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

[David Latapie]

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.

Love it, will add to the the addendum

[Cortex7]

cryptofiat... I must say it does make me chuckle.

It's like constructing the ultimate massive safe matrix out of 6 inch hardened steel plate, each user has their own little safe cell and key, a tremendous feat of engineering! And then someone ( a banker of course ) has the smart idea of putting a little hinged wooden back door in each safe cell that get's locked with a bike combination lock, you gotta laugh!

That's what the people would be doing... entrusting their labor, their resources and their time, to a few that knew the combo.

Of course it would be trivial to crack the combos or break the little wooden doors, that is if you could gain access to the back of the safe past the armed guard needed to watch over such shitty locks.

[Cortex7]

To those that understand what money is: cryptofiat is as useful as a crotchless chastity belt, some fuckery is going to go on... GUARANTEED!

[Biomech]

To those that understand what money is: cryptofiat is as useful as a crotchless chastity belt, some fuckery is going to go on... GUARANTEED!

The vast majority do not understand what money is. You can see that in a five page slice of any internet forum dealing with anything remotely related to commerce. This is deliberate social engineering that has become progressively more aggressive since 1913, and will continue apace until either broken or replaced with another form of money. Crypto has the potential to be that, but it also has the potential to be subjugated. Never underestimate the power of manipulation by rulers, and more importantly, never underestimate their ability to harness the power of millions of stupid people.

[David Latapie]

The vast majority do not understand what money is.

Money is the actualization of a protocol governing the communication of financial transactions between individuals. It is merely an invention of early man to enable him to store his value (labour) in an inanimate portable un-perishable divisible fungible unit of account that originates in the free market and is sought after by other individuals due to its scarcity, so that he may be able to exchange it at a later time for something of his needs or wants.
Sammel Nigel, http://sammel.liberty.me/2014/08/04/bitcoin-should-i-invest/

[Biomech]

The vast majority do not understand what money is.

Money is the actualization of a protocol governing the communication of financial transactions between individuals. It is merely an invention of early man to enable him to store his value (labour) in an inanimate portable un-perishable divisible fungible unit of account that originates in the free market and is sought after by other individuals due to its scarcity, so that he may be able to exchange it at a later time for something of his needs or wants.
Sammel Nigel, http://sammel.liberty.me/2014/08/04/bitcoin-should-i-invest/

Precisely. And by extrapolation, money is any generally accepted commodity that can be traded for services. Note that I said generally accepted, as opposed to universally accepted or forced to be accepted. Desirability has to exist either for it's ability to be traded, or a desire for the commodity itself. "Legal Tender" doesn't qualify, as it's declared to be of value by central banks and it's use enforced by, ultimately, the point of a gun.

However, it is in the interest of those who rule to APPEAR to be angels, not devils. Thus they try (and often succeed) to make the "legal tender" real money in the eyes of the masses. This allows them to pull off all sorts of legerdemain, from uncontrolled inflationary policies to outright theft (eg. Quantative easing and the theft of all gold bullion in 1937).

Banks have been complicit in this as it has served to enrich them and make them invaluable to the brokers of power. Banking in itself is both desirable and necessary to any sort of widespread commerce. It's what they have done to debase the currency that makes them wrong, not their existence. Bankers, like politicians, can read the writing on the wall, and Bitcoin and it's successors scares them. They are smarter than most politicians, and will try to control this new currrency rather than fight it openly. If they play it right, the populace will see them as heroes.

[Cortex7]

So we find ourselves living in an idiocracy, great

Bitcoin serves every purpose needed for a global trade currency, but it seems only a few people realize that.

The powers that be will always say inflation/deflation controls are needed, of course they are not, the free market will run just fine on a finely divisible secure money like bitcoin, just as it did on gold in the past.

I suspect that a fractional reserve system on top of bitcoin may happen before a full fiat. Bretton woods with bitcoin. A stepping stone move if you will.

If that's the case then I just hope regular people will still be allowed to transact with the raw blockchain if they wish.

Thinking about it... how come nobody has developed a fractional reserve layer over bitcoin yet? Like pirate40s scheme only not centralized, but P2P.  Oh wait I just worked it out... because the "available funds" in each account would have to be honest, i.e. only 10% of what you deposited in there, the rest being tied up in loans to others that may or may not be paid back in the future, nah that wouldn't fly without centralized regulation by a large org with a good militia. ho hum.

[magic ice]

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

A young "industry" idealist or a very young wiz developer. Anyway, I wish you good luck on this and keep the fire burning!

[btcusury]

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.

You write this, but then you write this...

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.

Slavery is not going to end any time soon, said the chained African slave, so in the meantime, voting for Mr Jones or Mr Jacobstein is the _only_ mechanism we have to exert any influence whatsoever over the system.

The problem is not the "power-mad psychopaths that will lord over us". The problem is you paying attention to them and believing that they have any power over you whatsoever.

You are completely missing the point of how change works. You don't influence or reform or fix or patch or improve the existing system (i.e. people's belief systems). You build something new that replaces the old as it dies by its own weight. See the Soviet Union. Would you remain on the Titanic rearranging furniture to one side of the deck hoping that it won't sink? Or would you jump on the decentralized boats?

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.

I guess then I just wasted 10 minutes.

[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.

You write this, but then you write this...

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.

Slavery is not going to end any time soon, said the chained African slave, so in the meantime, voting for Mr Jones or Mr Jacobstein is the _only_ mechanism we have to exert any influence whatsoever over the system.

I have already conceded that voting is not actually the only mechanism. But I fail to detect your point. What are you getting at?

The problem is not the "power-mad psychopaths that will lord over us". The problem is you paying attention to them and believing that they have any power over you whatsoever.

