I will check it out when I return (approx. three days). I'm a few minutes from leaving, and I'm glad I gave no offense.

Good Night, and good luck!

Tell Alex Kevin says Hi!

Thanks!

I'm going to be gone for a couple of days, as I work a long distance from home, but when I get back I'll check it out. Just wanted to drop the note so you didn't think I was ignoring you as I vanish

and again @ anonymint, in rereading my first post it came off rather snarky. That was not my intent at all. Chalk it up to lack of coffee. I really like reading your stuff. I just find some of your conclusions very different from mine, even though we seem to be coming from a very similar perspective. Also, from some of you comments I gather that english might not be your native tongue, in which case I have to say you write it well, but it could lead to some confusion of meaning. I only discovered you three days ago, so don't go silent just yet, eh?

Might not be a bad idea to ask them to post here. There are some really vocal people who are not happy, and a few really happy as well. Be nice to get some balance, if they are willing.

Then again, not everyone has my fascination with watching a slow motion train wreck (this thread).