Dark Enlightenment

[AnonyMint]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/10/technology/bitcoin-jpmorgan/

The difference between digital banking accounts we have now and the digital currencies, is each citizen has to register for a wallet. One wallet for one citizen. Like your Social Security Number in the USA.

Your wallet can them be moved around to different banks.

Digital currencies is a code word for complete government tracking and total loss of bank privacy.  Your bank will still hold your balance, but every transaction gets cleared through government servers.

As Armstrong said, Ecuador is the trial run for what is coming to every country in the world after 2015.75 when the global economy turns down (which will provide the excuses and justifications for the changes along with the bailins and need to lockup every person's balances).

Bitcoin was planted to condition to world to "digital currencies"...

Quite possibly.  I don t think one has to invoke obscure conspiracies for that.  Financial privacy is already so cumbersome and costly to achieve that most people will rather just give up on it.  It is like trying to pay for rent and groceries with gold dust in order to avoid dealing with "evil fiat".

So far the Westerners would not yet agree to give up the financial privacy of being able to sign up a bank account where ever they wish, even in jurisdictions that have bank secrecy, e.g. the Philippines where I am and also apparently Ecuador. They are boiling frogs and don't realize what is going to hit them post 2015.75.

So the powers-that-be have numerous strategies for how they are breaking down that resistance in order to bring us to total government control:

1. Plant Bitcoin to condition the people to like "digital currencies", garnish the glossy-eyed devotion of the high-tech libertarians, and to give governments an excuse to make it illegal and create draconian replacements in their jurisdictions.

2. 19 muslims on camels, 9/11, Patriot Act, then FATCA.

3. Bring bank accounts of interest in bank secrecy jurisdictions into the risk mgmt department, and have them send out an SMS with all transaction details on every transaction asking if this was an authorized tx (I know anecdotally for a fact this happening).

4. Pile up the debt so high, repeal Glass-Steagal so banks can bankrupt themselves on speculation, so then the only solution is to 'restructure' (bailin, nationalize, confiscate by any other name) society's savings and pensions. This will require numbered accounts for each person in order to dole out "daily living allowances".

Etc..

You obviously hope that Monero or some other cryptocoin will allow people to retain financial privacy without joining some savage tribe and subsisting on berries and monkey meat.  Good luck with that.  Need I tell you that I am rather skeptical about the idea?

The only hope is distribution as a currency to the developing world has to begin pronto. Bitcoin isn't even close because it is centralization and rich boys investment pump paradigm (where the participants are deluded into think it is a currency paradigm).

I will not repeat again my past posts which reveal some ideas for solutions because I am losing time.

Crypto currencies function by no decree. They are decentrally produced.

Bitcoin is centrally produced for mining (Ghash.io + any other pool have > 50% of hashrate) and protocol development.

With the coming ETFs and other offchain entities, I posit it will soon by top-controlled for investment and transactions too.

Raise your hindquarters in the air for some Butthurtcoin.

[1715062106]

1715062106

[1715062106]

1715062106

[1715062106]

1715062106

[1715062106]

1715062106

[1715062106]

1715062106

[1715062106]

1715062106

[Bonam]

Your links don't go anywhere that provides a clear list of the principles of the "Dark Enlightenment" without a giant mess of quotes from various threads. That being said, I gather that it has three chief "complaints":

1) "The Cathedral" is lying to us about major issues.

Nowhere do you seem to explain what "The Cathedral" is, or which issues it is lying about other than (2).

2) The common refrain that "all men are created equal" is false.

This is obviously correct, not all men (and women) are equal. In fact, they all differ from each other in countless ways. But few apart from the very dense really take this statement to mean that everyone should be considered equal in terms of their ability, intelligence, attractiveness, strength, etc. What it really means is that everyone should be treated equally in the eyes of the law, and presented with the same sets of opportunities in life, regardless of their race, gender, etc.

3) Democracy is a failure.

Certainly democracy has many problems. Few nations follow a model of pure democracy; usually democracy is tempered by a constitution, a court system, corporate interests, international treaties, etc. Nevertheless, democratic systems of government today prevalent in Western nations have given rise to the most prosperous societies in human history, with the greatest quality of life and freedoms for their citizens. Furthermore, no alternative systems that give rise to a better form of government have been demonstrated. The only alternatives that have been tried (monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship, etc) are worse, not better.

[bigtimespaghetti]

Your links don't go anywhere that provides a clear list of the principles of the "Dark Enlightenment" without a giant mess of quotes from various threads. That being said, I gather that it has three chief "complaints":

1) "The Cathedral" is lying to us about major issues.

Nowhere do you seem to explain what "The Cathedral" is, or which issues it is lying about other than (2).

2) The common refrain that "all men are created equal" is false.

This is obviously correct, not all men (and women) are equal. In fact, they all differ from each other in countless ways. But few apart from the very dense really take this statement to mean that everyone should be considered equal in terms of their ability, intelligence, attractiveness, strength, etc. What it really means is that everyone should be treated equally in the eyes of the law, and presented with the same sets of opportunities in life, regardless of their race, gender, etc.

3) Democracy is a failure.

Certainly democracy has many problems. Few nations follow a model of pure democracy; usually democracy is tempered by a constitution, a court system, corporate interests, international treaties, etc. Nevertheless, democratic systems of government today prevalent in Western nations have given rise to the most prosperous societies in human history, with the greatest quality of life and freedoms for their citizens. Furthermore, no alternative systems that give rise to a better form of government have been demonstrated. The only alternatives that have been tried (monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship, etc) are worse, not better.

Not many people know that Anarchy has been tried to quite a significant extent. That is until I think the first world war (?) put an end to their non sovereignty.

