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

[iamnotback]

1) bitcoin is maybe the dog as compared to alts, but it is the tail as compared to the FED.  Bitcoin can be wagged by the FED from the moment that it gets a more official status and the FED can buy it and sell it as an asset.  $20 billion is peanuts

No because Bitcoin whales are the most hard-core anti-debt fanatics on the planet. The fiat system is a house of cards propped up by $trillions of leverage.

One little pin prick from Bitcoin, and the FED's bubble goes Minsky Moment poof. In other words, the FED is not even a tail, it is more like a whisker trying to haul an elephant or a battalion of junkies with 10 grams of cocaine that they keep cutting with some super potent by toxic amplifier that eventually will kill all of them when the cutting ratio exceeds some theshold.

Will reply your other points after I sleep.

[1714817553]

1714817553

[1714817553]

1714817553

[1714817553]

1714817553

[1714817553]

1714817553

[1714817553]

1714817553

[iamnotback]

My response to Anonymints claim where he says bitcoin is money and I say it's only a currency:

Bitcoin is not a real commodity

@r0ach was already referred to the relevant work of Nash and he is quite proficient at ignoring the reality:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18394149#msg18394149
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18422543#msg18422543

Because @r0ach is an obstinate fool who wears a tinfoil hat blindfold that prevents him from comprehending (and perhaps even reading) what Nash wrote, especially what Nash wrote about what makes gold valuable and why it is not as ideal as Bitcoin.

[btcbug]

...
I rather like my discovery. I think you will too if I am correct.

Amazing info. Quoting this for future reference 

Yes, fantastic summary!

[dinofelis]

No because Bitcoin whales are the most hard-core anti-debt fanatics on the planet. The fiat system is a house of cards propped up by $trillions of leverage.

Well, I used to think that too.  And there are serious problems in the fiat system, but it is *not* the fact that it is debt based.  It is the fact that there are self-referential backings in the system (the derivative bubble).

But I used to think totally "Austrian school" about money too.  However, there are two source texts that opened my mind on monetary systems.

These are: "Debt, the first 5000 years" by David Graeber.  I don't fully agree with all of what he says, but it is a eye-opener on certain aspects.

But the most important piece of writing is a course that is called "Evil is the root of all money", where the relationship between debt and money is explained.

Essentially, money is nothing else but a fluidized promise, so that it becomes fungible and transmissible.  If we all trusted one another, we wouldn't need money.  Money didn't find its origin in gold or any other "near-perfect medium of exchange" like the Austrians saw it - although it CAN be such a system.  Money is nothing else but a deal-maker between people that don't need to trust one another, and transfer the lack of trust in 2-2 relations in the mutual belief that they trust the money.

Money is NOT a market signalling instrument (although it can transmit market information).  It is not a unit of account (although it can be used that way).  It is simply a "trust vector" in deal making.

This is why "debt-backed money" is not as hollow as it seems, and as I used to think.  After all, a debt is also a deal-maker.  A debt is half of a deal (my part).

One little pin prick from Bitcoin, and the FED's bubble goes Minsky Moment poof. In other words, the FED is not even a tail, it is more like a whisker trying to haul an elephant or a battalion of junkies with 10 grams of cocaine that they keep cutting with some super potent by toxic amplifier that eventually will kill all of them when the cutting ratio exceeds some theshold.

No.  The derivatives bubble, maybe.  But not a fiat system as a whole.  Money is nothing else but the oil in the engine of the economy, and from the moment that it allows the engine to run, it is good enough.  Fiat money does that quite well, and the central banking system isn't so bad as it seems.  It seems a horror when looked upon from a "hard money" view, but when looked upon as a "deal maker tool", it works marvellously well.

The idea that "solid debt" can be fluidized into money is exactly what money was meant to be.  As such, money can be created upon demand, by giving a backing of some solid debt, and destroyed, when the backing is removed (taken back).  And the market price of money is simply related to how much solid debt people want to fluidize at a given point.  The principle is quite sound.   This is why I'm absolutely not convinced of any nearby world breakdown of the fiat system.  The derivative stuff, on the other hand, is an extremely dangerous self-referential bubble.  What goes wrong in the fiat system is the monopoly positions of some, which they abuse to get privileges of reaping in fractions of money flows where no value is produced of significance.  Essentially, the unfairness of the different quality of "solid debt" that is needed to obtain money for it.  In the first line: states.

