Bitcoin adoption slowing; Coinbase + Bitpay is enough to make Bitcoin a fiat

[MahaRamana]

Without anonymity we are toast.

I don't think the elites will allow the propagation and popularisation of a crypto that ruins their plans. There are many things they can do, the first of which is to allow bitcoin to take the lead.

You once used the analogy of the shift from MySpace to Facebook to justify the fact that we could shift to another crypto, but Facebook has accepted allegiance to the elites and the elites have accepted Facebook in their planning. This is very clear by the way it is shutting off all pages that the mainstream don't like or that are too critical to the elites.

The difference in our case is that the elites will not accept a currency that frees the people and thus the shift will never happen.
If they allow bitcoin, it means that either 1. bitcoin is a creation of their master(s) and its purpose is further enslavement or 2. they found ways to use it to their own advantage.

In any case the people are enslaved by the power grabbers and I think it is only wishful thinking to believe we can change this by launching some specific new crypto.

Because the governments have no choice but to increase revenues as we collapse into a global debt default. And the more they tax + confiscate wealth, the more the GDP will collapse. Thus the more they will need to take from wealth. It is a downward spiral. Very scary.

We have been hitting the peak of numerous natural resources while demographics are strongly up worldwide and consumption of land, water, rare minerals, energy resources etc... is completely unsustainable. The fact is that GDP must collapse. The elites only want to make sure that they have or create as much power as possible through and after the GDP collapse and are planning accordingly. It is unavoidable. Bitcoin either was part of or is being integrated in the planning of the elites.

Actually, the elites do have the choice in front of defaults : inflation. But they probably prefer to do some rounds of confiscation first to lower the power of the wealthy outside of their ranks.

[1714768561]

1714768561

[1714768561]

1714768561

[1714768561]

1714768561

[AnonyMint]

AnonyMint, thanks for this very interesting thread. I'm not sure I agree with everything you write, but you do make very valid points.

I don't expect readers to agree with my perspective, because by definition the bulk of society is not freaking out (yet). Because the powers-that-be have been very successful in hiding the truth. If I can merely touch your consciousness, you will be more prepared than if I had not gotten your attention. I can't expect you to completely shift your perspective. It took me years. As you dig more (if you do), you will very likely find your eyes peel back.

Again I urge readers to listen to the Catherine Austin Fitts and Bill Moyer's interviews. Perhaps start with the Bill Moyer one since it is easier to listen to and more immediately convincing. The Fitts interview is more damning (especially the latter 2/3).

Feel free to express disagreement. Please try to expend some effort to dig and actually evaluate (for your own benefit of course).

Without anonymity we are toast.

Why is anonymity so important for mankind ?
Don't you think global transparency in financial systems might be a good thing ? (To help fight corruption, for instance)

This is the most difficult thing for people to understand because we are so accustomed to the normalcy of society. We just can't conceive of the notion that the regulators are captured by those being regulated. And that voting can't change it. The Bill Moyers video explains this very professionally. I highly recommend it.

Global transparency is the way you promote the Deep State corruption to globalized power. That will be an even worse outcome. Because again, the regulators and the regulated are two heads of the same monster.

Anonymity is the only way the individual can opt-out of that unfixable (evil) symbioses that is going to torch the earth after 2016.

Note gold is anonymous except it reduces trade because it can't be moved or divided into smaller pieces and them recombined easily. Requires smelter, assay, etc. thus it isn't really autonomous (that isn't a misspelling, autonomy isn't not same concept as anonymity). And transport is risky.

By opting-out of the taxation, confiscation, and corrupt regulation, we can prevent the evil symbioses from destroying all capital and locking down humanity in evil symbiosis.

It is a release valve that will abate the symbioses and end it. Because prosperity will gravitate to what can't be destroyed, where everything else is being destroyed symbiotically.

You really have to understand the keyword: symbiotic. The Bill Moyer's video explains it well.

To understand the symbioses more algorithmically, please read this summary I wrote yesterday:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.msg6060440#msg6060440

I think that was fairly well written. One of my better posts. Please click to read it.

I do believe that after a great crisis and suffering, the youth of the world will restore normalcy and then we can regulate again. But this will eventually fail again. Any way, the interim transition is going to get very nasty and we need anonymity to abate an overshoot into the abyss of totalitarianism. Because even if the people tried to organize now, they don't understand and can be easily fooled. The only interim solution is to opt-out.

This is more than "a little bit dangerous". (sorry needed some music, the topic is getting too intense)

[mgburks77]

Wrong! The commons means knowledge takes control. For example, physics assures us that energy is neither created nor destroyed, so it is only the lack of knowledge production that makes energy finite or scarce. And I am not referring to perpetual motion machines, rather to more efficiency and automation of extraction of energy through greater innovation due to faster propagation of knowledge.

