|
364
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Dark Enlightenment
|
on: September 05, 2014, 02:21:17 PM
|
I hope everyone realizes I was correct when I wrote "Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch" in March 2013.
Don't you see? The powers-that-be planted Bitcoin in order to force the nation-states to adopt their own digital currencies.
Thud! It just hit my consciousness.
Self-defeating attitude, den Schwanz einziehend (pulling in the cock, as we say in German, chickening out). Also untrue. Centrally controlled digital currencies would have come either way. No need to allure the population with Bitcoin first. A nice Apple or Facebook app will suffice (with strong lobby for subsidization to prevent high fees due to "customer" "protection" and AML/KYC costs). Why The Deep State Always Wins: The Zero-Sum Game of Perpetual War http://cryptome.org/2014/08/deep-state-wins.pdf1/ IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH 2/ WAR IS PEACE 3/ SLAVERY IS FREEDOM “Like it or lump it, we’ll do what we like. So just get used to it, world.” 4/ RESISTANCE IS FUTILE "Schwanz einziehen"-Attitude again. |
|
|
|
|
365
|
Local / Off-Topic (Deutsch) / Re: Ich habe genug - ein Plädoyer gegen "das System"
|
on: September 05, 2014, 01:10:34 PM
|
Ich habe genug von vermeintlichen Weltverbesserern......
.....das sagte letztens auch einer zu mir, nachdem ich dem von Bitcoins erzählte. Bitcoin soll und wird sich ja nicht wegen Weltverschlimmbesserern durchsetzen, sondern weil es einfach effizienter und offener ist als bisherige Systeme. Stichwort: disruptiv.  |
|
|
|
|
366
|
Local / Trading und Spekulation / Re: Der Aktuelle Kursverlauf
|
on: September 05, 2014, 01:05:07 PM
|
|
Die Blockgröße wird und soll limitiert bleiben, damit sich ein Gleichgewicht für Transaktionsgebühren herausbildet (v.a. wenn irgendwann keine neuen Coins mehr geschöpft werden).
1 MB ist aber eindeutig zu niedrig, und Satoshi hat selbst gesagt, dass das nur provisorisch ist, damit das System in der Anfangszeit nicht zugespamt wird.
|
|
|
|
|
368
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: bitcoin changing my ideology from socialism to libertarianism! What about you?
|
on: September 03, 2014, 03:31:31 PM
|
Your argument is from the perspective of a moral relativist. One can easily develop testable and objective ethical principles that are consistent, empirical, and objective with some of the most basic foundational axioms that most would agree with.
Ayn Rand and their ilk have no monopoly neither on morality nor on philosophy ("objectivism"). There exist thousands of other views, interpretations and philosophies. most basic foundational axioms that most would agree with.
"most"? you mean, like consensus? the very thing you find coercive? news flash, US libertarians are quite a minority with their views. I.E.... Logical consistency is a "good" thing.
indeed  You are equivocating "cooperation" with political consensus decision making where the majority uses violence and coercion against the minority.
There exist forms of consensus where a solution will be sought until 100% agree. Furthermore, define "majority" and "minority". If communities are not too large, you can always leave and find one that fits your nature better. There's certain rules in every family. Historically, people lived together in extended families, in tribes. What was good for you was good for your family, the tribe. Modern life where people barely know each other is the result of centuries of divide-and-conquer by the ruling classes. "Keep 'em separated." That way people are much easier to control. If that were not the case, people wouldn't be so suspicious of each other, and people like you wouldn't find the idea of more community "coercive". |
|
|
|
|
371
|
Other / Off-topic / Time Travel Simulation Resolves “Grandfather Paradox”
|
on: September 03, 2014, 10:37:42 AM
|
Time Travel Simulation Resolves “Grandfather Paradox” What would happen to you if you went back in time and killed your grandfather? A model using photons reveals that quantum mechanics can solve the quandary—and even foil quantum cryptography http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-travel-simulation-resolves-grandfather-paradox/Deutsch's quantum solution to the grandfather paradox works something like this:
Instead of a human being traversing a CTC to kill her ancestor, imagine that a fundamental particle goes back in time to flip a switch on the particle-generating machine that created it. If the particle flips the switch, the machine emits a particle—the particle—back into the CTC; if the switch isn't flipped, the machine emits nothing. In this scenario there is no a priori deterministic certainty to the particle's emission, only a distribution of probabilities. Deutsch's insight was to postulate self-consistency in the quantum realm, to insist that any particle entering one end of a CTC must emerge at the other end with identical properties. Therefore, a particle emitted by the machine with a probability of one half would enter the CTC and come out the other end to flip the switch with a probability of one half, imbuing itself at birth with a probability of one half of going back to flip the switch. If the particle were a person, she would be born with a one-half probability of killing her grandfather, giving her grandfather a one-half probability of escaping death at her hands—good enough in probabilistic terms to close the causative loop and escape the paradox. Strange though it may be, this solution is in keeping with the known laws of quantum mechanics.
|
|
|
|
|
372
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: bitcoin changing my ideology from socialism to libertarianism! What about you?
|
on: September 02, 2014, 01:49:27 PM
|
(btw this is also closer to the nature of Bitcoin than libertarian philosophy. You only own bitcoins as long as you can defend them, i.e. keep your keys safe.)
