Economic Totalitarianism

[username18333]

Some might say that BTC is already centralized; sure, but it has a unique feature "YOU CAN'T PRINT MORE"! TPTB certainly know this much and probably they're en route incorporating as a global reserve currency as we speak.

(Colorization mine.)

…I have two words: [alternative] [crypto-currencies].

(Changes added.)

An additional (cryptographic) currency would inflate a cryptographic "basket currency" upon the former's inclusion into the latter like a particle with positive mass "inflates" (i.e., expands the Schwarzschild radius of) a Schwarzschild black hole.

[1714828332]

1714828332

[1714828332]

1714828332

[1714828332]

1714828332

[1714828332]

1714828332

[trollercoaster]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/egypt-adopts-controversial-anti-terror-law-150817042612693.html

http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/operating-systems/matthew-wilson/windows-10-can-seek-out-pirated-software/

[TPTB_need_war]

centralizing BTC is practically replacing fiat with it! Some might say that BTC is already centralized; sure, but it has a unique feature "YOU CAN'T PRINT MORE"!

I wrote down an explanation today in my second white paper that the red statement is not true. Centralization will indeed allow a NWO central bank to control Bitcoin's money supply. I even explain the politics of that.

[TPTB_need_war]

bitcoin has it's purpose to serve as a gateway to superior coins, but it's not a solution to the problems we face as the fanboys have been boastfully shouting about for the last six years.

I agree with this statement, however I am not sure what exactly a superior coin would look like. There are things Bitcoin lacks when it comes to anonymity, but it seems pretty sound aside from that, as we currently understand the technology.

Any ideas what Bitcoin lacks that future coins could do?

My prior post was your wakeup call. More cases of Bitcoin's failure modes to be explained but not in forum posts.

[TPTB_need_war]

there has existed for somehing like 35 years an analogue modem for 27MHZ, 142MHZ licenced and unlicensed. It's just a little PCB you solder to your mike / speaker points. There are multiple private 24/7 uplinks around the world. so you can mail and surf as you would normally, but slow. Around 2K baud, So try to sync your block chain on that.

As a post apocalyptic internet it's fine.

The entire internet will never go down. The main threat is segmentation of the internet and thus the block chain into competing chains.

The solution is to HAM or shortwave radio the data between segments, and the miners slow down the block period as necessary to accommodate the slower relaying time.

The coin needs a better (more efficient) design than Bitcoin on the way miners aggregate and relay data.

This can probably all be solved once we get serious development back into a coin. Bitcoin development has become rigor mortis.

Ham radio can be used to receive encrypted messages, so it can be used to send and receive bitcoins over very long distances.
Imagine a scenario in the future where only Brazil has internet as we know it today and allows bitcoin to be used.
We could use ham radio using encrypted communications for bitcoin sweep.
Then again, ham radio communication seems easier to restrict than the internet.
By the way, do you think in such scenario would be possible to use an old fashioned modem to connect with internet in Brazil using ham radio?

"HAM" radio is a specific, licensed service with a prohibition on encrypted communications.

I do believe that "high frequency" or "shortwave" radio, which is what you mean, will play a role in human liberty.

So, it's funny this thread came up today because I was just thinking about HAM radio applications for bitcoin.  Transactions over the radio wouldn't be super-feasible using voice modes (but perhaps using digital modes).  They need not be encrypted, just signed.  AFAIK, sending a cryptographically signed message for authentication should be fine since the data is in the clear.  Here's an extensive write-up on the subject:

http://blog.rietta.com/2009/08/authentication-without-encryption-for.html

WHAT DOES PART 97 SAY?
Section 97.113 (4) "...messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning thereof, except as otherwise provided herein..."

Based on the above quote, we can use any method at our disposal to provide for secure authentication which does not obscure the meaning of communications.

[TPTB_need_war]

"nobody can take it away from us any more, we have the internet"

World Without Web

[TPTB_need_war]

See where empathy leads:

Well I must say that literally the dumbest error would be to avoid duplicating my feat to not mine Monero in the first place, although it afforded me the luxury of not losing my keys[1] but pardon me if damning by faint praise is no consolation.

[1] Locking those inside my car seems to be a habitual rite of passage for me.

Hey since it seems everyone irretrievably lost their keys, no problem if we ignore Monero now since there won't be any further transactions.

Btw, I've heard they employ lie detector tests and medically induced hypnosis before proceeding to the water boarding for stubborn cases.

Shouldn't we in all due honesty adjust the coinmarketcap to 0 as well?