But they do have power over us. Legitimate or not (I'm going with not). Stop following their edicts, and they put you in a cage- end of story. Of course I think you would likely agree that this is the case. I again fail to see your point.

You are completely missing the point of how change works.

Says you. I say you are wrong about this. You seem to have read right over the point where I indicated that voting is most certainly not the only thing -- nay, not even the most significant thing -- I am doing in order to bring about change. It is an additional thing I am doing on the margin.

In what way does my voting prevent any other mechanism for bringing about change? In no way. Period.

Go ahead and think yourself superior for avoiding the ballot. Maybe you even think that refraining from voting is somehow, in and of itself, bringing about the change you want to see. If so, I think you're being delusional.

You don't influence or reform or fix or patch or improve the existing system (i.e. people's belief systems). You build something new that replaces the old as it dies by its own weight. See the Soviet Union. Would you remain on the Titanic rearranging furniture to one side of the deck hoping that it won't sink? Or would you jump on the decentralized boats?

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.

I guess then I just wasted 10 minutes.

You spend your time however you want. Can't put that responsibility on me.

[Piston Honda]

It'd be spectacular to see the term "Crytpofiat" become mainstream and "mean something" to the world one day!

[bitnanigans]

Call to arms.

[Spoetnik]

Interesting. Definitely following!

mmmmhhhhhhhmmm of course you are

The OP is nuts and has a nasty reputation of being behind "experiment" Altcoins considered a scam.. to make money.. blatantly.
so what he went on to say is funny to say the least LOL

check post history.. he thinks you guys will not know in this section of the forum about his antics (or Mr Monero King's antics) and he/they wants credibility.

be careful about falling for the multiple accounts game guys.. and they can make *more money with a shiny great rep with Altcoins too
the reptiela guy told me he made $3,000 from people on a forum game in the altcoin section by posting comments LOL
they came and they want money period.
don't be a fool !

[belk]

It'd be spectacular to see the term "Crytpofiat" become mainstream and "mean something" to the world one day!

lol.. I will never use fiat. Ever.

[Biomech]

@jbreher, I still haven't gotten to my dissertation here. Sorry, work has been crazy. I can dash off stuff from the top of my head, but that's really not sufficient to our debate. I haven't forgotten

[btcusury]

Says you. I say you are wrong about this. You seem to have read right over the point where I indicated that voting is most certainly not the only thing -- nay, not even the most significant thing -- I am doing in order to bring about change. It is an additional thing I am doing on the margin.

In what way does my voting prevent any other mechanism for bringing about change? In no way. Period.

You legitimize the system of control that you say you don't like, thus giving your consent to the idea that other people have the right to rule over you. Allow George Carlin to humorously explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efKguI0NFek

Go ahead and think yourself superior for avoiding the ballot. Maybe you even think that refraining from voting is somehow, in and of itself, bringing about the change you want to see. If so, I think you're being delusional.

No one is superior to anyone else; we are all literally one, experiencing oneself from different points of view. If a group calling itself the mafia told you that you have to choose one gang or another and they held "elections", would you feel that by participating in their sham you are somehow contributing to positive change, just a little bit? The act of participating is what creates the illusion of legitimacy.

You spend your time however you want. Can't put that responsibility on me.

The point is that if you're here to defend a position, you're approaching the idea of truth and knowledge, and the discovery of such, from a perspective of ego (attachment to beliefs) rather than an open-minded persepective.

[Biomech]

Says you. I say you are wrong about this. You seem to have read right over the point where I indicated that voting is most certainly not the only thing -- nay, not even the most significant thing -- I am doing in order to bring about change. It is an additional thing I am doing on the margin.

In what way does my voting prevent any other mechanism for bringing about change? In no way. Period.

You legitimize the system of control that you say you don't like, thus giving your consent to the idea that other people have the right to rule over you. Allow George Carlin to humorously explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efKguI0NFek

Go ahead and think yourself superior for avoiding the ballot. Maybe you even think that refraining from voting is somehow, in and of itself, bringing about the change you want to see. If so, I think you're being delusional.

No one is superior to anyone else; we are all literally one, experiencing oneself from different points of view. If a group calling itself the mafia told you that you have to choose one gang or another and they held "elections", would you feel that by participating in their sham you are somehow contributing to positive change, just a little bit? The act of participating is what creates the illusion of legitimacy.

You spend your time however you want. Can't put that responsibility on me.

The point is that if you're here to defend a position, you're approaching the idea of truth and knowledge, and the discovery of such, from a perspective of ego (attachment to beliefs) rather than an open-minded persepective.

Nice cliff notes I'm still working on the big hammer to back this very position.

On a semi related note, George Carlin, may he rest in well deserved peace, will be seen by history as one of the greatest philosphers, not a comedian. And it will amuse him if there's an after life.

[jbreher]

You legitimize the system of control that you say you don't like,

Such is your claim. Now substantiate it.

[btcusury]

You legitimize the system of control that you say you don't like,

Such is your claim. Now substantiate it.

That's what I did...

If a group calling itself the mafia told you that you have to choose one gang or another and they held "elections", would you feel that by participating in their sham you are somehow contributing to positive change, just a little bit? The act of participating is what creates the illusion of legitimacy.

[jbreher]

You legitimize the system of control that you say you don't like,

Such is your claim. Now substantiate it.

That's what I did...

If a group calling itself the mafia told you that you have to choose one gang or another and they held "elections", would you feel that by participating in their sham you are somehow contributing to positive change, just a little bit? The act of participating is what creates the illusion of legitimacy.

You consider that as substantiating your claim? Good thing you're not a lawyer.

Firstly, it is merely an unsupported assertion. Secondly, an 'illusion' says more about the party whom is looking upon the situation than it says about the party being observed.

All you are substantiating here is that your ability to reason has been overridden by your preconceived biases.