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

[Biomech]

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.

I take the same position as btcusury, as you already know, and I have to agree with your assessment. Btcusury, and anyone else debating something of substance, I highly recommend the following site: Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate . It will sharpen your wit, and help you to avoid obvious fallacies (or at least construct them in such a way as to entrap the unwary, such as strawmen).

In the past, I did find references where it had been determined that participating in an elective system binds you to the outcome regardless of whether you agree to it. My time has been severely truncated for the time being, so I cannot make that argument with reference at this time. I'll find my old sources eventually.

However, as my basal argument, I would have to say that by participating in the system, you at least agree that it has utility, and that it's outcome is influenced by your desires. Would you agree thus far?

[cbeast]

Call to arms.

"
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"  - Shakespeare

[jbreher]

However, as my basal argument, I would have to say that by participating in the system, you at least agree that it has utility, and that it's outcome is influenced by your desires. Would you agree thus far?

I do believe that the outcome is influenced by my participation, and that my participation thereby has some marginal utility, yes.

[balu2]

nobody is going to buy cryptofiat because they will launch it according to their wishes and rules and that can't compete with the standards that the crypto of these days has set. I don't think 'cryptofiat' will make btc irrelevant because nobody would like to use it. People will still prefer to hold other crypto. Cryptofiat will only be used to facilitate certain transactions. It would be nothing people will want to hold for longer than they have to.

[dontCAREhair]

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.

It is not very common however there are people who are not affiliated with either political parties elected to public office and once elected, a member of public office do not always need to vote on party lines

[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.

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.

I take the same position as btcusury, as you already know, and I have to agree with your assessment. Btcusury, and anyone else debating something of substance, I highly recommend the following site: Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate . It will sharpen your wit, and help you to avoid obvious fallacies (or at least construct them in such a way as to entrap the unwary, such as strawmen).

What "obvious" logical fallacy or fallacies did I commit?

jbreher recognizes that he is voting for one or another of the "power-mad psychopaths that will lord over us", yet doesn't see how it is that by participating in the "elections" sham these "power-mad psychopaths" and the "news" media create he is contributing to the legitimization of the belief in what he recognizes as "The Most Dangerous Superstition", i.e. the belief in authority. If this logic seems unclear or fallacious to you, I'd suggest you haven't done enough research.

In the past, I did find references where it had been determined that participating in an elective system binds you to the outcome regardless of whether you agree to it. My time has been severely truncated for the time being, so I cannot make that argument with reference at this time. I'll find my old sources eventually.

However, as my basal argument, I would have to say that by participating in the system, you at least agree that it has utility, and that it's outcome is influenced by your desires. Would you agree thus far?

You seem as confused as jbreher... I mean, "references where it had been determined"? Determined by whom? An "authority" other than yourself? Perhaps these will help:

Voting Is An Act of Violence
Ya Gotta Vote!
Message to the Voting Cattle - Larken Rose

[Biomech]

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.

I take the same position as btcusury, as you already know, and I have to agree with your assessment. Btcusury, and anyone else debating something of substance, I highly recommend the following site: Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate . It will sharpen your wit, and help you to avoid obvious fallacies (or at least construct them in such a way as to entrap the unwary, such as strawmen).

What "obvious" logical fallacy or fallacies did I commit?

jbreher recognizes that he is voting for one or another of the "power-mad psychopaths that will lord over us", yet doesn't see how it is that by participating in the "elections" sham these "power-mad psychopaths" and the "news" media create he is contributing to the legitimization of the belief in what he recognizes as "The Most Dangerous Superstition", i.e. the belief in authority. If this logic seems unclear or fallacious to you, I'd suggest you haven't done enough research.

In the past, I did find references where it had been determined that participating in an elective system binds you to the outcome regardless of whether you agree to it. My time has been severely truncated for the time being, so I cannot make that argument with reference at this time. I'll find my old sources eventually.

However, as my basal argument, I would have to say that by participating in the system, you at least agree that it has utility, and that it's outcome is influenced by your desires. Would you agree thus far?