This book is vital in demonstrating this:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=JGUJVMbsCovUPJyogOAI&url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00KB6DLUO%3Fpc_redir%3D1409549021%26robot_redir%3D1&cd=2&ved=0CB8QFjAB&usg=AFQjCNEPK8zowwyr1nQqlyVvw1BePv7DLA&sig2=tyUNOkXu4idQNaWBkk5mzw

If you don't want to read, Google an interview with the author. I think liberty.me did one.

[hdbuck]

Why The Deep State Always Wins: The Zero-Sum Game of Perpetual War

http://cryptome.org/2014/08/deep-state-wins.pdf

1/ IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
2/ WAR IS PEACE
3/ SLAVERY IS FREEDOM

“Like it or lump it, we’ll do what we like. So just get used to it, world.”

[herzmeister]

I hope everyone realizes I was correct when I wrote "Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch" in March 2013.

Don't you see? The powers-that-be planted Bitcoin in order to force the nation-states to adopt their own digital currencies.

Thud! It just hit my consciousness.

Self-defeating attitude, den Schwanz einziehend (pulling in the cock, as we say in German, chickening out).

Also untrue. Centrally controlled digital currencies would have come either way. No need to allure the population with Bitcoin first. A nice Apple or Facebook app will suffice (with strong lobby for subsidization to prevent high fees due to "customer" "protection" and AML/KYC costs).

Why The Deep State Always Wins: The Zero-Sum Game of Perpetual War

http://cryptome.org/2014/08/deep-state-wins.pdf

1/ IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
2/ WAR IS PEACE
3/ SLAVERY IS FREEDOM

“Like it or lump it, we’ll do what we like. So just get used to it, world.”

4/ RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

"Schwanz einziehen"-Attitude again.

[TheFascistMind]

One last attempt to explain how I see that the rich buys club is incongruent with the future.

I could summarize all my posts in this thread with the following outcome in the movie Braveheart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdlL65LD6I4

You really should watch that and see the unexpected SWAN impale the rich boys British at the end.

Sorry guys, Monero killer-
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=681725.msg8754756#msg8754756

Sorry that is just a constant size reduction and it doesn't solve the fundamental problem that ring-signatures can't be pruned, except by some other restrictions such as an expiry on coins.

We start with swans, then it gets interesting, and hard.

There IS an obliterating black swan (i.e. Taleb's unexpected long-tail statistic event) they don't see, whilst they be doing busy-bee grunt work of fixing databases for a broken design, making a gui, etc..

I am also a business angel, funding people's things ever since 2004.

And this produced how many million user products?

I have produced (one as a co-developer) three separate "million user" level products since 1980s. With a lot of goofing off vacation time in between (mea culpa).

I am fine if you don't want to come to my castle but that is the necessary condition if you want to deal with me.

I suppose this was directed to me as well as any others who aspire.

This is analogous to the inefficiency of saying that anyone who wants to buy french fries needs to travel to Belgium.

Those who are truly capable don't need any money. There will be too much money trying to be rammed down their throat.

Money is the weak thing to hold. Knowledge is strength.

My suggestion to you was to be more friendly and spread an insignificant (for you) investments around on all promising endeavors in order to be respected for your 1% instead of resented by the community. Also to give yourself more chance on not missing the swan boat when it comes. Your "Rpietila's Altcoin" thread instead of being a jovial and spirited discussion of exciting developments, should be renamed "Rpietila's Monero Membership Club". I am not upset about it, I am just relaying to you how it appears to others who are not brainwashed by "Monero is the answer".

You've already been friendly to me and you even gifted me 2 BTC. There is no problem between you and I. I am writing to gift you feedback, because in my analysis you are in the process of committing a fail and possibly a mega-fail.

Expecting busy hackers to go through personal interviews with you is I am sorry to tell from the perspective of a hacker insulting. I am not insulted, but I am telling you what sort of actions and attitude breed animosity. We build our reputations by our code, not our talking.

"Talk is cheap, show me the code"— Linus Torvalds

"Those who can't build, talk"— Eric Raymond

Your stance is fundamentally incongruent with the open source movement. Open source projects will spawn more and more granularly (smaller teams) and stored capital and top-down organization will become more and more irrelevant.

This is a virtual new economy; we only need to click a button to make an investment. We don't need to travel across the world. And we don't need to invest everything in one thing or two things, thus we don't need to know all the answers before the questions can even be asked. Creativity spawns serendipitously not as planned (even my own work lately proves this is true, because I didn't plan all the ideas I discovered along the way).

Open source is the odds of large numbers.

"Given enough eye balls, all bugs are shallow"— Eric Raymond paraphrasing Linus Torvalds

"Given enough experiments, all possibilities are achievable"— Shelby Moore III paraphrasing Eric Raymond paraphrasing Linus Torvalds

Eric Raymond noted that is the only known positive-scaling law in software engineering, i.e. that efficiency improves the more autonomous N actors involved. Design by top-down grouping or committee is not the same scaling law.

We don't have time to waste on top-down bureaucracy.

Warren Buffett doesn't do angel investing, because he wants to evaluate companies based on well established metrics. Angel investing is a game of more risky probabilities. Thus efficiency of scattershot is more important. Angel investing will become less and less like an exhaustive evaluation and more and more spontaneous and small, e.g. KickStarter. Everyone gives a little bit, not one big whale slowing everything down.

The Knowledge Age is the end of the road for large stored capital. The power-law distribution of wealth will shift to stored knowledge. Actionable knowledge will be power-law distributed. It already is. Which is why when you are searching for a needle in a haystack, don't tell the needle to jump to your castle.

P.S. I do want to have friendships and vacation in nice resorts such as castles. But that is vacation time. I can't mix business with vacation, it doesn't work. When I am coding, I need to be where ever I already am where I can code now, not tomorrow, not after a conversation, not after a glass of wine, not after ... Procrastination is the bane of software development. My best work has come when I didn't have material comforts.

I have not taken a shower in 2 months. I haven't washed my clothes, they are stink like a pig pen. I have not been outside of my room nor seen the sunshine except to restock on food.

Time is of the essence.

