Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

[Carlton Banks]

This is the 10 Kings stage of regional currencies as predicted in Revelation in the Bible. This is the pain and chaos that precedes the final stage when the entire world submits to a single world currency and the 666 mark on everyone's forehead, as mentioned for item #1 above.

You're entirely right, except there is no "prophetic mysticism" or "gnosis", as you're implying. It was always just the logic of tyrannical merchants, the same instinct that led the early Machiavllians to suggest to monarchs that the meaning of money should be subverted with face values. This allowed the monarch and their advisers to control the supply, and use that mechanism to control the economy.

Bitcoin is the NWO coin. It was created by Rothschild and he controls it behind the scenes.

Like I've said up-thread, this wouldn't even matter if it were true (and you've provided no evidence, not even a reasoned supposition)

If big power-broking dynasties created Bitcoin with decades of research, which is entirely possible, they would create the end-game solution themselves, not mess around creating stages on the road to the end-game. It would be too tempting to take the greater share of the end-game crypto coin to begin with, and too risky to introduce a weakened concept only for someone else to alight on the end-game crypto coin without your being aware of the early stages so as to capitalise maximally.


And, for the millionth time, if you have a killer crypto currency design to free us all forever, provide proof. Anything at all. Which you have summarily failed to do thus far (and you've been doing nothing but talk about it for, is it 6 years yet?)

[1715310574]

1715310574

[1715310574]

1715310574

[1715310574]

1715310574

[1715310574]

1715310574

[1715310574]

1715310574

[iamnotback]

If big power-broking dynasties created Bitcoin with decades of research, which is entirely possible, they would create the end-game solution themselves, not mess around creating stages on the road to the end-game.

You're an idiot and you really should stop slobbering all over the place.

Even @traincarswreck could explain to you why they need a Bitcoin-like standard of good money to gradually destroy the legacy political interference. Nash explained it all. Perhaps you think you are smarter than Nash.

Carlton, this is your last warning. Next time you post nonsense, you go on Ignore. You post as if you know something but you don't know a damn thing worth reading.

[traincarswreck]

Even @traincarswreck could explain to you why they need a Bitcoin-like standard of good money to gradually destroy the legacy political interference.

It's starting to amaze me what you understand and show you have read, but then go off further on to an unnecessary tangent.

[Carlton Banks]

If big power-broking dynasties created Bitcoin with decades of research, which is entirely possible, they would create the end-game solution themselves, not mess around creating stages on the road to the end-game.

You're idiot and you really should stop slobbering all over the place.

Even @traincarswreck could explain to you why they need a Bitcoin-like standard of good money to gradually destroy the legacy political interference. Nash explained it all. Perhaps you think you are smarter than Nash.

Carlton, this is your last warning. Next time you post nonsense, you go on Ignore. You post as if you know something but you don't know a damn thing worth reading.

You never refute my arguments with anything meaningful, always arguments from authority and insults.

I wonder what the people reading your thread think

[iamnotback]

Even @traincarswreck could explain to you why they need a Bitcoin-like standard of good money to gradually destroy the legacy political interference.

It's starting to amaze me what you understand and show you have read, but then go off further on to an unnecessary tangent.

Nash's error is that there is no such standard which the free market can form a measurement against to converge. The universe is relative. There are no total orders. I am surprised that he and Hayek made such an egregious error.

So while you can fool some people for a while that Bitcoin is such a standard, the reality is the whales' are corruptible. Alternatives such as an IMF basket will always be political clusterfucks. Bitcoin is the lie that it is apolitical because the anti-fragility is hiding behind the lie of its security. Bitcoin will provide that standard for the interim time to destroy the political interference from the legacy systems, but Bitcoin is centrally controlled.

You can never ever have such a standard. It would require the past and the future to collapse into indistinguishable. It violates our existence. Total orders don't exist, because we live in multiple parallel realities. No one ever knows the real-time details of the entire world and history. We only know our own glimpse of the present, but the present is gone before it exists. We can't communicate our existence to any other human entirely.

Sorry.

[Carlton Banks]

Doesn't that logic collapse on itself?