You seem as confused as jbreher... I mean, "references where it had been determined"? Determined by whom? An "authority" other than yourself? Perhaps these will help:

Voting Is An Act of Violence
Ya Gotta Vote!
Message to the Voting Cattle - Larken Rose

Sorry, it was from earlier in the thread. I have seen court cases where it was determined AS CASE LAW that a vote is binding upon the voter. I said so, which is an unsupported assertion. I'm not confused, I'm without a lot of time. I post on here in between working or while waiting for things to compile. I promised him I'd go more in depth, and I will. But my time is very limited. I'll check your links (Larken Rose has already come up: I'm a fan ) when I get a few minutes.

The logical fallacies link was more aimed at getting you (and several others who have, frankly, hit every mark) to sharpen up their arguments. I use that link whenever I'm constructing a serious argument. I ask myself what an opponent would call me on, and see if I have made an argument that will withstand the accusation.

[spazzdla]

THIS IS WHY I MINE!!!

I mine to ensure I can cast a vote when the powers that be attempt to take over bitcoin to control the population. 

The ability to black list wallets, coins, etc is very possible if BTC is controlled  by several govs.  If they get the hashing power it's over for us, MINE FOR FREEDOM!

[bitkilo]

Great article, do you think a country like America would want to introduce a international fiat currency? With USD being the benchmark in most countries i imagine they would want the same with their own crypto.

[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.

I take the same position as btcusury, as you already know, and I have to agree with your assessment. Btcusury, and anyone else debating something of substance, I highly recommend the following site: Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate . It will sharpen your wit, and help you to avoid obvious fallacies (or at least construct them in such a way as to entrap the unwary, such as strawmen).

What "obvious" logical fallacy or fallacies did I commit?

Well, I don't know how this might be classified as a logical fallacy, but you made a bald assertion, unsupported, and presented it as settled fact. You followed that by presenting the impression that my actions engendered in your mind as another matter of settled fact.

jbreher recognizes that he is voting for one or another of the "power-mad psychopaths that will lord over us",

Not quite accurate. I am voting against the more egregious options.

yet doesn't see how it is that by participating in the "elections" sham these "power-mad psychopaths" and the "news" media create he is contributing to the legitimization of the belief in what he recognizes as "The Most Dangerous Superstition", i.e. the belief in authority. If this logic seems unclear or fallacious to you, I'd suggest you haven't done enough research.

Again, no. I am not contributing to any legitimization of any such belief. The cold stark reality is that, for the foreseeable future, there will be overlords. Refraining from voting will do absolutely nothing to change this.

I can accept as a matter of faith that the reason you refrain from voting is that you believe it somehow advances the cause of liberty. I think you are wrong, but I can accept that as a motivating factor. However, you know who else refrains from voting? The disillusioned. The apathetic. The lazy. In refraining from voting, your actions in this regard are in effect, and in fact, indistinguishable from these classes. Yes, I realize that my act of voting is indistinguishable from that of power mad collectivists as well. But my point is that refraining from voting accomplishes exactly nothing. For you to assert that it is somehow superior seems silly to me.

Perhaps these will help:
Voting Is An Act of Violence
Ya Gotta Vote!
Message to the Voting Cattle - Larken Rose

Perhaps you missed upthred where I have had this discussion face-to-face with Larken, and we both walked away with a begrudging assent that our respective positions were defensible. If you really want to debate this, I'm not going to do it through proxy to YouTube.

But you know what I find funny? Each of us are expending energy -- trying to show each other the error in each others' ways. Despite the fact that we likely agree largely with each other on the important underlying issues. I've already sunk more effort into this stupid thread than my act of informed voting consumed. Would our time not be better spent actually out amongst the masses, telling them about the evils of 'authority'?

[btcusury]

Again, no. I am not contributing to any legitimization of any such belief. The cold stark reality is that, for the foreseeable future, there will be overlords. Refraining from voting will do absolutely nothing to change this.

Alright, I see where our understanding departs. I don't agree at all that that is "the cold stark reality". You will have overlords only as long as you are of that vibration.