It doesn't matter if Paypal accepts Bitcoin because users who are not investors (e.g. especially females and the billions of impoverished) have no incentive to convert from their unit-of-account (dollars) to BTC just to pay for something. They might as well just fund their Paypal transactions with their credit card or bank account. Bitcoin will not become the unit-of-account without the blessing of the government, because it has no distribution scale.

Most of the impoverished don't have a credit card nor bank account.

The Paypal plan.

The reason Paypal couldn't just issue everyone in the developing world an account is because of jealousy thus legal and political risk. Governments would resist take over of their financial control by an overtly fascist corporation.

Peter Thiel et al are more clever.

Issue everyone a supranational digital account that is "decentralized and controlled by no one", when in fact it is centralized and controlled by the fascist powers-that-be.

Use this to force other countries into submission when they attempt to offer their own top-down centralized digital currencies, e.g. Ecuador.

The people are trapped either way in a fully traceable block chain and NWO Technocracy.

Monero (portmanteau of money+dying euro?) offers no hope of scaling to avert this rapidly developing fascist outcome.

C'est la vie. Fait accompli.

And the competing and equally devastating Apple Plan.

[2dogs]

Great to have you back.

[Useli Violent]

Guerrilla Economist, V talks about the end of the US dollar in 2015 (amongst other things).
This appears to coincide with AnonyMint's 2015.75; looks like we have about a year.

Are you ready?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejxx_dpzYO0

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Coherently unifying all the concepts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg9387308#msg9387308

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg9438334#msg9438334

[contagion]

... — fuck rights we don't need rights we need actual individually sovereign power!

The generative essence solution is decentralization, not the global, centralized NWO bullshit...

The Dark Enlightenment is not correctly summarized in the OP.

...

In essence, it is the rise of anarchist cyberworld Knowledge Age, where government is irrelevant and impotent and the individual and his technological capabilities rein supreme. Most of the population will fall into a Dark Age, because they can't compete effectively against hackers and they are reliant on collectivism, debt, and the bankrupt industrial age.

Oh and I am more important than Moldberg in the Dark Enlightenment.

Also Cyberocracy has a more established name Technocracy. Please use the correct term.

I understand Moldbug's "Only One Currency Can Win" which Satoshi also apparently validated.

And I have explained how I think a bifurcated economy could violate Gresham's Law and allow for two monetary units to coexist globally analogous to how national currencies coexist due to a Coasian barrier of individuals not trading directly internationally.

The one unit will be controlled by the banksters and the masses and this will be the 666 slavery system. The other crypto-currency unit will be for those who hold their "unit-of-account" in "units-of-knowledge". You see as a hacker, you don't care about...

I am happy to inform that Eric says I am not banned as long as I can remain respectful and has allowed my input to be considered. I posted another summary of my idea.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479608

...The point is about the relative value of the autonomous knowledge (capital) economy versus the vertically integrated (monetary) capital economy. As the autonomy of creation increases in both granularity and speed-to-market (Linus principle of "publish often"), the number of nodes of sharing increases and the value of that knowledge sharing network increases by the nodes squared. We have chart confirmation of that law with the history of the Bitcoin price.

...

How can you reason that we will pay the same or significantly for something produced by the economy that will be worth relatively much less than it had been?

With mass production, the value-added of the knowledge input was amortized over the capital cost of the factory and millions of produced copies. Thus the knowledge networking value was insignificant. Whereas, when knowledge can directly create with near real-time publishing, the knowledge networking value increases by the square and outstrips any startup costs. Moreover, incremental edits amortize the startup costs over many knowledge networking connections, and the value is the square of the connections.

The key is that open source knowledge is always changing and the knowledge workers benefit from autonomously iterating each other's designs, because the value of the network increases by the square of the participants who share. Metcalfe's (or Reed's) Law is at the heart of why sharing creates more value for all participants. That is not saying all nodes connect with all other nodes, rather the value scales proportional to the square.

Open source theory is rooted in evolutionary psychology, by Eric S. Raymond[2]
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6586#comment-1364271

(note you won't find my comment below at the above link, because Eric S. Raymond censors my comments. Go figure    )

Money is a language for exchanging value. In open source we are saving in acquired (personal and collective) knowledge and reputation, thus a language of value exchange.

When software or knowledge has become the most valuable product in the economy[1], this exchange can in theory significantly fulfill individual’s needs and desires. However, it is probably not the most efficient currency.

Knowledge and projects aren’t fungible. The maximum division-of-labor insures that some needs can’t be fulfilled by trading knowledge in kind.

Yet we don’t trust fungible monetary representations of value because they are inherently social institutions which are debased with debt and fractional reserves in a devolution into the antithesis of knowledge due to the Iron Law of Resource Statism.

Proof-of-work solved the Byzantine Generals Problem so in theory inverted the location of power in a monetary system moving it from the collective center to the individuals at the ends of the network, leaving only dumb protocol agents in the center — the end-to-end principle.

The individuals unleashed from that horrific Iron Law, are now free to vote with their value to walk away from initiatives (e.g. Paypal or Coinbase loaning in Bitcoin fractional reserves offchain) that debase the knowledge value in a decentralized cryptocurrency.

I assert that monetization of open source with decentralized cryptocurrency is imminent. The maximum division-of-labor is a more efficient and powerful force than open source’s gift culture which for example is subject to Dunbar number limit in some cases — it scales.

One generative prediction is that open source will become more modular and granular because project module developers remunerated in a knowledge backed currency are able to maximize their division-of-labor without the collectivization variance risk tradeoff of the gift culture when open source developers choose between applying their effort to larger projects that have the most inertia and smaller projects that have the most potential gain in (knowledge and reputation) value.

Gold can’t be that knowledge backed currency because it can’t be exchanged digitally and anonymously. It is impossible to make a digital proxy backed by physical gold that obeys the end-to-end principle because proof-of-work is based on decentralized consensus without trust. How could you not trust anyone to hold the gold backing, yet still insure the backing exists.