P.S. this post is a test of your logic skills.

[TPTB_need_war]

I am going toot my horn again. Because there is something I want to say to someone in private and I might as well write it here as it is useful information.

My consensus network design is robust against a fragmented network or a network with very low global bandwidth, e.g. HAM and shortwave radio.

That is in addition to the elimination of 51% attack (and selfish mining attack also). Elimination of Finney attack and pool attack and other attacks on 0-confirmation (instant) transactions (real-time to sub-100ms).

And my design scales to any level of transactions with no block size issue.

And it eliminates the economics of ASICs putting mining back in the hands of the users. Pools either won't exist or can't attain a significant portion of the hashrate. This isn't due to a CPU hash per se (although there is a new one), but because of the overall economics of the consensus network structure. It does employ proof-of-work and it can distribute coins to new users.

And several other amazing features in addition to the ON CHAIN autonomous anonymity improvement over all existing anonymity offerings (Cryptonote, Confidential Transactions, Zerocash).

What more could you ask for? It is nearly perfect.

It sounds like a scam right? Impossible right? Nope. This is legit. Believe me, I am just as flabbergast as you are.

Hurdle: implementation.

[bigtimespaghetti]

I am going toot my horn again. Because there is something I want to say to someone in private and I might as well write it here as it is useful information.

My consensus network design is robust against a fragmented network or a network with very low global bandwidth, e.g. HAM and shortwave radio.

That is in addition to the elimination of 51% attack (and selfish mining attack also). Elimination of Finney attack and pool attack and other attacks on 0-confirmation (instant) transactions (real-time to sub-100ms).

And my design scales to any level of transactions with no block size issue.

And it elminates the economics of ASICs putting mining back in the hands of the users. Pools either won't exist or can't attain a significant portion of the hashrate.

And several other amazing features in addition to the ON CHAIN autonomous anonymity improvement over all existing anonymity offerings (Cryptonote, Confidential Transactions, Zerocash).

What more could you ask for? It is nearly perfect.

It sounds like a scam right? Impossible right? Nope. This is legit. Believe me, I am just as flabbergast as you are.

Thought I'd sum up my thoughts on this matter with a cat. This is good news

[username18333]

What more could you ask for? It is nearly perfect.

Unless your "internet" (TPTB_need_war) could down nuclear warheads (and every other element of a modern, national armament), your "communit[ies]" (TPTB_need_war) would remain subject to physical authority.

[arielbit]

is this HAM/shortwave radio interconnected to the internet? and these shortwave radios can have a reliable interconnected network in rural areas, easy and cheap to maintain(sustainable)? what are the device/s people in rural areas need to carry this crypto currency?

rural areas and coastal areas is where majority of food came from..any new design should be rural area friendly.

is this the dawn of new network devices? just like what the routers did for the internet..crypto currencies will have its own network devices..WOW

[TPTB_need_war]

Hard forks are 51% attacks, we need side-chains

To get some perspective on the logic I want to promote, first read theymos's Reddit sticky post (he is the moderator or r/bitcoin and also one of the owners of Bitcointalk.org):

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/

You can also read the very respected Bitcoin research Meni Rosenfeld's comment:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/cu6udfe

I also note this hostile new "feature" (a.k.a. trojan horse) in Bitcoin XT (a.k.a. GavinCoin):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156489.0

But let me attempt to remove my subjective opinion from the objective logic I want to present.

A hard fork if it succeeds is a majority attack against the minority. Thus it is technically a 51% attack where the adversary that has greater than 50% of the hashrate can always win the longest chain of proof-of-work and thus can dictate to the minority (that is unless the minority can distinguish which blocks are being produced by the adversary and decide to never mine on them, thus maintaining their minority hashrate chain as distinct).

For example, afaics the change to Bitcoin XT to blacklist the Tor exit node IP addresses does not make the blocks produced by Bitcoin XT miners distinguishable from those blocks mined by those running Bitcoin Core full nodes.

Of course once Bitcoin XT nodes begin producing blocks greater than 1 MB in size, these blocks would be distinguished as not being produced by Bitcoin Core miners. However, note that one of the characteristics of a 51% attack is that it can indeed change the protocol. Of course the minority can refuse to mine on the new protocol, but given that network hashrate is so crucial for security in Bitcoin's design, it is doubtful that a minority block chain could survive because the network hashrate of the majority (especially a significant majority) could be diverted to execute large double-spends on the minority chain wrecking havoc. Just the threat of that possibility is probably enough to cause significant HODLers to sell their coins on the minority fork causing it's price to diverge downwards.

