Bitcoin is being invaded by Leftists

[Carlton Banks]

No it's a totally legitimate political separation.

No it isn't. Newspapers, political pundits and newsmedia in general are known liars in the Authoritarian control structure, be careful which aspects of their culture you assimilate.

My fix to your breakdown:


Liberalism= Free association, private property, capitalism, minimal or zero government

Authoritarianism =  Everything valuable owned by the elite, communism OR fascism, the proles are equally poor either way, maximum government



"Left" and "Right" are words that have no natural political meaning. Those words (Left & Right) are concerned with relative horizontal position from the perspective of an observer. All political meanings are projected, and using left-right as the polarities instead of up-down or red-blue is likely because of just how pliable the concept of left-right is (up-down and red-blue cannot change, whereas if you walk down a street one direction, what's on the left or the right changes if you walk it the other direction i.e. totally context dependent).

Like I said earlier in the thread, Left-Right is just a way of dividing people into 2 sides that can't win. The 2 sides should be uniting to fight against the actual problem: authoritarians who think they can live your life better than you can.

[1715180810]

1715180810

[DooMAD]

There is no corporate monopoly over bitcoin, and competition is good, I am not sure where you get that from, I have never said such contradictory things.

If you're in favour of competition and a free and open market, then how do you square that with the rampant protectionism going on in the community right now?  Protectionism can be defined as actions or policies that restrict or restrain external competition.   Core is seen as the "native" code, which some people feel has to be protected or shielded from any outside, external developers, working on their own implementations.  If competition is good, you should welcome more alternative clients.

Also, if were are going to head down the route of corporate entities paying developers, many would feel more comfortable if there were a greater number of corporate entities involved.  As things stand right now, how many companies are directly paying developers?  I'm only aware of five main contributors: Blockstream, MIT, Chaincode Labs, Ciphrex, and BTCC.  And two of those, Chaincode Labs and Ciphrex, are companies run *by* developers themselves, so I'm not even sure that counts.  They're basically self-funded coders.  So it's certainly not a monopoly, but it's not exactly diverse either.

Yes, competition is good, but we have to be careful.

Bitcoin is not a lab experiment with rats, it has 10 billion market cap and a whole new economy depending on it. We cannot affort to skrew it up.

So yes Core deserves some protectionism, by the big bitcoin whales themselves, so its totally legitimate.

If 90% of bitcoin owners favor Core, then that is totally legitimate, because the big money is what counts here. Bitcoin is private property, and if the majority of the money decides 1 path, that is our wish.

I tend to look at Bitcoin as a corporation , because it is essentially that, an unincorporated global corporation, where multiple wealth owners decide our common route that is best for our wealth.

So bitcoin is not a sunday chess club where you can have any form of governance you wish. We are talking about 10 billion dollars here that are jointly owned by all bitcoin owners, and the final word should always be with the majority of the money.

Nodes dont matter, miners dont matter, it's what the 50% +1 percent of the market cap wants matters!

Since Bitcoin is all about personal responsibility, I'm of the opinion (which I'm sure you and many others here won't agree with) that you should carefully consider your investments before plowing money into them.  I came into Bitcoin with the full understanding that it was an open source system and that anyone is free to modify the code as they see fit.  So I find it hard to sympathise with those who believe that the people running the code don't matter.  It's self evident that they do.

No it's a totally legitimate political separation.


Right= Hierarchy, private property, capitalism ,  2+2 = 4 , well defined boundaries between objects

Left = Equality , common ownership, communism,  2+2 = 2 , everything is mixed together


You choose which one is better? For bitcoin, and for the future of bitcoin?

It seems to be a popular misconception on this forum that "left" automatically equates to "communism".  There are many philosophies including left-libertarianism, syndicalism, statism, anarchism and socialism that all differ to communism in different ways.  It would be like me assuming that everyone on the right is automatically a fascist, which would clearly be incorrect.  I'd echo the viewpoint that the Authoritarian/Libertarian scale is far more pertinent than the Left/Right one in this discussion.  You can still be on the left and have libertarian views, the two aren't mutually exclusive.  To further muddy the waters, there are different types of communism.  The extreme authoritarian kind of communism is where the state compels the observance of equality by force.  Then there's the extreme libertarian kind, which can be colloquially described as "hippies".  And, like most things, there are more moderate shades of grey in between (although it should be noted, despite demonstrating this understanding, I don't identify as a communist    ).