[1]	Iron was a precious metal 342 B.C.. Commodity prices inexorably trend downwards. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg6065144#msg6065144 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg6082580#msg6082580 http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#2nd_Law_of_Thermo

[2] Eric S. Raymond is the 150 - 170 IQ genius writer and progenitor of the term “open source” and promoted it as a non-communist, alternative to Richard Stallman’s and GNU’s antecedent “free software” movement. He is famous for writing the The Art of Unix Programming, the Cathedral and the Bazaar, and the Magic Cauldron, which enumerated many of the design and economic philosophies and principles that drive the internet, modern software, and open source. If you want to dig into understanding the coercion, communism problem with “free software” which ESR corrected with his promulgation of “open source”, listen to Eric’s advocacy in the following video about permissive open source licenses versus the GNU GPL viral licenses which compel certain actions on the licensee.

http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2012/05/17/lessons-from-a-jug-talk-with-eric-esr-raymond/ (skip to 9:30 mins in video, or 11:15 for punch line)

Is Anonymity undesirable for society or unrealistic?

Contracts shouldn't be designed to require the courts for restitution. This drives collectivism as you duly noted.

There will always be a need for dispute resolution and mediation in contracts. It is impossible to fully remove this need. Although it is certainly possible to mitigates the state’s role via private judges/arbitrators the best that can be achieved here is minimization.

In the part of my prior post which you did not quote, I explained that certain contracts can be indisputable because they are algorithmically settled. With the Knowledge Age, I expect these type of indisputable contracts to become a preponderance of the GDP[1]. My hypothesis is the Knowledge Age changes the fundamental basis of society.

For example, I expect the monetization of open source to foster granularity of project modules. So this means instead of contributing to for example Firefox or Linux source code, an open source developer could instead contribute to a module of source code with a much more general but limited scope of functionality (e.g. a HTML rendering engine or an image format rendering engine, i.e. the latter is a sub-module of the former module). These modules would then be funded by a license fee paid by the users of the software. The key here is micropayments, because each module would self-register itself on installation and request a micropayment from the user. The user would be shown  an aggregation dialog box of all the micropayments for the all the modules in the software they want to install and use, and click to approve the payments. A huge advantage is then we can upgrade specific modules of a software, so we can customize software to our liking. For example, Mozilla assholes would no longer have the power to do what I warned them would be egregiously unpopular with website developers. You thus see from that Mozilla fiasco that even in open source, the IRON LAW of Political Economics applies. The way open source funding works now is that the key developers of large projects are funded by large corporations. Thus only the core developers receive remuneration. And the synergies and network-effects are highly muted as compared to the new paradigm I describe above.

[1]	Iron was a precious metal 342 B.C.. Commodity prices inexorably trend downwards. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg6065144#msg6065144 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg6082580#msg6082580 http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#2nd_Law_of_Thermo

 

Pedophilia, rape, murder, assassination have been going on since Mesopotamia. Communications were always anonymous in the past. You want a 666 control system to try to stop what has always existed and you will get instead your nirvana of megadeath.

Anonymous internet communication doesn't make it more difficult to hunt down individuals as compared to the way it was done before the internet. There was always anonymous money and transactions in the past. Whereas, if we give the State the power to make all transactions trackable in the imminent switch over to digital currency, we will surely all die in megadeath 666.

Two separate issues here. 1) It there a social cost to adding unbreakable anonymity in monetary transactions 2) Is the cost worth the benefits.

It is true that such crimes are ancient ones. However, it is also true that the creation of a marketplace where such activities can be financed in absolute anonymity will lead to an increase in said activity.

Firstly, I philosophically do not agree that which is natural is a cost for society. I believe the antithesis is the truth, which is that statism attempts to enforce unnatural outcomes[2], which is huge cost on society because nature always wins in the end.

But more saliently, as usual is appears you don't view the issue holistically and only look at one of the vectors that the new paradigm changes. For example, parents have a responsibility to protect their children from paedophilia and the Knowledge Age will economically empower individuals so they can have more influence over their kids, i.e. not be dependent on sending their kids to public schools where they lose some of their individuality and morals. The current statism is destroying the family unit which destroys children and makes them more vulnerable to paedophilia. Statist funded feminism[2] is causing more rape than anonymity could ever hope to. Murder rates are 26 times higher amongst blacks who have lower IQs and knowledge age skills — fact is that Knowledge Age workers do not murder. Increase in the risk of collectively funded assassination would be a great incentive to be anonymous and to not be a public figure, thus another restraint on corrupt governance and overpaid actors and sports stars which are a moral turpentine on society ("let them eat cake" or "feed them bread and circus" to keep their minds preoccupied).

Note I believe IRON LAW of Political Economics can't coexist with the Knowledge Age, because remember my thesis is that knowledge isn't fungible and can't be financed, thus it really can't be centralized and controlled and thus the government must eradicate the Knowledge Age if the government is to survive. In short, there is war ahead and only one side can survive. If the government wins, humanity loses.

[2]

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/13/defeating-the-business-cycle-a-goal-for-thousands-of-years/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/01/what-socialism-destroyed-govt-shutdown/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/11/socialism-at-its-best-how-to-destroy-the-wealth-of-a-nation/ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg9910747#msg9910747 (Western civilization destroyed by trying to enforce gender equality) http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4934 (The true meaning of moral panics) http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/03/04/5-ways-feminism-has-ruined-america http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3567 (What ‘privilege’ means to me) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg5916097#msg5916097 (Banning both breathing and death)

 

Ask yourself this question. If everyone in the world was suddenly gifted with your current understanding of fiat, cryptocurrency, socialism and its dangers would you want anonymity in a world currency? The answer in my opinion is no.

I entirely disagree. I would still want anonymity because it provides the correct incentives for the game theory of society, as I enumerated above. Never should the game theory be based around personalities, but rather based on actual deeds which has nothing to do with identity. I view this very mathematically. Thanks for calling me out to explain my philosophy so it is available in the public record.

