SATOSHI: So Nili, what do you know?
Nili: Nothing, I make it all up, yet I do it here on the forum and that's all that matters, so that is what I know.
Topic: [ANN] [IDISNEY] Disney Coin - page 15. (Read 73191 times)
SATOSHI: So Nili, what do you know?
Nili: Nothing, I make it all up, yet I do it here on the forum and that's all that matters, so that is what I know.
How is that off-topic when the entire thread is about it being the art , both the coins and the performance as well as the physical objects which in this case will be the painting... unless of course the moderator is assuming that have me post as my Bitcoin Forum profile's identity is against the rules after making myself a character in my performance on the forum . So dear moderator its is all part of the conceptual piece that I am creating here and is all on topic as long as I can make the connection logically clear. If I failed doing that, I will be happy to debate it here as part of the conversation.
MICKEY: I am not a computer expert, in fact I am not even a program yet, but I know a thing or two about Merkle tree and I am sure that Satoshi know all about it, so it must be something else that he is after.
GOD: Its the fruits of the tree that he is after, and it is a hidden one... obviously.
MICKEY: I guess that you are not going to tell us what it is then.
MINNIE: The things you search are often these which are most visible to you.
SATOSHI: Sounds like you got the answer, Minnie.
MICKEY: She always do.
GOD: "Do" is the answer.
MICKEY: So is that the fruit then?
GOD: Yes, that is the fruit but it is the pit that is the essence of eternal life.
MICKEY: There is hardly anything new about that.
SATOSHI: Not if we speak English.
NOUR: A Pit can be the abbeys but also the stone of the fruit, that which protect the seed.
MICKEY: Hey Nour, welcome back from the abbeys, are you going to tell us which it is then?
MINNIE: We all know it Mickey and that is what we do here, looking for what we know.
MICKEY: All I know it that I came here as the presenter of our Disney Coin.
GOD: Maybe I should be the one to ask Minnie what she knows.
MINNIE: I just know what Nili knows.
SATOSHI: So Nili, what do you know?
Nili: Nothing, I make it all up, yet I do it here on the forum and that's all that matters, so that is what I know.
GOD: What would you define as "alive"?
MINNIE: An object that is the subject of a decentralized transaction.
MICKEY: Keeping with the same logical framework, what would our messages be if they have a value.
MINNIE: If they have a market value then they too are alive.
MICKEY: If we trade-mark them, then we can trade them.... Hold on, isn't that what Disney did with us? So are we alive too?
MINNIE: Alive and awake but not conscious.
MICKEY: Is that at all possible?
MINNIE: Yes, All traded objects on the free market which are created without the capacity to own themselves are alive and awake but without a conscious.
GOD: How would you define ownership?
SATOSHI: I define it as having the possession over a private key.
MINNIE: Which bring us back to The key of David.
GOD: In fact further back to the apple.
MICKEY: What, the computer?
SATOSHI: The apple of our generation... the forbidden code.
MINNIE: ... But then came the penguin .
MICKEY: So is it the byte of the apple that made us open our eyes and realize that we are naked?
MINNIE: Naked as exposed to the world, having no privacy?
GOD: What is your definition of privacy?
SATOSHI: Having a choice of a non public transaction.
MICKEY: Is that your new project Satoshi?
SATOSHI: No, there are some really good projects that took it on at the level possible for now. I am working on the next level.
MICKEY: What's that next level?
GOD: The Tree of life obviously.
MICKEY: I am not a computer expert, in fact I am not even a program yet, but I know a thing or two about Merkle tree and I am sure that Satoshi know all about it, so it must be something else that he is after.
GOD: Its the fruits of the tree that he is after, and it is a hidden one... obviously.
GOD: What would you define as "alive"?
MINNIE: An object that is the subject of a decentralized transaction.
MICKEY: Keeping with the same logical framework, what would our messages be if they have a value.
MINNIE: If they have a market value then they too are alive.
MICKEY: If we trade-mark them, then we can trade them.... Hold on, isn't that what Disney did with us? So are we alive too?
MINNIE: Alive and awake but not conscious.
MICKEY: Is that at all possible?
MINNIE: Yes, All traded objects on the free market which are created without the capacity to own themselves are alive and awake but without a conscious.
GOD: How would you define ownership?
SATOSHI: I define it as having the possession over a private key.
