A Compromise To Avoid World War 3

[TiagoTiago]

In the end the two things can kinda overlap though, soldiers can be terrorists if they use terror techniques, and terrorists can be soldiers depending on their associations and the hierarchy of their groups, their roles in the attacks etc.

[LokeRundt]

Terrorism is the use of force/violence to achieve political ends (referencing dictionary.com, not some wacko conspiracy-theory site)

government, military, police, and tax-man are all terrorists as much as Osama was (wait, who's the terrorist and who's the "freedom fighter" again...I keep getting confused)

[TiagoTiago]

If you're just shooting the people coming to attack you, you're not a terrorist; but if you boobytrap their mattresses with fragmentation grenade, poison their food supply with disease, surround their houses with stakes impaling their pets etc then you are.

[bonker]

A Compromise To Avoid World War 3.
Ben F Rayfield, 2011.
All my writing, here or anywhere else, permission granted to copy, since redundant is harder to censor.

This is about slavery to money and a way to change that by open-sourcing the economy using a common identity-verifying system and leaving other functions to the open-source code, for example, a branch of Bitcoin which has an extra key held by a.......

Blah
blah blah
blah jabber
drone drone
blah.....


--Ben F Rayfield, 2011.

Could you summise this rambling monologue into, say, 2 sentences? Reading the OP is like wading through lard, I gave up after the first paragraph.

[JA37]

A compromise between right and wrong is still wrong. A compromise between good and bad is still bad.

What's it like up there on your high horses?
In everything but the simplest questions there's a compromise.

[BenRayfield]

I'm done talking about terrorism, since this is really about slavery to money, and ending the majority of those conflicts is just an extra benefit which prevents the death of billions of people in a war escalating from such conflicts.

Could you summise this rambling monologue into, say, 2 sentences? Reading the OP is like wading through lard, I gave up after the first paragraph.

Bitcoin proved that the open-source movement is strong and advanced enough to build economies, and now that we can do that for ourselves and let money advance into systems where its more than just a number, forcing us to continue using dollars (or other centralized currency) would be slavery. Extremely more businesses would accept an identity-proving system than an anonymous system, but we should use both for the inevitable time when authorities abuse such identity power and need to be pushed back into obedience to democracy, and on top of that we can create an open-source competition where the best economies get the most invested in them, so economies are created that influence society toward whatever the majority of people want it to become.

[ribuck]

A compromise between right and wrong is still wrong. A compromise between good and bad is still bad.

In everything but the simplest questions there's a compromise.

Not in questions between right and wrong.

"Shall we start WW3 and obliterate the world?"
"No, that would be evil"
"OK then, let's compromise. We'll obliterate half the world and leave half untouched".

[JA37]

A compromise between right and wrong is still wrong. A compromise between good and bad is still bad.

In everything but the simplest questions there's a compromise.

Not in questions between right and wrong.

"Shall we start WW3 and obliterate the world?"
"No, that would be evil"
"OK then, let's compromise. We'll obliterate half the world and leave half untouched".

Read the first six words that I wrote.

[wannaBhacker]

I sure didn't read that whole first thing. Most of the comments I've read and seem to possibility go OT or new conversations. I hope you posted that in some other forum where people care <3

[BenRayfield]

Yes I've posted it in other places. This is just my first try. I'll keep talking to people about it until I find what they're not understanding or believing about it, because if they understood and believed it all, they would certainly act on it. So far, nobody has said anything to defeat or weaken what I said, but I see a lot of getting off subject and ignoring, and I'm going to figure out why its happening and prove the basic idea to enough people that this starts to spread. World War 3 is cancelled, and I'm not taking no for an answer. The first step would be to get people to understand and then admit thats what global events are moving toward if we do nothing or if we ask governments to fix it for us. Then we talk about possible solutions, and I doubt anyone will have a better solution than what i proposed (just the identity interface, not the example I gave). The Bitcoin forum is where the relevant people are, able to influence such global events, but if they stop listening I'll take the debate somewhere else.

I know the central banking system is scared of me because of that call I got from a debt collector who conveniently forgot to call me until 2 days after I wrote that. What they fear most is a fair competition, a free market of economies, and if you Bitcoin people would get over your hate of authorities you could make that happen. I think most authorities are equally frustrated with the central bank system as we are, but they know of no better system or way to replace the old one with it.