If one cannot know the objective truth about anything, how can the reasoning that you're using to observe that truth be considered reliable? If all knowledge is unknowable, then reality is an epistemological negative feedback loop. Your theory is self-refuting  

[iamnotback]

You never refute my arguments with anything meaningful, always arguments from authority and insults.

I wonder what the people reading your thread think

I don't hate you Carlton. I actually like all people, and would have no problem chatting with you more friendly-like at our future leisure. I have nothing against you as a person. I am just trying to talk to people who I think are capable of doing peer review on my plans, to make sure I am not incorrect. I want to finish these discussion asap, because I want to go back to doing what I love doing, which is hacking.

I don't currently think you are capable of helping me in that endeavor. I view your posts as noise.

You have an agenda, which is coloring your ability to present objective analysis.

Your recent point was claiming that there is no evidence that the global elite would need a Bitcoin to accomplish their goals of a NWO-like control over national sovereignty. And I feel I have adequately explained why according to Nash's theory they would indeed need a Bitcoin.

Nash's theory is predicated on an honest standard of money which is trusted by the high finance players in the economy. Any IMF basket would not be trusted by people like MP, as they know it is a political clusterfuck. Something like Bitcoin is required to provide that trusted standard of high-powered settlement money in the upcoming phase of collapse of the sovereign socialism debts and discipline of the legacy political systems (and their currencies) to come into alignment with the standard of honesty (lack of interference) or to suffer the fate of arbitrage. This will help meet the globalists' plans for us to converge towards a global standard of honest currency. Satoshi is (was a think tank funded by) Rothschild and Rothschild controls the majority of the Bitcoins (perhaps indirectly via whales such as MP, even if MP doesn't realize it and is compartmentalized).

But the big lie is that Bitcoin is not actually controlled by the globalists when it really is (@dinofelis and I explained upthread how a colluding majority of whales can absolutely always spank any miner cartel and control the protocol entirely). And when they are ready at some future time, they can then use this inertia of trust, to absolutely bring the world to its 666 knees, precisely as written in the Bible.

But only those who take the 666 mark will suffer. This means only those who adhere to that standard of money.

I intend to provide a knowledge age money which has different properties and admits that no perfect standard can ever exist. We in the knowledge age are willing to destroy the fake currency (the fungible bits) with creative destruction from time-to-time to renew the tree of liberty.

[Carlton Banks]

And you're wrong, your theory doesn't make as much sense as you believe.


There is no reason to "create" the Revelations-inspired money: fiat is already that money, where supply, demand and use are controlled by the banking elite.


There is a reason for megalomaniacs to create Bitcoin themselves: if it's possible at all, then they must get there first. Remember the golden rule: who owns the gold, makes the rules.

It's far simpler than you ever present it, and for some reason, simplicity is your enemy.



Now, can you actually argue against the points I'm making directly, without saying "I already have", or "you're not smart enough to understand"?

[iamnotback]

There is no reason to "create" the Revelations-inspired money: fiat is already that money, where supply, demand and use are controlled by the banking elite.

The Revelations stuff is just icing on the cake. You don't need any of the Bible stuff to realize the logic of Nash and the insecurity of Bitcoin make it all true. But that logic is (ostensibly) above your pay grade.

Nation-state fiat is not the NWO level of control. To get to NWO requires the pathway through a lie about ideal money. There is no other possible pathway. Corruption always requires fooling the people, even very smart people.

And you're wrong

That is not an argument. You would need to refute the logic of Nash and everything I explained about it (and just ignore the unfalsifiable Bible stuff).

Doesn't that logic collapse on itself?

If one cannot know the objective truth about anything, how can the reasoning that you're using to observe that truth be considered reliable? If all knowledge is unknowable, then reality is an epistemological negative feedback loop. Your theory is self-refuting  

If we can't know the objective truth, we can conclude that any theory predicted on objective truth is unsupported. Logic.

[dinofelis]

It's an interesting analogy, but we don't have a fractional reserve banking system. Banks will lend money (create new money credit and debt ledger entries simultaneously) and then seek the reserves later. That is they pull on the reserves string from the central bank. That is why QE is known as pushing on a string, it doesn't result in increased lending, the banks are simply restocking reserves on their previous over lending.