Further, just because someone might have a philosophy that applies to the broken world of debt-based currencies and corrupt governments, it doesn't necessarily mean they want to apply those same beliefs to this shiny new paradigm we inhabit where code is law and consensus is king.  You might view me as a crazy leftist in the real world , but I certainly don't want to "Install a Pension System into the bitcoin protocol" or enact "Automatic wealth redistribution", because I don't think that's what this is for.  

Don't fear the leftists, fear the authoritarians.  But know also that protectionism is, without exception, an authoritarian concept.  There should be no central entity enforcing barriers to what should be a free and open market.  No one should be trying to tell anyone else what code they can and can't run.  It's a matter of personal freedom.

[Carlton Banks]

DooMAD, you're better than most but you don't totally get it either.

left-libertarianism,

This is what former left-wingers sometimes say when they switch to libertarianism. They can't cope psychologically with the idea that anything right-wing makes sense, so they have to redefine their stance as "only the left part". This ignores the point of libertarianism: taking the good aspects of the right, and the good aspects of the left, thus rendering the dividing line null and void.

To come into libertarianism trying to re-establish the useless left-right dividing line can only be interpreted as either foolishness or intended to disrupt or divide libertarians.

syndicalism, statism, anarchism and socialism that all differ to communism in different ways.  

Syndicalism = communist wolves in anarchist sheepskins. 5 minutes of anarchy, so we can set up the "correct" form of statism. I'd recommend not using the Syndicalist term if you wish to be taken seriously.

To further muddy the waters,

Indeed, why stop there when you could make it sound even more incoherent, lol

But know also that protectionism is, without exception, an authoritarian concept.  There should be no central entity enforcing barriers to what should be a free and open market.  No one should be trying to tell anyone else what code they can and can't run.  It's a matter of personal freedom.

And this is where you descend into outright nonsense.

Individuals have every right to dictate who can use assets that belong to them. It's called property rights, and yes, it involves protecting your rightful possessions. Freedom is not the freedom to steal. And you've been advocating strongly for theft elsewhere on bitcointalk.org.

[franky1]

Syndicalism = communist wolves in anarchist sheepskins. 5 minutes of anarchy, so we can set up the "correct" form of statism. I'd recommend not using the Syndicalist term if you wish to be taken seriously.

so there we have it.
2015 carlton and other blockstreamers done their 5 minutes of anarchy by R3kt campaigning how bad anyone linked to r3 are to scare people over to blockstream.
2016 blockstream gets a payday from and working with.... drum roll please.......... R3
2016 carlton claims bitcoin is blockstreams private property

Alex Fowler, senior vice president, business affairs at Blockstream  
With regard to the R3 project Fowler said: "We have several customers who are part of the R3 consortium, and we think there is a lot of value in that working group. This is a shared infrastructure and having an organisation that can convene a decision maker has value. I think we will see some very interesting things emerge from R3."

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2016/03/open-source-blockchain-effort-enterprise-elects-leadership

Technical Steering Committee Chair: Chris Ferris, distinguished engineer and CTO of open technology at IBM
Technical Steering Committee members include: Tamás Blummer, Digital Asset Holdings; Mic Bowman, Intel; Richard Brown, R3; Stanislav Liberman, CME Group; Hart Montgomery, Fujitsu; Satoshi Oshima, Hitachi; Stefan Teis, Deutsche Börse; Emmanuel Viale, Accenture; Pardha Vishnumolakala, DTCC; and David Voell, J.P. Morgan.
Governing Board members: Charles Cascarilla, CEO, itBit; Toshiya Cho, Hitachi; Jerry Cuomo, IBM; Chris Ferris, IBM; Dirk Hohndel, Intel; Todd McDonald, cofounder and COO, R3; Robert Palatnick, DTCC; Kireeti Reddy, CME Group; Stefan Teis, Deutsche Börse; Dave Treat, Accenture; Yoshinobu Sawano, Fujitsu; Santiago Suarez, J.P. Morgan; and Craig Young, CTO, SWIFT.
The Hyperledger Project today is also announcing ten new companies are joining the effort and investing in the future of an open blockchain ledger: Blockstream, Bloq, eVue Digital Labs, Gem, itBit, Milligan Partners, Montran Labs, Ribbit.me, Tequa Creek Holdings and Thomson Reuters.

