James on the non-supporting (or at least, non-interfering) "uber-rich" , myself, and his penchant for the absolute necessity of "stringent secrecy".
Looks like BTC was about $1,000 - $1,100 or so (graph reading) on Sept. 2, 2013; one million bitcoins were then worth a paltry two billion dollars.:
19
Posted by James Bowery on Mon,
02 Sep 2013 16:40 | #
It is easy to criticize what Craig Cobb has done unless you recognize that there isn’t a lot of information out there on how to go about finding a refuge from the supremacist government testing its social theories on unwilling human subjects. Indeed, there cannot be much information out there about how to secretly find such refuges as the sharing of that information would be a security risk. One might consider such information to be defense classification of the highest order.
As for openly pursuing such refuges, my recommendations to Cobb and others forming refuges without
the most stringent secrecy:1) Don’t go for property in incorporated areas.
2) Don’t go for property in which the county government has building codes.
3) Promise to contribute 25% of the dollar amount spent on land acquisition to acquisition of land in Mexico for Mexicans that want to exclude all but Mexicans from that land, for the Nation of Islam’s purchase of land for exclusive occupation by blacks, etc., ONLY IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET:
A) That his form of community be recognized as legitimate, AND
B) That there be no interference from the uber-rich.
https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/much_further_advanced_than_anything_weve_seen=======================
Actual Satoshi Nakamoto "central bank" quote, 2009:
"The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust."Under bullet point 2 here:
https://freedomnode.com/blog/66/21-wise-and-funny-bitcoin-quotes-by-satoshi-nakamotoand here:
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source5 usages of "central bank" in late 2008 and 2009 by James Bowery:https://majorityrights.com/search/results/a681e8eb8f2763786a8cedae6b8f4c32/========================
Satoshi Nakamoto usages of
"zombie":
>But they don't. Bad guys routinely control
zombie farms of 100,000
>machines or more. People I know who run a blacklist of spam sending
>
zombies tell me they often see a million new
zombies a day.
...There would be many smaller
zombie farms that are not big enough to overpower the network, and they could still make money by generating bitcoins. The smaller farms are then the "honest nodes". (I need a better term than "honest") The more smaller farms resort to generating bitcoins, the higher the bar gets to overpower the network, making larger farms also too small to overpower it so that they may as well generate bitcoins too. According to the "long tail" theory, the small, medium and merely large farms put together should add up to a lot more than the biggest
zombie farm.
https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/3/James Bowery usages of "
zombie":
satoshi bowery on zombies june 9 2018https://postimg.cc/nXGxpj5fIn comment 3
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:11 | #
Reductio ad absurdum:
If “legitimacy” is defined by a government’s power, then is it not the case that the “Enlightenment fiction” as you call it, is quite “legitimate” in that it has been used to fool vast armies of
zombies into paying for their own enslavement and is, indeed, expanding that power globally?
https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/localzed_monetary_system_and_governance Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:26 | #
Excellent.
The beauty of such an interview is I could turn it on as an alternative for NPR and many NPR listeners would continue to listen rather than simply freaking out as well lobotomized
zombies are supposed to do.
https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/tomislav_sunic_interviewMany more James Bowery usages of Satoshi's quirky colloquial "zombies" are here, including two in 2013, the same year of the Satoshi Nakamoto "zombies" quotation:https://majorityrights.com/search/results/0e3cc20f38a9393082253b4be1203855/=================================
Satoshi Nakamoto, 2009, using "pseudonymous" twice on this Stormfront- visual clone blue forum which he himself did in fact build:4th paragraph down after bullet points
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=8.msg34#msg34The possibility to be anonymous or
pseudonymous relies on you not revealing any identifying information about yourself in connection with the bitcoin addresses you use. If you post your bitcoin address on the web, then you're associating that address and any transactions with it with the name you posted under. If you posted under a handle that you haven't associated with your real identity, then you're still
pseudonymous.11 examples of James Bowery using "pseudonymous", about half between 2008 and 2012:https://majorityrights.com/search/results/346ff8b298ca43268f02de6089e71013/=================================
Satoshi has a personal thing about VISA?Satoshi Nakamoto to Mike Hearn regarding VISA about 3 months after his Jan. 12th, 2009 Block 9 sends of bitcoin:
"The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide," Nakamoto wrote to Hearn in April of 2009. "Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost."