The central banking system has masterminded a plan to get the whole world to fight itself to keep themselves in power. They never expected we would start working together on a global scale. Its something they didn't plan for, something they don't have enough time to form a legal offense against. We don't need to hurt anyone, hack any computers, fund any crimes, or do anything secret, to obsolete the central bank system. We can win without a conflict, and if they cooperate with this global change they'll become a part of this new system by providing ATMs, card readers, and cards to access the identity half of it. The first bank to offer access to Bitcoin-like systems will take many customers from other banks. The other banks follow, and it makes it easier for the original Bitcoin and similar systems to be accepted independent of the central banking system, which obsoletes them at exponential speed (but a very small exponent). The strategy I proposed is that effective. Please read it.

I also want to prove that governments strategy of keeping their most important information secret, is not necessary to get big things done. In this global change, I will publish all information that anyone would think is important and sign my name to it, including things like "we should use both for the inevitable time when authorities abuse such identity power and need to be pushed back into obedience to democracy". We're never going to get global problems solved if we don't share important information.

[Vaxum]

Hi Ben,

I think that your idea is a step in the right the direction. I have a question.

This system you propose would require the individual being granted a bitcoin address from the "coincryptaddress" issuing authority before trading, is that correct?

[BenRayfield]

You would sign up at an identity service provider (lets call it IdentSP, not ISP) with a name and password like any other website. They would keep a private-key that means your identity and tell others your name that you proved to them. They would give you the public-key matching that private-key which they keep secret. They would also give you the public-key of their certificate-authority and a digital-signature (signed by the private-key of the certificate-authority) of the identity public key. A certificate-authority is simply this system I'm describing, where keys are signed by other keys. Other than that, you would generate anonymous Bitcoin-like addresses the same way Bitcoin does today. Using a lot of bandwidth, it would have to send all new blocks (including transactions, anything that gets digitally-signed) to the identity service provider, they sign it with your identity private-key, then send it back to your Bitcoin which continues using it as normal Bitcoin does today.

That's the technical way to say it. In practice, you would sign up for an account with an identity service provider, prove your identity to them, and give Bitcoin a file they give you. Then it works the same as normal Bitcoin, while storing your identity public-key and related data in the network.

[Vaxum]

So each bitcoin-like address created would be tied to some key held by the certificate-authority?

Like would it be possible to assign ownership of each bitcoin address to an individual?

[BenRayfield]

Any person could use any Bitcoin-like address that they have the private-key for (which they have if their modified Bitcoin generated it). They can have as many Bitcoin-like addresses as they want, to organize their money into many accounts, but all would be used with 1 identity key pair.

Anything you add to the Bitcoin-like network (transactions, maybe timestamp merkle trees) would have a pair of public-keys: 1 for identity and 1 of the Bitcoin-like addresses you generate (1 of your many accounts). Everything you do would be publicly viewable to anyone who knows who owns your identity public-key (you do), but it could be set up so only a bank or government gets to know who owns which identity public-key so it would be anonymous to everyone except the authorities who watch transactions and identities, like banks work now except using our infrastructure and much simpler.

It sounds almost as bad as the central bank system, but the purpose is to get authorities to accept this system and for it to lead to more innovations in open-source economy design and to obsolete the central bank system. Work with them, then obsolete them, and we'll do it while publicly saying and saying to their face that's the plan.

[Vaxum]

Well yea it sounds bad, but there must be an element of realism. As you said businesses would have more confidence in such a system of-course. And this would lead to an indirect benefit to bitcoin.

So what mechanisms of accountability should there be on the certificate issuing authority? And what incentive is there for them? Under what circumstances would the individual's information be accessed?

Rather than offering an olive branch to authorities, should just try to replace them altogether.

[BenRayfield]

Lets leave the levels of accountability to whichever organization would agree to do this and are trusted by many people. Once they accept the job, government will tell them what to do, and if not, government acknowledges that its legal. Leave the accountability stuff to the authorities/businesses/banks/etc. We handle the open-source.

Its more than a certificate authority if you need freezability of accounts, like banks did to Wikileaks. I disagree with them freezing Wikileaks account and most freezing in general, but governments will demand the ability, and we can offer that by having the certificate authority be the only holder for the identity private-key and they do all the digital-signing using it, then send the signature back to the modified Bitcoin.