i said it last year and highlighted it a few times this year. carlton is in the bait and switch game to get more people scared and sheep follow him into the wolf pen.

carlton=Authoritarian, not libertarian.
end of. moving on

[Carlton Banks]

The repo keys for the source code are the private property, not the network. Trying to mount a vigilante driven removal of the lock that a set of keys open is called theft.

[franky1]

The repo keys for the source code are the private property, not the network. Trying to mount a vigilante driven removal of the lock that a set of keys open is called theft.

dont need keys. the code has been open sourced. MIT licenced, and under a defensive patent licence which allows any to have it.

by the way it is worth mentioning that its blockstream that are the real people you are defending.
not the property owners related to github.

so dont divert your fake shilling to concern bitcoin. when we know you are only concerned with getting blockstream and the banks in a controlling dictator position of bitcoin.

[Carlton Banks]

not the property owners related to github.

Well, at least you understand that the repo keys are legitimate property. Hence why not everyone has a copy of the keys, lol

[DooMAD]

Individuals have every right to dictate who can use assets that belong to them. It's called property rights, and yes, it involves protecting your rightful possessions.

Yes, Core have every right to dictate who can use their github.  It's their property.  But that's the extent of their ownership.  If they want to have property rights over the code itself, they would need to release it under a different licence and have one of those EULA agreements no one ever reads, stating the software is their exclusive property and users don't have the right to modify or distribute it.  But that's not the case, so stop arguing that they own the code when they clearly don't.  You're the one descending into nonsense if you think users aren't free to modify and run whatever code they choose.

carlton=Authoritarian, not libertarian.
end of. moving on

Concurred.

[franky1]

not the property owners related to github.

Well, at least you understand that the repo keys are legitimate property. Hence why not everyone has a copy of the keys, lol

i was being sarcastic about your claim..LOL
having authority does not mean ownership

EG having ownership to a private key is meaningless.. a hacker using a trojan can have ownership too.
technically its all about authority of not ownership of.
as long as you don't give authority to anyone else then no one else has authority to it.

EG
you think you OWN your bank balance simply because you know the pin number to your ATM card.. and it has your name linked to the account
...think again.

even banks these days are not reimbursing funds if its obvious that another party used your pin number, because then you are the one at fault.
you can play mind games all you like and cry "but that money was in my name".. yep as an authorised user. not owner.
and now you know the secrets to why FIAT banks screw with people over, using the pretence that users funds are actually theirs.
its how they can take funds from your account at will.

if you have not learned anything of the real world then i feel sorry for you.

governments do not own the country, but they do have authority over it

facebook users do not own the content on their profiles. they only have authority to add,edit delete content

github can ban any user without notice. and the user is no legal recourse to cry "they deleted my private property"

GitHub, in its sole discretion, has the right to suspend or terminate your account and refuse any and all current or future use of the Service, or any other GitHub service, for any reason at any time.
Such termination of the Service will result in the deactivation or deletion of your Account or your access to your Account, and the forfeiture and relinquishment of all Content in your Account. GitHub reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time.

stop assuming and instead start learning.

i think maybe its time you research a topic before you try getting involved. it will save you hours or days trying to whinge your way around the topic. by instead actually researching, you can make a point and then be done in alot less time.

and thanks for meandering offtopic and not making a valid point of the topic or even the meander.. yet again.
it continues to show your true colours

and to help others.

Yes, Core have every right to authorise who can use their github.

i edited a quote from DooMAD to help him get out of the semantics game carlton loves to play to try proclaiming bitcoin belongs to blockstream

The right to authorise has been given to the user by github. in short the github user is a supervisor/janitor and/or manager. not an owner

have a nice day,

[Money_king88]

not the property owners related to github.