Thus, network hashrate political wars are attempts to make 51% attacks. They are adversarial.

All of this could be avoided with two improvements to crypto-currency technology:

• Side-chains so HODLers can move their Bitcoin value to the protocol of their choice.
• A way to filter 51% attacks, so that network hashrate is not a weapon of mass destruction, and so the principle of side-chains can work correctly.

Blockstream is implementing the first improvement. I am implementing the second improvement.

Note there are some issues with side-chains that have to be dealt with carefully. The movement of coins between chains needs to have long lock up times to insure that reorganizations due to orphaned chains can't create a chaotic mixed up outcome (namely duplicate copies of coins) that can't be restored. Speculators can help users move their coins faster between chains for a fee which covers their opportunity cost and risks in the lock up.

It is time we put an end to this nonsense, by using technology to do so.

P.S. note I am formerly the username AnonyMint (and numerous usernames hence), which I abandoned last year to try to encourage myself to stop wasting so much time posting in forums. When I first joined this forum as AnonyMint in Spring 2013, I wrote an article "Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch" which Google will confirm to you was published around the web a bit. My real name is on that article.

[TPTB_need_war]

PS: I've decided to risk a portion of my BTCs following the advice you gave on Klee's thread. As stated there, I don't feel comfortable about it, but more and more I am convinced that your approach of BTC's is essentially a "gold-like" commodity and should be treated like one, is true.

As more people capitulate to the reality that it is better to be short than long that is what drives the extreme low.

This bounce back up is one more gift to go short before it is too late. Again the "Only the Date is Unknown". I don't know how far up the price will reach before crashing again or the timing. Volatility will increase.

The "End of Government" can mean many things. It can mean we still have governments exerting totalitarianism with the chaos of loss of rule of law (i.e. rampant corruption in government). Again study my upthread review of the decades long chaotic collapse of the Western Roman empire.

The government won't entirely disappear any time soon. You'll wish they would. In Rome it got so bad that the people just abandoned their land because the government was so oppressive. Later there was no government in Rome and only cows grazing in the city. But first the totalitarianism.

[TPTB_need_war]

So we had Satoshi on Aug 15 and now Snowden chimes that Bitcoin needs to be fixed:

I'm not sure if Snowden particularly knows what he's talking about in this case really. I mean, the 51% attack is hardly something most don't know about.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/115133/edward-snowden-on-bitcoin-bitcoin-by-itself-is-flawed

“Obviously, Bitcoin by itself is flawed. The protocol has a lot of weaknesses and transaction sides and a lot of weaknesses that structurally make it vulnerable to people who are trying to own 50 percent of the network and so on and so forth.”

'Despite his concern for the digital currency, Snowden believes the concept of tokenization and proof of work could be implemented to create “some very interesting things,”...”

[macsga]

So we had Satoshi on Aug 15 and now Snowden chimes that Bitcoin needs to be fixed:

I'm not sure if Snowden particularly knows what he's talking about in this case really. I mean, the 51% attack is hardly something most don't know about.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/115133/edward-snowden-on-bitcoin-bitcoin-by-itself-is-flawed

“Obviously, Bitcoin by itself is flawed. The protocol has a lot of weaknesses and transaction sides and a lot of weaknesses that structurally make it vulnerable to people who are trying to own 50 percent of the network and so on and so forth.”

'Despite his concern for the digital currency, Snowden believes the concept of tokenization and proof of work could be implemented to create “some very interesting things,”...”

BTC flawed 'cause 51% attack? He didn't say anything we didn't already know. Maybe I'm a bit paranoid here but let me believe that Snowden is not some "random chap who thought it would be bad for the USGov to monitor their citizens (and the whole world in the meantime)" and decided to land in Russia's arms. I'm sure that *IF* he's for real, he'd probably had his reasons not to say anything about NSA's attack to the Tor network, in order to reveal who were the overlords of Silkroad. Possibilities he was not aware?

Reverse psychology rulez...

[generalizethis]

darkecologies.com/2015/08/19/cryptosociety-the-dark-economy-and-technologies-of-freedom/

[THX 1138]

is this HAM/shortwave radio interconnected to the internet? and these shortwave radios can have a reliable interconnected network in rural areas, easy and cheap to maintain(sustainable)? what are the device/s people in rural areas need to carry this crypto currency?

rural areas and coastal areas is where majority of food came from..any new design should be rural area friendly...