[iamnotback]

I wonder if BU is aware of the legal implications of a hard fork, forcing a community of investors to accept an incompatible change to the technology they invested in.

If BU succeeds, every Bitcoin holder can probably sue them for their losses.

cool story.

can i sue Blockstream if Bitcoin loses marketshare to Ethereum
due to the high fees they are promoting?

No, they are not changing the commodity, and they are open about what they are doing

changing bitcoin from p2p cash as envisioned by Satoshi into a settlement network, nah thats not changing it at all

Who ever mines BU will lose all the money they spent on mining it. So that 50% threshold means nothing. Any fork of Bitcoin will be attacked ruthlessly by those who have enough resources to destroy any miners foolish enough to try.

The large miners/pools know this. The April's fool joke is on anyone who believes that signaling means anything on Bitcoin. It doesn't.

I've awoken from my inactivity period to take my part in this pursuit.

Although economically we all understand BU has and never shall have any standing, a fork is incumbent and it's outcome is still obscure.

Core hasn't been keeping the system updated, and their refusal of further updates and generally increasing the Block size is alarming and drives support away. The bitcoin unlimited bound failure doesn't lift any responsibility away from the core devs...

That said, I am here to pledge my computing power and spare time onto the complete disruption of the forked blockchain, transaction, nodes and miners. I will play my role, when the day comes I expect others to join me.

Just to side-step here, I am of the opinion this form has gone a bit nutty on this whole fork partisanship and ideology.

Pledging to commit basically crimes and exploits is a tad extreme for a mere cryptocurrency. Like most early adopters I feel my allegiance going towards this new concept, the anonymous decentralized peer to peer market and economy.

The meme has sprouted and the revolution begun. Advocating for the founder's "view" is almost laughable, satoshi would have never thought of such widespread adoption and implying so is absurd.
Conservationism in revolution is an oxymoron. As much as you can be emotionally attached with whatever made early adopters millionaires and gave you a platform for incredible and astonishing innovation, the technology is bound to become obsolete and if you don't simply move on you're in fault...

Please all bear in mind I am not stating this is the end, or idk giving technical opinions in evaluation of the bitcoin's intrinsic value, forks or whichever.
All I'm stating that as sacks of silver carried on your belt, bitcoin too will one day fade away in favor of something more efficient.

Both of you have what you think are good intentions, but you fail to recognize the most salient fact.

When you two are blind to the most salient fact, then all your other conclusions are unfortunately ignorant nonsense. Not be disrespectful, but you really need to pay attention.

If anyone can mutate the main blockchain, then the money is no longer immune to manipulation. And thus it is no longer a stable metric which achieves the absolutely critical goals of Nash's ideal money which is what gives crypto-currency is reason to exist in the first place.

I know this is very difficult for you to wrap your mind around, because you think adoption = success, but you are mathematically incorrect.

Read again very carefully the two posts I linked in the quote below. Click the links within those two post and click the links in the posts that you clicked to. In other words make sure you understand all the detailed reasoning.

In finance, the tail doesn't wag the dog, rather in finance it is always the stable value of the reserves which determines whether person who is providing the finance has an accurate mathematical estimate of the quality of the reserves and thus whether they are maximizing their ROI. And in finance, the most valuable set of reserves dominates any system with less value. Until you understand finance and understand how MPEx made his million "Buttcoins" by simply providing liquidity to the speculation power brokers, then you understand nothing about money.

So if you mutate Bitcoin, you remove all its value. Period. That is why the whales will never allow you to do so, and @dinofelis and I analyzed in great detail how small blocks enables the whales to destroy any miners who attempt to fork Bitcoin. You can't mutate Bitcoin, because the tail doesn't wag the dog. Also small blocks keeps the riff-raff out of Bitcoin, because democracy is a manipulation given that the cost of voting (i.e. politics) is not free. By allowing users to vote on Bitcoin's changes, it is the same as turning Bitcoin into a fiat system that will be manipulated into another hell. We've been there done that all over the world and totally fucked up our world with it. We can instead put that clusterfuck into Litecoin and then the discipline can be maintained with Bitcoin's financial dominance of Litecoin.