I agree with you, but that is because the fiat system is not a "fractional backed currency" system - exactly like you say, but is an "asset fluidification system".  This is why the fiat system is not really working so badly as people may think.  The caveat is elsewhere.

A bank is in fact nothing else that uses its reputation to exchange illiquid debts for liquid money.  As such, a bank doesn't do "fractional reserve banking" for value ; it only does it for money.  But normally, a bank is fully backing all its emitted bank money, by the assets it got in return.  It sells "liquidity", but it doesn't "create value out of thin air".  A bank, normally, possesses more assets than the money it issued, so it can "buy back all of its money" with the assets it has.  This is perfectly honest.

The FED does the same.  The FED issues base money in return for assets.  It "fluidises" assets into currency.  There is not really something wrong with that.

The thing that really goes wrong, the caveat I referred to, is when one gets "loops", that is, fake assets that do not represent value but are indirectly self-referential.  If you can issue money for such assets, then things go wrong.  The simplest thing is a bank lending to another bank, with as underlying asset, the other bank lending to the first.  

The reason banks aren't allowed to go bust in any significant way is because of the steaming derivatives pile. No one knows who owes who what, so the tax payer props up presumed failed banks so that the entire steaming pile of derivatives doesn't collapse. Only once that is unwound, would we really know who the survivors would be.

This is indeed a big cluster of self-referential assets which are totally bogus.  It is this cluster fuck which is a ticking bomb under the fiat system, but not its basic principle, which can be sound.

[dinofelis]

Yes, but altcoins are not a single unit-of-account and the public demands a single unit-of-account.

The point is that with limited collateral, you can make them hold, within certain boundaries, at 1-1 exchange ratio.  This is what "fractional reserve banking" is all about: having sufficient collateral to be able to guarantee the 1-1 exchange ratio for individual transactions between coin issuers (and to regulate issuing the coin sufficiently so as not to deplete the reserve).

That is: if you play both on the amount of coin in circulation to keep market value near 1:1 ratio, and use the fractional reserve to guarantee the exact 1-1 ratio, MOST OF THE TIME, that works out.

The real "backing" of a currency, in a fiat system, is by the non-fluid value that has been handed over when the currency was printed, and can serve, if not bogus, to obtain more reserve from the central issuer.

For the legacy economy that Bitcoin is aiming form, the regional regimes apply to the private banking variants.

Honestly, last time I heard talking about the "legacy economy" was during the dot-com bubble years, and the "new economy".  While economic transformations are certainly a fact, when people start talking about the "old economy", I know a bubble is about to burst.
Things usually happen more gradually, less revolutionary and in more unexpected ways than one often presumes.

[Carlton Banks]

Doesn't that logic collapse on itself?

If one cannot know the objective truth about anything, how can the reasoning that you're using to observe that truth be considered reliable? If all knowledge is unknowable, then reality is an epistemological negative feedback loop. Your theory is self-refuting  

If we can't know the objective truth, we can conclude that any theory predicted on objective truth is unsupported. Logic.

If truth is un-observable, then theories and logic are also. Logic. Your pants fell down, pull them back up

[shinohai]

MP is obviously very smart, thus I certainly should be afraid of missing out on such important wisdom as ...

I'm vaguely unpersuaded by the theory. The woman was well in her 30s. Her body carried the evident marks of intensive, deliberate, significant effort expended with clear sexual goals, and it carried them abundantly. It can not be possible that by that age, in her circumstance, she hasn't eaten plenty of cunt. My girl disagreed, "plenty of girls never had any". Her sample is probably less biased than mine. Still... Really ?!

The form stands ready to take your take on the matter and convey it to me for my edification. Thank you.

PS,

If I may point this out, the slut in question DID have the cajones to approach and speak to Mircea Popescu of her own volition, and is even the heroine in http://trilema.com/2013/internet-story/. I can't say that I have ever seen your username/handle/etc. present in the logs or seeking an audience with *anyone* in the Republic for that matter. I cannot think you ignorant as to how to join the forum, since you linked to http://trilema.com/2016/how-to-participate-in-the-affairs-of-the-most-serene-republic/ in a previous comment.

