Topic: Economic Totalitarianism - page 33. (Read 345758 times)

Again, while I comprehend the arguments (and agree with some eg the idiocy of the PC movement), the seeming thought process that supposes some kind of preordained muslim plan to over run Europe is myopic in the geopolitical sense. Yes, it is very problematic and very confronting, and there are many examples of cultural clashes and norms being abused, in many cases horrifically. I don't think there is a viable solution in an expanding population. But I suggest it goes deeper than that.

As for Australia or the US not allowing it, well I would hope not. It is a despicable thing to do. Yet, the inhumane treatment of people doesn't stop at women. The US has life sentences for juvenile's, a horrific plea bargaining system and the stain that is Guantanamo. That isn't even to mention the treatment of black people in the States.

And Australia is without doubt a horrendously racist nation, since day dot. Aside from the indigenous population, it lets children be sexually abused in detention centres and inhumanely treats raped asylum seekers as political pawns and scapegoats. The politics of Australia is perhaps at the lowest point in history, where there is bipartisan support (only so not to give the other side a point of difference) for locking a small amount of people up on an island indefinitely to send a message to others not to come here, under the guise of the newest bogeyman - the dreaded people smugglers - those soulless human beings filling a market gap left by right wing bigots intent on keeping Australia 'beautiful'.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_GERMANY_CASH_LIMIT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-03-06-58-46

It wouldn't be tolerated down here, the establishment is shilling it's PC cancer pretty hard but most people can smell the bullshit.

It seems the closer you get to the cities the more of a zombie vibe you feel, so I'd basically like to build a big wall around the city and let them have their cultural enrichment. 

Another excellent piece, trollerc.  Thanks for posting it.

Europe is on the edge of becoming a neutered country, incapable of maintaining its society along the norms of "The West".  5 - 10 years after, they will become Islamicized.  It's already starting to happen, yet the Socialist Retards running EVERYTHING over there are hypnotized...

I wonder, trollerc, if the USA and/or Australia will allow their women to be harassed like that.  My guess is "no", but who knows.  At least in the West or South in the USA the Musloids would get an immediate ticket to their heaven, where their 72 goats await them.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/18299#.Vqpav1MrIyl

https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-zooko-wilcox-ceo-of-the-zcash-company-ask-me-anything-t5413.html

Debtor's prison is back in Texas:

http://www.extremetech.com/internet/222033-texas-police-now-double-as-debt-collectors-thanks-to-free-license-plate-readers

Let's not forget that Peter Thiel awarded a $100,000 grant to Vitalik. Ethereum may not be only the investment scam that it appears to be to me, but also a gambit by consortium of the world's largest 42 banks to catch up with us and outlaw us:


Nick Szabo also chimed in:

They have money (some estimated a $million) because of premine scam and then owning the masternodes which leech a double-digit annual ROI from the coin. Since there is no usership, that means the bagholder investors are financing this.

That's why I ask questions, amigo.  I have enough trouble (as a non-professional) just trying to keep up with Bitcoin.  The "alts" I am leaving for later, more learning up a STEEP curve for this 59 yr old.  And your comments have been very useful in detecting bad technology that I could not have found on my own.

Of course, I asked because they were there at the show.  They paid the fee to be part the conference, so they have enough of someone's money for the booth, brochures and expenses for their personnel.

Dash is a scam and inept technology. You apparently don't read all my posts in the Altcoin Discussion forum, else you would have known that I found egregious flaw in the math of InstantX and for many other reasons Dash is scam.

There is no reliable anonymity technology yet (including not Monero/Cryptonote due to unprovable/uncharacterizeable meta-data correlation). Maybe Zerocash (z.cash) which is coming...maybe...

Scammers are good at going to conferences and making promotions to sucker more greater fools who don't understand the detailed issues.

...

TPTB and anyone else

What are your takes on Dash?  I was just at TNABC, and Dash had a booth.  Very crowded when I was there.  I picked up a flyer, but, IMO, it seems to be just another "alt-coin" that may or may not have any future.

They claim over 10,000 active users.  They claim speed (1 - 4 second confirmations AND 10,000 transactions / second) as well as privacy via a decentralized mixing service (DarkSend).

Their website: www.dash.org

Discussion welcome!

Because I viewed the linked archived content (and saw the existence of the Bittorrent forum archive going back many years even before 2008) when I made the post in the Monero Speculation thread, and now as you can see the entire archive is gone. And that was only a few days ago. So the probability that the sudden removal of that archive did not result from me pointing out that Bittorrent is in bed together with the corruption of the Net Neutrality movement is approximately Nil.