I can accept as a matter of faith that the reason you refrain from voting is that you believe it somehow advances the cause of liberty. I think you are wrong, but I can accept that as a motivating factor. However, you know who else refrains from voting? The disillusioned. The apathetic. The lazy. In refraining from voting, your actions in this regard are in effect, and in fact, indistinguishable from these classes. Yes, I realize that my act of voting is indistinguishable from that of power mad collectivists as well. But my point is that refraining from voting accomplishes exactly nothing. For you to assert that it is somehow superior seems silly to me.

Refraining from voting "accomplishes exactly nothing" in terms of affecting the existing system that you don't like. And this is the illusion you are choosing to buy into. What advances the cause of liberty is discovering who and what you (we) are. Seek the answers to be big questions.

Perhaps you missed upthred where I have had this discussion face-to-face with Larken, and we both walked away with a begrudging assent that our respective positions were defensible. If you really want to debate this, I'm not going to do it through proxy to YouTube.

As you can see in his videos, Larken doesn't agree with the idea that your position is actually defensible, because by voting you are contributing (however insignificantly) to the enslavement of human beings by means of fear and violence.

But you know what I find funny? Each of us are expending energy -- trying to show each other the error in each others' ways. Despite the fact that we likely agree largely with each other on the important underlying issues. I've already sunk more effort into this stupid thread than my act of informed voting consumed. Would our time not be better spent actually out amongst the masses, telling them about the evils of 'authority'?

We don't currently agree with each other on the (most) important underlying issues. Though you see a major aspect of the big picture of the problem, it is not until one understands the true nature of change that any major positive change will happen in one's reality. Simply put, the more you pay attention to the system you don't like (even to the degree of participating in it), the more you'll get of that, because the universe does not understand like/dislike, only likeness.

[pitham1]

I dont get why gov would like to create own cryptocurrency. I mean if we agree cryptocurrency = decentralized currency with public ledger nobody is granted to control.

I guess governments don't agree with that definition. They just agree with the public ledger bit.

[jbreher]

Again, no. I am not contributing to any legitimization of any such belief. The cold stark reality is that, for the foreseeable future, there will be overlords. Refraining from voting will do absolutely nothing to change this.

Alright, I see where our understanding departs. I don't agree at all that that is "the cold stark reality". You will have overlords only as long as you are of that vibration.

"Of that vibration"? Can we perhaps stay rational? You are talking like an emotion-dominated, ganja-drenched hippie.

Running with this image, let us posit that you engage in a perfectly moral, consensual, yet frowned-upon activity -- perhaps partaking of the ganja in a locale where this is verboten -- in the presence of the overlords' enforcers. No matter what frequency you believe yourself to be vibrating at, chances are very good that you would be put in a cage. Ergo, you have overlords. That is indeed the cold stark reality.

If you want to get mealy-mouthed about the definition of 'overlords', then fine. I'll just change my term to your accepted one for such a concept.

I can accept as a matter of faith that the reason you refrain from voting is that you believe it somehow advances the cause of liberty. I think you are wrong, but I can accept that as a motivating factor. However, you know who else refrains from voting? The disillusioned. The apathetic. The lazy. In refraining from voting, your actions in this regard are in effect, and in fact, indistinguishable from these classes. Yes, I realize that my act of voting is indistinguishable from that of power mad collectivists as well. But my point is that refraining from voting accomplishes exactly nothing. For you to assert that it is somehow superior seems silly to me.

Refraining from voting "accomplishes exactly nothing" in terms of affecting the existing system that you don't like. And this is the illusion you are choosing to buy into. What advances the cause of liberty is discovering who and what you (we) are. Seek the answers to be big questions.

No journey of self discovery is going to change the behavior of the overlords, ergo will do nothing to advance the cause of liberty.

Perhaps you missed upthred where I have had this discussion face-to-face with Larken, and we both walked away with a begrudging assent that our respective positions were defensible. If you really want to debate this, I'm not going to do it through proxy to YouTube.

As you can see in his videos, Larken doesn't agree with the idea that your position is actually defensible, because by voting you are contributing (however insignificantly) to the enslavement of human beings by means of fear and violence.