Living in a rural location myself, I've been wondering too at what options there might be. I'm pretty new to this and have been trying to work out what kit would be needed. Any layman-friendly advice from out there would be appreciated ;-)

I came across this a while back:

"Building a Rural Wireless Mesh Network":

PDF here:

http://wirelessafrica.meraka.org.za/wiki/index.php/DIY_Mesh_Guide_Download

[tabnloz]

So we had Satoshi on Aug 15 and now Snowden chimes that Bitcoin needs to be fixed:

I'm not sure if Snowden particularly knows what he's talking about in this case really. I mean, the 51% attack is hardly something most don't know about.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/115133/edward-snowden-on-bitcoin-bitcoin-by-itself-is-flawed

“Obviously, Bitcoin by itself is flawed. The protocol has a lot of weaknesses and transaction sides and a lot of weaknesses that structurally make it vulnerable to people who are trying to own 50 percent of the network and so on and so forth.”

'Despite his concern for the digital currency, Snowden believes the concept of tokenization and proof of work could be implemented to create “some very interesting things,”...”

BTC flawed 'cause 51% attack? He didn't say anything we didn't already know. Maybe I'm a bit paranoid here but let me believe that Snowden is not some "random chap who thought it would be bad for the USGov to monitor their citizens (and the whole world in the meantime)" and decided to land in Russia's arms. I'm sure that *IF* he's for real, he'd probably had his reasons not to say anything about NSA's attack to the Tor network, in order to reveal who were the overlords of Silkroad. Possibilities he was not aware?

Reverse psychology rulez...

I didn't think Snowden's thoughts on bitcoin were entirely that bad, and agree that it regarded nothing that most people haven't already accepted ie possibility of 51% etc etc.

And, after Citizen Four, No Place To Hide and WikiLeaks / Sarah Harrison involvement, I am convinced that Snowden is legit and heroic. It would seem to be plenty harder to do things the way he did than a preplanned conspiracy. The repercussions from his exposures are global and have changed the world: reflecting poorly on US, negatively affected US companies, led to scrutiny of all governments and countries. As for the NSA / Tor link, it is over 2 years post Snowden, creeping up on 3 if you think about the preparation that would have been involved, so there is a possibility that either a) he didn't have access to that info, b) info is still to be released or c) the program was still in germination phase. But all in all for me, despite the capabilities of TPTB to control the narrative, this is one case I think he is a true whistleblower.

[username18333]

And, after Citizen Four, No Place To Hide and WikiLeaks / Sarah Harrison involvement, I am convinced that Snowden is legit and heroic. It would seem to be plenty harder to do things the way he did than a preplanned conspiracy. The repercussions from his exposures are global and have changed the world: reflecting poorly on US, negatively affected US companies, led to scrutiny of all governments and countries. As for the NSA / Tor link, it is over 2 years post Snowden, creeping up on 3 if you think about the preparation that would have been involved, so there is a possibility that either a) he didn't have access to that info, b) info is still to be released or c) the program was still in germination phase. But all in all for me, despite the capabilities of TPTB to control the narrative, this is one case I think he is a true whistleblower.

In order to get people to understand the gravity of the situation, Oliver feels they should frame it differently: d*ck pics. Alluding to the fact that Americans seemed far more outraged over “The Fappening”—the celebrity nude photo hacking spree that exposed a laundry list of A-list actresses last year—than the Snowden revelations, Oliver felt that an easier way to communicate the issue to Americans is as follows: The government is accessing your private d*ck pics.

[TPTB_need_war]

BTC flawed 'cause 51% attack? He didn't say anything we didn't already know...

I didn't think Snowden's thoughts on bitcoin were entirely that bad, and agree that it regarded nothing that most people haven't already accepted ie possibility of 51% etc etc.

A 51% attack can create as many Bitcoins as it wants to.

I think Bitcoin investors do not really believe it can happen, because they would not invest in inflatacoin.

But it is much more likely than they believe.

Everyone knows that Bitcoin mining MUST become more centralized (in order to scale up transactions) and thus it will likely (almost certainly IMO) eventually become controlled by the G20 that can regulate a few 100s of mining nodes. Will be justified by the G20 doing coordination against terrorism, money laundering, and tax cheating.

And the masses who use Coinbase wallets and other large providers such as the Blockstream.com (3 million wallets) CEO shaking hands with the Prime Minister of the UK upthread, won't care! They are sheep. They follow. They are preoccupied.