Topic: United we stand, divided we fall - the coming rise of cryptofiat - page 2. (Read 16512 times)

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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

That's what I did...

Such is your claim. Now substantiate it.

Nice cliff notes I'm still working on the big hammer to back this very position.

On a semi related note, George Carlin, may he rest in well deserved peace, will be seen by history as one of the greatest philosphers, not a comedian. And it will amuse him if there's an after life.

You legitimize the system of control that you say you don't like, thus giving your consent to the idea that other people have the right to rule over you. Allow George Carlin to humorously explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efKguI0NFek


No one is superior to anyone else; we are all literally one, experiencing oneself from different points of view. 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.


The point is that if you're here to defend a position, you're approaching the idea of truth and knowledge, and the discovery of such, from a perspective of ego (attachment to beliefs) rather than an open-minded persepective.

@jbreher, I still haven't gotten to my dissertation here. Sorry, work has been crazy. I can dash off stuff from the top of my head, but that's really not sufficient to our debate. I haven't forgotten

lol.. I will never use fiat. Ever.

mmmmhhhhhhhmmm of course you are

The OP is nuts and has a nasty reputation of being behind "experiment" Altcoins considered a scam.. to make money.. blatantly.
so what he went on to say is funny to say the least LOL

check post history.. he thinks you guys will not know in this section of the forum about his antics (or Mr Monero King's antics) and he/they wants credibility.

be careful about falling for the multiple accounts game guys.. and they can make *more money with a shiny great rep with Altcoins too
the reptiela guy told me he made $3,000 from people on a forum game in the altcoin section by posting comments LOL
they came and they want money period.
don't be a fool !

Call to arms.

It'd be spectacular to see the term "Crytpofiat" become mainstream and "mean something" to the world one day!

I have already conceded that voting is not actually the only mechanism. But I fail to detect your point. What are you getting at?


But they do have power over us. Legitimate or not (I'm going with not). Stop following their edicts, and they put you in a cage- end of story. Of course I think you would likely agree that this is the case. I again fail to see your point.


Says you. I say you are wrong about this. You seem to have read right over the point where I indicated that voting is most certainly not the only thing -- nay, not even the most significant thing -- I am doing in order to bring about change. It is an additional thing I am doing on the margin.

In what way does my voting prevent any other mechanism for bringing about change? In no way. Period.

Go ahead and think yourself superior for avoiding the ballot. Maybe you even think that refraining from voting is somehow, in and of itself, bringing about the change you want to see. If so, I think you're being delusional.


You spend your time however you want. Can't put that responsibility on me.

You write this, but then you write this...


Slavery is not going to end any time soon, said the chained African slave, so in the meantime, voting for Mr Jones or Mr Jacobstein is the _only_ mechanism we have to exert any influence whatsoever over the system.

The problem is not the "power-mad psychopaths that will lord over us". The problem is you paying attention to them and believing that they have any power over you whatsoever.

You are completely missing the point of how change works. You don't influence or reform or fix or patch or improve the existing system (i.e. people's belief systems). You build something new that replaces the old as it dies by its own weight. See the Soviet Union. Would you remain on the Titanic rearranging furniture to one side of the deck hoping that it won't sink? Or would you jump on the decentralized boats?


I guess then I just wasted 10 minutes.

A young "industry" idealist or a very young wiz developer. Anyway, I wish you good luck on this and keep the fire burning!

So we find ourselves living in an idiocracy, great

Bitcoin serves every purpose needed for a global trade currency, but it seems only a few people realize that.

The powers that be will always say inflation/deflation controls are needed, of course they are not, the free market will run just fine on a finely divisible secure money like bitcoin, just as it did on gold in the past.

I suspect that a fractional reserve system on top of bitcoin may happen before a full fiat. Bretton woods with bitcoin. A stepping stone move if you will.

If that's the case then I just hope regular people will still be allowed to transact with the raw blockchain if they wish.

Thinking about it... how come nobody has developed a fractional reserve layer over bitcoin yet? Like pirate40s scheme only not centralized, but P2P.  Oh wait I just worked it out... because the "available funds" in each account would have to be honest, i.e. only 10% of what you deposited in there, the rest being tied up in loans to others that may or may not be paid back in the future, nah that wouldn't fly without centralized regulation by a large org with a good militia. ho hum.

Precisely. And by extrapolation, money is any generally accepted commodity that can be traded for services. Note that I said generally accepted, as opposed to universally accepted or forced to be accepted. Desirability has to exist either for it's ability to be traded, or a desire for the commodity itself. "Legal Tender" doesn't qualify, as it's declared to be of value by central banks and it's use enforced by, ultimately, the point of a gun.

However, it is in the interest of those who rule to APPEAR to be angels, not devils. Thus they try (and often succeed) to make the "legal tender" real money in the eyes of the masses. This allows them to pull off all sorts of legerdemain, from uncontrolled inflationary policies to outright theft (eg. Quantative easing and the theft of all gold bullion in 1937).

Banks have been complicit in this as it has served to enrich them and make them invaluable to the brokers of power. Banking in itself is both desirable and necessary to any sort of widespread commerce. It's what they have done to debase the currency that makes them wrong, not their existence. Bankers, like politicians, can read the writing on the wall, and Bitcoin and it's successors scares them. They are smarter than most politicians, and will try to control this new currrency rather than fight it openly. If they play it right, the populace will see them as heroes.