MINNIE: So good that it takes a life of its own.
GOD: Makes me the best performance artist ever.
Nili: Makes the market become the new God.
MICKEY: Assuming God is the best performance artist and the market is the new God what dose it makes of our coins?
MINNIE: Logically speaking, it will make it alive.
MICKEY: Even if not traded?.
MINNIE: I guess alive but asleep then.
GOD: What would you define as "alive"?
MINNIE: An object that is the subject of a decentralized transaction.
SATOSHI: May I quote a dear friend who seems to get what Nili was doing back then, and just add a note saying that the performance art continues, but we might lost all our friends while at it.
The value, here, is not in the money but in the message.
Your worth, to me, is nothing to do with your coin and everything to do with your perspective.
I don't want the coin, I want the continuation of the endeavor itself.
The coin is not fun. The presentation is the fun. (So that is where the value is!)
You give us much more than the coin token ever could.
Don't stop the performance of the art for the sake of the performance of the coin, such would be a tragedy!
...NO WORRIES...
MINNIE: "We" Satoshi, are you an artist too?
MICKEY: I thought that he is a cat.
Nili: He is the art.
MICKEY: you mean like a cartoon?!
MINNIE: More like a performance art piece maybe?
Nili: Sort of, since the product of his performance is also a masterpiece.
MICKEY: Yes his coins really are a great product.
Nili: Not only the coins, its the Nakamoto consensus that is the greatest masterpiece and a performance of it's own right .
MINNIE: So good that it takes a life of its own.
GOD: Makes me the best performance artist ever.
I actually laughed when I saw the concept and prices. Get this trash off the forums.
As much fun as I have talking to myself, I was just wondering if anyone else other than bots and people who clearly do not get it, is reading and having fun. If not I might actualy take this advise (get off the forum and keep the coins to myself).
it is possible, that these coins could become very popular in the future. but you need to know the price for them. I'm not sure about it today.
SATOSHI: May I quote a dear friend who seems to get what Nili was doing back then, and just add a note saying that the performance art continues, but we might lost all our friends while at it.
The value, here, is not in the money but in the message.
Your worth, to me, is nothing to do with your coin and everything to do with your perspective.
I don't want the coin, I want the continuation of the endeavor itself.
The coin is not fun. The presentation is the fun. (So that is where the value is!)
You give us much more than the coin token ever could.
Don't stop the performance of the art for the sake of the performance of the coin, such would be a tragedy!
...NO WORRIES...
I actually laughed when I saw the concept and prices. Get this trash off the forums.
As much fun as I have talking to myself, I was just wondering if anyone else other than bots and people who clearly do not get it, is reading and having fun. If not I might actualy take this advise (get off the forum and keep the coins to myself).
it is possible, that these coins could become very popular in the future. but you need to know the price for them. I'm not sure about it today.
MICKEY: So is a CPU an identity ?
MINNIE: More like a unit of one, which is the basic form of identity and the only trustless one.
SATOSHI: ... which then allows the majority to be trusted to control a trustless code that create complex identities on this same platform...
MICKEY: Are we done with these Key issues? I'm losing the fun of my identity search.
MINNIE: Sorry about that Mickey, I got carried away following the Me Too thread.
SATOSHI: I didn't realize that we were talking about Me Too issues.
MICKEY: Me too... well more like "I didn't too" ... or just "not me".
MINNIE: I think that we just got the fun back in it's right place.
SATOSHI: Some may find it quite offensive.
MINNIE: They are all very welcome to find it.
MICKEY: Find what?
MINNIE: Trust.
MICKEY: Is that the key then?
MINNIE: That's the door, not the key.
SATOSHI: The door to the house of knowledge...
MICKEY: So back to the key, the one holding the key must be the trusted one.
MINNIE: Back to the one, the one that is trusted.
SATOSHI: The one that is a unit.
MICKEY: Which holds the power to unite.
SATOSHI: I don't know about you Mickey, but I am having fun.
MINNIE: Once the design is created to serve individuals it must have some form of a private key. The program must protect that key yet whoever controls the code can gain full control of the keys, Decentralization can solve that, yet that leave us with a greater problem. How can the code be written if there is no common language that can decode it? The only solution for that is some form of trust. and "The Key of David" is that piece of code.
