... fuck rights we don't need rights we need actual individually sovereign power!
The generative essence solution is decentralization, not the global, centralized NWO bullshit...
The generative essence solution is decentralization, not the global, centralized NWO bullshit...
The Dark Enlightenment is not correctly summarized in the OP.
...
In essence, it is the rise of anarchist cyberworld Knowledge Age, where government is irrelevant and impotent and the individual and his technological capabilities rein supreme. Most of the population will fall into a Dark Age, because they can't compete effectively against hackers and they are reliant on collectivism, debt, and the bankrupt industrial age.
Oh and I am more important than Moldberg in the Dark Enlightenment.
Also Cyberocracy has a more established name Technocracy. Please use the correct term.
...
In essence, it is the rise of anarchist cyberworld Knowledge Age, where government is irrelevant and impotent and the individual and his technological capabilities rein supreme. Most of the population will fall into a Dark Age, because they can't compete effectively against hackers and they are reliant on collectivism, debt, and the bankrupt industrial age.
Oh and I am more important than Moldberg in the Dark Enlightenment.
Also Cyberocracy has a more established name Technocracy. Please use the correct term.
I understand Moldbug's "Only One Currency Can Win" which Satoshi also apparently validated.
And I have explained how I think a bifurcated economy could violate Gresham's Law and allow for two monetary units to coexist globally analogous to how national currencies coexist due to a Coasian barrier of individuals not trading directly internationally.
The one unit will be controlled by the banksters and the masses and this will be the 666 slavery system. The other crypto-currency unit will be for those who hold their "unit-of-account" in "units-of-knowledge". You see as a hacker, you don't care about...
And I have explained how I think a bifurcated economy could violate Gresham's Law and allow for two monetary units to coexist globally analogous to how national currencies coexist due to a Coasian barrier of individuals not trading directly internationally.
The one unit will be controlled by the banksters and the masses and this will be the 666 slavery system. The other crypto-currency unit will be for those who hold their "unit-of-account" in "units-of-knowledge". You see as a hacker, you don't care about...
I am happy to inform that Eric says I am not banned as long as I can remain respectful and has allowed my input to be considered. I posted another summary of my idea.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479608
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479608
Quote from: AnonyMint a.k.a. whodat? a.k.a. Jocelyn a.k.a. JustSaying a.k.a. Shelby
...The point is about the relative value of the autonomous knowledge (capital) economy versus the vertically integrated (monetary) capital economy. As the autonomy of creation increases in both granularity and speed-to-market (Linus principle of "publish often"), the number of nodes of sharing increases and the value of that knowledge sharing network increases by the nodes squared. We have chart confirmation of that law with the history of the Bitcoin price.
...
How can you reason that we will pay the same or significantly for something produced by the economy that will be worth relatively much less than it had been?
With mass production, the value-added of the knowledge input was amortized over the capital cost of the factory and millions of produced copies. Thus the knowledge networking value was insignificant. Whereas, when knowledge can directly create with near real-time publishing, the knowledge networking value increases by the square and outstrips any startup costs. Moreover, incremental edits amortize the startup costs over many knowledge networking connections, and the value is the square of the connections.
The key is that open source knowledge is always changing and the knowledge workers benefit from autonomously iterating each other's designs, because the value of the network increases by the square of the participants who share. Metcalfe's (or Reed's) Law is at the heart of why sharing creates more value for all participants. That is not saying all nodes connect with all other nodes, rather the value scales proportional to the square.
...
How can you reason that we will pay the same or significantly for something produced by the economy that will be worth relatively much less than it had been?
With mass production, the value-added of the knowledge input was amortized over the capital cost of the factory and millions of produced copies. Thus the knowledge networking value was insignificant. Whereas, when knowledge can directly create with near real-time publishing, the knowledge networking value increases by the square and outstrips any startup costs. Moreover, incremental edits amortize the startup costs over many knowledge networking connections, and the value is the square of the connections.
The key is that open source knowledge is always changing and the knowledge workers benefit from autonomously iterating each other's designs, because the value of the network increases by the square of the participants who share. Metcalfe's (or Reed's) Law is at the heart of why sharing creates more value for all participants. That is not saying all nodes connect with all other nodes, rather the value scales proportional to the square.