Well, at least you understand that the repo keys are legitimate property. Hence why not everyone has a copy of the keys, lol

i was being sarcastic about your claim..LOL
having authority does not mean ownership

EG having ownership to a private key is meaningless.. a hacker using a trojan can have ownership too.
technically its all about authority of not ownership of.
as long as you don't give authority to anyone else then no one else has authority to it.

EG
you think you OWN your bank balance simply because you know the pin number to your ATM card.. and it has your name linked to the account
...think again.

even banks these days are not reimbursing funds if its obvious that another party used your pin number, because then you are the one at fault.
you can play mind games all you like and cry "but that money was in my name".. yep as an authorised user. not owner.
and now you know the secrets to why FIAT banks screw with people over, using the pretence that users funds are actually theirs.
its how they can take funds from your account at will.

if you have not learned anything of the real world then i feel sorry for you.

governments do not own the country, but they do have authority over it

facebook users do not own the content on their profiles. they only have authority to add,edit delete content

github can ban any user without notice. and the user is no legal recourse to cry "they deleted my private property"

GitHub, in its sole discretion, has the right to suspend or terminate your account and refuse any and all current or future use of the Service, or any other GitHub service, for any reason at any time.
Such termination of the Service will result in the deactivation or deletion of your Account or your access to your Account, and the forfeiture and relinquishment of all Content in your Account. GitHub reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time.

stop assuming and instead start learning.

i think maybe its time you research a topic before you try getting involved. it will save you hours or days trying to whinge your way around the topic. by instead actually researching, you can make a point and then be done in alot less time.

and thanks for meandering offtopic and not making a valid point of the topic or even the meander.. yet again.
it continues to show your true colours

have a nice day,

Yes this it 100℅ true in all aspects of digital world and most real world items.

I've had a steam account worth well over 10k and i was a small pawn In trading items with people and I was sold stolen items and they then banned my account.. so from this I have learned we Own nothing that is on the internet hits why it is best to keep little coins in banks or only exchanges and online wallets

[franky1]

Yes this it 100℅ true in all aspects of digital world and most real world items.

I've had a steam account worth well over 10k and i was a small pawn In trading items with people and I was sold stolen items and they then banned my account.. so from this I have learned we Own nothing that is on the internet hits why it is best to keep little coins in banks or only exchanges and online wallets

and not let the private key slip into other peoples hands. otherwise they have authority to sign a transaction

[Carlton Banks]

we Own nothing that is on the internet hits why it is best to keep little coins in banks or only exchanges and online wallets

and not let the private key slip into other peoples hands. otherwise they have authority to sign a transaction

uh-oh, wasn't the whole basis of your wall-of-text post up-thread was that possession of cryptographic keys is not a form of authority?

[RealBitcoin]

Liberalism= Free association, private property, capitalism, minimal or zero government

Authoritarianism =  Everything valuable owned by the elite, communism OR fascism, the proles are equally poor either way, maximum government

Since Bitcoin is all about personal responsibility, I'm of the opinion (which I'm sure you and many others here won't agree with) that you should carefully consider your investments before plowing money into them.  I came into Bitcoin with the full understanding that it was an open source system and that anyone is free to modify the code as they see fit.  So I find it hard to sympathise with those who believe that the people running the code don't matter.  It's self evident that they do.

While the right could be authoritarian, in most cases it isnt, it focuses on self-discipline and self-governance.

The left is always authoritarian, anarchists in the 1800 turned into bolshevist-marxists by 1900. You have to force equality because it is unnatural, and naturally people are unequal.


In order to create perfect equality, you will have an almighty government that will use totalitarian force in every aspect of your life to enforce equality, and everyone will be equal but the state officials that enforce this.

A good example of a right wing libertarian state was the Roman Republic pre Punic Wars: there was free market, no income tax, tiny regulations in form of permits, voluntary military, no socialism, and property taxes were so low that you only had to work 1 day in a year to pay it off, and there was no inflation either.

Compare that to your shitty soviet factory, undisciplined ,where half workers were drunk and they couldn't even produce basic stuff, everything was imported from the west.

Incomparable. So I'd choose a libertarian right, because left libertarian is oxymoron.

It seems to be a popular misconception on this forum that "left" automatically equates to "communism".

It is. Because as soon as you create some equality, you want to push the limit further.