Also, you don't own yourself. Go ask a lion in the wild. Nature owns you.
This is equalivant to "might is right". True within the wild, but humans are capable of a higher level of interaction that doesn't require force/violence. Functioning on this higher level is the hallmark of an evolved civilization. You're right, the "might is right" is unfortunate, but that's not what I wanted to say. "Functioning on this higher level is the hallmark of an evolved civilization", that's also correct. The only thing you have to accept is that based on these premises, some may come to quite different conclusions than you of how this "evolved civilization" should be structured. Unhindered individualism (but with "civilized" property rights) may lead to "might is right" too, mind you. In fact, that's essentially history repeated. What else were kings and queens and the whole aristocracy other than powerful individuals amassing large land property over generations (interbreeding with each other as to not dilute their wealth, that's why there's the term "blue blood"), leading to massive inequality and eventually revolutions.
Also, you don't own yourself. Go ask a lion in the wild. Nature owns you.
This falsely assumes humans aren't part of nature. At minimum humans partially own of themselves, and as an "abstract" concept it is a wise ethical principle to respect self-ownership. What's "wise" and "ethical" is a purely subjective question. Again, at the bottom line, we own ourselves merely as much as we can defend ourselves. And, economically speaking, in most scenarios it's just too much risk/effort to attack someone else.
In the face of this reality, some more (voluntary) "collectivist" ideas are rooted in the insight that it might be better to stand together and co-operate at times.
Straw man. One stands together in peace and solidarity while following the NAP. Suggesting that one must use coercion to cooperate isn't merely dishonest, but contradictory. Cooperation can only occur in a group if all of the members "cooperate", and anything short of that involves violence and coercion of the majority against the minority.(The opposite of standing together) It's not a straw man, I don't exclude NAP-forms of societal organization (just by not having mentioned it). But people like you seem to be quick to equate cooperation with coercion. That is the real straw man. In my view, the world is not that simplistic and black and white as most market-libertarians seem to believe. Like NAP magically solves all conflicts and problems. It does not. Essentially, this idea just does not scale. History is full of edge cases. Property, especially land, is the number one source of conflict and formed the course of wars in history, eventually leading to today's geo-political structure. It is in the first place what formed alliances out of tribes, and then kingdoms and eventually nation states, i.e. the very thing that libertarians ramble against. |
|
|
|
|
374
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: bitcoin changing my ideology from socialism to libertarianism! What about you?
|
on: September 01, 2014, 02:21:09 PM
|
I don't want to be part of this "social contract".
Fun fact: Private Property Rights and the Non-Aggression Principle are (or would be) a social contract as well. In its actual nature, property is just an abstract idea. At the bottom line you can only hold and own what you can defend, for as long as you can defend it. "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." -- Max Stirner, individualist anarchist. (btw this is also closer to the nature of Bitcoin than libertarian philosophy. You only own bitcoins as long as you can defend them, i.e. keep your keys safe.) Also, you don't own yourself. Go ask a lion in the wild. Nature owns you. In the face of this reality, some more (voluntary) "collectivist" ideas are rooted in the insight that it might be better to stand together and co-operate at times. |
|
|
|
|
376
|
Local / Presse / Re: SPD will über Bitcoin sprechen!
|
on: August 31, 2014, 10:38:23 PM
|
|
vieles läuft verkehrt, aber AfD is nich die Lösung. Nationalistisch, autoritär und reaktionär bis sonstwohin. Sind Bestandteil des machiavellischen "Teile und Herrsche"-Prinzip im Polit-Zirkus.
|
|
|
|
|
379
|
Local / Presse / Re: Presseberichte / Bedeutsame Erwähnungen
|
on: August 29, 2014, 09:55:39 AM
|
er rantet (wie schon so oft) halt über die umweltaspekte allgemein, und wegen dem monero versteht er in der tat nicht, dass es eher mal wieder beweist, was die meisten altcoin-anbieter für dampfplauderer sind. man kann sowas wie absichtlich schlechte performance (vermutlich wg. besserer asic-resistenz) ja schließlich nicht in einem protokoll festlegen. Dein Link führt zu einem SSL Fehler.
Ohne dem s bei http: funzt der link.
youmustbenewhere.png fefe, ccc, einige piraten-sites und viele andere aus dem dunstkreis benutzen self-signed zertifikate (oder solche von einem verein, der von vielen browsern per default nicht eingetragen ist; du musst das zertifikat manuell eintragen, im "club" ist das quasi initiationsritus) haben sie schon recht damit, es gab schon immer grobe Design-Fehler in der Architektur von https (eine verschlüsselte End-zu-End-Verbindung ist ein ganz anderes Bedürfnis als die Bestätigung der Echtheit der Identitäten von Website-Anbietern durch dritte Vertrauensträger, aber man hat das alles in einen Topf geworfen), wahrscheinlich absichtlich, um von wenigen Anbietern abhängig zu werden, wo NSA & co ja dann leicht Hintertürchen platzieren können. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