In such a admittedly very unrealistic scenario there would be no need for anonymity as the populace would vote to dismantle the foundations of fiat based socialism. There would be no justification for facilitating the aberrant social behavior that unbreakable anonymity helps hide.

Now obviously that is a completely unrealistic scenario. However, I believe it demonstrates why the long term solution to this problem is education and where that fails natural selection. Anonymity is a useful means to protect individuals until society progresses to the point where it can be safely set aside.

Not only unrealistic, but uniformed about the real game theory of society. Also society can't vote anonymity out of existence. Nothing can stop anonymity unless it is technologically possible for a central authority to squelch it. See below...

Internet anonymity is nothing like burying gold coins. It doesn't have to be cumbersome nor cost more (but there is a lot of programming work that needs to be done to make it so). It doesn't have to decline the velocity of money and can in fact increase the velocity which has been collapsing, by providing an outlet for the private sector to grow and interrupt without the oppression of the State.

Perhaps but this has yet to be proven. Certainly nothing that exists today meets this criteria. The state is likely to come down hard on an anonymous cryptocurrency if it starts to gain traction. That alone will increase the cost of using it.

This is the big open question. Even I am not sure how this will play out, but I will say do not entirely underestimate the power of the Knowledge Age. It is possible we can render the government's power quite impotent. For example, if the government wants to pay footsy with internet kill switches and packet filtering, we can switch to P2P mesh networks of WiFi routers and stenography. Also if the Knowledge Age is more profitable for people than the collapsing socialism which becomes draconian, then the majority of people walk away from the government (withdraw their support for its authority) and walk to anonymity and the Knowledge Age. It could be like the fall of the Berlin Wall, one day the government realizes they've lost and it falls peacefully in tidal wave action.

That is my grand hope.

http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb300/20100525/Little-White-Church-Hill-1550025.jpg

My simple dream; what is all my babble really about? I envision local, townhall direct hands on government (where you know every body within your Dunbar number limit) will be the surviving and thriving form of limited government that I envision will be enabled and sustained by the paradigm I promoted in my prior 3 posts. This will be the like the warm feeling of the little white Baptist church on the hill in Alabama where I sang songs of contentment and faith with my extended relatives who were farmers. I visualize closer communities and stronger interpersonal relationships. I view happier and more socially engaged families. I visualize we can return to communities while still interacting internationally via the internet for maximum division-of-labor and human prosperity. I can dream can't I?

[TPTB_need_war]

This is very relevant to the Dark Enlightenment:

So let's see. Does the State have women's best interests at heart with the campaign to stop marriage below age 18:

http://www.cfr.org/peace-conflict-and-human-rights/child-marriage/p32096#!/

There is Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations again, that Aaron Russo mentioned (in the context of feminism, a.k.a. "women's lib") in the video I linked in the prior post.

Surely it is beneficial for all females to wait until after 18 to marry and first focus on education correct? How could the truth be any other way! It is obvious correct?

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now here is a test for readers. Who can best summarize why it is not optimal?

I'll give you a hint (anyone with daughters better read this!):

http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-ancestral-environment-of-females/
http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-false-life-plan/
http://blog.jim.com/economics/the-future-belongs-to-those-that-show-up/
http://blog.jim.com/economics/the-cause-of-population-decline/
http://blog.jim.com/economics/the-collapse-of-fertility/
http://blog.jim.com/culture/religiosity-and-fertility-wrong-metric/
http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-damage-caused-by-diversity/ (top-down meddling makes everything worse)
http://blog.jim.com/war/obamaphone/ (here is what top-down meddling accomplishes)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4934#comment-400335
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4934#comment-400492
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4878#comment-397694
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4878#comment-397806
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4878#comment-397846
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4878#comment-397859
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4878#comment-397863
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4878#comment-397927
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4878#comment-397928 (this is so true, you can make a woman want you by staring her lips up close)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238#comment-425228
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238#comment-424939
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238#comment-424867
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238#comment-424944
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4878#comment-397948
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238#comment-425062 (the feminist attempts censorship)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238#comment-425150
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238#comment-425152
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238#comment-425160 (Eric misses the high IQ point that his individual options, are not every man's and thus not optimal societal options)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238#comment-425169
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238#comment-425172 (Bravo! Bravo! Eric the Marxist has a hole in his IQ)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238#comment-425178
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238#comment-424913
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238#comment-424854
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238#comment-425180
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238#comment-425190
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5704#comment-573517 (Ah that is the reason Eric & I don't mix, Eric is conflicted/dumbed down by his utilitarianism, leftism)

Btw, I see Eric S Raymond mentioned the Stockholm Syndrome.

[TPTB_need_war]

rpietila, I moved our discussion about theory of change activism in money systems, and username18333 on the applicability of his Great Empire of Hyperaccelerated Redistribution Theft™ anti-money altcoin, to the Economic Devastation thread which is more apropos.

Even Karl Marx understood that the system of social structure was a result of (and not the cause of) the mode of production driven by technology (a.k.a. "natural science"). He eloquently stated that the mode of production shifted over time due to changes in the underlying technological "forces of" production. He explained that what he meant by capitalism is the "modern bourgeois society" which he certainly meant those who could aggregate more capital in the power-law distribution simply because they had more capital.

Karl Marx did not state that the reason for this rise of monetary capitalists is because the Industrial Age can be financed with usury because industry (e.g. factories) require high fixed capital investments, with amortized rates of return. And thus industrial society can not produce without concentration of monetary capital. And thus capitalists are then able to capture the government and write off usury defaults to the public backstop, because in an industrial society production is too big to fail because it does not incorporate Taleb's anti-fragility thus investments in production overcommit to egregious estimation errors because there is a contagion effect of increasing debt to stimulate demand and production. In short, the entire industrial system is doomed to corruption by its very technological nature regardless what social structure is attempted to build on top of it.