This interests me on several levels. The technical term "the commons" denotes a social organization that consisted of individualized production and no political system to coerce cooperative behavior. The concept of social control via political economy didn't exist yet. When it emerged the commons were enclosed and converted into private property and the population was reduced to bondage. We typically think of this as "the human condition" and have resigned ourselves to it's inevitability. This sort of belief is due to social conditioning and I do not share it.

If a similar organization can be restored for mass society via adroit use of technical means to defeat those who would protect rent seeking and usury with coercive force I'm all for it.

It also interests me on a cosmological and philosophical level in regard to the function of life, information, and consciousness as a physical means to degrade energy differentials in the wave function. It is in this regard that my doubts about the possibility of absolute freedom to express one's will lie.

However there is probably a way to balance the conflict between the individual and the collective and maximize what we experience as "free will" and this way is through greater understanding of the world around us and how it functions according to materialistic definitions. I think perhaps that this is what we are both after?

[mgburks77]

put simply we need anonymity because the state is abusive

[thaaanos]

I agree with mgburks77 here, the more individuals become cells in a larger system, whether hierarchical or networked it doesn't matter. They sacrifice degrees of freedom (free will) to the superstructure. I think only the top layer can enjoy free will or "liberty", it's inevitable, but not unacceptable.

[farnsworth7]

I understand that part of the elite is abusive, and we could opt-out of the system that sustain these evil elites, to stop giving them power. And anonymity in cryptocurrencies might give us this freedom. That makes sense.

But this freedom is not sufficient at all to build a better system, is it ? What happens next ? Anarchy ? Freedom alone is not a solution.

[AnonyMint]

Without anonymity we are toast.

I don't think the elites will allow the propagation and popularisation of a crypto that ruins their plans. There are many things they can do, the first of which is to allow bitcoin to take the lead.

If they are going to tax + confiscate, they will drive wealth away from non-anonymous Bitcoin directly to the anonymous coin.

Eventually they checkmate themselves. I think this is it. They are going to lose.

They can try to stop the protocol, but we can cloak it. Don't underestimate us hackers. We have math on our side, and we are very good at math.

Some details will be forthcoming.

You once used the analogy of the shift from MySpace to Facebook to justify the fact that we could shift to another crypto, but Facebook has accepted allegiance to the elites and the elites have accepted Facebook in their planning. This is very clear by the way it is shutting off all pages that the mainstream don't like or that are too critical to the elites.

They will drive people away from Facebook to our anonymous Amigobase.com (I own that domain, nothing there just a future project maybe) once they start abusing Facebook identities. I also own coolpage.com

Their model is peaking and being exposed. Our time is coming into view now. I can see it clearly.

The difference in our case is that the elites will not accept a currency that frees the people and thus the shift will never happen.
If they allow bitcoin, it means that either 1. bitcoin is a creation of their master(s) and its purpose is further enslavement or 2. they found ways to use it to their own advantage.

In any case the people are enslaved by the power grabbers and I think it is only wishful thinking to believe we can change this by launching some specific new crypto.

Maybe so, but defeatism is not my cup of tea. Like I said, let all the feeble people stay in Bitcoin and Bitpay. Let's see if Peter Thiel can win with that base of non-doers.

I like the odds of the coin that has all the super smart and motivated doers working on it constantly night and day. Not this gridlock Bitcoin.

Because the governments have no choice but to increase revenues as we collapse into a global debt default. And the more they tax + confiscate wealth, the more the GDP will collapse. Thus the more they will need to take from wealth. It is a downward spiral. Very scary.

We have been hitting the peak of numerous natural resources while demographics are strongly up worldwide and consumption of land, water, rare minerals, energy resources etc... is completely unsustainable. The fact is that GDP must collapse. The elites only want to make sure that they have or create as much power as possible through and after the GDP collapse and are planning accordingly. It is unavoidable. Bitcoin either was part of or is being integrated in the planning of the elites.

Actually, the elites do have the choice in front of defaults : inflation. But they probably prefer to do some rounds of confiscation first to lower the power of the wealthy outside of their ranks.

Agreed all you wrote except I don't agree there is a peak in sustainability. The problem is knowledge was impeded by the corrupt system, thus we stopped increasing production of what we needed and produced Wallmart consumerism instead. It is actually the debt that causes the misallocation of resources. The same happened to the fall of Rome. The debt caused overintensive farming, then they polluted their irrigation. Same in Greece, overproduction of goats due to debt, then they had desertification.

mgburks77 quoted me on this:

Wrong! The commons means knowledge takes control. For example, physics assures us that energy is neither created nor destroyed, so it is only the lack of knowledge production that makes energy finite or scarce. And I am not referring to perpetual motion machines, rather to more efficiency and automation of extraction of energy through greater innovation due to faster propagation of knowledge.