I am not saying necessarily that any particular Monero community member was responsible for the removal of the archive. I am saying that someone who reads the Monero thread and/or who reads all my posts was responsible. And it is very likely that TPTB are watching very closely all my posts, because they understand (as do many astute readers) that I am one of the brighter minds on the forum who is very truly anarcho-Libertarian oriented and that I have the marketing skills to actually make something happen on a large scale.

However, TPTB shouldn't fear me, because I am not going to do anything illegal.

The most important point to take from the post I made is that Bittorrent is a political gimick used to fool the masses into submitting to taxation of the internet bandwidth via Net Neutrality. Bittorrent was never economic. It is a fraud and those who are stealing content deserve their fate by buying into an uneconomic lie.

And this pertains to the Technology vs. Marketing thread in the context of we are discussing whether potential markets and technology are viable. It makes no sense to state marketing or technology are important, if we don't understand how delusions about each can be foisted upon us. Also I was responding to an upthread post claiming that we can replace centralized social media with decentralized variants. And to address that possibility, I must talk about the foundational issue of decentralized file storage. That should have been obvious from the post (and its context) that you are reacting to.

Also for those who don't fully grasp my economics point, the point is that if we try to force ISPs to give away bandwidth for free, then we in effect socialize ISPs. And then the government can step in with Net Neutrality taxation to make it "fair" by compensating some ISPs for others or what (but in essence what we have done is attempted to steal and thus the government is called upon to take over and steal from all of us). We are fucking idiots!

For those can't deduce the implications, without stealing bandwidth by doing file transfers P2P (taking the expensive upload bandwidth that ISPs have statistically allocated for client-server model paradigms) then we can't have file storage that is resistant to regulation and thus we can't steal copyrighted content (as I explained in my prior post that hosting content on servers will be regulated by the hosting provider's Terms of Service). Afaik, the reason upload bandwidth is expensive for ISPs, is because telcom "last mile" technology is focused on maximizing download bandwidth for the client-server model of HTTP. It is a natural law of physics that you would not run a main line water/gas pipe from the substation to each home, instead use multifurcation from the main to progressively smaller diameter pipes.

P2P can not be a bandwidth driven paradigm! Fuhgeddaboudit.

The problem for humanity is that ISPs are playing along with this Net Neutrality takeover (even while pretending not to), because of course it is a plan by which the internet can be monopolized and controlled by an oligarchy. So our problem is that paradigms such as Bittorrent which foster this theft, are less expensive to host content with. And thus this is why the new Bittorrent browser is receiving funding because TPTB have decided this a good direction to go and further their control of the internet. How can we can compete with the download costs of stealing it from the collective. We probably can't. So fucking clever how TPTB fooled us into thinking we had won (after they closed Napster and we thought we fought back), and yet we dug our own grave. Because stealing is evil. But the problem is that this lower bandwidth cost (by stealing it) paradigm can also be used for distributing legal content.  However Bittorrent does have the weaknesses that files are slower to start loading (i.e. higher latency), it isn't interactive, and it only applies to files that many users are simultaneously downloading. So thus we still have a means to fight back if we are clever.

When will fools learn that anything pumped up in the MSM is always a fraud to fool us. Kim Dotcom is being made into a martyr to fool us into believing that we must fight for Bittorrent every where and to give a boost to the launch of a Bittorrent web paradigm. We will be totally fucked with Net Neutrality.

---

One of the foundational technical challenges is decentralized, permissionless file storage (and databases); otherwise if a corporation is providing centralized file storage then they control the content and can monopolize.

Afaik, the current attempts such as Storj and Maidsafe have a fundamental economic flaw. That is they are selling for free that which is not free— the bandwidth (and most saliently the asymmetrically more expensive upload bandwidth) of the ISPs. I had warned Bittorrent about this flaw in their economic algorithm and had suggested a fix in 2008:

---

---

Now what is really fucking amazing is that the link quoted above worked correctly a few days ago when I issued it. Apparently someone in the Monero thread communicated to Bittorrent folks and had the entire archive of the Bittorrent forum removed from the archive.org. I am not joking and I am not hallucinating.

What I had written there in 2008 (which luckily I reread a few days ago so my memory is refreshed) was I explained to the Bittorrent developers that their tit-for-tat algorithm was orthogonal to their optimistic unchoking algorithm, and that they could improve the tit-for-tat algorithm by have the two peers that exchange a shard of data to encrypt those shards. Then after the shards had been received by both peers, the decryption keys could be exchanged. The economic benefit is that the bandwidth has already been exchanged before each peer can use the data. Thus neither peer has any bandwidth cost reason to cheat. The reason this was important is because typically download bandwidth is much greater than upload bandwidth, so by forcing all peers to trade equally, it would mean that peers could only download as much as they could upload. Bittorrent didn't like this suggestion because they preferred to leech the upload bandwidth of those who have higher allocations with their ISPs thus forcing those ISPs to pay for the upload bandwidth that the other peers at the ISPs with lower upload bandwidth allocations do not incur.