Whereas, in the opening post of the Economic Devastation thread, CoinCube has cited my writings on the theory that the Knowledge Age inverts the control over capital, because knowledge creation (not preexisting knowledge consumption per se, although learning is diversified especially if autodidactic undirected and thus a form of innovative knowledge creation) spawns chaotically and unpredictably, thus can not be control by monetary capital. It is the changes in technology which have enabled individuals to directly "sell" (trade) their knowledge creation into the market of demand for knowledge creation, and stepping out from under the control and reason for existance of the corporation in the Theory of the Firm, that is destroying the utility of excessive quantities of stored monetary capital, because it is implausible to convert these large stores of capital to efficient production of knowledge. This is the why the old world industrial capitalists are creating a new world order of totalitarian control in order to try to hang on to their power which is being fundamentally eroded by technological shift to the Knowledge Age.

I believe I am the progenitor of the concept and term Knowledge Age in this context.

I have argued to rpietila that the technological struts (e.g. anonymous internet and anonymous money for trading and including micropayments scaling which Monero can't do) have to be in place before the change will occur and that his religious activism is counter-productive.

I have argued that username18333 makes the same mistake that all communists and socialists do, in that they can think by force of destroying freedom by stealing from some to give to others that they can change the underlying forces of production. One day I will need to take the time to read all of Marx to understand how he ostensibly transitioned from a correct statement of reality in the Preface to such a horrific killing field of Communism.

P.S. I am the former AnonyMint, the creator of this Dark Enlightenment thread.

[herzmeister]

One day I will need to take the time to real all of Marx to understand how he ostensibly transitioned from a correct statement of reality in the Preface to such a horrific killing field of Communism.

He did not, by and large. At least not in the way that Communism is understood today. Communism, for him, was just a philosophical concept, some kind of evolutionary (end?-) point of humanity in the future that would happen naturally (tribes -> feudalism -> capitalism -> communism) (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism). The utopian kind communism is not an authoritarian system, it's rather that people would voluntary follow the lifestyle of *from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs*, as they would finally realize they can be freed from the coercion of capital, money, and property. Essentially a world where the provision of all basic needs (and beyond) is automated by robots/computers anyway, and workers have to contribute very little, if at all.

The discourse on the left is rather about what needs to happen on the road to that goal. Some kind of consensus is that changes first and foremost happen through revolutions. The right strategies have to be employed to steer revolutions (that would necessarily happen in the course of history anyway) into the right direction. Although Communism means a society without both capital and the state, some revolutionary thinkers wanted to use the state as a temporary(!) tool, and subvert it by turning the dictatorship of the bourgeois into the dictatorship of the proletariat; that was Lenin's line of thought, and he got his way, the rest is history.

[BADecker]

Warning, this will exceed the intellectual capacity of most readers here. This is intended for the high IQ audience of Eric's blog.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg5457696#msg5457696
....

I have long studied the mechanisms of Dark.  For example, the curious Dark Switches on the wall that when turned in the down position, suck all the light out of the room.  These can be noted to be connected to the active mechanism, the Dark Bulb, for for the newly energy conscious, the Dark Noodle.

There is a massively huge Dark which orbits the Earth and vacuums up light on a 24 hour basis.  It was once believed that all of these minor Dark entities originate from the Dark Side of the Moon.  Now we know that verily, it is the Poles of the Moon which shelter the Craters of Eternal Dark, where for billions of years only the light of far away stars has impacted.

Then there are Books, which cannot even be read in the Dark, which proves their transient nature and even worse, computer screens the abject enemy of Dark, intruding into every corner with luminiscent glowing horrror.

Oh, you are so humorous.

One thought, though. The back side of the moon may be dark with relation to the people of earth, but it is bathed in sunlight daily as it swings around the earth.

[TeamButtcoin]

Proponents of the Dork Enlightenment did not receive enough wedgies and swirlies growing up

[TPTB_need_war]

Complaint the second: “All men are created equal” is a pernicious lie. Human beings are created unequal, both as individuals and as breeding populations. Innate individual and group differences matter a lot. Denying this is one of the Cathedral’s largest and most damaging lies. The bad policies that proceed from it are corrosive of civilization and the cause of vast and needless misery.

BULLSHIT! Social Darwinism isn’t only morally wrong; it doesn’t even perform the function it claims to perform: fostering real competition!

...

Although such moral objections are clearly relevant, the most devastating counterargument to the Cachet of the Cutthroat is that it is simply wrong. Both the social and natural sciences have conclusively demonstrated that ostensibly “softer and fuzzier” qualities in people and the communities they engender–compassion, goodwill, and above all empathy–are integral to sustainable success, particularly in complex organizations, but even in nature at its rawest and bloodiest. By fostering social cohesion and solidarity against adversity, such attributes paradoxically make us more, not less, competitive as individuals and as a society.

Please don't attribute a quote to me that was a quote of Eric S. Raymond.

If you know Eric at all, you would know it is impossible that he would argue against the values of cooperation, helpful reputation, and the gift culture of sharing in an Inverse Commons:

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/magic-cauldron/magic-cauldron-2.html

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/magic-cauldron/magic-cauldron-5.html

Rather Eric's point is the Dark Enlightenment is against government claiming to be able to enforce equality, which is of course unnatural, impossible, and entirely corrupt.

One day I will need to take the time to real all of Marx to understand how he ostensibly transitioned from a correct statement of reality in the Preface to such a horrific killing field of Communism.

He did not, by and large. At least not in the way that Communism is understood today. Communism, for him, was just a philosophical concept, some kind of evolutionary (end?-) point of humanity in the future that would happen naturally (tribes -> feudalism -> capitalism -> communism) (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism). The utopian kind communism is not an authoritarian system, it's rather that people would voluntary follow the lifestyle of *from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs*, as they would finally realize they can be freed from the coercion of capital, money, and property. Essentially a world where the provision of all basic needs (and beyond) is automated by robots/computers anyway, and workers have to contribute very little, if at all.