Open source theory is rooted in evolutionary psychology, by Eric S. Raymond[2]
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6586#comment-1364271
(note you won't find my comment below at the above link, because Eric S. Raymond censors my comments. Go figure
)
[2] Eric S. Raymond is the 150 - 170 IQ genius writer and progenitor of the term open source and promoted it as a non-communist, alternative to Richard Stallmans and GNUs antecedent free software movement. He is famous for writing the The Art of Unix Programming, the Cathedral and the Bazaar, and the Magic Cauldron, which enumerated many of the design and economic philosophies and principles that drive the internet, modern software, and open source. If you want to dig into understanding the coercion, communism problem with free software which ESR corrected with his promulgation of open source, listen to Erics advocacy in the following video about permissive open source licenses versus the GNU GPL viral licenses which compel certain actions on the licensee.
http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2012/05/17/lessons-from-a-jug-talk-with-eric-esr-raymond/ (skip to 9:30 mins in video, or 11:15 for punch line)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6586#comment-1364271
(note you won't find my comment below at the above link, because Eric S. Raymond censors my comments. Go figure
)Quote from: contagion
Money is a language for exchanging value. In open source we are saving in acquired (personal and collective) knowledge and reputation, thus a language of value exchange.
When software or knowledge has become the most valuable product in the economy[1], this exchange can in theory significantly fulfill individuals needs and desires. However, it is probably not the most efficient currency.
Knowledge and projects arent fungible. The maximum division-of-labor insures that some needs cant be fulfilled by trading knowledge in kind.
Yet we dont trust fungible monetary representations of value because they are inherently social institutions which are debased with debt and fractional reserves in a devolution into the antithesis of knowledge due to the Iron Law of Resource Statism.
Proof-of-work solved the Byzantine Generals Problem so in theory inverted the location of power in a monetary system moving it from the collective center to the individuals at the ends of the network, leaving only dumb protocol agents in the center the end-to-end principle.
The individuals unleashed from that horrific Iron Law, are now free to vote with their value to walk away from initiatives (e.g. Paypal or Coinbase loaning in Bitcoin fractional reserves offchain) that debase the knowledge value in a decentralized cryptocurrency.
I assert that monetization of open source with decentralized cryptocurrency is imminent. The maximum division-of-labor is a more efficient and powerful force than open sources gift culture which for example is subject to Dunbar number limit in some cases it scales.
One generative prediction is that open source will become more modular and granular because project module developers remunerated in a knowledge backed currency are able to maximize their division-of-labor without the collectivization variance risk tradeoff of the gift culture when open source developers choose between applying their effort to larger projects that have the most inertia and smaller projects that have the most potential gain in (knowledge and reputation) value.
Gold cant be that knowledge backed currency because it cant be exchanged digitally and anonymously. It is impossible to make a digital proxy backed by physical gold that obeys the end-to-end principle because proof-of-work is based on decentralized consensus without trust. How could you not trust anyone to hold the gold backing, yet still insure the backing exists.
When software or knowledge has become the most valuable product in the economy[1], this exchange can in theory significantly fulfill individuals needs and desires. However, it is probably not the most efficient currency.
Knowledge and projects arent fungible. The maximum division-of-labor insures that some needs cant be fulfilled by trading knowledge in kind.
Yet we dont trust fungible monetary representations of value because they are inherently social institutions which are debased with debt and fractional reserves in a devolution into the antithesis of knowledge due to the Iron Law of Resource Statism.
Proof-of-work solved the Byzantine Generals Problem so in theory inverted the location of power in a monetary system moving it from the collective center to the individuals at the ends of the network, leaving only dumb protocol agents in the center the end-to-end principle.
The individuals unleashed from that horrific Iron Law, are now free to vote with their value to walk away from initiatives (e.g. Paypal or Coinbase loaning in Bitcoin fractional reserves offchain) that debase the knowledge value in a decentralized cryptocurrency.
I assert that monetization of open source with decentralized cryptocurrency is imminent. The maximum division-of-labor is a more efficient and powerful force than open sources gift culture which for example is subject to Dunbar number limit in some cases it scales.
One generative prediction is that open source will become more modular and granular because project module developers remunerated in a knowledge backed currency are able to maximize their division-of-labor without the collectivization variance risk tradeoff of the gift culture when open source developers choose between applying their effort to larger projects that have the most inertia and smaller projects that have the most potential gain in (knowledge and reputation) value.
Gold cant be that knowledge backed currency because it cant be exchanged digitally and anonymously. It is impossible to make a digital proxy backed by physical gold that obeys the end-to-end principle because proof-of-work is based on decentralized consensus without trust. How could you not trust anyone to hold the gold backing, yet still insure the backing exists.
[2] Eric S. Raymond is the 150 - 170 IQ genius writer and progenitor of the term open source and promoted it as a non-communist, alternative to Richard Stallmans and GNUs antecedent free software movement. He is famous for writing the The Art of Unix Programming, the Cathedral and the Bazaar, and the Magic Cauldron, which enumerated many of the design and economic philosophies and principles that drive the internet, modern software, and open source. If you want to dig into understanding the coercion, communism problem with free software which ESR corrected with his promulgation of open source, listen to Erics advocacy in the following video about permissive open source licenses versus the GNU GPL viral licenses which compel certain actions on the licensee.
http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2012/05/17/lessons-from-a-jug-talk-with-eric-esr-raymond/ (skip to 9:30 mins in video, or 11:15 for punch line)
Is Anonymity undesirable for society or unrealistic?
There will always be a need for dispute resolution and mediation in contracts. It is impossible to fully remove this need. Although it is certainly possible to mitigates the states role via private judges/arbitrators the best that can be achieved here is minimization.
In the part of my prior post which you did not quote, I explained that certain contracts can be indisputable because they are algorithmically settled. With the Knowledge Age, I expect these type of indisputable contracts to become a preponderance of the GDP[1]. My hypothesis is the Knowledge Age changes the fundamental basis of society.
For example, I expect the monetization of open source to foster granularity of project modules. So this means instead of contributing to for example Firefox or Linux source code, an open source developer could instead contribute to a module of source code with a much more general but limited scope of functionality (e.g. a HTML rendering engine or an image format rendering engine, i.e. the latter is a sub-module of the former module). These modules would then be funded by a license fee paid by the users of the software. The key here is micropayments, because each module would self-register itself on installation and request a micropayment from the user. The user would be shown an aggregation dialog box of all the micropayments for the all the modules in the software they want to install and use, and click to approve the payments. A huge advantage is then we can upgrade specific modules of a software, so we can customize software to our liking. For example, Mozilla assholes would no longer have the power to do what I warned them would be egregiously unpopular with website developers. You thus see from that Mozilla fiasco that even in open source, the IRON LAW of Political Economics applies. The way open source funding works now is that the key developers of large projects are funded by large corporations. Thus only the core developers receive remuneration. And the synergies and network-effects are highly muted as compared to the new paradigm I describe above.
Two separate issues here. 1) It there a social cost to adding unbreakable anonymity in monetary transactions 2) Is the cost worth the benefits.
It is true that such crimes are ancient ones. However, it is also true that the creation of a marketplace where such activities can be financed in absolute anonymity will lead to an increase in said activity.
Firstly, I philosophically do not agree that which is natural is a cost for society. I believe the antithesis is the truth, which is that statism attempts to enforce unnatural outcomes[2], which is huge cost on society because nature always wins in the end.
But more saliently, as usual is appears you don't view the issue holistically and only look at one of the vectors that the new paradigm changes. For example, parents have a responsibility to protect their children from paedophilia and the Knowledge Age will economically empower individuals so they can have more influence over their kids, i.e. not be dependent on sending their kids to public schools where they lose some of their individuality and morals. The current statism is destroying the family unit which destroys children and makes them more vulnerable to paedophilia. Statist funded feminism[2] is causing more rape than anonymity could ever hope to. Murder rates are 26 times higher amongst blacks who have lower IQs and knowledge age skills fact is that Knowledge Age workers do not murder. Increase in the risk of collectively funded assassination would be a great incentive to be anonymous and to not be a public figure, thus another restraint on corrupt governance and overpaid actors and sports stars which are a moral turpentine on society ("let them eat cake" or "feed them bread and circus" to keep their minds preoccupied).
Note I believe IRON LAW of Political Economics can't coexist with the Knowledge Age, because remember my thesis is that knowledge isn't fungible and can't be financed, thus it really can't be centralized and controlled and thus the government must eradicate the Knowledge Age if the government is to survive. In short, there is war ahead and only one side can survive. If the government wins, humanity loses.
I entirely disagree. I would still want anonymity because it provides the correct incentives for the game theory of society, as I enumerated above. Never should the game theory be based around personalities, but rather based on actual deeds which has nothing to do with identity. I view this very mathematically. Thanks for calling me out to explain my philosophy so it is available in the public record.
Not only unrealistic, but uniformed about the real game theory of society. Also society can't vote anonymity out of existence. Nothing can stop anonymity unless it is technologically possible for a central authority to squelch it. See below...
Perhaps but this has yet to be proven. Certainly nothing that exists today meets this criteria. The state is likely to come down hard on an anonymous cryptocurrency if it starts to gain traction. That alone will increase the cost of using it.
This is the big open question. Even I am not sure how this will play out, but I will say do not entirely underestimate the power of the Knowledge Age. It is possible we can render the government's power quite impotent. For example, if the government wants to pay footsy with internet kill switches and packet filtering, we can switch to P2P mesh networks of WiFi routers and stenography. Also if the Knowledge Age is more profitable for people than the collapsing socialism which becomes draconian, then the majority of people walk away from the government (withdraw their support for its authority) and walk to anonymity and the Knowledge Age. It could be like the fall of the Berlin Wall, one day the government realizes they've lost and it falls peacefully in tidal wave action.
That is my grand hope.
Contracts shouldn't be designed to require the courts for restitution. This drives collectivism as you duly noted.
There will always be a need for dispute resolution and mediation in contracts. It is impossible to fully remove this need. Although it is certainly possible to mitigates the states role via private judges/arbitrators the best that can be achieved here is minimization.
In the part of my prior post which you did not quote, I explained that certain contracts can be indisputable because they are algorithmically settled. With the Knowledge Age, I expect these type of indisputable contracts to become a preponderance of the GDP[1]. My hypothesis is the Knowledge Age changes the fundamental basis of society.
For example, I expect the monetization of open source to foster granularity of project modules. So this means instead of contributing to for example Firefox or Linux source code, an open source developer could instead contribute to a module of source code with a much more general but limited scope of functionality (e.g. a HTML rendering engine or an image format rendering engine, i.e. the latter is a sub-module of the former module). These modules would then be funded by a license fee paid by the users of the software. The key here is micropayments, because each module would self-register itself on installation and request a micropayment from the user. The user would be shown an aggregation dialog box of all the micropayments for the all the modules in the software they want to install and use, and click to approve the payments. A huge advantage is then we can upgrade specific modules of a software, so we can customize software to our liking. For example, Mozilla assholes would no longer have the power to do what I warned them would be egregiously unpopular with website developers. You thus see from that Mozilla fiasco that even in open source, the IRON LAW of Political Economics applies. The way open source funding works now is that the key developers of large projects are funded by large corporations. Thus only the core developers receive remuneration. And the synergies and network-effects are highly muted as compared to the new paradigm I describe above.
Pedophilia, rape, murder, assassination have been going on since Mesopotamia. Communications were always anonymous in the past. You want a 666 control system to try to stop what has always existed and you will get instead your nirvana of megadeath.
Anonymous internet communication doesn't make it more difficult to hunt down individuals as compared to the way it was done before the internet. There was always anonymous money and transactions in the past. Whereas, if we give the State the power to make all transactions trackable in the imminent switch over to digital currency, we will surely all die in megadeath 666.
Anonymous internet communication doesn't make it more difficult to hunt down individuals as compared to the way it was done before the internet. There was always anonymous money and transactions in the past. Whereas, if we give the State the power to make all transactions trackable in the imminent switch over to digital currency, we will surely all die in megadeath 666.
Two separate issues here. 1) It there a social cost to adding unbreakable anonymity in monetary transactions 2) Is the cost worth the benefits.
It is true that such crimes are ancient ones. However, it is also true that the creation of a marketplace where such activities can be financed in absolute anonymity will lead to an increase in said activity.
Firstly, I philosophically do not agree that which is natural is a cost for society. I believe the antithesis is the truth, which is that statism attempts to enforce unnatural outcomes[2], which is huge cost on society because nature always wins in the end.
But more saliently, as usual is appears you don't view the issue holistically and only look at one of the vectors that the new paradigm changes. For example, parents have a responsibility to protect their children from paedophilia and the Knowledge Age will economically empower individuals so they can have more influence over their kids, i.e. not be dependent on sending their kids to public schools where they lose some of their individuality and morals. The current statism is destroying the family unit which destroys children and makes them more vulnerable to paedophilia. Statist funded feminism[2] is causing more rape than anonymity could ever hope to. Murder rates are 26 times higher amongst blacks who have lower IQs and knowledge age skills fact is that Knowledge Age workers do not murder. Increase in the risk of collectively funded assassination would be a great incentive to be anonymous and to not be a public figure, thus another restraint on corrupt governance and overpaid actors and sports stars which are a moral turpentine on society ("let them eat cake" or "feed them bread and circus" to keep their minds preoccupied).
Note I believe IRON LAW of Political Economics can't coexist with the Knowledge Age, because remember my thesis is that knowledge isn't fungible and can't be financed, thus it really can't be centralized and controlled and thus the government must eradicate the Knowledge Age if the government is to survive. In short, there is war ahead and only one side can survive. If the government wins, humanity loses.
| [2] | http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/13/defeating-the-business-cycle-a-goal-for-thousands-of-years/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/01/what-socialism-destroyed-govt-shutdown/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/11/socialism-at-its-best-how-to-destroy-the-wealth-of-a-nation/ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg9910747#msg9910747 (Western civilization destroyed by trying to enforce gender equality) http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4934 (The true meaning of moral panics) http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/03/04/5-ways-feminism-has-ruined-america http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3567 (What privilege means to me) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg5916097#msg5916097 (Banning both breathing and death) |
Ask yourself this question. If everyone in the world was suddenly gifted with your current understanding of fiat, cryptocurrency, socialism and its dangers would you want anonymity in a world currency? The answer in my opinion is no.
I entirely disagree. I would still want anonymity because it provides the correct incentives for the game theory of society, as I enumerated above. Never should the game theory be based around personalities, but rather based on actual deeds which has nothing to do with identity. I view this very mathematically. Thanks for calling me out to explain my philosophy so it is available in the public record.
In such a admittedly very unrealistic scenario there would be no need for anonymity as the populace would vote to dismantle the foundations of fiat based socialism. There would be no justification for facilitating the aberrant social behavior that unbreakable anonymity helps hide.
Now obviously that is a completely unrealistic scenario. However, I believe it demonstrates why the long term solution to this problem is education and where that fails natural selection. Anonymity is a useful means to protect individuals until society progresses to the point where it can be safely set aside.
Now obviously that is a completely unrealistic scenario. However, I believe it demonstrates why the long term solution to this problem is education and where that fails natural selection. Anonymity is a useful means to protect individuals until society progresses to the point where it can be safely set aside.
Not only unrealistic, but uniformed about the real game theory of society. Also society can't vote anonymity out of existence. Nothing can stop anonymity unless it is technologically possible for a central authority to squelch it. See below...
Internet anonymity is nothing like burying gold coins. It doesn't have to be cumbersome nor cost more (but there is a lot of programming work that needs to be done to make it so). It doesn't have to decline the velocity of money and can in fact increase the velocity which has been collapsing, by providing an outlet for the private sector to grow and interrupt without the oppression of the State.
Perhaps but this has yet to be proven. Certainly nothing that exists today meets this criteria. The state is likely to come down hard on an anonymous cryptocurrency if it starts to gain traction. That alone will increase the cost of using it.
This is the big open question. Even I am not sure how this will play out, but I will say do not entirely underestimate the power of the Knowledge Age. It is possible we can render the government's power quite impotent. For example, if the government wants to pay footsy with internet kill switches and packet filtering, we can switch to P2P mesh networks of WiFi routers and stenography. Also if the Knowledge Age is more profitable for people than the collapsing socialism which becomes draconian, then the majority of people walk away from the government (withdraw their support for its authority) and walk to anonymity and the Knowledge Age. It could be like the fall of the Berlin Wall, one day the government realizes they've lost and it falls peacefully in tidal wave action.
That is my grand hope.
| http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb300/20100525/Little-White-Church-Hill-1550025.jpg | My simple dream; what is all my babble really about? I envision local, townhall direct hands on government (where you know every body within your Dunbar number limit) will be the surviving and thriving form of limited government that I envision will be enabled and sustained by the paradigm I promoted in my prior 3 posts. This will be the like the warm feeling of the little white Baptist church on the hill in Alabama where I sang songs of contentment and faith with my extended relatives who were farmers. I visualize closer communities and stronger interpersonal relationships. I view happier and more socially engaged families. I visualize we can return to communities while still interacting internationally via the internet for maximum division-of-labor and human prosperity. I can dream can't I? |
