A Compromise To Avoid World War 3

[syb3ria]

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.

I do agree, but those who are in possession of power won't give it up that easily. The good news are we are big community and won't disappear swift, like lot if individuals endangering the interests of big corporations.
Excuse my poor English.

[1713537408]

1713537408

[myrkul]

Excuse my poor English.

I always love how non-native speakers who have better grammar and command of the English language than a good chunk of the native speakers apologize for their poor English. Relax, You speak / write better English than I do your language (At a guess, from your tag, Russian)

[Blackhawke]

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.

I don't think you've stepped back quite far enough, Ben. You seem to be holding that the "Central Bank" is the great evil. Certainly central banks and their maniuplation of the the currency to the benefits of the banks is a problem, but it's not the central banks that start wars (on their own people or other nations), setup massive internal spying apparatus (alla the KGB, and now the American Dept. of Homeland Security), or back their country's fiat currencies. Those are government operations. While it's true that central banks would have a lot to lose from a peer to peer currency like bitcoin from going main stream, governments around the world have even more to fear. They lose their tax base, they lose their strangle hold on their population when they lose their ability to "follow the money", they lose their ability to socially engineer everything from tooth paste to tighty-whities.

There has yet to be a government created in human history that has not sought to increase its power over its people. Historically force was used. Today it's social manipulation. Get everybody begging to plunder everybody else, with the government in the middle, and you've got a government capable of almost anything becuase it's legitimacy really does come from its constituencies. And that's exactly what we have today in the U.S. and in Europe. Socialized democracies who prey on their consitituencies fear to feed their endless thirst for power and control. Take from this group and give it to that group. Take from that other group and give it to those people.

And the inexorable end to that ponzi scheme is close at hand: The growing debt crisis in both Europe and the USA.

[Vaxum]

With your permission Ben, I would like to apply your idea to countries like Burma, Darfur and Egypt. I think a decentralized currency would have positive outcomes in such communities.

The initial problems would be:

      - Mobile phone use. Cheap laptops.

      - Telecommunications infrastructure. <-- Hardest.

      - Useability.

      - Region only currency.

Considering that phone networks are either non-existent or heavily controlled by authorities then issue two will be the hardest to solve. Smuggling could solve mobile phone and laptop usage.

[LokeRundt]

With your permission Ben, I would like to apply your idea to countries like Burma, Darfur and Egypt. I think a decentralized currency would have positive outcomes in such communities.

The initial problems would be:

      - Mobile phone use. Cheap laptops.

      - Telecommunications infrastructure. <-- Hardest.

      - Useability.

      - Region only currency.

Considering that phone networks are either non-existent or heavily controlled by authorities then issue two will be the hardest to solve. Smuggling could solve mobile phone and laptop usage.

Check out/support MondoNet project.  Help solve issue two

[BenRayfield]

Blackhawke, I found this on Wikipedia, which I consider to be more credible on average than most news sources, because it tends toward a median of peoples' ideas.

He ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp "as soon as practicable and no later than" January 2010,[111] but during his first two years in office he has been unable to persuade Congress to appropriate funds required to accomplish the shutdown.

They couldn't shut down the war prison because theres not enough funds? It didn't say Congress wanted it to stay open. It said funds were in control, funds which were instead paid in interest on national debt loans to Federal Reserve, interest on money which cost the Federal Reserve approximately zero to create.

There are many times when banks control things indirectly that way, but I agree that governments do some evil things too.

Its a huge tangled system and most of them don't want to fix it. Almost everyone on Earth is looking to get ahead in the corrupt system with no expectation of the system ever improving. As I've started in this thread, I'm going to try something most people never consider as a way to solve the world's problems... I'm going to talk to people, on all sides of the issues, and figure out what is really going on. Nobody else appears to care, as long as they get paid. This strategy most people are using makes no sense to me, the one where they think fighting for small changes in the world makes any significant difference long-term. I don't even care about the Patriot Acts anymore. I want a complete redesign of the entire system, so I'm going to the Zeitgeist Movement's forum. I'm going to try to integrate their ideas for how to organize the world with technologies like Bitcoin and artificial intelligence etc. I don't have time to fight political battles. I only have time to deal with people who can agree on what they want without fighting about it. So far they appear to think Bitcoin is just another way for numbers to control us (like dollars), but Bitcoin could be modified as a voting system or for other secure distributed purposes.