EDIT: Do stop by sometimes though. Lulz await.

[iamnotback]

Doesn't that logic collapse on itself?

If one cannot know the objective truth about anything, how can the reasoning that you're using to observe that truth be considered reliable? If all knowledge is unknowable, then reality is an epistemological negative feedback loop. Your theory is self-refuting  

If we can't know the objective truth, we can conclude that any theory predicted on objective truth is unsupported. Logic.

If truth is un-observable, then theories and logic are also. Logic.

Objective truth in the context which was being discussed is as explained in Gödel's incompleteness theorems: an impossible set of complete axioms which are also consistent, i.e. total orders don't exist.

This doesn't preclude the existence of convergence of reality within partial orders.

Let me translate this for you. We can agree on shared reality within a bounded set of axioms, yet it is not objective (as in absolutely true) because we are not an omniscient God observing from outside the universe (not that I adhere to any of the unfalsifiable God delusion). Any theory predicated on absolute truth is unsupportable.

So valid logic exists within a bounded shared reality. Any attempts at an absolute metric or convergence on an absolute truth are nonsense. I am surprised that Nash would effectively promulgate a theory which hinges on such a convergence, as I wouldn't expect him to have such a huge blind spot. Any shared reality can't be immune from externalities. That is thermodynamics.

The economy anneals without any well defined metrics and it does so by forming power-law distributions, i.e. the power vacuums are filled in space-time always subject to creative destruction as thermodynamics insures no order is perpetual. However time scales can be large, and the wealthy can remain wealthy longer than the poor can remain solvent. So it is possible to fool most of the people all of the time.

Your pants fell down, pull them back up

Carlton with that depraved mind of yours, I doubt you even wear the pants in your own household, although you are oblivious enough to be under the illusion that you are. My initial thought was to pity you, but then the thought occurred to me that you are just like a billion other dolts who willfully insist because they are too fucking dumb to stop talking when they have cock in their mouth. If you were smart, you'd at least realize whose cock you are sucking, suck it well so you can learn.

[mining1]

Haha. You can still play the racism card tho.

[iamnotback]

EDIT: Do stop by sometimes though. Lulz await.

Free feel to pass on my question, so he can prepare.

Q: who here in this circle-jerk sycophant orgy supports the delusion of ideal money, given that Buttcoin is an anti-fragile standard top-down controlled by whales? Ideal for whom?

No need to wait for the lulz.

Although I am coming to the viewpoint that whales are locked into a threat of mutual self-destruction so they must and will defend Bitcoin's security and to the realization that any whale of even moderate size can act alone to defend Bitcoin for as long as the other whales don't defect (defection which would be mutual self-destruction), this does not resolve long-tail externalities which force whales to defect. Any top-down controllable system can't remain perpetually in Nash equilibrium for a Nash equilibrium says nothing about how the long-term system structure changes over time w.r.t. the external environment.

Readers, the name of MP's website is taken from dilemma and trilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity

Btw, this blog post by MP on the reality of money, goes directly to the heart of my thesis. Knowledge (creation) is the real power money, i.e. the standard metric by which everything else is measured (that holy grail standard that the Nash and Hayek ideal money theories seek). But knowledge (creation) is not fungible, so we can't transfer it directly. The fungible bits we use to transfer utility are just a decentralized means for informationally determining who has the most knowledge.

Money doesn't need to physically leave your clawy grasp, it will just revalue itself so as to bring whatever volume you hold in line with its correct relative value. In this perspective, inflation in the US is not something that can be avoided, and not something that's done by politicians : it's just money reacting to the problem that a lot of it is held by comparatively very lame people. In general inflation is always the companion of societies that used to be cool but aren't anymore.

It doesn't really matter what those fungible bits of money information represent, as long as society decides they are a representation of the values of the society so that the information communication by the transfer of money promotes the values of the society (which if you think about it is a sad commentary on the state of our society now at peak socialism):

The ability to transfer wealth was crucial during many events critical to the Darwinian fitness of evolving humans, especially death (inheritance), dispute settlement, and marriage.  With the Yurok and their neighboring tribes, this wealth typically took the form of collectibles that lacked concrete use – either non-fungible treasure, which came in a variety of forms, or fungible money in the form of dentalia shells and strings of same.  The use of money and treasure in some transactions (e.g. for use mitigating violence) made it available and encouraged its use in others (e.g. trade).