It's like dropping a drop of red ink in clean water, it spreads very quickly and makes all the water red.

Enforcement of equality will escalate, and you will end up with an unimaginably tyrranical authoritarian government,  STALIN ^ 1000 level tyranny.

So any form of leftism will escalate into tyrannical communism very quickly.

All this left-anarchism, syndicalism, liberalism, social-democracy, will end up in communism eventually, it's not a question if, but when.


"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." - Lenin

"The goal of socialism is communism." - Lenin

[Carlton Banks]

While the right could be authoritarian, in most cases it isnt, it focuses on self-discipline and self-governance.

The left is always authoritarian, anarchists in the 1800 turned into bolshevist-marxists by 1900. You have to force equality because it is unnatural, and naturally people are unequal.

So you're saying Mussolini wasn't a right-wing authoritarian? Or that the Liberal left Dutch society is authoritarian? The Dutch culture is quite similar to what Libertarianism promises (and has not had a chance to deliver so far)

[RealBitcoin]

While the right could be authoritarian, in most cases it isnt, it focuses on self-discipline and self-governance.

The left is always authoritarian, anarchists in the 1800 turned into bolshevist-marxists by 1900. You have to force equality because it is unnatural, and naturally people are unequal.

So you're saying Mussolini wasn't a right-wing authoritarian? Or that the Liberal left Dutch society is authoritarian? The Dutch culture is quite similar to what Libertarianism promises (and has not had a chance to deliver so far)

Yes he was a  right wing authoritarian.


I am talking about right wing libertarianism, read my full post before responding to snippets taken out of context.



Things like Cristianatown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania, is just a hippy nonsense and it is not sustainable in the long term. Most people there are just hippy pot smokers that are lazy, they are squatting in abandoned buildings, instead of building new modern ones. This is really the level of the left, like a bunch of edgy teenagers that are bored.

The Roman Republic on the other hand made entire Europe civilized, by turning the unwashed barbarians that drunk dirty water and were cannibals into prosperous civilized people.

[franky1]

realbitcoin.. seriously

if a right wing liberals is a left wing authoritarian
if a left wing liberals is a right wing authoritarian

then you are not making a point
can you stop using wings out of context..
im actually going to say before carlton meandered off topic he had an earlier rational point

The left/right isn't a political spectrum, it's a divide and conquer tactic, whereby liberalism gets split into economic liberalism and social liberalism, and then one side is fed arguments about why the other is the source of all problems.

The best approach is to never use the left/right concept, as you're always going to look like a reflexive partisan, one step away from using the non-argument "you're just one of them!"

This is why libertarianism and the various other anarchy inspired political ideologies are popular among Bitcoiners; they appear to be left-right blind, taking ideas from the left or the right as long as they promote liberty.

[Carlton Banks]

While the right could be authoritarian, in most cases it isnt, it focuses on self-discipline and self-governance.

The left is always authoritarian, anarchists in the 1800 turned into bolshevist-marxists by 1900. You have to force equality because it is unnatural, and naturally people are unequal.

So you're saying Mussolini wasn't a right-wing authoritarian? Or that the Liberal left Dutch society is authoritarian? The Dutch culture is quite similar to what Libertarianism promises (and has not had a chance to deliver so far)

Yes he was a  right wing authoritarian.


I am talking about right wing libertarianism, read my full post before responding to snippets taken out of context.

Everything I responded to was in context.

If you say "The left is always authoritarian", I provided an example of left labelled politics that is liberal, not authoritarian. It's entirely reasonable to point out how right labelled politics can be just as tyrranical, hence left and right is not the route to finding freedom or liberalism. Left and right deliberately divides freedom in half, as I've said.


To illustrate further:

Presumably, as someone who identifies with the right label, you're a big fan of:

• Monarchies (literally the opposite of freedom and self determinism, it's a "mono-archy")
• Banning recreational drugs (wanna mess with the freedom of others, huh)
• Police state thuggery against vulnerable people (but they're all criminals just waiting to happen though, right?)
• Traditional family values (it says in the Bible "let no man put asunder", therefore your divorce is a sin!)
• Heavily patrolled national borders and restrictive policies for foreigners to cross (tekkin' yer jobs? What about the free-market?)