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7xx9gb/former-bitcoin-developer-shares-early-satoshi-nakamoto-emailsJames Bowery on VISA' impact on global environment vs. bitcoin's:https://twitter.com/jabowery/status/1068965464968032256James Bowery
@jabowery
Follow Follow @jabowery
More
15000employee/visa;1household/employee;7.9365079E3 W/household?W/visa
= 1.1904762E8 W/visa
1.2e8W/visa;111e9transaction/year/visa?J/transaction
= 34092 J/transaction
OK, so now we're getting somewhere:
For the low, low energy investment of 35kJ/transaction we get censorship.===========================
I read just a few days ago, in a typed conversational exchange between Gavin Andresen and Satoshi Nakamoto, Satoshi exclaimed to Gavin:
"That means a lot, coming from someone like you", or "That means a lot, coming from you." (I can't find the link in a 10 min. search today-- maybe someone is familiar. I can find it later).
In any case, James said that to me once, as I recall, and I think it was during Leith, before my arrest, though it may have been when I was in Eesti. I look up to James. One remembers it-- the sounds and import-- when hearing a heartfelt compliment from a being of James' abilities and insights. I feel 100% sure Gavin Andresen feels the same way.
I remember his saying that for something which comes easily to me-- simply being contrarian and speaking truth in the face of banishment from society.
When men are in their 60's, even more than their 50's, though less than in their 70's or 80's, it is the decade of sudden death. James seems like a loner to me. I know I am. Maybe Freddy Mercury is an example of a loner.
In any case, because of James' strong familial ties, I would think he may have or might eventually entrust his secret to an older male relative--
a man who has lived a lot of life. I don't know that. It just seems to me so.
If senior members of this board-- senior in the sense of having had typed conversations with Satoshi-- would vastly read James on Majority Rights, they'd likely get it. Especially Gavin Andresen.
I read a few days ago in Nathaniel Popper's
Digital Gold Erik Voorhees used to carry around a printed card which said "I am a friend of Satoshi Nakamoto's". This jibes with my memory of James being much taken with a dice game using variable odds. It's possible James was the coder of the original game. I have gotten past the signup page of Satoshi Dice, but it seems to me I was shown an operating program which looked like safedice.com-- almost exactly so.
I know it is shocking and mind-arresting Satoshi is who he is. Sure, there are some differences between Jimmy Marr's and James' politics. For one thing, I believe James' has more or less concluded Hitler was 25% Jewish after his grandmother conceived after being raped by her Jewish employer.
It is rather interesting, the implications of all this info. Maybe it will, in some way, at some time briefly affect bitcoin's prices.
===============
No worries re the Jimmy Marr fund, franky1. Your communist allies there have cancelled it as they regularly do against free thinkers' interests.
https://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=2259985&postcount=48https://www.gofundme.com/65-yold-man-in-hospital-after-apparent-ambushCultivate your ability to think in shades of gray, franky1:
franky1 said:
but lets imagine i didnt fix it, you actually think:
the real satoshi, who used a japanese based name.....
the real satoshi, who created a currency that was open and borderless so that even the un supported developing countries had a way to transact and trade internationally
was a border loving racist......?
I appreciate James is up 11 followers on twitter. There are bright people who can see.
==============================
http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2018/06/declaration-of-war-for.htmlJUN
28
Declaration of War for The Culture of Individual Integrity
RESOLUTION Declaring That a State of War Exists Between The Culture of Individual Integrity and The Culture of Group Integrity and Making Provisions To Prosecute The Same
WHEREAS waging war in the absence of a Formal Declaration of the State of War is typical of The Culture of Group Integrity, found in Nature, such as the social insects, and
WHEREAS Western Civilization is, unique among human societies, founded on The Culture of Individual Integrity, and
WHEREAS Individuals are at an existential disadvantage in a State of War against groups, and
WHEREAS waging war in the absence of a Formal Declaration is fraudulent, and
WHEREAS fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, vitiating the most solemn legislative acts, executive orders, court rulings, treaties, contracts, documents and oaths, and
WHEREAS this State of War has long-been and is replacing The People cultivated by Western Civilization's Culture of Individual Integrity, with peoples cultivated by Cultures of Group Integrity, and
WHEREAS formal Declarations of War have been the means by which Individuals form Groups, known as Armies, of adequate integrity to defeat Cultures of Group Integrity, known variously as mobs, gangs, political parties, rackets and conspiracies, and
WHEREAS Individuals can, themselves, only organize as a Group to wage war at the peril of their essential Nature, and
WHEREAS a Continual State of War cultivates Group Integrity, realizing this peril, and
WHEREAS Individuals have demonstrated that enumeration of Rights, rendered ambiguous by their complexity, are inadequate to provide security against The Culture of Group Integrity's continuation of war by fraudulent means of a primarily legalistic nature,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
Individuals Declare that a State of War exists between The Culture of Individual Integrity and The Culture of Group Integrity, so as to organize into an Army to Wage that War, only so long as the following conditions of The State of Peace, stated in common terms understandable to any Individual, do not obtain:
The current model of “human rights” must be replaced with a single, well defined, Individual Right to vote with one's feet to escape to any State consenting to that Individual's entry. This necessitates 3 material Individual Implied Rights:
The material right to land.
The material right to transportation.
The material right to border enforcement.
The primary Individual Right, that to vote with one's feet, being inconsistent with prisons, necessitates replacement of involuntary incarceration with involuntary border-enforced exile and allowing a State to preemptively exclude anyone for any reason whatsoever deemed appropriate by that State. This, in turn, necessitates a State of Nature to which Individuals are always admitted, even if they are excluded from all other States.
The material Individual Implied Right to land is realized by providing each Individual with a non-monetary rent stream, equal to all other Individuals, assigned to that Individual's State, for competitive reapportionment of State territories according to the census of its residents and the value those States place on land.
The objective condition fulfilling the Individual Implied Right to transportation is that the Individual's current State of residence must, on demand, provide safe transportation to its border. The borders of adjacent States must therefore provide neutral zones through which migrants may pass unimpeded. Any other material assistance that Individuals may provide to migrants is entirely voluntary. States enclosing other States as enclaves must provide some means of escape, even if only a neutral zone that extends through its territory to the enclave.
The State of Nature must exclude all artifacts of civilization not produced there, as well as excluding The Culture of Group Integrity. Excluding The Culture of Group Integrity necessitates the following laws upholding Individual Sovereignty1, be imposed on The State of Nature:
Except in self defense or enforcement of this Law, no one may willfully kill, disable, or permanently disfigure another. No one may secretly restrain another. No one who has reached the age capable of procreation may physically force upon another any offensive, sexually-oriented act; nor engage in any offensive, sexually-oriented act with any person who has not reached the age capable of procreation even when no force is involved. An open (not secret) majority vote of all sovereigns assembled as set forth in 3 below shall be the effective determination as to whether the alleged act took place and whether the act was offensive and was sexually-oriented. Any degree of participation in group force that results in violation of this point of Law regarding offensive, sexually-oriented acts makes every participant fully guilty of the result, along with the person actually performing the act.
No man shall force the act of procreation on a woman without her deliberated consent. Rape Is hereby defined as an act of procreation without the involved woman’s deliberated consent. Any man who engages with a woman in an act of procreation without her formal, publicly-proclaimed deliberated consent may be found guilty of rape. In the absence of a formal public acceptance, the individual woman involved Is the sole judge of whether an act of procreation was rape. If a woman who has not made advance formal acceptance of a man prior to the act of procreation, formally accuses him of rape within three months after the alleged act, and if a majority of sovereigns assembled as set forth in 3 below vote that the man engaged in the act, then It shall invariably be construed as rape – even though it may clearly be shown that the woman Invited, or even persuaded, the man to engage In the act. A woman may revoke formal acceptance of a man at will by giving formal public notice of such revocation.