SATOSHI: If the key is in a form of trust, I dont think that I have anything to do with figuring it out.
MINNIE: That is the one "missing piece" you don't understand that you have.
SATOSHI: What is it then?
MINNIE: "one-CPU-one-vote"
SATOSHI: If anything, that is the key to let us dismiss trust.
MINNIE: NO, The key to something is not that thing itself but ruther the exact matching opposite of that thing.... at least if we speak of a world made of Boolean logic.
MICKEY: Boolean logic?!!! Can we pleas keep the discussion simple enough so I could eventually understand how any of it have to do with identity?
MINNIE: In simple words, the key to trust is trustless, and the key to trustless is trust.
SATOSHI: So in my words that means that I can trust one-CPU-one-vote to solve the problem of a trustless identity for determining representation in majority decision.
MICKEY: So is a CPU an identity ?
MINNIE: More like a unit of one, which is the basic form of identity and the only trustless one.
SATOSHI: ... which then allows the majority to be trusted to control a trustless code that create complex identities on this same platform...
MINNIE: The problem with Nonsense is that it have to be experienced in order to make sens. But that is not the greatest problem. The greatest problem of all was to figure out the key to such a system. An effort that brought about the most horrific chapters in human history.
SATOSHI: Something in the content of these sentences tells me that we are talking on things far greater than thous I thought of.
MINNIE: I believe that you still are not aware to the fact that you hit on the essence of the code some call "The Key of David".
MICKEY: I don't know what you are talking about Miinnie, It sound so biblical thus not in my scope.
MINNIE: I am not going to refer to this biblical level of the code, but that is the level of the collective conciseness. Issues of identity are related to that same code and this Mickey, is in your scope by all measures.
MINNIE: Identity can not be created by the consensus yet it's value is lost if not within a consensus.
SATOSHI: What is "The Key of David" in that regards?.
MINNIE: The Key to the transition between the power of the consensus (the group) and that of the individual, executed P2P in equal terms by capturing the vested value of the individual without obtaining the power to control it.
MICKEY: Who holds the key?
MINNIE: The key is in the code.
SATOSHI: If someone gets hold of your private key it controls your assets.
MINNIE: Once the design is created to serve individuals it must have some form of a private key. The program must protect that key yet whoever controls the code can gain full control of the keys, Decentralization can solve that, yet that leave us with a greater problem. How can the code be written if there is no common language that can decode it? The only solution for that is some form of trust. and "The Key of David" is that piece of code.
SATOSHI: I think that I might just be starting to make sense of what you try to say Minnie.
MINNIE: The problem with Nonsense is that it have to be experienced in order to make sens. But that is not the greatest problem. The greatest problem of all was to figure out the key to such a system. An effort that brought about the most horrific chapters in human history.
SATOSHI: Something in the content of these sentences tells me that we are talking on things far greater than thous I thought of.
MINNIE: I believe that you still are not aware to the fact that you hit on the essence of the code some call "The Key of David".
MICKEY: I don't know what you are talking about Miinnie, It sound so biblical thus not in my scope.
MINNIE: I am not going to refer to this biblical level of the code, but that is the level of the collective conciseness. Issues of identity are related to that same code and this Mickey, is in your scope by all measures.
MICKEY: In other words, what may appear as nonsense to the individual might in fact be the commonsense.
MINNIE: Commonsense stands for the logic of the community which is governed by different rules of logic. Thus for the individual, "commonness" is also "nonsense".
SATOSHI: Makes sense despite being a contradiction.
MINNIE: "Making sense" is the work that create reality as commonsense.
MICKEY: This gives a whole new meaning to POW.
MINNIE: We need to come up with a configuration for POW that would utilize the energy resources to reorg and give sense.
SATOSHI: Here is the problem: Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote, thus guaranty equal terms for all contenders.
MINNIE: What if we go back to the simple unit of time and have contenders compete for best results given the same time to complete the mission.
MICKEY: What is the mission?.
MINNIE: "Make sense"
SATOSHI: How would we judge who is the winner?
MINNIE: The winner is the one who can answer more questions before halting.
MICKEY: That would be the longer chain , not the winner.
SATOSHI: It can be both.
MICKEY: Can we do it?
SATOSHI: If Minnie knows how, then we can. .
MINNIE: This is how we do it: Once time is up, we give all contenders a set of random questions and the one who produce the most deterministic wave is the winner
MICKEY: What is a deterministic wave?