There is a way to get scaling and that is to mutate Litecoin. And approximating 9/10th of the value created by scaling Litecoin will end up back in Bitcoin (after Litecoin's price rises back to $100 since it is so highly undervalued given it is the only option for moving forward). So there is absolutely no justifiable reason for your idiocy and squabbling. It is pure ignorance, that's all. Please rectify your ignorance so we can move forward.

My response to Anonymints claim where he says bitcoin is money and I say it's only a currency:

Bitcoin is not a real commodity

@r0ach was already referred to the relevant work of Nash and he is quite proficient at ignoring the reality:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18394149#msg18394149
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18422543#msg18422543

Because @r0ach is an obstinate fool who wears a tinfoil hat blindfold that prevents him from comprehending (and perhaps even reading) what Nash wrote, especially what Nash wrote about what makes gold valuable and why it is not as ideal as Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is not a medium-of-exchange. It is a unit-of-account and a store-of-value. Litecoin will be the medium-of-exchange. Small blocks will make Bitcoin for settlement amongst power brokers of finance.

It's been a long time coming

Bitcoin is the individual's method of garnering a similar handle on wealth. Ripple and other systems will develop into more effective fiat replacements, allowing Bitcoin to act as a settlement currency - gold's digital analog.

[iamnotback]

Paper currencies have a long track record of failure. This failure is due to the inherent flaws of mankind rather then a fundamental problem with paper money.

We choose to embrace things like fractional reserve lending, defect spending, and unfounded entitlements all of which lead to fiscal instability and undermine the currency system leading to eventual failure.

Gold and Silver are simply attempts to take human weakness out of the picture by tying the concept of money to something that cannot be easily forged or mass produced. This works to a degree but it historically also ultimately fails to restrain us from eventually debasing and destroying the currency system. We see this in Rome and also in our recent past as we were not long ago on a gold standard.

Once again you ruin your analysis by conflating morality and opportunity cost. Morality is your hammer and everything is a nail. Humans aren't doing everything they do because they are weak. They are acting rational from an opportunity cost analysis. Tragedies-of-the-commons are the result of rational localized actions in which the aggregate result is irrational. Morality is not a solution, because it is never absolute truth and is always manipulable as well. Gold is an inferior measure of value because for example regional distribution/control of mines is not equitable or non-manipulable (well everything fungible is manipulable as I explained in my recent mini-essay). I explained in that essay that I am working on a solution that will supercede morals and absolute values.

You are correct that voting would make Bitcoin another fiat system. But it isn't because humans are weak. It is because of the economics of voting. See my prior post.

...

Tragedies-of-the-commons are the result of localized actions in which the aggregate result is irrational carried out by individuals acting in error because their frame of reference or time horizon is excessively limited.

And the only solution is to remove the constant marginal utility (i.e. non-diminishing utility of economies-of-scale) of the power of aggregate action. Morality is yet another economies-of-scale aggregate action, which is thus just as flawed as any other. Here is a real world example of winner-take-all economies-of-scale.

I am not arguing against the importance of top-down organization, and I've pointed out this distinction to you numerous times that if top-down organization doesn't have a constant marginal utility of economies-of-scale, then it is self-limiting and multiple top-down structures are in fact a decentralized structure.


I wrote as @anonymous:

O/T assigned a descriptive model where nodes or their connections are assumed to have unequal value without any model for why they do. Eric posited a generative model wherein communication has a space-time frictional cost. Subsequent commentary has pointed out that the more generalized generative model is that networking (in the generalized conceptualization of communication and/or group formation) has a myriad of genres of opportunity cost (e.g. even political opportunity cost in cooperative games theory), so this can account for preferences in group formation which may in some cases be independent of physical transport costs.