...

Ah so then Marx (and Godwin's concept of technological change solving the problem over time) is nearly congruent with my concept of where we are headed in a Knowledge Age in the sense that capital will naturally be held by those who are able to actively create knowledge. And near zero margin tangible resource costs relative in value to the knowledge production of the economy.

If your taxi driver happens to need a wheel bearing for his car...

What is “need”? “Aspiration to possession”...

Communists eliminate needs by removing demand, i.e. killing fields. Mao exterminated some 50+ million.

Knowledge Age capitalists eliminate needs by producing more technology which empowers individuals to produce individually and satiate their needs.

[TPTB_need_war]

https://web.archive.org/web/20020211183355/http://coolpagehelp.com/developer.html

(click also Chapter 2 to see how I was already into the thinking about the economics of the Knowledge Age in 2001)

Guardian is about 3 - 4 years after I wrote the seminal essay on the financeability of the Knowledge Age linked from the opening post of the Economic Devastation thread, and 14 years after I first alluded to the coming at the link quoted above.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun

[TPTB_need_war]

I take issue with MA's repetitive insistence "we are all in this together".

If I tie my shoelaces to a mountain, who can achieve anything  

Armstrong sees from his cyclical models that the masses must perish in megadeath every 80 years or so. So why can't he acknowledge that is natural and that is the upswelling of innovation from the few that propels humanity forward  

All those cows in Greece and the EU who believe in the EU dream, unfortunately deserve exactly what is happening to them. It is entirely natural. Those who are offended by my words, as if I could even change what is natural  

Bottom line is if you trust your life to the herd, then you benefit while the lamb is fattened, and then you die when the lamb is harvested. Rather if you trust your life to your individual endeavors, then you suffer from your own failures and profit from your own achievements. Of course trading with others to benefit from the collective, serendipitous, chaotic, accretive advance of knowledge (technology).

popcorn1, maybe it seems like I am a callous person. Rather it is incredulous to me that you would demand that someone who is suffering from Multiple Sclerosis and who has never taken a dime in aid from health insurance, should somehow be responsible for you being too fucking lazy to work hard and build your own life.

That is why I say, "fuck you"!

Do you have any idea what I am suffering? But do I put that burden on you?

You are the callous, communist, coward thief hiding behind the charade of equality and social justice.

...

[TPTB_need_war]

Anyway, I'm sure many other Europeans will explain the general zeitgeist here too.

Let's do a Steve Jobs and be brutally frank.

Apparently feminism = hedonism.

I've noticed how much Westerners are getting a thrill from teaching two women to eat each other's pussies.

I think Nordic Europeans support feminism because it enables them to justify fucking non-virgins and then the hedonistic dominoes from there.

It also frees the men from the obligation to raise children, if they can convince the women they are more powerful if they don't bear children.

I've noticed here in the Philippines, the females are vehemently anti-abortion and anti-birth control. It is very, very difficult to get them to take birth control pills and they are not that happy about using a condom. These are real women who want to have the real happiness of bearing children and raising a family. My own mother criticizes me when I don't force the women I am involved with to use birth control pills!

Europe has entered decadent Frankenstein mode and the USA is following close behind.

I am not trying to be a moral dogmatic oppressor here. I know any of us can be influenced as we are human, but the thing is that once a man prefers to get happiness more from hedonism than from family, then the culture is broken. The society will collapse into an abyss.

And this is precisely what is happening to Europe.

How does a mother who has become bisexual raise her daughter and son   (not my mother)

Sorry I am fairly open minded person and I've explored many things in life, but I can tell you there is a major difference between the gf I have now and some of the Western women. My gf values dogs, children, family. She could easily be a hedonistic queen given her D breasts and very attractive face (not to mention brown skin), but she is humble and wants the things that really make happiness.

Those Europeans who support feminism are insatiable. They want to steal and have everything. They don't want any natural limits on society. They want that man is superior to nature. Why should a woman be limited to sex with only a man or a human? She can fuck a pet monkey and that is more freedom. Why must she bear children. It is better we educate the women to fuck more people, sexes, and things and have more freedom! It isn't enough for her to undress and fond herself on a webcam, instead the men want her to pee and insert objects into every orifice.

And that is why they've run their debt sky high. And they can not change their system. They are addicted.

bigtimespaghetti,

I added to my post after you quoted it.

The boomerang reaction to repression by religion is a supporting argument to the generative essence I stated, which is the people are reverting from fear of nature to boastful overconfidence disrespect for nature and the confidence that man can have everything he wants.

After the collapse, man moves too far to the other direction, and the new addiction will be the old one of religion again. Then man again disrespects nature (in a form of fear) and has the confidence that man can control everything other men want.

It is two extremes and both are founded in addiction and denial of reality. And both are founded in disrespect of the decentralized quality of free markets and nature, i.e. yes both extremes require collectivism.

The Republicans are trying to move back towards the old addiction. The Democrats want to move forward into the new addition. Conversativism vs. progressivism. Both are evil.

We need to put an end to this hamster merry-go-round using anonymity technology so the free market can be superior to collective power. Nature is a decentralized meritocracy.

I will quote this over in the Dark Enlightenment thread also.

Aussie Modesty

...

Mates

...

A Multi-Cultural Society

...

Australian Etiquette & Customs

Meeting Etiquette

...

Negotiating and Decision Making

...

This is a fairly romantic view of the Australian character. True regarding modesty. And hile accurate in a general sense, it fails to mention the undercurrent of racism that has always been prevalent. At the moment you'll get a fair go (unless you're Muslim or Chinese).