Malthusians have always ended up fools. They have never been correct. Don't fall into that propaganda malaise. It is unhealthy for your brain. I care about you. Please try to snap out it.

I don't say this as a personal attack at all. I know that people who care about the environment really think there is sustainability problem. And I know they think that those who don't are evil. But I guarantee you, there is no sustainability problem. It is all lies. I can surely convince you if I have enough time, but I don't. So let's not fight about this please. No bad feelings. I care about the environment, but I am not worried.

[farnsworth7]

I agree with mgburks77 here, the more individuals become cells in a larger system, whether hierarchical or networked it doesn't matter. They sacrifice degrees of freedom (free will) to the superstructure. I think only the top layer can enjoy free will or "liberty", it's inevitable, but not unacceptable.

A superstructure will always exist. Complete freedom is an illusion. We can not break free from the laws of physics, from our emotions, or from the need for a coherent human society (we are social animals). The best thing we can do is make our "prison" more enjoyable, ie make a society that is fairer for everyone. But we will always be individual cells in a body called mankind. I think we need to accept that, and stop believing freedom is the holy grail, because 1. it doesn't exist 2. it would not even solve anything.

[AnonyMint]

MahaRamana please re-read the end of my reply. I added examples about Rome and Greece. History is your guide that debt is the cause.

[AnonyMint]

Don't you think global transparency in financial systems (thanks to a traceable public ledger) might be a good thing ? (To help fight corruption, for instance)

The corrupt own the regulators. So they escape and yet the public ledger can be used to take everything from us. This is an asymmetric advantage for corruption. They trick us into believing it is for our own good. They are so clever at fooling us.

[twiifm]

I agree with mgburks77 here, the more individuals become cells in a larger system, whether hierarchical or networked it doesn't matter. They sacrifice degrees of freedom (free will) to the superstructure. I think only the top layer can enjoy free will or "liberty", it's inevitable, but not unacceptable.

A superstructure will always exist. Complete freedom is an illusion. We can not break free from the laws of physics, from our emotions, or from the need for a coherent human society (we are social animals). The best thing we can do is make our "prison" more enjoyable, ie make a society that is fairer for everyone. But we will always be individual cells in a body called mankind. I think we need to accept that, and stop believing freedom is the holy grail, because 1. it doesn't exist 2. it would not even solve anything.

I agree.  I think its all about the rules.  In a game like Monopoly eventually there will one winner and everyone loses.  In a game like Rock-Paper-Scissors each player takes turn winning (not good example but I can't think of another game that doesn't allow concentration of power)

The inevitable end of free market Capitalism is monopoly & the opposite Communism/ Socialism doesn't work either.  What is the optimum system?  Nobody knows yet.  But we all know what we have doesn't work.

[thaaanos]

I don't say this as a personal attack at all. I know that people who care about the environment really think there is sustainability problem. And I know they think that those who don't are evil. But I guarantee you, there is no sustainability problem. It is all lies. I can surely convince you if I have enough time, but I don't. So let's not fight about this please. No bad feelings. I care about the environment, but I am not worried.

Are you sure this is not wishful thinking?
Because you know/fear/block that if in our future we hit scarcity in resources we are going be regulated like never before.
I fear that we will even lose liberties that never knew we had, like liberty to breath, mate, move, sleep, not die a random death.
Think about the way of life of astronaut, it is the future, and it wont matter if you are on the planet or not.

[mgburks77]

What is the optimum system?

*Decentralized political economy and mix of individualized artisan quality production and automation to replace consumerism and authoritarian top down control of collectivized production.

[AnonyMint]

Wrong! The commons means knowledge takes control. For example, physics assures us that energy is neither created nor destroyed, so it is only the lack of knowledge production that makes energy finite or scarce. And I am not referring to perpetual motion machines, rather to more efficiency and automation of extraction of energy through greater innovation due to faster propagation of knowledge.

[snip] The technical term "the commons" denotes a social organization that consisted of individualized production and no political system to coerce cooperative behavior. The concept of social control via political economy didn't exist yet. When it emerged the commons were enclosed and converted into private property and the population was reduced to bondage. [snip]

If a similar organization can be restored for mass society via adroit use of technical means to defeat those who would protect rent seeking and usury with coercive force I'm all for it.

[snip]

However there is probably a way to balance the conflict between the individual and the collective and maximize what we experience as "free will" and this way is through greater understanding of the world around us and how it functions according to materialistic definitions. I think perhaps that this is what we are both after?

You need to quote the rest of the key point:

I am quite flabbergast that Eric S. Raymond (self-professed to have 150 - 170IQ, the creator of the "open source" movement) could get the logic so wrong on the coming Knowledge Age.

