Stylometric example of Satoshi Nakamoto's "in a nutshell":
Everyone Loses in this Battle of the Intellectual Lightweights: WSJ vs LRC
Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, 17 January 2008 17:35. It should be no surprise that the more you must genuflect to the theocracy of Holocaustianity, the less intellectual horsepower you can bring to bear on critical issues and, indeed, we see just that situation present itself in the most recent clash of the—well let’s be honest—brain damaged Wall Street Journal vs the oxygen-deprived LewRockwell.Com over the meaning of Ron Paul’s libertarianism as it applies to militarism. First the Wall Street Journal drools out yet another sophomoric essay on the virtues of neoconservative foreign policy compared to their portrayal of Ron Paul’s proposed policy of nonintervention and then Lew Rockwell fails miserably to address the article’s so-called “arguments”.
Well, here it is in a nutshell:https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/everyone_loses_in_this_battle_of_the_intellectual_lightweights_wsj_vs_lrcSecond example, also 2008, when the Bitcoin C++ code was surely being written, of James A. Bowery's usage of Satoshi Nakamoto's oft-used midwesternism "in a nutshell", this time in a comment:
3
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:31 | #Matt, the issue of unbiased vs biased learning is central to a lot of machine learning theory.
Here’s the idea in a nutshell:The shortest program that outputs the machine’s history of stimulus/response is also the best predictor of its world. The problem is that this program cannot be the output of any other program. In other words, it is not provable that a given program is the best. The only thing you can do is evolve various programs and compare either how well they actually do against a test in a real environment, or measure how much shorter one is than another.
The moment you enter into the realm of evolution, you are in the realm of what machine learning theorists call the “Bayesian prior”—which is the current set of assumptions the learning machine uses to “learn”—to construct a minimal program outputting its history of stimulus/response.
So, other than testing the performance of the agent in the requisite domain, the only test you can apply to estimate “rationality” is to somehow estimate the relative length of their prediction program, or, in alternate mathematical terms—their minimum description length.
Note: The output of the stimulus/response history must be a LOSSLESS reproduction. Any deviation of the model from the history must be adjusted by error terms stored as raw data within the program. Another way of thinking of these error terms is as “exceptions that prove the rules”.
https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_myth_of_the_rational_voter==============================
From the Memory Hole: Distributed Barter
Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, 12 April 2007 17:46. Censored from the Archive of the World Wide Web (see link in upper left corner of that page—all other prior WWW copies of the software and documentation pages have been similarly purged from the archive.org) Majority Rights now links to the forbidden software packaged for a distributed barter system.
Why is this important? Well, you could ask GT but you might also want to read what I wrote about it a few years after Dan Brumleve programmed the ‘alpha version’ based on the design he and I worked out around 2000…
( EDIT:
https://math.stackexchange.com/users/1284/dan-brumleve - bitcointalk.org user 'doublespend timestamp' )
While it is true that money is backed by promises, and those can be classified as one of:
Promises to do something of value on presentation of a token. (ie: commodity-backed money)
Promises to not do something damaging on presentation of a token. (ie: protection-racket money otherwise known as “fiat” money which is backed by the promise not to throw you in jail if you present it as legal tender for taxes)
...people seem to think that it is important to have only one currency as “the standard”.
Prior to desktop automatons pushing electrons around as tokens and ‘zero-risk’ arbitrage algorithms for money markets, this may have been necessary but discovery and transaction costs are now so low there is no reason for it.
In steps DBarter.
How DBarter Works
DBarter is a simple way for people to create and exchange value.
Value creation is similar to money creation in that someone creates a transferable promise of some sort. All similar promises belong to the same “symbol” of value. In normal money the promise is something like “I, the Victorian era Bank of England, will give a pound of sterling silver to the bearer of one of this symbol upon its return to any of my offices.” A symbol can also have the same behavior as other financial instruments, such as insurance claims, mortage bonds, coupons, stock certificates, etc.
In any case, there are, presumably, some people somewhere who value the promise and are therefore willing to give up something of their own in order to acquire some quantity of the associated symbol. If what they give up is a quantity of another symbol, “barter” occurs.
Value transfer is similar to money payment in that someone gives value to someone else.
To be precise, what is transferred is a bunch of values, possibly of various symbols, called a portfolio. To be even more precise, what is transferred is a note for a portfolio. A note is created by withdrawing a portfolio from an account. The note is mailed to another account. The note is then deposited by the other account thereby cancelling the note.
For example, Bob withdraws 15 Amazon Dollars, 10 eBay Dollars and 50 Bob Dollars creating a note. Bob signs the note over to Cindy and mails it to her. Cindy then deposits the note in her account.
In summary, the DBarter Server:
allows banker accounts to create other accounts of any type.
allows “minting” accounts to create new symbols.
allows accounts to withdraw notes, which can be sent via mail.
lets accounts send mail to other accounts electronically.
allows accounts to deposit notes.
keeps a history of all of these activities.
All steps that might be vulnerable to fraud are protected by public key encryption.
Anyone can run a DBarter server on their own computer, minting their own currency and communicating with other DBarter servers.https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/from_the_memory_hole_distributed_barter/=========================================
Distributed Electronic Barter System Archive
Posted by James Bowery on Saturday, 26 September 2009 12:54. I’ve previously written here about an actual, real live, in-existence, software package for distributed electronic barter using military grade encryption. Well, as part of the archiving of my files from the soon-to-be-defunct geocities free webhosting service, I realized that this software package might become otherwise unavailable, so I’ve archived the latest version here for those of sufficient technical talent.
That is all.
https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/distributed_electronic_barter_system_archive======================
Declaration of Freedom
Posted by James Bowery on Friday, 04 July 2008 22:26. When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident. —That freedom is the right to territory sufficient to support life, shared exclusively with those of like mind. —That the denial of others’ freedom entails the loss of one’s own. —That defense of freedom, even at the cost of life, is the greatest good. —That to secure freedom, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the mind of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their freedom. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to deny freedom to the governed, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future freedom.—Such has been the patient sufferance of the Posterity of the Founders of the United States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present United States government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the denial of freedom. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
It has denied the right of people to secede even when they have not denied freedom to others.
It has, in the name of “Civil Rights” imposed private relationships on people to which they did not consent.
It has taxed those who do not possess sufficient territory to support their lives, in order to support the lives of others.
It has refused to defend US territory from invasion.
It has, against the manifest will of the people, passed laws legalizing immigration that replaced the Posterity of the Founders of the United States.
It has drawn ever more power to itself from the States rendering the Laboratory of the States impotent to discover natural laws of Statecraft and the people impotent to alter their conditions by either changing their State governments or by changing their State of residence.
It has waged wars on foreign soil in the name of defending freedom while it assaults freedom on US territory.
It has deprived our inventors of the riches they need to continue to enrich us—favoring instead the transfer of technology ownership to others who, in turn, transfer technology to foreign nations, leaving our own inventors jobless, frequently impoverished and in any event incapable of further enriching us.In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our United States government. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of its own Constitution and establishment on this land. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of Freedom, in Cyber Space, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good Posterity of the Founders, solemnly publish and declare, That this land is, and of Right ought to be Free, that the Posterity of the Founders are Absolved from all Allegiance to the United States government, and that all political connection between them and the United States government, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free people, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace,
contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives,
our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:29 | #
Thomas, first of all, it should be obvious that there are several earth-shaking indictments involved and the one involving taxation refers only to the transfer of subsistence via taxation—not to taxation per se.
Secondly, it cannot be reasonably argued that the original intent of the 16th Amendment was to place a substantial tax or legal burden on ordinary citizens. It is clear from the debates surrounding its ratification, as well as the initial rates of taxation, that it was to have little impact on the incomes of those even in the upper 99th percentile. The departure from that original intent represented by today’s tax system, where people who have trouble supporting even 2 children on two incomes are paying substantial tax and legal fees, is so great as to represent lawlessness.
https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/declaration_of_freedom
