Who agrees with me that the goal of defeating the powers-that-be with a blockchain should not be the goal?
It has been an important learning process for me.
There is absolutely no way you could get the Trump supporters to believe their savior Wikileaks is actually the source of their enslavement. You wouldn't even be allowed to get the message out to them.
There is no way you could create a popular Internet service and prevent it from being be co-opted by the elite.
You simply won't be allowed to.
We all here pretend we could be free. We won't succeed. None of us. Look yourself in the mirror and ask if you've come to grips with your enslavement or if you are still in denial.
If you've swallowed the blue pill, then there is nothing to say to you. If you've swallowed the red pill as I have, then its time to realize you are only free when you need nothing, not even to eat. When you walk away with nothing into the wilderness, then you are free. Free to die, free to be attacker by parasites and predators, and free to go hungry.
Create something popular with a viable business model. Even use a blockchain for the properties it can provide such as being both a speculation and a unit-of-exchange, but just forget about this nonsense ideology of defeating Soros with a blockchain. It isn't going to happen.
Help them spread crypto-currency over the globe, then maybe they won't mind you are offering an alternative to their Bitcoin plan. But don't go in thinking you can defeat the powers-that-be with technology.
Decentralization for enabling a huge ecosystem because no one has to trust the a centralized entity is good. Decentralization for trying to defeat the globalists is suicide.
Any agree or disagree?
part 1.
Everything is connected. Even Martin Armstrong talks about his data in terms of multiple variables. Here is a question, does the torrent network defeat TPTB? or the zeronet? or the legalization of cannabis? or growing our own food? or the internet? or social media? or 3d printing? or alt energy? or large gatherings of free people? or free market places? or freedom over our bodies? or freedom of religion? freedom of speech? free communication etc.
Is the power of TPTB in the regulation of these things? Does TPTB get weaker the more we exercise freedom from them? Do we even need a technology to BE FREE? It's like we are back to the Bill Clinton moment of what the definition of IS is. Who are TPTB and what are their powers and what does it mean to defeat them? If everything is connected then we are all connected and TPTB are also us, as in all 7.4 billion of us.
Decentralization for enabling a huge ecosystem because no one has to trust the a centralized entity is good.
The human condition has caused political greed/power and has consistently wrecked societies for hundreds if not thousands of years. Would a shift in consciousness defeat TPTB? barring that, a technology that "no one has to trust a centralized entity" is def a step in the right direction.
I never thought the blockchain was going to solely defeat TPTB. Rather TPTB have had a monopoly on various technologies. And in a nutshell TPTB act like spoiled brats and it's up to the adults to take away their toys. Once they have lost their
powertoys then are they defeated?
Decentralization for trying to defeat the globalists is suicide.
Not necessarily. I'd imagine the solution(s) which will spring from an uncontrolled decentralized source(s) will be like a snowball rolling downhill that was sparked by the hundredth monkey. I believe it will go, how you say...Viral.
more in pt 2
I've had similar thoughts and written them on Bitcointalk.
There is at least one constant, inviolably by the Gaussian distribution, which is that the elite-most will always be able to manipulate the psychology of the masses and that will never change.
So if you think you will overrule their political power by any means, then you are futilely attempting to violate the inviolable Gaussian distribution.
I agree that individual empowerment via technology which can't be centralized is a reduction of the efficacy of political power. Problem is that most everything can be centralized via political force, especially when we put Smart meters on every home that track every movement and action every where.
It seems to me that the next frontier for technology is transhumanism, so that we can escape from our physical bodies. That may be the only way to respond to asymmetrical political control. All our technological advance is being held hostage by the fact that we still live in these physical bodies which are so easy to subjugate with digital tracking. We need to raise the ante, by digitizing our existence so there isn't a choke point where our physical body interacts with the digital highway, e.g. the IP address. Once our existence is inside the digital highway, then anonymity becomes much more plausible because total orders don't exist.
180 IQ Freeman Dyson got me thinking about this aspect when he pointed out we are shifting to horizontal gene transfer, i.e. mix-and-match species:
If I believe it, does that alone make it real.
It makes it real for you
That was my point. ;-)
Btw, the following points by Freeman Dyson are going to tantalize your mind:
https://www.edge.org/discourse/dawkins_dyson.htmlNow I understand why Eric S. Raymond (160 IQ) said he felt like the slow kid in the family when he ate breakfast with the Dysons.
Dyson is speaking about what CoinCube had pointed out about a balance between evolving too fast and losing too much information versus not evolving fast enough.
As it turns out, Dyson is correct that evolving too fast remains always the outcome (see his reply to Richard Dawkins), as nature routes around the mature species by chaotically rendering it extinct.
Thus I was correct to favor a higher rate of disobedience within the species and also because Dyson seems to be correct that horizontal transfer is exponentially faster than Darwinian evolution! I need to spend some more time thinking about all the implications of this and make a followup to my article "INformation is Alive!".
Dyson declared in 2000 that he is a non-denomination Christian. They say his IQ is in the 180 range.
I don't have as high an IQ as him (I lack the memory and fast computational engine), but I share his love for being a contrarian and I do seem to have a very IQ in terms of mapping concepts in my mind (but I first have to get rid of all the symbols and other translational noise that clutters my parallel visualization engine, because I don't have an exceptional IQ in the realm of I/O and sequential processing).