In his critique of Jeremy Rifkin's book, The Zero Marginal Cost Society, he misses the key generative model of open source, which is that the source is always changing. The enslavement of knowledge by capital is due to the transactional cost of the propagation of creations. As we lower that friction, knowledge takes over.

And he apparently fails to comprehend capital can't buy knowledge because thought isn't fungible, and this becomes more evident as the diversity of innovation becomes more fine-grained.

The claim that the material input costs will be significant relative to the marginal cost of distributing more copies of intellectual property is wrong because the only costs in material production that can't be reduced asymptotically to 0 at economy-of-scale and automation are the knowledge inputs. Thus knowledge is infinitely more valuable than material production at the asymptote. The only reason that capital has been able to enslave the knowledge portion of the cost in the material cost is due to inability of fine-grain, autonomous knowledge to control the creative outputs of material production. The 3D printer changes this because the printer will be in every person's home. The commodity value relative to knowledge value of raw material inputs will fall asymptotically to 0

[snip]

The point is that due to networks effects on knowledge propagation, material costs will decline towards 0 relative to the value society will assign to the knowledge.

Knowledge was only enslaved because knowledge did not have the control over creation. Industrialization had control over the knowledge.

Computer changed that for software. The home 3D printer changes it for everything else.

This polarity is reversing (inverting) as we speak.

You will a massive change to the world.

This is why most of you don't understand that structure you think is relevant is no longer relevant.

What is the optimum system?

*Decentralized political economy and mix of individualized artisan quality production and automation to replace consumerism and authoritarian top down control of collectivized production.

Careful. I agree but not sure if you were leaning Marxist. It won't be done for free. The Marxist slant is very wrong. Eric Raymond explained that very well and I didn't disagree.

[thaaanos]

What is the optimum system?

*Decentralized political economy and mix of individualized artisan quality production and automation to replace consumerism and authoritarian top down control of collectivized production.

Nah... the optimum system is *disconnection* isolation, not integration

MahaRamana please re-read the end of my reply. I added examples about Rome and Greece. History is your guide that debt is the cause.

Those examples are totally unbased

[AnonyMint]

What is the optimum system?

*Decentralized political economy and mix of individualized artisan quality production and automation to replace consumerism and authoritarian top down control of collectivized production.

Nah... the optimum system is *disconnection* isolation, not integration

Go ahead. You will be very impoverished compared to those who leverage the specialization and cooperation.

You will produce everything yourself from raw resources, dig up your own ore, build your own smelters, etc. And forget 3D printing, because you want to be disconnected from knowledge.

You want to go back to a caveman? That is what you are saying. I hope you realize.

MahaRamana please re-read the end of my reply. I added examples about Rome and Greece. History is your guide that debt is the cause.

Those examples are totally unbased

I have canonical citations on those but hard to dig them up. I don't feel like being bothered at the moment.

It is a fact that Rome collapsed due to environmental degradation due to debt caused overintensive farming which lead to the inability to produce enough to sustain. But Rome's collapse had many facets, yet this was one of the fundamental factors. I had also a citation about pottery records showing farming was still increasing right up until the collapse. Also have much documentation about the environmental degradation and as always this caused the marginal utility of debt to go negative because the marginal increase in production from farms went negative.

Don't forget that Rome was entirely agriculture based. That was the reason the empire existed to build roads and military security to increase commerce from agriculture.

Do you have any reason to believe this is wrong?

[AnonyMint]

Computer changed that for software. The home 3D printer changes it for everything else.

Added that to prior post. Key point.

[twiifm]

What is the optimum system?

*Decentralized political economy and mix of individualized artisan quality production and automation to replace consumerism and authoritarian top down control of collectivized production.

Decentralized political economy --- Is this like feudalism?

Individualized artisan production --  Pre Industrial production?

I was thinking more in line of stimulus.  Like QE, but direct to private enterprise for the purpose of entrepreneurship or job creation.  Entrepreneurs capitalized from the Feds money without banks in the middle.  Fed owns equity in the business.  Then ring fence speculative trading or only allow cash based speculation without derivatives.  Let the hedge funds gamble but not on leveraged instruments.  If they go bust it doesn't drag down the rest of the system

Maybe Job Guarantee?  Govt as employer of last resort.  

I don't know.  Its a tough thing to ponder

[mgburks77]

Decentralized political economy --- Is this like feudalism?

more like prior to feudalism

Individualized artisan production --  Pre Industrial production?

post industrial

[AnonyMint]

Careful. I agree but not sure if you were leaning Marxist. It won't be done for free. The Marxist slant is very wrong. Eric Raymond explained that very well and I didn't disagree.

I recognize the validity of some marxian analysis but I'm more of a radical individualist and opportunist than anything ideological, though.

Quite disillusioned, don't believe in much but myself anymore.  

I think I will be able to do more by coding than talking. I think it is difficult for you all to visualize what I am talking about, until you actually interact with it in reality.