If account freezability is not included, a simple certificate authority will work, and a person can hold their own identity private-key.

You think I'm trying to be a pussy? The long-term goal of my plan has always been complete decentralization of society, obsoleting governments, central banks, and ending of all centralization, all without any violence or crimes or deception. After that, as I've been planning for years in a process I named "artificial parapsychology" (search for it), all people using the system will strengthen the existing "global telepathy network" (which has existed for all of Human history), giving everyone the ability to read/write minds, telekinesis, and over time we learn more advanced mental abilities. If you read on the first page, I said in some ways we're all gods, and I meant that. But we have to do this in steps, and the next step is decentralize the economy, and possibly in parallel get the Zeitgeist people to try out a centralized prototype of the stock-market-like (a little like that) bitcoin-like program described in the first post of this thread. "Olive branch"? Yes, for the purpose of efficiency and to maximize the utility-function (maximum of people get what they want). Peace is extremely more efficient than war. Also, myself and many other metaphysical life forms (also known as spirits, but that incorrectly implies they're dead) have invested huge amounts of resources into helping the Human species, and we will protect our investment if necessary (on a large scale statistically, since we can't be everywhere at once), which means every person on this planet, so don't screw with the banks or anyone else, while we figure out how to do this global change in the most democratic way possible, keeping everyone in the loop. Things simply work differently in the metaphysical. We're not claiming to own anyone or that they owe us anything. This is independent of the common identity system I propose in this thread, something that would be built on top of it, and in other technology, so nobody is forced to use these metaphysical things. They could, for example, use only modified Bitcoin with identity system and a debit card.

[Vaxum]

Don't get me wrong I think that it would be a step in the right direction. This would be a small step towards the ideal scenario.

But the strategy your using relies on acceptance from current authorities. ATM I don't think there is significant incentive for authorities to consider this plan. They will be facing pressure from many counter-parties and I doubt that their tax revenues are being detrimentally affected.

Lets say that tomorrow that this new system is built with the attributes that you speak of. What incentive is there for authorities to become certificate authorities? I don't think there is much. They would be able to tax everyone's bit-coins more easily, but be pressured from vested interests. If they are going to tax our bitcoins then maybe we should consider taxing them ourselves? To provide favorable conditions for non-bitcoin entrepreneurs.

So for this system to be accepted, there is an element of hope that these factors will be affected. However by the time bitcoin affects tax revenues, then this will mean that bitcoin is widely acceptance. There might be little point of building the system by then.

And lets say for some reason that this system was accepted by authorities tomorrow. There is still the bureaucratic crap that would undermine the process.

I like the idea, but it does go against some of the core themes of the current bitcoin community.

The only benefit of the system you propose is that it removes the need for current banking.  However this gives more effective control to the certificate-issuing authority. Sure the cost of transactions will fall, but it will be significantly more effective to control money flows than is possible using the current paper system.

Imagine the next financial crisis. Instead of the government guaranteeing runs against banks, lets just limit everyone's ability to spend money. Using this system it will be much easier.

[BenRayfield]

Authorities will want to work with us on this because if they don't then anonymous Bitcoin will continue to expand until a global conflict starts based on it, then laws will constrict freedom, wars will start as a result of such legal action, the central banks will accelerate such conflicts, and World War 3 starts. Is that enough reason to avoid that possible future?

I'm still trying to figure out how to explain these global events based on the facts. It will take some time, but the summary is in the first post of this thread. People either don't understand it, don't believe it, or don't want to admit its true. Change the world or die. Its that simple.

[syb3ria]

Authorities will want to work with us on this because...

Disagree, if authorities don't want it, they'll just say it's illegal because of some blah-blah. And that's not what we all need.

[BenRayfield]

That's the first thing authorities (anyone who has extreme power and chooses to use it conflicting with what others want) would do, which leads to the wars I described, and they would be forced to change their minds by the many countries who have an interest in them not being dictator through the central bank system. This may not happen until more countries notice the change happening in the global economy, but they will eventually learn of it. Since authorities would change their mind after making it illegal, on average authorities don't really want it to be illegal. This is about slavery to money, so don't think it will be ignored when there is a way to end slavery. Its less about technology and more about many countries being the slaves of a few others, and about individual slaves and bank masters. Free the slaves or fight the biggest war in all of history.