You see, "rightists" have equally unpalatable characteristics also, if you don't choose to pretend they don't exist. That's why Libertarianism doesn't conform to any of those bullet points. Like I said, throw away the bullshit from the "right", AND the bullshit from the "left", and you've got anarchism/libertariansim left over.

[DooMAD]

To illustrate further:

Presumably, as someone who identifies with the right label, you're a big fan of:

• Monarchies Centralised development (literally the opposite of freedom and self determinism)
• Banning recreational drugs Outcries over modified code (wanna mess with the freedom of others, huh)
• Police state thuggery against vulnerable people Tirades against developers of alternative clients (but they're all criminals dictators just waiting to happen though, right?)
• Heavily patrolled national borders and restrictive policies for foreigners to cross Protectionism for "sovereign code" to deter competing protocols (tekkin' yer jobs code? What about the free-market?)

 

I can't think of one for "Traditional family values", anyone care to lend a hand?   

Something about fork proposals being a sin, perhaps.   

[RealBitcoin]

Presumably, as someone who identifies with the right label, you're a big fan of:


    ● Monarchies (literally the opposite of freedom and self determinism, it's a "mono-archy")[/li][/list]

No, I am anti-monarchy. Monarchy is authoritarian. As I said, I am right-libertarian, the opposite of it.

●Banning recreational drugs (wanna mess with the freedom of others, huh)[/li][/list]

Nope, not ban, but discourage. Drugs encourage degenerate behaviour, so it should not be promoted, but I would be in favor of legalizing it to stop this drug war mess.

●Police state thuggery against vulnerable people (but they're all criminals just waiting to happen though, right?)[/li][/list]

Nope, if you have read my posts, you would know that i am anti-tyranny.

●Traditional family values (it says in the Bible "let no man put asunder", therefore your divorce is a sin!)[/li][/list]

Yep, divorce makes children unstable and traumatized. Of course I am anti -divorce.

●Heavily patrolled national borders and restrictive policies for foreigners to cross (tekkin' yer jobs? What about the free-market?)[/li][/list]

This depends. If we are talking about private property, then you obviously need to protect it. If a nation is a collective property of the citizens, then it needs to be defended.

I am not saying to build a huge wall ,or put sentry guns every 100 meters, but definitely a border security is needed.

You see, "rightists" have equally unpalatable characteristics also, if you don't choose to pretend they don't exist. That's why Libertarianism doesn't conform to any of those bullet points. Like I said, throw away the bullshit from the "right", AND the bullshit from the "left", and you've got anarchism/libertariansim left over.

So as you can see, right-wing libertarianism is very possible, in fact it's the best system.

As opposed to left wing, entirely, it devours itself.

How is that pension ponzi scheme working out again under negative interest rates?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/rich-countries-have-a-78-trillion-pension-problem.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_crisis
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/pension-crisis/the-pension-crisis-is-global/

[Carlton Banks]

• Police state thuggery against vulnerable people Tirades against developers of alternative clients (but they're all criminals dictators just waiting to happen though, right?)

Lol, very good.


The point is, we have to assess the forkers on their merits. Are you trying to tell me that Peter Rizun, Gavin Andresen or Mike Hearn wanted what was best for Bitcoin?


The ironic thing is that Gavin essentially agrees with every direction the Core team are going in, he either endorses it or even proposed the same himself. With one big diference: Gavin wanted the blocksize fork to happen first, in 2015. This is what's so ridiculous about both his and your position; there's nothing wrong with increasing the blocksize in principle, but

only at the right moment in time to suit what the software, the Bitcoin network and the underlying internet infrastructure can support.

2015 was not the right time, and neither was it this year. So that means that software imporvements to increase the capcity of the network are needed, not crude increases in resource usage that threaten the network.

I know you refuse to see that this is the sensible option, but the 25+ Core devs don't see it that way. About 3-4 devs see it your way, and the reasoning hasn't convinced anyone to take a risk on their (literally) backwards schedule to implement scaling up transaction capacity. Like you say, you're welcome to argue or code as you please, but this business of using nothing but bad arguments makes you look like bad losers, at best. And Bitcoin Unlimited and Rizun's tortured logic look plain devious and destructive.