I warned Bittorrent that without my suggested fix, then the ISPs would end up blocking and rate limiting Bittorrent, which is exactly what has happened as I predicted:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/145786/isp.html
http://guides.wmlcloud.com/windows/how-to-bypass-torrent-connection-blocking-by-your-isp.aspx
https://www.quora.com/My-ISP-has-blocked-all-the-P2P-downloads-Is-there-any-way-I-can-bypass-them

Note that any solutions to the problem of ISPs blocking P2P apps that involve a TURN (when STUN tunneling fails or is blocked), VPN, or other server in the middle, defeat the entire point of extracting the value of the bandwidth allocation of users provided by their ISPs, because then one is paying for the bandwidth of the server to relay the shards.

If Storj and MaidSafe max out the consumption of each user's upload bandwidth (thus leeching off users with higher allocations charging the costs to those users' ISPs), they will also be blocked by ISPs. Additionally STUN tunnelling often fails and thus a TURN relay server has to be employed (or using the other peers as relays thus leeching the upload bandwidth of those ISPs who don't block tunneling).

In short, P2P for bandwidth consumption between ISP hosted user accounts is not going to be reliable. Many users will have frustrations when trying to be a storage provider. It will not be the case that every user in the system can also be a storage provider. And it will probably end up being the case that the most efficient storage providers will be hosted on dedicated servers.

In other words, it is a fantasy to think we can get decentralized file storage without paying for it.

We can try to design decentralized, permissionless file systems that correctly incentivize the storage and bandwidth providers, and the users of the system need to pay for it somehow. Whether or not these can remain permissionless given the need to host these on servers is open to further contemplation and study. Most all hosting providers include in their Terms of Sevice a restriction on hosting illegal copyrighted content, so unless one can provide a mechanism for which illegal content is removed from the system, it seems to me that hosts will be forced to ban the protocol (system).

So where I am headed with this line of thinking is that we ought to just give up on illegal content and illegal uses of anonymity. It isn't going to work. It is a fantasy.

"Goldman Sachs backs pro-EU campaign with 'six figure donation'"

Just had a pro(paganda)-EU marketing newspaper stuffed through the letterbox full of scare tactics, just like with the referendum on Scottish independence.

Unlikely, they cannot get rich from pump & dump, the elite got rich from comissions rather than trading.

All major banks are middleman, and hardly trade anything, that is to protect their wealth.

Plus their main income source is derived from printed money, bitcoin is a closed system.


That being said, by joinning bitcoin, they will pump up the price so much, that it will become a real safe haven, and they will have no choice but to stick with it, when the financial collapse comes.


Bonds, stocks, estate, all of it will deflate in price, that is not a good way to make money, especially if the bank or broker you are with will just go bankrupt. In  a systematic failure you cannot trade the classical way.


Most rich people just buy up cheap land in poor countries to look for a safer haven, so they are desperate to save their wealth.


Bitcoin would be the perfect safe haven for them, and they will eventually start using it.

when we speak, whether there is something already built or what is built does not suit us , whether those functions laid down in them all of us or meet us there hand on heart something removed or what we know and what we believe, giving us the right to change it; we talked about what we build and that opens new opportunities we have gained the right, giving us shape and the ability to change anything and that having learned the lessons we were breached, we were not satisfied and that we do not have the loss; now we are talking about is created by us and is entitled to decide whether us what we have; of course the form is built on the values ( although other forms are not coming to mind ) and this form as a global form and that somewhere is not ocluzie and which is cumbersome and that valid well to electronics set vector, direction, and although the right of disposition values is still owned by the state and laws, but the quality and the quantity and level values regulated banks and question banks this regulation should apply on the level and that people as potential values for delimited and with these values the right to dispose in full, and that getting this right, the person will not stop and will not give a shadow of a doubt and a reason to degrade, though ; the achieved level, of course, makes you wonder, but perfectly acceptable and pleasant although the full picture is not visible and that the digital list values are likely to bring our plans to mind and we will expect and the speed of processing and the pleasantness of the service, but still repeating shape has the appearance of what is, while the options and thoughts from different parties can be a lot and this is only a form for discussion, one reminder in this "project" to be calm and not to spend on pointless thoughts a lot of time though, lol