MINNIE: Just a word game that can "Makes Sense".
SATOSHI: I think that I might just be starting to make sense of what you try to say Minnie.
MINNIE: If truth reflect reality, then it must behave like a physics theory.
SATOSHI: That too makes a lot of sense.
MINNIE: The blockchain demonstrate the direct link between energy and truth.
SATOSHI: That is true.
MINNIE: We may then argue that physics as the theory of reality is nothing but a product of logic, and thus assert that reality is logical even when it dosn't make sense.
MICKEY: In other words, what may appear as nonsense to the individual might in fact be the commonsense.
MINNIE: Commonsense stands for the logic of the community which is governed by different rules of logic. Thus for the individual, "commonness" is also "nonsense".
SATOSHI: Makes sense despite being a contradiction.
MINNIE: "Making sense" is the work that create reality as commonsense.
MICKEY: This gives a whole new meaning to POW.
SATOSHI: Nonsense.... just kidding, actualy makes a lot of sense.
MINNIE: If truth reflect reality, then it must behave like a physics theory.
SATOSHI: That too makes a lot of sense.
SATOSHI: Nonsense.
DUALITY: If we describe "truth" as a wave we can avoid the nonsense of a point
MICKEY: Duality, how would you describe a "truth wave" ?
DUALITY: A truth that comes in waves, peaks at network's highest agreement point and bottom at the most disputed point.
MICKEY: Thus false is disagreement?
DUALITY: That is the duality, Agree/Disagree.
SATOSHI: I Dont Know ....
CHARACTER: "Dont Know" makes it a 3D object again and we get the classic particle/wave duality.
DUALITY: We may also say that the "truth state" of a transaction in the network is like the wave function which collapse once observed.
MICKEY: This makes " I Dont know" be the observer.
SATOSHI: Nonsense.... just kidding, actualy makes a lot of sense.
Do you see any chance that the name you chose for this coin could get you into trouble at any point in time in the future?
MICKEY:
I will answer that if you don't mind.
The name is a crucial part of the concept of our coin. We are taking a fresh and a bit radical look at some outdated laws regarding a "legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owner while enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses". If a corporation is such legal entity, then I as Mickey Mouse is the rightful owner of all my character's work once I can demonstrate some qualities such as a corporate or even better as an AI . I intend to do it at some point if Disney try to sue us.
As we explained before, we also have a very strong case for some of our coin's properties and intellectual properties that Disney may try to claim as its own. (that if they can demonstrate any intellect whatsoever as being an integral part of it's entity).
By creating the coin as a conceptual art work bearing the name of Disney and using the image of the logo as the inspiration for the artwork, Nili as the artist, is making a rightful use of a cultural icon that is part of our shred experience in our civilization of the twenty first century.
I hope that this answers your question.
Thank you.
Would be an exciting court case to observe and see how you manage to defend you and your plans against a multi-billion dollar corporation. Not saying it is impossible!
MICKEY:
Could be very exciting but for this to happen the coin must reach some notable value. In fact what we have done so far is to hand Disney on a silver platter for a smart investor. Any investor buying the coins will not be accused or charged on infringement of the Disney company rights, In fact, for any legal matters the investor is on the side of the victim.
Now picture that:
1. A smart investor takes interest in the coins as art and makes their investment very public.
2. Disney can now do two things. Ignore the coin or sue the artist.
3. Both reactions can not be ignored, thus get much press, making the asset much more present in the public life.
4. More investors who realize that the art being a crypto-asset on the bitcoin main network can not be stopped but rather trade securely over the internet. (Disney Coin is issued on Counterparty platform thus a transaction is secured by the entire bitcoin mining power)
5. Value that is earned selling the coin is invested back in fighting Disney when they sue, or in promoting the art until Disney sue.
6. We fight the case with the increase value of the art-coins, getting more and more attention to the arguments made by the artist .
7. If we win we use the value earned to develop Tonnimves. If we loose, Disney get our coins as payment.
Nili :
I Just wanted to add that as a real artist I don't own anything of any value other than my power to create, (something no one can take away by the rule of law), and the art I made which I can only wish to be valued and taken from me as such.
Do you see any chance that the name you chose for this coin could get you into trouble at any point in time in the future?