Something else occurred to me while reading the O/T paper before reading Robert Willis's thoughts, and I think combining the opportunity cost generalization with the following insight might model his point. Note that if the possible connections between nodes are limited by opportunity cost weighted compatibility of groups of nodes, then we can approximate a model of the network as connections between groups (aka clusters) of nodes. In this case, the equations for relative value of network mergers changes such that it is possible for the value proposition to invert between small and larger networks, if the larger network has fewer groupings (on an opportunity cost potential connections weighted basis). O/T mentioned clusters but in the context of their descriptive model of assumed unequal value. The key point of opportunity cost is that value is relativistic to the observer. The highly relativistic model is capable of higher-order effects such as those described by Robert Willis. Demographics matter.

I want to investigate whether Verlinde's entropic force emergent information based gravitation model is applicable and perhaps a generative mathematical foundation.

The solution is the Inverse Commons.

I am designing a blockchain to enable the Inverse Commons on a much greater scale. Because Bitcoin's long-term failure mode is aggregation into one whale who controls everything (precisely as predicted in the Bible), because of the constant marginal utility of a stable reserve in finance.

[iamnotback]

@dinofelis, I cited our upthread discussion in the Litecoin community. I also explained there that as a PoW coin matures it becomes much more intractable to gain consensus for significant protocol changes. Bitcoin being the dominant reserve could finance the change to the protocol of a lesser chain, if the quorum whales of Bitcoin who have any vested interest have a consensus to do such an attack. So I guess that is a clarification of my upthread claim that only the dominant PoW could be immutable. The lesser PoW chains are less immutable but the immutability game theory is still somewhat favorable.

The generative essence is that politics is a clusterfuck of inaction when it requires agreement on a single action. The only way politics functions is via debt and giving everyone everything at the same time, with no actual consensus. This was Satoshi's clever insight on how to attain immutability.

[iamnotback]

No because Bitcoin whales are the most hard-core anti-debt fanatics on the planet. The fiat system is a house of cards propped up by $trillions of leverage.

Well, I used to think that too.  And there are serious problems in the fiat system, but it is *not* the fact that it is debt based.  It is the fact that there are self-referential backings in the system (the derivative bubble).

If you review my thesis on what drives fungible finance, you'll note that I think debt economics is synonymous with the power vacuums and political distortions that cause such. I think you have an error to insinuate they are orthogonal concepts (only in a laboratory model, not in a holistic real-world model). I hope you recognize that my use of the word 'leverage' is synonymous with "self-referential backings". You perhaps are thinking of Nash's fantasy of private fractional reserve backing wherein leverage is a rational calculation based on honest metric, but I think I argued convincingly already that such stable metrics are always manipulable. And in fact the empirical evidence wherein private factional backing did work correctly, it always ended with some interference and manipulation wherein it stopped working correctly, i.e. it wasn't a stable model nor one that worked globally.

So what I had figured out that finance would die because the entire point of money is an information system which routes perception of value to those who help the society produce the most. Fungible money worked during the tangible ages (agriculture and industrial) because society needed to aggregate large amounts of capital (because economies-of-scale were paramount in agriculture and industry) and labor was fungible (i.e. replaceable) and thus finance was useful for maximizing production. Companies aggregate fungible resources and economies-of-scale to gain a transactional cost advantage to solve the coordination problem of the Tragedy-of-the-Commons of uncoordinated resources per the Theory of the Firm (and such transactional cost advantages decline in the knowledge age due to technological changes which enable more diverse production with lower economies-of-scale and Inverse Commons coordination). Although this system carried with it huge social problems because laborers had no pricing power unless they could restrict membership (e.g. unions) or otherwise use the government to try to redistribute wealth (or do birth control eugenics to lower their competition with each other). In other words, the broken concepts such as democracy and socialism were ramifications of the fact that labor was too fungible (replaceable) and finance was cardinal. That is why so many hate capitalism, but they don't understand that the fledgling knowledge age (which is already underway!) will change everything to a meritocracy and destroy finance and money.