Vaxum, yes please implement my common identity verifying system idea, for an open-source competition where the best economies win, and/or those Bitcoin technical modifications I described, and/or the idea of including text with the money and/or such equations between the texts, wherever you want. Please tell me about your progress on that, if it works out, and call me ( phone at http://HumanAI.net ) if I could help.

I'm not abandoning the plans I made in this thread, but I think I can work toward that more efficiently through the Zeitgeist Movement, and then let the effects of it spread to the world through that.

[westkybitcoins]

Hmmm.

Fully trackable double-keyed bitcoins, where the "authorities" hold your second key? Without their approval, you can't buy anything with them?

Congratulations! You just turned bitcoins into the Mark of the Beast (TM)!

I suppose your next suggestion will be to encode our private keys, in encrypted form of course, onto an RFID chip we can all have conveniently embedded into the skin of our right hands or foreheads.

Do you have any idea the kind of trouble you would stir up were you to seriously propose this idea to the public at large?

[BenRayfield]

westkybitcoins, I don't like the idea of giving authorities any more power, but its a strategic move I'm proposing for the end goal of obsoleting all such authorities and central banks etc. I know its the "Mark of the Beast" evil painful type of thing to do, but Bitcoin (and variations of its open source code) needs to "get its foot in the door" of large scale business transactions, and I expect that will be a lot easier to do with the common identity system (which many open-source systems connect to) than with Bitcoin alone. I want Bitcoin as it is now to stay around and for people to keep using it, but I expect what I proposed to make Bitcoin more popular and less laws made against it in the future.

I am against "an RFID chip we can all have conveniently embedded into the skin of our right hands or foreheads". I am against the forced use of the identity system I proposed. Forcing people when you don't have to is bad.

Do you have any idea the kind of trouble you would stir up were you to seriously propose this idea to the public at large?

The common identity system with many open-source economies using it? Or the idea you proposed about the forced (I assume you mean forced since that's how the chip implants idea is normally talked about) chip implants? For my idea, I want to stir up debates and people trying to change the world, which some may say is "trouble", but its a good thing.

[myrkul]

Forcing people when you don't have to is bad.

Fixed.

[BenRayfield]

myrkul, should anyone who wants to be allowed to build nuclear weapons and automated global deployment and targeting systems?

[myrkul]

myrkul, should anyone who wants to be allowed to build nuclear weapons and automated global deployment and targeting systems?

Yup. I see no reason why that power should reside solely in the hands of of people who steal to support their violent activities.

[BenRayfield]

I agree that governments aren't the right organization to have nuclear power (if anyone should have it at all).

Are you saying that individuals, some of which want to kill millions of people for not believing in their religion, should have the right to have immediately globally deployable weapons of mass destruction? What if one of those people says they only want to build the nuclear weapons so they can bomb the place you live and everything within 1000 miles?

I prefer the world be organized in a decentralized way where majority agreement would be needed, maybe through some unhackable decentralized software or other unhackable technology, for such dangerous things.

[myrkul]

I agree that governments aren't the right organization to have nuclear power (if anyone should have it at all).

Are you saying that individuals, some of which want to kill millions of people for not believing in their religion, should have the right to have immediately globally deployable weapons of mass destruction? What if one of those people says they only want to build the nuclear weapons so they can bomb the place you live and everything within 1000 miles?

I prefer the world be organized in a decentralized way where majority agreement would be needed, maybe through some unhackable decentralized software or other unhackable technology, for such dangerous things.

The absurdity of unhackable anything aside, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not limited to flintlock muskets.

[BenRayfield]

Ok, very hard to hack, or harder to hack than governments are to corrupt, which isn't setting the bar really high, but it would be an improvement. The right to unlimited arms was a good idea when that was written hundreds of years ago, but they weren't talking about things that can kill a whole planet or country or whatever size. Regardless of what those old documents say about rights, we should think about the world today and decide what is best based on that. The USA Constitution is great for legal battles, but I won't take my opinions from it unconditionally for the same reason I don't believe ancient religious books. I may read some things from a religious book and decide to believe it or not based on how it fits with other knowledge about the world, and I read documents about rights the same way. I have to think for myself, and based on the world today I don't think everyone should have the individual ability to create weapons of mass destruction, and neither should governments.