I did not say that he agreed with my idea, my claim was that he accepted that my position was defensible. Now obviously I don't know what was happening inside his head. But I certainly came away with that impression.

I was there, and unless you are Larken, my son, or one of about three other people, you were not. I don't think you are Larken. His arguments start with clearly delineated axioms, and proceed rationally from those. You 'argument' here has so far consisted of nothing but unsupported assertions.

But you know what I find funny? Each of us are expending energy -- trying to show each other the error in each others' ways. Despite the fact that we likely agree largely with each other on the important underlying issues. I've already sunk more effort into this stupid thread than my act of informed voting consumed. Would our time not be better spent actually out amongst the masses, telling them about the evils of 'authority'?

We don't currently agree with each other on the (most) important underlying issues.

Perhaps you can clearly state, then, what you believe to be the most important underlying issues. For it seems to me that the single topic we are discussing is whether or not it is evil to engage in the act of voting. Which is, in truth, a relatively trivial thing in my mind.

Though you see a major aspect of the big picture of the problem, it is not until one understands the true nature of change that any major positive change will happen in one's reality. Simply put, the more you pay attention to the system you don't like (even to the degree of participating in it), the more you'll get of that, because the universe does not understand like/dislike, only likeness.

There you go with trippy-talk again. I have seen exactly zero evidence that the universe is a conscious entity. It seems clear to me that no matter how much internal thinking, hoping, and wishing you do, unless you follow that with concrete action, nothing in the external universe is going to change as a result.

[vinda]

good insight, but i think the gov would oppose it cause it is decentralized. they don't like this way.

[Cortex7]

good insight, but i think the gov would oppose it cause it is decentralized. they don't like this way.

The gov would love it because it IS centralized.

Fiat has to be centralized, do you really think a coin would work if in the wallet there was a button labelled "Mint Coin Now" you would trust all users to use the button with restraint?

[Biomech]

good insight, but i think the gov would oppose it cause it is decentralized. they don't like this way.

The gov would love it because it IS centralized.

Fiat has to be centralized, do you really think a coin would work if in the wallet there was a button labelled "Mint Coin Now" you would trust all users to use the button with restraint?

like -rgedit setgenerate true 1 (evil grin)

[Hippie Tech]

good insight, but i think the gov would oppose it cause it is decentralized. they don't like this way.

The gov would love it because it IS centralized.

Fiat has to be centralized, do you really think a coin would work if in the wallet there was a button labelled "Mint Coin Now" you would trust all users to use the button with restraint?

Some of us call that button, the right clicky thingy on your mouse. COPY + PASTE = crypto fiat shitcoin  :/

Look at how the private/fiat banks got their start during the late 1700 and 1800s. Now look at our current state of crypto affairs.

Do you see a difference ? I don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IJeemTQ7Vk&list=UU7TvL4GlQyMBLlUsTrN_C4Q

[Cortex7]

Ha ha,

At least we know gov (aka banks, yes they're now one and the same) would use POW for fiat shit coin mining.

where POW == Proof of Weapons!

[open-mind]

good insight, but i think the gov would oppose it cause it is decentralized. they don't like this way.

The gov would love it because it IS centralized.

Fiat has to be centralized, do you really think a coin would work if in the wallet there was a button labelled "Mint Coin Now" you would trust all users to use the button with restraint?

Some of us call that button, the right clicky thingy on your mouse. COPY + PASTE = crypto fiat shitcoin  :/

Look at how the private/fiat banks got their start during the late 1700 and 1800s. Now look at our current state of crypto affairs.

Do you see a difference ? I don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IJeemTQ7Vk&list=UU7TvL4GlQyMBLlUsTrN_C4Q

https://www.google.ru/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QyCkwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbE_1tCasi_Q&ei=Q91qVL6aJ4L7ywPusYLAAg&usg=AFQjCNEqJ4iow9v_WHg9mCS7jAcFlX7JrA&sig2=_POKcRy7KEi1FWJkBdLydQ&bvm=bv.79908130,d.bGQ

[David Latapie]

Is cryptofiat coming to Ecuador? Technically, no. Functionally, looks fairly close: Ecuador embraces electronic money, misses the whole point.