Essentially, money is nothing else but a fluidized promise, so that it becomes fungible and transmissible.  If we all trusted one another, we wouldn't need money.  Money didn't find its origin in gold or any other "near-perfect medium of exchange" like the Austrians saw it - although it CAN be such a system.  Money is nothing else but a deal-maker between people that don't need to trust one another, and transfer the lack of trust in 2-2 relations in the mutual belief that they trust the money.

Money is NOT a market signalling instrument (although it can transmit market information).  It is not a unit of account (although it can be used that way).  It is simply a "trust vector" in deal making.

This is why "debt-backed money" is not as hollow as it seems, and as I used to think.  After all, a debt is also a deal-maker.  A debt is half of a deal (my part).

It is not because of trust, it is because the economy has unbounded information in it that we can't trace and compute (for if we could, we wouldn't exist, because it would require a total order), so we have to trust the annealing of the market information system. I wrote about this in my mini-essay:

Nash required two incongruent things. He wanted a metric to be stable so the (rest of the) financial system could be measured against it, yet he also needed that metric to be absolute (as in its veracity/protocol not being relative to anything which could be controlled or gamed). There are no absolutes in our universe. We live in a relativistic universe which is only constructed from relative perspectives. None of us can even communicate our present to everyone and we can't even communicate our histories incontrovertibly because there is no way to prove an event happened other than by the corroboration of the memories of others who witnessed it (which is not a total ordering thus isn't incontrovertible). For example (but this is by no means the main point of what I am trying to explain here), this weakness in fungible money is why money requires a total ordering consensus so as to order the transactions globally to insure a double-spend wasn't attempted some where else in the universe.

The Inverse Commons is way for us to produce without needing to trust each other and/or where our trust relationships are within our Dunbar limit. My mention of the Theory of the Firm in the first quote above, is significant in that the firm exists when our ability to transact with each other costs more than transactions as groups (aka firms). Nature organizes us into a fractal-like clusters of clusters of hub-and-spoke networks, because we couldn't exist if absolute computation was possible (c.f. Godel's incomplete theorems). As we move more and more to a knowledge age wherein we P2P trade highly individualized knowledge, then finance, money, and the firm are unable to efficiently organize such value and activity, i.e. the transactions between firms cost more than the transactions directly between the humans inside the firms.

Money is not a perfect information signaling system because it can be manipulated. So we are right back where we started with the points made in my mini-essay.

Nevertheless Bitcoin is a more immutable value system than the FED system, so the FED can't do shit to Bitcoin. Bitcoin will destroy (subsume) the FED. The long-term failure mode of Bitcoin is as I already stated:

Precisely four years ago, I wrote Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch, and I see now that I was entirely correct. Bitcoin is an abomination of Nash's ideal money scheme. Its end game is one globalist who controls everything. One omnipotent whale who stomps on all life. The NWO-666 outcome. Sorry I can't stand by idle and let that happen!

Because Bitcoin's long-term failure mode is aggregation into one whale who controls everything (precisely as predicted in the Bible), because of the constant marginal utility of a stable reserve in finance.

One little pin prick from Bitcoin, and the FED's bubble goes Minsky Moment poof. In other words, the FED is not even a tail, it is more like a whisker trying to haul an elephant or a battalion of junkies with 10 grams of cocaine that they keep cutting with some super potent by toxic amplifier that eventually will kill all of them when the cutting ratio exceeds some threshold.

No.  The derivatives bubble, maybe.  But not a fiat system as a whole.  Money is nothing else but the oil in the engine of the economy, and from the moment that it allows the engine to run, it is good enough.  Fiat money does that quite well, and the central banking system isn't so bad as it seems.  It seems a horror when looked upon from a "hard money" view, but when looked upon as a "deal maker tool", it works marvellously well.

You try to separate all the manipulation from some non-existent Ivory Cathedral fantasy model of how fiat could be okay if it couldn't be manipulated and if it wasn't a power vacuum. Its like arguing sleeping with prostitutes would be safe if STDs are posited to not exist. What is the use of a model which can't exist.

Excuse me if I am not impressed.

Bitcoin is dominant because the collapse of the manipulation leaves standing only that which was not manipulated.

[traincarswreck]

So if you mutate Bitcoin, you remove all its value. Period.

It's never been said better.