We can continue this conversation here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=27427.0 in the thread titled "Should individuals have the right to build weapons of mass destruction?".

[Vaxum]

With your permission Ben, I would like to apply your idea to countries like Burma, Darfur and Egypt. I think a decentralized currency would have positive outcomes in such communities.

The initial problems would be:

      - Mobile phone use. Cheap laptops.

      - Telecommunications infrastructure. <-- Hardest.

      - Useability.

      - Region only currency.

Considering that phone networks are either non-existent or heavily controlled by authorities then issue two will be the hardest to solve. Smuggling could solve mobile phone and laptop usage.

Check out/support MondoNet project.  Help solve issue two

Sweet link. It was very helpful. The MondoNet content does not completely solve issue two, but it definitely prevents us from re-inventing the wheel. Thanks!

So if Bitcoin technology is going to be applied to a current disadvantaged society then I think the crypto-currency needs to be limited geographically ? Otherwise the whole exercise is pointless. Another crypto-currency that is directly competing with Bitcoin will be created.

I think the easiest way to limit the currency geographically would be to somehow put a geographical constraint on miners. This way new bitcoins generated and any transaction fees would contribute to the surrounding community. Look at the power banks currently have IMO miners are equivalent to banks and therefore it is reasonable to assume that this would have a large effect on the community. Assuming that there is sufficient miner competition.

Implementing this will need some creativity. I feel people will be a component of the process.

Miner audits? Who does the auditing? Who funds the auditing?

Using GPS? Who verifies the GPS?

[Vaxum]

Constraining Location.

How about a third party e.g the bitcoin community or a charity creates an artificial demand for the currency. Lets create a charity that has an office/s based in a poor nation. Technically the purchase of the coins would need to occur within the poor nation so it could be any trusted third party based inside the nation. This office will purchase crypto-coins. Overtime this will cause a gradual flow of external capital into the community. To make the distribution more random, there could be an algorithm that chooses crypto-coins from specific addresses or block history,etc . The charity office will pay a premium for such crypto-coins. In addition apply a constraint stating that once the eligible crypto-coins are published they are not allowed to transfer between addresses. This would discourage outsiders trying to use the system.

To encourage people to organize themselves there could be a premium for crypto-coins from two/three/four addresses that come to the office at the same time. This will encourage the community to develop communications capability. Such capability is an important precursor for growth.

How is the transition away from charity created/managed?

[Vaxum]

How is the transition away from charity created/managed?

Need to decentralize.

Lets assume that sometime in the future the charity will no longer purchase the currency. Hence the crypto-currency will no longer be geographically confined. Therefore a new mechanism is needed to keep the currency mainly used within the country. This implies a need for capital controls. A static geographical component is needed that has strong control over the currency. This component needs to be defined and decentralized.

So what possible types of control are there? Supply control, demand control and movement control. Supply control is equivalent to issuance control. Demand control is akin to creating the artificial demand outlined prior. Movement control is equivalent to controlling transaction processing.

Supply and movement control could be done with a territorial embedded computer/s. This means constructing a computing object that is geographically confined. This computing object could be extremely heavy, extremely fragile, could be buried, could be sunk to the bottom of water collection, attached to a mountain, etc. Several of these computing objects could be embedded within a territory. Each one would play an important role in processing the block-chain. Communication between the embedded computers could be done via wireless and some novel energy supply would be used. A locator system within each embedded computer could shut the system down if movement was 'inappropriate'. If the embedded system is destroyed then the block-chain could not be processed. Issuance of new currency can not be done without communicating with the embedded computers.

Therefore capital movement would be controlled by the embedded computers. This is unlikely to be a sustainable solution but for under-developed countries to acquire control of the embedded computers would be technologically demanding. If such an event were to occur then this would imply that the country is no longer under-developed.