Topic: United we stand, divided we fall - the coming rise of cryptofiat (Read 16459 times)

With the current fiat system the government can not only monitor the flow of money but they do not necessarily need to tell a suspect of a crime the extent of the evidence against him (or what the government may be able to uncover in the future) which would give a suspect an incentive to confess if they have committed a financial crime. Bitcoin takes that possibility and this is really an important thing to be considered.

The have cryptofiat....? I thought crypto was just code and whatnot, and then Fiat would be physical money. I don't know.


In any case, cryptocurrencies are doing just fine on their own. No need to cause hype over a nonexistent topic.

It's coming: China to consider a "chinacoin". The wayI see it, it would be a PoS.

I failt to see why they would do this, but this is secondary. If a governement cannot intervene on transactions, I think it would not qualfy as cryptofiat.

On a related note, I suggest reading The Stateless Currency and the State: An Examination of the Feasibility of a State Attack on Bitcoin. It is damn interesting.
And also State-sponsored cryptocurrencies

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q3digitalcurrenciesbitcoin1.pdf, page 3


This is the Bank of England which writes this

I wonder if having a blockchain being digitally signed by a central authority (scrapping out the 51% requirement) would create something like "cryptofiat".

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

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

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!

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

like -rgedit setgenerate true 1 (evil grin)

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?

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

"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.


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


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.


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.


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.

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

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.


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.


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.


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.

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.


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


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 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'?

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.

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!

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.

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.


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