[traincarswreck]

You've missed something and or not extended and understood Nash's argument enough:

…this standard, as a basis for the standardization of the value of the international money unit, would remove the political roles of the “grand pardoners,”…

All of the examples Selgin cites are not failures in this sense.  They are not examples of why such a system of the private (rather than monopolistic) issuance of money is a bad idea.  They are example of how outside intervention destroys the efficiency and security of the system.

Nash's proposal starts with the realization and insight of an OBJECTIVE metric.  He realizes one exists.  Its hard to fathom, but it's useful for this purpose.  From there he explains how awareness of it can come about.  Once we are collectively aware, to some degree, then this metric, which is inherently not corruptible, will become the standard of valuation....

And such a standard would remove the possibility of intervention that corrupts our money supplies.

[iamnotback]

You've missed something and or not extended and understood Nash's argument enough:

…this standard, as a basis for the standardization of the value of the international money unit, would remove the political roles of the “grand pardoners,”…

All of the examples Selgin cites are not failures in this sense.  They are not examples of why such a system of the private (rather than monopolistic) issuance of money is a bad idea.  They are example of how outside intervention destroys the efficiency and security of the system.

Nash's proposal starts with the realization and insight of an OBJECTIVE metric.  He realizes one exists.  Its hard to fathom, but it's useful for this purpose.  From there he explains how awareness of it can come about.  Once we are collectively aware, to some degree, then this metric, which is inherently not corruptible, will become the standard of valuation....

And such a standard would remove the possibility of intervention that corrupts our money supplies.

Quote me. Where do you think I missed this?

I was explaining to @dinofelis that the FED is impotent against Bitcoin because Bitcoin is not mutable, i.e. not manipulable. And I explained his fantasy of a fiat system with debt which is free of manipulation, can't exist. Seign's examples show how government always fucks up those cases where private fractional banking was working when government was not involved.

Bitcoin can enable private fractional reserve banking if Bitcoin remains immutable and those fractional reserve banks can't be regulated by governments. The latter seems very unlikely near-term, given that the banksters want to retain their monopoly racket on banking. And the former seems not to be stable long-term. That is why I don't see Lightning Networks as important, but I am going along with the hype because I understand markets don't operate on perfect information, so I am riding the wave. (And preparing what I think will be a better on chain technology).

Then I explained that Bitcoin only fails when the finance of Bitcoin has been concentrated into one whale, who can then manipulate everything. Do you disagree with this prediction? If yes, then how do you refute my argument that finance always accrues disproportionately to the whale with the most reserves?

[traincarswreck]

I don't disagree, but there is a higher level, that you are not describing specifically (meaning not to comment on whether or not u mean to allude to it).

What you describe, what you are suggesting, perhaps, is that a benevolent Satoshi has great power to do good, and that, conversely, a malevolent Satoshi has a nuclear bomb in regard to his private keys.

[traincarswreck]

If yes, then how do you refute my argument that finance always accrues disproportionately to the whale with the most reserves?

I don't, but technology brings the conflict always to a higher order.

[iamnotback]

What you describe, what you are suggesting, perhaps, is that a benevolent Satoshi has great power to do good, and that, conversely, a malevolent Satoshi has a nuclear bomb in regard to his private keys.

If you wanted to utilize Bitcoin reserves which could not be visibly spent until it was time to enslave the world, how would you do it?

What if you could print paper high powered SDRs implicitly backed by Bitcoin. And then create Basel rounds that progressively ratchet the old banking system to default by requiring Tier 1 reserves of this quality.

[traincarswreck]

If you wanted to utilize Bitcoin reserves which could not be visibly spent until it was time to enslave the world, how would you do it?

What if you could print paper high powered SDRs implicitly backed by Bitcoin.

We get freer and freer as time goes by and there is no way the governments wants this.  We are not about to be enslaved and I cannot have a proper dialogue with you if that is the basis for your thesis.

The script or plan for my talk linking the “ideal money” with the choices and actions of “thrift” or “savings” by persons or by “economic agents” was influenced by concerns that it would be wise not to speak too incautionsly of “the Keynesians” when the times are such that massive public opinions maybe supporting actions by which a state administration can act without going through the parliamentary processes to write new legislation.

