i originally got into bitcoin when i was an agorist. it sort of went hand in hand with it. i have always considered myself a libertarian, although i now consider myself an anarchist and thus much further left now than when an agorist. so.... i suppose bitcoin has not changed my positions.....
I really wish people would stop thinking about politics in terms of the "left-right paradigm". It's so counterproductive. Using the left-right axis is actually the most meaningful way of looking at political opinions. So-called "descriptive" positions, like liberal, capitalist, anarchist or communist just confuse things, they only provide a blank canvas onto which any useful politics can be projected by a conniving political manipulator. From my point of view as an anarchist, left and right (in America at least) seem to be particular sets or "baskets" of opinions. Looking at it from the principles I follow, some of the right positions and some of the left positions seem internally inconsistent. For example, the American right claims the principle of "small government," but then supports the largest government program of all (the warfare state.) |
|
|
|
How are they going to be able to keep their prices relevant with the value changing so quickly? There are already services for this, like Bitpay. |
|
|
|
To create Bitcoin1 and Bitcoin2, we'd need to divide the processing power. Fortunately, we presently have more than twice the processing power that is necessary. The network is a perfect capacity for being split. Could you show your work on the math that you did to calculate how much processing power the network needs? Bitcoin1 can go on with the anarchists/outlaws who hate all government involvement and despises law and order. Bitcoin2 can intergrate things which improve decent use in an orderly society. Kind of ad homineming, there - I'm an anarchist because I love order, not because I despise it. I believe anarchy and Bitcoin as it is improve a decent and orderly society. Anyway, as far as forking Bitcoin - aren't you too late? Hasn't it already been done? |
|
|
|
|
Running at 290 TH tonight!
|
|
|
|
governments CANNOT regulate bitcoin unless we allow it
Yes, and you can see in this thread the people who will allow it. Because it's "inevitable". Because they want to comply with the government. Because they are scared. Because they put greed over principle. Frankly, I don't care about what the people do with bitcoin v.0.8. They almost certainly will turn it into Govtcoin. But the genie is out of the bottle. The true bitcoin is in our very immediate future, and it will UTTERLY DESTROY states around the world. Maybe a better idea (than destroying states) is to regain influence in the law making process. Uh, no, why should the people next door to me have power to make laws that infringe my rights to life, liberty, or property? |
|
|
|
Teach me your secrets, CYPER - I would be happy to get a block at all!  |
|
|
|
Maybe no central council at all? Or would that lead to total anarchy.
Brilliant! Let's do it! Personally, my alternative to the Bitcoin foundation is me, and the voluntary relationships I form that involve Bitcoin. But don't you want a place for business can turn to and go how do we get involved? Or to have project be sponsored and reward those people? Or even just a place where bitcoins can get a place that can explain how and why any place should use them? I don't want a place to do that - I want lots of places to do that! Let there be many Bitcoin foundations, instead of one. |
|
|
|
Since Bitcoin news is heavily involving China these days, it's a great time for me to present some articles to my fellow anarchists (and anyone else who is reading along) about how anarchy could be implemented as a solution to a knotty problem in China. I read these articles a few years ago with little understanding of the issues involving Taiwan and mainland China. I came away with an understanding of that issue plus some great insight into how anarchy should look in practice as people are given the true right to govern themselves (not the fake right called Democracy). A brief introduction to the China/Taiwan issue: The Republic of China was founded in 1912 and governed mainland China until 1949. The RoC withdrew to the island of Taiwan. Mainland china was then governed by a different, Communist government called the People's Republic of China. (Do not get the RoC and the PRoC confused.) Today while some feel that Taiwan should be "independent," this idea is offensive to many. It is offensive to those that feel that the RoC is the proper government of all of China. It is offensive to those that feel that the PRoC is the proper government of all of China. There's a lot of tension between Taipei (Taiwan/RoC) and Beijing (PRoC) - and the issue may seem strange to those with a western idea of "independence" that conflicts with the view of "One China." Bevin Chu presents the real solution: market anarchism: let each person decide who they want to govern them. It could be the RoC, or the PRoC, or some other institution. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/chu/chu13.htmlChu was a bit hard to follow but I felt that the effort to read his articles were rewarding to me because he really did depict anarchism well. I moved from an understanding that called for the abolition of government to an understanding that if everyone were simply granted the right to secession at an individual level we would have what we need. I've sometimes seen this called panarchy, or individual sovereignty. Chu's other articles were pretty good as well: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/chu/chu15.htmlhttp://archive.lewrockwell.com/chu/chu10.htmlhttp://archive.lewrockwell.com/chu/chu11.htmlhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/author/bevin-chu/ |
|
|
|
Maybe no central council at all? Or would that lead to total anarchy.