High finance can apply more leverage (aka acceleration) to this process, and thus rewards those who do it successfully with more fungible bits than those who are not successfully leveraged.

My thesis is that those fungible bits are becoming more and more incapable of representing most of the knowledge (creation) in the world. The signaling mechanism is shifting from one of fungible monetary transfer to one of direct knowledge exchange in an Inverse Commons.

Those fungible bits were much more relevant when our human production was mostly tied up in fixed capital investment.

Now as the fungible bits shrink in relative relevance of value, MP's skills of leveraged high finance are diminishing in value relatively speaking (although the old world industrial economy is still quite large, so he is a wealthy mofo and obviously very smart).

If it is very impossible to get leveraged economies-of-scale when the underlying unit of money is non-fungible. One day high finance lords will actually have to work hard again for a much smaller relative proportion of the economy. And that will happen because it will be a much more accurate representation (i.e. less fragile fitness to) of the actual power money: knowledge.

My Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay has predated by years any published works of MP on the similar conceptualization (and I was sick with the early stage delirium of disseminated/abdominal/lymph-nodes (not extensively pulmonary) Tuberculosis when I wrote that). So you judge for yourself who has the superior long-term strategy and consequently who the lulz is about. I think MP is quite thrilled to meet his match. Life was getting rather boring for him. But I am no match for MP's language skills and thus probably not a very interesting friend for him. MP's interests and mine diverge quite sharply. What the fuck use of a man if he can't compete (joust) with me in sports or synergize with me in coding (neither of which MP excels at). No offense really. Just not very interesting for me after I deduced his role. Hey but maybe I just need to get to know the dude.

MP knows who I am. He contacted me in 2013 in a PM on this forum about tortilla. He just forgot.

[rpietila]

MP knows who I am. He contacted me in 2013 in a PM on this forum about tortilla. He just forgot.

I contacted you when, originally?

[iamnotback]

MP knows who I am. He contacted me in 2013 in a PM on this forum about tortilla. He just forgot.

I contacted you when, originally?

@MPoE contacted @AnonyMint in 2013 in a private message and the subject matter of the message was some inquiry about you, but I can't remember the specifics of the inquiry. Even if I could remember the specifics, I might not disclose them. But since I can't remember the exact words in the inquiry, I can't even determine what I would have been willing to share.

I presume that the mods here still have access to @AnonyMint's archive of PMs, so perhaps it could be found. I am not interested in finding it.

I am just not that interested in the intrigue of high stakes games of finance, other than to make sure I understand their relevance to my work. Render unto Caesar what is his and render unto "God" what is his. They own the world of high finance. I am not interested in being their apprentice in Caesar's world.

[rpietila]

MP knows who I am. He contacted me in 2013 in a PM on this forum about tortilla. He just forgot.

I contacted you when, originally?

@MPoE contacted @AnonyMint in 2013 in a private message and the subject matter of the message was some inquiry about you, but I can't remember the specifics of the inquiry. Even if I could remember the specifics, I might not disclosure them. But since I can't remember the exact words in the inquiry, I can't even determine what I would have been willing to share.

I presume that the mods here still have access to @AnonyMint's archive of PMs, so perhaps it could be found. I am not interested in finding it.

I am just not that interested in the intrigue of high stakes games of finance, other than to make sure I understand their relevance to my work. Render unto Caesar what is his and render unto "God" what is his. They own the world of high finance. I am not interested in being their apprentice in Caesar's world.

Forget about that guy, he was probably not even around when I contacted you, starting in 2006. And he is needlessly cocky, even making names for guys he should respect rather.

[iamnotback]

when I contacted you, starting in 2006

Confirmed. You were just 7 - 8 years out of high school at that time. I was only in my early 40s. How times have changed.

Some evidence. (You'll find that article of mine has been removed the site)