So in the rush of political campaigns and elections (for example in the USA) it is difficult to sell a national monetary policy which, if followed consistently on a “long run” level, would result in the specific nation state existing as if on a higher level of economic civilization.

(For example, Sweden and Argentina might be usable, over a long time comparison, to represent comparable “economic civilizations”.)

Therefore, I had arranged for 2012 to talk more cautiously in relation to whatever would impact with “the Keynesians” and with the political interest relating also to the scholarly factions allied with (or forming) “the Keynesians”.

And this caution carries over naturally to 2013 also.

~public note from John Forbes Nash’s university homepage

[iamnotback]

If yes, then how do you refute my argument that finance always accrues disproportionately to the whale with the most reserves?

I don't, but technology brings the conflict always to a higher order.

In what way higher? Because the whales of this new financial weapon are more invested in the conflict?

We get freer and freer as time goes by and there is no way the governments wants this.  We are not about to be enslaved and I cannot have a proper dialogue with you if that is the basis for your thesis.

How can you prevent a power vacuum of constant marginal utility of power in finance from reaching its natural conclusion?

For a while it may seem like you are becoming freer as your power increases and the power of nation-states wanes, but the problem of centralization of the Bitcoin wealth will grow worse over time and then you will cry out for help, but no one can help you any more. Absolutism zealots always build their absolute destruction. You are just viewing money the way that the religious view the absolutism of morals. Same analogous error. Satoshi is your God. Fuck Satoshi. He and MP can lick my balls.

You don't have any choice in the matter. Not even if you control Satoshi's Bitcoins. Even the whale who ends up with all the monetary wealth, destroys himself. It is a broken paradigm. Correct if that is your basis, we cannot have a proper dialogue. Because I will do my best to find a design and paradigm of valuation, which subsumes that broken one.

[traincarswreck]

In different paradigms through history of the uni pressure built and then one side won.  In certain circumstances pressure built and there was such an equilibrium that a new order was born.

We can see this in regard to the recent world wars, which birthed our ability to harness atomic energy.  Money too is such a higher order, in which we can see, especially recently, has represented its own conflict which is a higher order than slamming men into certain death.

The new war is on a higher order, higher than the fiat/gold standard, into an internet crypto-currency age.

[traincarswreck]

Would you argue the internet is a malicious plan to enslave the people by the US intelligence that created it?  I doubt it could be true!  No such agency would purposefully break the monopoly on money and believe it would help them control the people.

Nash sent an encryption conjecture to the Nsa in 1955 and a description of a highly parallel computing solution that is still further advanced than the internet to rand.  Ideal Money is an idea from that time.

So its observably evident that the idea of bitcoin floated around these agencies for many years prior to bitcoin.

There is no way to break the bubble, the monopoly, without losing the power.

Bitcoin whales cannot control the system, if they do it will fork.  And a malevolent Satoshi cannot exist, the project requires incredible OBJECTIVELY to be birthed.  Such objectively does not exist in malevolent persons.

[iamnotback]

In different paradigms through history of the uni pressure built and then one side won.  In certain circumstances pressure built and there was such an equilibrium that a new order was born.

We can see this in regard to the recent world wars, which birthed our ability to harness atomic energy.  Money too is such a higher order, in which we can see, especially recently, has represented its own conflict which is a higher order than slamming men into certain death.

The new war is on a higher order, higher than the fiat/gold standard, into an internet crypto-currency age.

I've written many times in the past that who ever created Bitcoin whether they intended to or not, also unleashed the foundations for new paradigms to be created which might improve upon Bitcoin.

That is precisely what I am trying to do with my designs and project. Whether I fail or succeed, I agree with the way you have explained it has moved us to a higher-level of conflict. I see you mean outside the realm of just Bitcoin's model. Then yes, I agree. I had thought you meant conflict within Bitcoin by whales competing to see which will aggregate more Bitcoins (and thus winner-take-all eventuality unless some externality subsumes).

[traincarswreck]

You have to be careful, that an individual cannot solve a problem that only the collective can address.