Any individual, either sovereign or shielded, or any group of Individuals, may restrain persons suspected of breaking this Law for a period of not to exceed fifteen days, conduct a trial for them at a specified, easily accessible place on a date, time, and place publicly and formally announced three days In advance, and penalize (in person or by proxy or proxies) those deemed guilty by an open (not secret) majority vote of all sovereigns at the trial who are permanent residents of the community. (The composition of “community” and the meaning of “permanent resident” is to be defined by those subject to this Law.)
No one shall be required to give testimony at a trial but it Is agreed that one found guilty of perjury by formal trial, as set forth In 3 above, shall be subject to the penalty set forth In 7 below.
No agreements beyond this Law that give a group’s decisions effective power over individuals shall be made. Any group of two or more individuals who make other agreements giving a group decision effective power over Individuals, or who fail to abide by these Laws, shall be deemed a conspiracy against Individual freedom. All acts against them by an Individual or a group of Individuals subject to this Law shall be construed to be self-defense. — Further explanation: Anyone may bring interpersonal problems before a voluntarily convened formal open Forum structured after the manner of a traditional court of law. In such a Forum opinions regarding the interpersonal problems, and deliberated recommendations for settling differences, can be formally given, but such opinions and recommendations will not be binding on those Involved. Those who bring problems before the formal Forum may, if they choose, make personal agreements congruent with the Forum’s recommendations after the recommendations have been made. Those found guilty of making agreements to be bound by the Forum’s recommendations before the recommendations are made are guilty of making agreements giving a group decision effective power over individuals.
Any sovereign may challenge another sovereign to formal combat for any reason. The following are the conditions for such formal combat:
All combat shall be one sovereign individual against one sovereign Individual.
A challenger shall give formal public notice three days prior to combat and a formal public declaration of reasons therefore.
There shall be up to a one year interval from the time one is challenged to formal combat before one may again be engaged as the challenged. This interval may be shorted by the challenged issuing a formal public declaration of its termination. The challenged may not shield others from the end of combat through the end of this interval.
Subject to the following provisions, the conditions of formal combat shall be established by a majority vote of all sovereigns of the community who assemble after three days public notice. The intent shall be to give challenger and challenged the equal opportunity they would have In Nature — if no human society existed. Terrain of the combat ground shall be varied and extensive enough to permit strategy and to give the physically weak the chance that Nature gives them. Combatants shall have equal weapons and clothing. Weapons shall be a sword or knife with a blade not to exceed 25 cm (approximately 10 inches) plus a 15 meter (approximately 50 feet) length of strong cordage. All previous agreements between challenger and challenged are automatically suspended during the period of formal combat. There shall be no rules within the combat ground. Challenged and challenger shall enter combat ground from opposite sides. No one but challenger and challenged shall be within the combat ground. No one shall attempt to aid, hinder or observe what happens. It Is intended that only one shall return alive from formal combat. When two return alive one shall forever be shielded by the other. The relationship must be announced jointly by them before they are permitted to leave the combat ground. Two are not permitted to return alive if one has been permanently disabled or disfigured by his opponent.
No sovereign who has an unanswered challenge pending may leave the community, refuse combat, or relinquish one’s sovereignty.
Guilt for breaking any point of these laws shall be determined according to Item 3 above. The invariable penalty for anyone found so-guilty shall be death within twenty-four hours.
1The language for the The State of Nature is derived from p90-93, “Valoric Fire And a Working Plan for Individual Sovereignty” From the Valorian Society ISBN 0-914752-18-9, except for the underlined additions set forth in above. For definition of terms such as "sovereign" and "shielded" as well as further explanation, see introductory text in Sortocracy's "The State of Nature".
Posted 28th June by Jim Bowery
=========================
https://www.facebook.com/jabowery/posts/10215115412429424James Bowery
January 11 ·
Why I'm now focusing on developing weapons technology that individuals can fabricate from at-hand materials, tools and skills; and VERY reluctantly, having to de-emphasize Solomonoff Induction of social data as a last ditch attempt to bring discipline to "The National Conversation":
=============
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference
