United we stand, divided we fall - the coming rise of cryptofiat

[David Latapie]

Why would governments use a blockchain to enact fiat? Why would they just not print it at random as they have always done? It is easier, they know how that system works, and there is no advantage to them to put it on a blockchain.

Blockchain advantages in cost reduction

There is absolutely no scenario under which a centralized blockchain implementation can be a cost reduction over a database.

I was not comparing to database. I was comparing to fiat (minting, transporting, securing, coins and banknotes; protection of databases via redundancy, physical protection, use of expensive closed-source software and devices...)

[1714845876]

1714845876

[1714845876]

1714845876

[Biomech]

Why would governments use a blockchain to enact fiat? Why would they just not print it at random as they have always done? It is easier, they know how that system works, and there is no advantage to them to put it on a blockchain.

Blockchain advantages in cost reduction

There is absolutely no scenario under which a centralized blockchain implementation can be a cost reduction over a database.

Exactly!

I disagree.
Right now the actual calculation of how many dollars exist is... Well, convoluted would be a compliment. With blockchain technology, the creation and distribution of the currency is reduced to a common protocol that all the banks can use for the price of a few servers. By comparison to just the regulatory compliance softwares in banks, that's a pittance. Whether they'll have the brains and balls to actually do it is another story, but the public ledger/blockchain idea for transmission of data and tracking the money supply would simplify really a lot of modern finance.

[jbreher]

Why would governments use a blockchain to enact fiat? Why would they just not print it at random as they have always done? It is easier, they know how that system works, and there is no advantage to them to put it on a blockchain.

Blockchain advantages in cost reduction

There is absolutely no scenario under which a centralized blockchain implementation can be a cost reduction over a database.

I was not comparing to database. I was comparing to fiat (minting, transporting, securing, coins and banknotes; protection of databases via redundancy, physical protection, use of expensive closed-source software and devices...)

The vast majority of fiat is database transactions. The tangible, physical notes we sometimes take out of our back pocket and employ is a vanishing minority of fiat.

So unless I continue to misunderstand you after your clarification, you were indeed referring to fiat.

[jbreher]

Right now the actual calculation of how many dollars exist is... Well, convoluted would be a compliment. With blockchain technology, the creation and distribution of the currency is reduced to a common protocol that all the banks can use for the price of a few servers. By comparison to just the regulatory compliance softwares in banks, that's a pittance. Whether they'll have the brains and balls to actually do it is another story, but the public ledger/blockchain idea for transmission of data and tracking the money supply would simplify really a lot of modern finance.

While agreeing with your above-quoted statement, I still disagree with your disagreement.

You seem to have the impression that easy tracking of the entire money supply is something of value to those whom have been granted a charter to zap money into existence at their leisure. I assert that this would actually be counter to their interests, as it would wake the masses to the chicanery of the entire system.

Just look at how hard the entrenched interests have been fighting -- year after year -- the intent to conduct an audit of the FED. (be you American - otherwise, the example may admittedly be rather obtuse)

[Biomech]

Right now the actual calculation of how many dollars exist is... Well, convoluted would be a compliment. With blockchain technology, the creation and distribution of the currency is reduced to a common protocol that all the banks can use for the price of a few servers. By comparison to just the regulatory compliance softwares in banks, that's a pittance. Whether they'll have the brains and balls to actually do it is another story, but the public ledger/blockchain idea for transmission of data and tracking the money supply would simplify really a lot of modern finance.

While agreeing with your above-quoted statement, I still disagree with your disagreement.

You seem to have the impression that easy tracking of the entire money supply is something of value to those whom have been granted a charter to zap money into existence at their leisure. I assert that this would actually be counter to their interests, as it would wake the masses to the chicanery of the entire system.

Just look at how hard the entrenched interests have been fighting -- year after year -- the intent to conduct an audit of the FED. (be you American - otherwise, the example may admittedly be rather obtuse)

I am American, though I do not consider myself a citizen. Subject is a more accurate word, and I'm not good with that either.

However, while I can't disagree with your assessment, I tend to look to where they might go if pushed. Bitcoin and associated blockchain based coins are not likely to go away. The very existence of a disruptive technology, especially one as potentially devastating to them as this, requires a response. Since it is in the best interests of the powers to APPEAR benevolent, and since the cracks in the foundation of the Federal Reserve Act and it's egregious succesors are becoming obvious even to the sheeple, it behooves them to try to co-opt it. Destroying it is impossible, and I think they learned that lesson with the Internet.

Think, then, what advantage such a thing would give them. The disadvantages are somewhat obvious and are discussed on this forum on an hourly basis, but few have bothered to look what the powers might GAIN from this technology.

First, let's dispense with the idea that they care a great deal about money. They don't. The currency they deal in is power. Money is merely an aspect or symbol of that power. Losing control of it it is catastrophic to the way they currently do business, but if you look at the history of rulership, they're incredibly adaptable. In America, they have turned a nation of renegades and individualists into a sociofascist empire that maintains and appearance of liberty. So, looking to that, how might blockchains be incorporated?

One that I find obvious is that they can hide their legerdemain in plain sight. Instead of fractional reserves, they have an adjustable rate of proof of stake, based on some metric they control. It appears that all money creation is above board and clean... but they control the metric.

I could go on for a while on the ways they might subvert the technology while APPEARING to "fix" the economic system. If they can come off as heroes, then they elevate themselves and again appear to be the benevolent overlords.

EDIT. Just saw your flavor text. Lose and loose I hate that shit. Bravo!

[Cortex7]

Right now the actual calculation of how many dollars exist is... Well, convoluted would be a compliment. With blockchain technology, the creation and distribution of the currency is reduced to a common protocol that all the banks can use for the price of a few servers. By comparison to just the regulatory compliance softwares in banks, that's a pittance. Whether they'll have the brains and balls to actually do it is another story, but the public ledger/blockchain idea for transmission of data and tracking the money supply would simplify really a lot of modern finance.

While agreeing with your above-quoted statement, I still disagree with your disagreement.

You seem to have the impression that easy tracking of the entire money supply is something of value to those whom have been granted a charter to zap money into existence at their leisure. I assert that this would actually be counter to their interests, as it would wake the masses to the chicanery of the entire system.

Just look at how hard the entrenched interests have been fighting -- year after year -- the intent to conduct an audit of the FED. (be you American - otherwise, the example may admittedly be rather obtuse)

I am American, though I do not consider myself a citizen. Subject is a more accurate word, and I'm not good with that either.

However, while I can't disagree with your assessment, I tend to look to where they might go if pushed. Bitcoin and associated blockchain based coins are not likely to go away. The very existence of a disruptive technology, especially one as potentially devastating to them as this, requires a response. Since it is in the best interests of the powers to APPEAR benevolent, and since the cracks in the foundation of the Federal Reserve Act and it's egregious succesors are becoming obvious even to the sheeple, it behooves them to try to co-opt it. Destroying it is impossible, and I think they learned that lesson with the Internet.

Think, then, what advantage such a thing would give them. The disadvantages are somewhat obvious and are discussed on this forum on an hourly basis, but few have bothered to look what the powers might GAIN from this technology.

First, let's dispense with the idea that they care a great deal about money. They don't. The currency they deal in is power. Money is merely an aspect or symbol of that power. Losing control of it it is catastrophic to the way they currently do business, but if you look at the history of rulership, they're incredibly adaptable. In America, they have turned a nation of renegades and individualists into a sociofascist empire that maintains and appearance of liberty. So, looking to that, how might blockchains be incorporated?

One that I find obvious is that they can hide their legerdemain in plain sight. Instead of fractional reserves, they have an adjustable rate of proof of stake, based on some metric they control. It appears that all money creation is above board and clean... but they control the metric.

I could go on for a while on the ways they might subvert the technology while APPEARING to "fix" the economic system. If they can come off as heroes, then they elevate themselves and again appear to be the benevolent overlords.

EDIT. Just saw your flavor text. Lose and loose I hate that shit. Bravo!

Sorry to step in here, but it's very interesting stuff, your perspective seems clear and true.

The bolded part, that is the part that seems illogical to us... One party able to tweak issuance destroys the fairness of a blockchain.

But then as you allude to, it only needs to "look good" to the majority, the more objective minds don't seem to be considered nowadays as we've seen in so many of the farces over the past few decades.

So a "cryptofiat" system although an oxymoron might be implemented and lauded by the dumb masses.

[Biomech]

One that I find obvious is that they can hide their legerdemain in plain sight. Instead of fractional reserves, they have an adjustable rate of proof of stake, based on some metric they control. It appears that all money creation is above board and clean... but they control the metric.

I could go on for a while on the ways they might subvert the technology while APPEARING to "fix" the economic system. If they can come off as heroes, then they elevate themselves and again appear to be the benevolent overlords.

EDIT. Just saw your flavor text. Lose and loose I hate that shit. Bravo!

Sorry to step in here, but it's very interesting stuff, your perspective seems clear and true.

The bolded part, that is the part that seems illogical to us... One party able to tweak issuance destroys the fairness of a blockchain.

But then as you allude to, it only needs to "look good" to the majority, the more objective minds don't seem to be considered nowadays as we've seen in so many of the farces over the past few decades.

So a "cryptofiat" system although an oxymoron might be implemented and lauded by the dumb masses.

Yes, it does seem illogical. On it's surface, it is, because you're proceeding from the axiom that a greater degree of liberty is a good thing. They are NOT proceeding from that axiom. Govenments are parasites. They produce nothing, steal everything they have, and distribute it by whim (seemingly). A good parasite does not too quickly kill the host.

I've said for years that governents are organisms. Free men are their food. Thus, when the food gets smart or lucky, they have to work harder or change direction.

[Cortex7]

One that I find obvious is that they can hide their legerdemain in plain sight. Instead of fractional reserves, they have an adjustable rate of proof of stake, based on some metric they control. It appears that all money creation is above board and clean... but they control the metric.

I could go on for a while on the ways they might subvert the technology while APPEARING to "fix" the economic system. If they can come off as heroes, then they elevate themselves and again appear to be the benevolent overlords.

EDIT. Just saw your flavor text. Lose and loose I hate that shit. Bravo!

Sorry to step in here, but it's very interesting stuff, your perspective seems clear and true.

The bolded part, that is the part that seems illogical to us... One party able to tweak issuance destroys the fairness of a blockchain.

But then as you allude to, it only needs to "look good" to the majority, the more objective minds don't seem to be considered nowadays as we've seen in so many of the farces over the past few decades.

So a "cryptofiat" system although an oxymoron might be implemented and lauded by the dumb masses.

Yes, it does seem illogical. On it's surface, it is, because you're proceeding from the axiom that a greater degree of liberty is a good thing. They are NOT proceeding from that axiom. Govenments are parasites. They produce nothing, steal everything they have, and distribute it by whim (seemingly). A good parasite does not too quickly kill the host.

I've said for years that governents are organisms. Free men are their food. Thus, when the food gets smart or lucky, they have to work harder or change direction.

Yes, I've also thought of governments and religions as competing organisms. Surviving and evolving over millenia, passing on memetic information instead of genetic. Using every trick in the book to survive, multiply and kill competitors.

I still carry a little faith that a more symbiotic ( to humans and environment ) parasite may become the winning one some day. Maybe technology like bitcoin will help us with that.

Reminded me of this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs

[btcusury]

Yes, I've also thought of governments and religions as competing organisms. Surviving and evolving over millenia, passing on memetic information instead of genetic. Using every trick in the book to survive, multiply and kill competitors.

But we elected them to represent us! They are us!

I still carry a little faith that a more symbiotic ( to humans and environment ) parasite may become the winning one some day. Maybe technology like bitcoin will help us with that.

In that case why would you call it a "parasite" rather than a symbiot, or a "less parasitic symbiotic system"?

[Q7]

There will be a day when crypto will achieve total independence from fiat benchmark. For example, if one day you are buying a car, you don't quote the price in dollar or offered the amount in btc and then cross check the price in dollar, you straight away measure that in BTC. That day my friend will arrive

[jbreher]

But we elected them to represent us! They are us!

Disagree. In elections, all we can choose is the particular set of power-mad psychopaths that will lord over us. There is never an electoral option to abolish the entire system.

[Biomech]

Yes, I've also thought of governments and religions as competing organisms. Surviving and evolving over millenia, passing on memetic information instead of genetic. Using every trick in the book to survive, multiply and kill competitors.

I still carry a little faith that a more symbiotic ( to humans and environment ) parasite may become the winning one some day. Maybe technology like bitcoin will help us with that.

Reminded me of this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs

I love Larkin Rose. He and I started doing videos on anarchism about the same time on YT. Difference being, his are good and mine were not Well, I had a decent following, but I thought I could do far better.

At any rate, the only disagreement I have with your reply is that I don't see that much competition between religion and government. They tend to be symbiotes, though who is dominant changes.

[Biomech]

But we elected them to represent us! They are us!

Disagree. In elections, all we can choose is the particular set of power-mad psychopaths that will lord over us. There is never an electoral option to abolish the entire system.

...and who's this "we"? I stepped out of the system almost 2 decades ago, when I realized what a horrible lie they have perpetuated. As Emma Goldman said, if voting could effect a change, it would be made illegal.

Note how much they focus (In The United States at least) on the presidential election! The one federal election that the masses have zero influence on. I cringe every time I hear some braindead milch cow saying "I voted for the other president" or some such. NO YOU DIDN'T! A shadow group of influence peddlers called an electoral college did that.

Yet there's no focus on the House of Representatives, which is elected by direct ballot, or the Senate, which only exists in name according to it's orignal function, but nevertheless by direct ballot. If the voters were serious about reform, and the media serious about elections, THESE would be the focus. If it ever happens, you'll see the truth of Ms. Goldman's words.

The truth, the ugly, horrible truth, is that the franchise is the alloy our chains are made of. By casting your vote you are accepting the system and the results. By any valid logic, you cannot bitch if you vote.

[jbreher]

But we elected them to represent us! They are us!

Disagree. In elections, all we can choose is the particular set of power-mad psychopaths that will lord over us. There is never an electoral option to abolish the entire system.

...and who's this "we"? I stepped out of the system almost 2 decades ago, when I realized what a horrible lie they have perpetuated. As Emma Goldman said, if voting could effect a change, it would be made illegal.

...

The truth, the ugly, horrible truth, is that the franchise is the alloy our chains are made of. By casting your vote you are accepting the system and the results. By any valid logic, you cannot bitch if you vote.

You may not be amongst the 'we'. I am.

While I think I understand (and respect) your position, I disagree with it completely. I have even had this debate with Larken, face-to-face, and we both came away from it with a begrudging respect for each other's position. Allow me to explain. But first a question:

By employing the use of Federal Reserve Notes -- in whatever limited manner -- are you necessarily making the statement that you fully approve of the FED, central banking, and all that it entails? I say no - you can be completely against these things, and still use the 'dollar' for some things. What other choice is there? Is 'opting out' completely a viable option? Not that I can see.

By the same token, by voting, you are not necessarily advocating the legitimacy of the entire concept of 'government'. One need not _believe_ in The Most Dangerous Superstition in order to attempt to ease the concordant suffering, even if a near-negligible amount.

At this point in time, there is essentially an equivalent-to-zero chance that 'government' of the form currently practiced in the USA will be cast off. Some day, perhaps. But the near future? Absolutely not.

In the meantime, voting is the _only_ mechanism we have to exert any influence whatsoever over the system.

[Monkeynutz]

OP's got some good thoughts on this 'industry'....wow.

[Biomech]

But we elected them to represent us! They are us!

Disagree. In elections, all we can choose is the particular set of power-mad psychopaths that will lord over us. There is never an electoral option to abolish the entire system.

...and who's this "we"? I stepped out of the system almost 2 decades ago, when I realized what a horrible lie they have perpetuated. As Emma Goldman said, if voting could effect a change, it would be made illegal.

...

The truth, the ugly, horrible truth, is that the franchise is the alloy our chains are made of. By casting your vote you are accepting the system and the results. By any valid logic, you cannot bitch if you vote.

You may not be amongst the 'we'. I am.

While I think I understand (and respect) your position, I disagree with it completely. I have even had this debate with Larken, face-to-face, and we both came away from it with a begrudging respect for each other's position. Allow me to explain. But first a question:

By employing the use of Federal Reserve Notes -- in whatever limited manner -- are you necessarily making the statement that you fully approve of the FED, central banking, and all that it entails? I say no - you can be completely against these things, and still use the 'dollar' for some things. What other choice is there? Is 'opting out' completely a viable option? Not that I can see.

By the same token, by voting, you are not necessarily advocating the legitimacy of the entire concept of 'government'. One need not _believe_ in The Most Dangerous Superstition in order to attempt to ease the concordant suffering, even if a near-negligible amount.

At this point in time, there is essentially an equivalent-to-zero chance that 'government' of the form currently practiced in the USA will be cast off. Some day, perhaps. But the near future? Absolutely not.

In the meantime, voting is the _only_ mechanism we have to exert any influence whatsoever over the system.

While I do not consider this a deliberate logical fallacy, I think you are conflating two different things. And that is apparent in your own words. As you noted, we have almost no choice in the use of the fiat currency. The overlords have decreed it legal currency, and for the most part you cannot legally refuse dollars. A lack of choice is not an endorsement. In truth, I'd rather not sleep, as it interrupts my busy life. But I must, or I will eventually die.

The franchise, by contrast, is directly participating in the system, not merely being subject to it. It is a claim on the right of accession, and by implication (and stated law) a promist to abide by the decision. this would be true even if the money were gold or other things like blockchain based coins that they could not control. It is by the very act of voting an endorsement of the system if not the outcome. If the system could be reformed (I would argue that it works precisely as intended), then this might be valid. But in the actual facts that we must live with, you actually have NO say in the policy, NO say in the choices presented, nor in the most hyped election, NO say in the outcome. In the presidential election, you're vote literally and legally don't count.

Participation in a rigged system will never lead to it's demise or it's reform. I completely disagree with this:

In the meantime, voting is the _only_ mechanism we have to exert any influence whatsoever over the system.

If you look to the history of the United States completely in a vacuum, without refernce to it's roots or any other nations, this still rings false. Those who have made the most impact and had the most influence never did so via the franchise, but via the pulpit. Education, Indoctrination, rallies, leaflets, pamphlets, Youtube videos, always taking a public stand against what you're opposed to ,and more importantly FOR what you believe in. These things wil gain far more traction on anything you have to say or want to change than changing the face of your kings.

This is a democracy. It was once a republic, but that was fatally shot with the 17th amendment. The loudest and most persuasive voices sway the mob, and that is where change occurs. Not the franchise itself, but CONTROL of those votes. This is the currency of the "elite" and why they truly don't care about the fate of the dollar so long as they control the electorate.

Principled resistance, and gathering sufficient numbers to sufficiently resist the edicts spewing from the legislature is far more effective. And it does not lead you to look like a hypocrite, even when you are not intentionally being one. Thus the last time I voted (I once believed as you) was in 2000. I will never do so again, but I will continue to do anything I can within and without the framework of their paradigm to subvert and trivialize their involvement. The emperor has no clothes but those he stole. But he also stole all the money, and claims all the power. This cannot be allowed to go unchallenged, and you cannot challenge it by participating in a farcical ritual designed to keep you quiet.

[jbreher]

While I do not consider this a deliberate logical fallacy, I think you are conflating two different things. And that is apparent in your own words. As you noted, we have almost no choice in the use of the fiat currency. The overlords have decreed it legal currency, and for the most part you cannot legally refuse dollars. A lack of choice is not an endorsement. In truth, I'd rather not sleep, as it interrupts my busy life. But I must, or I will eventually die.

And as long as I am within the geographical confines of 'The United States' (or any other governmental construct for that matter), I am subject to their edicts. Again, no choice.

The franchise, by contrast, is directly participating in the system, not merely being subject to it. It is a claim on the right of accession, and by implication (and stated law) a promist to abide by the decision.

What 'franchise' are you talking about here? I am unaware of any stated law that states 'if one votes, one promises to abide by the decision', and if you don't vote, then you need not abide. Can you cite it for me? Indeed, the enforcers will enforce without even considering whether or not you voted - it matters not to them. I certainly deny that there is any such implication. You may believe that there is, which says something about what _you_ think it implies. You are not able to enforce your opinions upon me.

this would be true even if the money were gold or other things like blockchain based coins that they could not control. It is by the very act of voting an endorsement of the system if not the outcome.

Your statement that the very act of voting is an endorsement is an unsupported assertion. I disagree. Again - show me something authoritative that states such.

If the system could be reformed (I would argue that it works precisely as intended), then this might be valid. But in the actual facts that we must live with, you actually have NO say in the policy, NO say in the choices presented, nor in the most hyped election, NO say in the outcome.

Sorry. False. Don't misunderstand - I am directly aware of electoral fraud, and am convinced that it is way more extensive than reported. But there are elections, and to the greater extent, they do reflect the will of the voters. More germane, however, most elections have a choice which is less bad than the others. While some may say 'the lesser of two evils is still evil', not voting certainly does absolutely nothing to eliminate -- nor even reduce -- the evil. Further, the selection thereof can make a measurable difference in quality of life.

In the presidential election, you're vote literally and legally don't count.

By and large, the members of the electoral college respect the will of the voters whom they each represent. So as a practical matter, I would term your 'literally' assertion as false. Further, most states bind their delegates -- by law -- to vote according to the will as expressed by the general election. So your 'legally' assertion seems also on loose soil.

Participation in a rigged system will never lead to it's demise or it's reform. I completely disagree with this:

In the meantime, voting is the _only_ mechanism we have to exert any influence whatsoever over the system.

You are correct. It is not the only mechanism.

If you look to the history of the United States completely in a vacuum, without refernce to it's roots or any other nations, this still rings false. Those who have made the most impact and had the most influence never did so via the franchise, but via the pulpit.

So are you asserting that it need be either/or, and that the two are mutually exclusive? I think many would find Martin Luther King Jr as an example of someone who did much outside the system in order to reform it. Voter.

Education, Indoctrination, rallies, leaflets, pamphlets, Youtube videos, always taking a public stand against what you're opposed to ,and more importantly FOR what you believe in. These things wil gain far more traction on anything you have to say or want to change than changing the face of your kings.

This may be true. I must say however that the track record isn't very good. Either there has not been enough generations born and buried since the internet gave the power of the press to each of us, or we need to change tactics, or _something_. The US has been sliding ever-further into tyranny each passing year despite more people discussing more injustice. Yes, I realize this example could also be used to point to the failure of the idea of voting.

And I am involved with all of the above. As an additional increment, I vote.

This is a democracy. It was once a republic, but that was fatally shot with the 17th amendment. The loudest and most persuasive voices sway the mob, and that is where change occurs. Not the franchise itself, but CONTROL of those votes. This is the currency of the "elite" and why they truly don't care about the fate of the dollar so long as they control the electorate.

Can you explain to me exactly what you mean by control of the votes? I know something of the processes and procedures by which at least one of our major political parties operates. But I am unaware of any such control - at least in any manner that seems consistent with the context of your statement.

Principled resistance, and gathering sufficient numbers to sufficiently resist the edicts spewing from the legislature is far more effective. And it does not lead you to look like a hypocrite, even when you are not intentionally being one.

I don't mind appearing a hypocrite to people I believe are acting the fool. Probably not any more than you may be concerned appearing a fool to those you think are being hypocrites.

Thus the last time I voted (I once believed as you) was in 2000. I will never do so again, but I will continue to do anything I can within and without the framework of their paradigm to subvert and trivialize their involvement. The emperor has no clothes but those he stole. But he also stole all the money, and claims all the power. This cannot be allowed to go unchallenged, and you cannot challenge it by participating in a farcical ritual designed to keep you quiet.

'This farcical ritual' does nothing to keep me quiet. Again, you seem to be seeing this as an either/or, mutually-exclusive mode of operation. It is not.

[Biomech]

@ jbreher, I currently don't have time to answer point by point (and I will even concede a couple of yours when I get back to it) but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring this. I'll get back to you, in detail, as soon as I'm able. This has gotten rather involved, and I cannot properly answer you without going even more in depth.

I must say you debate quite well. I'm not easily impressed

[jbreher]

@ jbreher, I currently don't have time to answer point by point (and I will even concede a couple of yours when I get back to it) but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring this. I'll get back to you, in detail, as soon as I'm able. This has gotten rather involved, and I cannot properly answer you without going even more in depth.

Not a problem. I've been around, and will continue to be. We can pick it up when you have time. I'll be going off-grid in a couple days myself, but will return about 10 days later.

I must say you debate quite well. I'm not easily impressed

Thanks. Tip o' the hat to you as well.

Though I guess I'm most interested in defending my position, rather than to change your mind or anything. After all, I'd hate to be continue to be viewed as a hypocrite

[Biomech]

@ jbreher, I currently don't have time to answer point by point (and I will even concede a couple of yours when I get back to it) but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring this. I'll get back to you, in detail, as soon as I'm able. This has gotten rather involved, and I cannot properly answer you without going even more in depth.

Not a problem. I've been around, and will continue to be. We can pick it up when you have time. I'll be going off-grid in a couple days myself, but will return about 10 days later.

I must say you debate quite well. I'm not easily impressed

Thanks. Tip o' the hat to you as well.

Though I guess I'm most interested in defending my position, rather than to change your mind or anything. After all, I'd hate to be continue to be viewed as a hypocrite

LOL. The law of unintended consequence. I meant it as an example. Have fun off grid. You'll come back to a detailed response. I think we may have gone off topic, so if it gets as long as I suspect, I'll start a new thread and PM you. I did not mean to paint you as a hypocrite, just that it can appear so if one is not rather careful of their actions.

I intend to at least try to persuade you, or others. It's what I do. My tagline, Anarchy is not chaos, is much more than a slogan to me. I'm relatively new to cryptos, but I've been an anarchist for a long while. I can back my position, and will enjoy the opportunity. Whether I convince you or not? Well, that's the question, isn't it?

Have a good day.