White Australia has continuously treated the Aboriginal population disgracefully, from outright murder and enslavement, to not giving them the right to vote (or be classified as human), to continually underfunding development. Aboriginals has poorer access to health, education, employment etc and even now, funding has been cut to remote communities. One of the biggest controversies of the last month has been the racist booing (called an ape, told to go back to the zoo) of an Aboriginal football player who has a) mentioned the way Aboriginals see Australia and his hopes to unite all and b) performed an Aboriginal dance on the field.

With immigration post ww2 (outside of the horrendous White Australia Policy), each ethnic group that arrived was ridiculed and disliked until the next wave came; Greeks / Italians in the 60's, Vietnamese in the 70's, Lebanese in the 80's, Asians in the 90's, Muslims now.

At the moment the Australians have a far right government that continues this racism for political gain by attacking Muslims and those seeking legal asylum (those fleeing the very wars Western nations have instigated). It is the main issue (along with anti climate policy) that led to their election. And as the government continues its disastrous decline in the polls after severe mismanagement and endemic rorting and lying, they are playing the terrorism card to its fullest (cancelling of passports for suspicious activities, decided by the Minister and not due process). They further aim to tax lowest wage earners and avoid acting on the billions of dollars lost by not taxing big multinationals.

You must be European? Because your support for multi-culturalism is very apparent. (And that is why I would not even consider to migrate to an EU country)

I am vehemently against multi-culturalism because it is just another way for TPTB to weaken the individual sovereignty of the men who are already present in an area.

If we had a world with no government social welfare, then I would support a world with no borders. Who ever can pay their own way, can go where they like. But if you have the immigrants coming to alter the politics and voting for more and more expropriation from the wealthier citizens who were already present in the area, that is just another theft paradigm.

I am against theft. Europeans for some reason wish to steal from themselves. And they are going to pay the price for it again, just as they did with Hilter 79 years ago (right on time with MA's 79.6 year cycle).

Sorry I have always liked your astute comments up until now. And I am not trying to pick a fight with you, hopefully you can explain to me your position and we can agree to disagree. This is a reason I have a fundamental difficulty becoming politically symbiotic with most Europeans. They love socialism philosophically for some reason. Can any of you Europeans explain to me why       It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Don't Australians have an empathy for the underdog because they were always the underdog w.r.t. to the British who banished them?

Yet it is natural that they see themselves as superior to the Aboriginals because they were the colonizers of Australia. It was necessary for them to adopt that belief system in order to steal the land of the Aboriginals. So they have wanted to be open to others who are underdogs yet they maintain the distinction of those who they think are more of the level of an Ape, such as crazy Muslims who behead people and Aboriginals who eat barbecued rats.

I don't agree with stealing sovereignty from the Aboriginals, but I also don't agree with awarding them funding from the government. Let them have sovereignty over themselves and give them the same rights as citizens do. They were the original inhabitants. But don't give them (or anyone else!) social welfare!

I can empathize with discrimination against Muslim (even though I know most are not fundamentalist nutcases) because look what they have done to Europe and they can't seem to get control of their nutcases (ISIS etc). So I say let them figure it out in their own lands.

I also thought I heard that long ago Australians were a very male ego society and woman were second class, but lately I've come to believe they are more woman's lib? It is strange because when I first heard that during my travails to the Philippines in the early 1990s, I was more a women's lib guy and thought they were extreme and now later in life I have become against women's lib and now wondering why the Aussies have lost their masculinity?

Let me explain this clearly so there is no misunderstanding. I am all for women achieving everything they can achieve. I would not discriminate if some female can do the work as well as a man. In fact, recently I recruited a PhD in math and a Masters in Math that were both female. And neither of them could handle the computer security requests and they couldn't handle the concepts of a society going F.U.B.A.R..

I have come to realize that there are innate differences between woman and men, and woman on average just aren't equipped with the same analytical interests nor the same priorities when it comes to building things and planning for the future. Females are more concerned about their kids and immediate family than anything else.

Here follows some astute blogs from a guy you might think is a misogynist bigot rascist, but in reality his facts are correct.

http://blog.jim.com/economics/the-future-belongs-to-those-that-show-up/



http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-false-life-plan/

Men and women are happiest if successfully performing their traditional roles. This is to be expected, since whites and east asians, the descendents of civilizations, are descended from those that did perform their traditional roles.

The Cathedral, however, presents girls, in school and on television, with a false life plan: That they will follow the same path as males, and marriage and family will just spontaneously happen while they are fucking Jeremy Meeks...

...

Include also Eric Raymond's blogs on feminism and here is a guy who is for empowered women who can shoot guns:

https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=site%3Aesr.ibiblio.org+feminism

Even MA has supported the position that traditionally females have a different role than males:

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/12411

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/14810

I love to see females happy. What appears to make them happy is a big and happy family and social network. And a daily involvement in caring for that.

Yet in the West it appears we've been indoctrinating our women to tell them to be powerful and wear the pants. This has made them confused and unhappy, and it causes them to become Frankenstein addicts to their natural hypergamy instincts (being played by the lowest life playboys):

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3000

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6627

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4934

If they do have any abilities in the STEM fields, then they want to do that work as an adjunct to their core social network. Whereas a male such as myself can lock himself in a programming cave and not see civilization for months while determined to reach a goal.

Males were designed to tolerate pain and to prioritize hunting and strategic endeavors. Women not. They were design to rear children and manage the affairs of the local community.

Those are damned facts.

I wish someone could explain for me the European perspective?

[popcorn1]

Males were designed to tolerate pain and to prioritize hunting and strategic endeavors. Women not. They were design to rear children and manage the affairs of the local community.
 

 your so wrong again women can handle pain a lot more than men go and have a baby
when a man hurts him self you don.t hear the last of it

you talk a load of poo you know nothing you think you do but you don.t
you are on some other planet
you are a COOKOO
YOUR THINKING IS CRAZY

plus steve jobs was LUCKY to have a friend to bring him on board he was thick as shit
 if my room mate invented a cure for cancer i could sell that no problem you don.t need a brain to sell a winner it sells its self