Brilliant! Let's do it! Personally, my alternative to the Bitcoin foundation is me, and the voluntary relationships I form that involve Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Privacy should exist everywhere but there should be a balance. A way to follow the money trail must exist to prevent institutional corruption. For this reason we cannot have secrecy in financial transactions. I don't consent, though. If you are from the U.S., do you really believe in that document that says governments "[derive] their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed"? Because I don't consent to this. But I want to know if a politician or police officer is being bribed because democracy depends on it. A free society depends on transparency. I have no wish to participate in your democracy. I have no problem with you imposing whatever requirements for participation that you wish. I have no desire to be a politician or to be ruled by one, and I have no interest in having my financial freedom infringed simply to prop up your failed idea (democracy). |
|
|
|
|
Definitely the most exciting race I've ever seen! I'm certainly working on that "being lucky" strategy, but haven't got it right quite yet...
|
|
|
|
If thats true, thats both surprising and shocking!. It could be soo easily abused to falisfy a sense of trust in someone who's actually out to scam.
That's why it's allowed; it's even easier to falsify a sense of trust if you don't know accounts are being sold. This is your fair, legitimate warning: trust nobody, use escrow. Wait, wait ... use escrow with who? A trusted bitcointalk user? (Who might've just sold his account?)  |
|
|
|
|
What if the people you sell them to don't supply network access?
|
|
|
|
Mike, did you mean to say "not my mortal men" or "not by moral men" in your sig? Everyone is mortal I think he's saying that if anarchism is not possible and government is necessary, then the government must be done by divine beings who transcend human nature. If government is necessary because of man's evil nature, then man is incapable of governing. So if we accept the lie that our government is good and necessary, we are necessarily attributing divinity and transcendence of mortality and human nature to our rulers. But maybe I'm reading too much into it. |
|
|
|
|
I just had a vision of an account exchange, with accounts graded based on age and sold in bulk.....
Not sure if I'm horrified or thrilled.
|
|
|
|
You don't need a central government to ensure that nobody gains too much power, you just need to structure your incentives to make gaining power less valuable. For instance, there are ways to make attempts at gaining more power at others' expense actually be way more constly than gaining power through voluntary trade. Yes, but shooting politicians usually has serious consequences and is still arguably immoral.  (Oh, you probably meant some other ways....) |
|
|
|
Many people are scared by the name anarchy I think. They don't realise that much of their lives are already anarchic.
Decentralized governance sounds safer  I prefer the name Voluntaryism. This also more positively defines the goal. Namely that all interactions should be voluntary. The name "anarchism" only defines what it should be not (no ruling hierarchy). I like that one; let's roll with voluntaryism  I love the new Voluntaryist text under your avatar, Mike. |
|
|
|
the foundation is not representing us anymore. Well, they never represented me. Just like the club in Washington that won all the popularity contests: I never voted for them, I didn't delegate any authority to them, I didn't engage in any activity authorizing them to represent me, and any statements to the contrary are simply lies. |
|
|
|
|
Kumala, I've had to fill out the cloudflare captcha four times today. This is excessive. Can you please whitelist me?
|
|
|
|
there is nothing wrong with 21 mil coins being out there in total and that putting lost coins into miners blocks is a good thing actually You are free to do so, but I will always transact on a network that doesn't do this. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