MICKEY:
I will answer that if you don't mind.
The name is a crucial part of the concept of our coin. We are taking a fresh and a bit radical look at some outdated laws regarding a "legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owner while enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses". If a corporation is such legal entity, then I as Mickey Mouse is the rightful owner of all my character's work once I can demonstrate some qualities such as a corporate or even better as an AI . I intend to do it at some point if Disney try to sue us.
As we explained before, we also have a very strong case for some of our coin's properties and intellectual properties that Disney may try to claim as its own. (that if they can demonstrate any intellect whatsoever as being an integral part of it's entity).
By creating the coin as a conceptual art work bearing the name of Disney and using the image of the logo as the inspiration for the artwork, Nili as the artist, is making a rightful use of a cultural icon that is part of our shred experience in our civilization of the twenty first century.
I hope that this answers your question.
Thank you.
Would be an exciting court case to observe and see how you manage to defend you and your plans against a multi-billion dollar corporation. Not saying it is impossible!
MICKEY:
Could be very exciting but for this to happen the coin must reach some notable value. In fact what we have done so far is to hand Disney on a silver platter for a smart investor. Any investor buying the coins will not be accused or charged on infringement of the Disney company rights, In fact, for any legal matters the investor is on the side of the victim.
Now picture that:
1. A smart investor takes interest in the coins as art and makes their investment very public.
2. Disney can now do two things. Ignore the coin or sue the artist.
3. Both reactions can not be ignored, thus get much press, making the asset much more present in the public life.
4. More investors who realize that the art being a crypto-asset on the bitcoin main network can not be stopped but rather trade securely over the internet. (Disney Coin is issued on Counterparty platform thus a transaction is secured by the entire bitcoin mining power)
5. Value that is earned selling the coin is invested back in fighting Disney when they sue, or in promoting the art until Disney sue.
6. We fight the case with the increase value of the art-coins, getting more and more attention to the arguments made by the artist .
7. If we win we use the value earned to develop Tonnimves. If we loose, Disney get our coins as payment.
Do you see any chance that the name you chose for this coin could get you into trouble at any point in time in the future?
MICKEY:
I will answer that if you don't mind.
The name is a crucial part of the concept of our coin. We are taking a fresh and a bit radical look at some outdated laws regarding a "legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owner while enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses". If a corporation is such legal entity, then I as Mickey Mouse is the rightful owner of all my character's work once I can demonstrate some qualities such as a corporate or even better as an AI . I intend to do it at some point if Disney try to sue us.
As we explained before, we also have a very strong case for some of our coin's properties and intellectual properties that Disney may try to claim as its own. (that if they can demonstrate any intellect whatsoever as being an integral part of it's entity).
By creating the coin as a conceptual art work bearing the name of Disney and using the image of the logo as the inspiration for the artwork, Nili as the artist, is making a rightful use of a cultural icon that is part of our shred experience in our civilization of the twenty first century.
I hope that this answers your question.
Thank you.
Would be an exciting court case to observe and see how you manage to defend you and your plans against a multi-billion dollar corporation. Not saying it is impossible!
SATOSHI: We may need to change the format of our conversation for that and make it more like a class.
NOUR: Or a study group.
MINNIE: Like a dialog.
NILI: Let's start our study by defining "truth" in terms of an object in logic space/time.
CHARACTER: Let's also define a dialog in terms of character's size.
MINNIE: You are so self centered.
CHARACTER: Just being consistent with my character. You may decide on the size as the main fictional character here.
NILI: Now that you took care of each-other and the change, we can dive into the topic of this first study.
SATOSHI: A Truth Object.
NILI: A truth object is an object such that "true", "false" and "not-true" are its dimensions. X is the "true" axis, Y is the "false" axis and Z is the "not-true" axis.
MINNIE: Let's try to imagine a "ball of truth", or a "point" in logic-space/time.
NILI: A "ball of truth" would be anything that don't exist in our "knowledge base". All other "truth objects" will have a distinct shape formed by the" knowledge base". .
MINNIE: What is the "Knowledge Base" in our picture of truth landscape?
NOUR: Reality?!
MINNIE: So is a ball fiction?
NILI: Some may rather call it a theory, but fiction is scientifically more correct .
MINNIE: And a point is... ?
SATOSHI: Nonsense.
Jump to: