Hi Jim Bell, I sent you a message some time ago when I heard about this idea, but I didn't get a reply.
If you receive this e-mail, this is my misunderstanding: As it offers a market, doesn't AP give life-and-death power to those with the most money? Wouldn't this provide for the set of people with the most money to bend power more and more towards themselves, eventually producing a situation where a few select people control the many? Personally, I support cryptocurrency, but I foremost support power to be given to those with good _reasons_, rather than strong _financial_ resources, and systems to be put into place allowing these reasons to be discussed without censorship. Thanks, Karl On 12/11/18, jim bell <[email protected]> wrote: > furrier <[email protected]> > Furrier: > I notice that you haven't responded to my comment. Do you not have any > answer? You claim to not "agree" with me. If that were the case, you > should be able to explain why. > Why don't you think AP could work? What do you believe wouldn't work about > it? > Jim Bell > > On Sunday, December 9, 2018, 11:22:37 PM PST, jim bell > <[email protected]> wrote: > > [apparently the address for the CP list wasn't the one I normally use] > My comments inline: > > On Sunday, December 9, 2018, 3:23:09 PM PST, furrier > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >I watched you live both in Acapulco and Prague. I don't agree with you > and I don't understand how can people be so naive to think that AP > can actually work. > > Prior to the invention of the RSA encryption system (public-key) the vast > majority of the population would not have understood how such a thing could > work.Prior to the invention of the TOR system, the vast majority of the > population would not have understood how such a thing could work.Prior to > the invention of Bitcoin, the vast majority of the population would not have > understood how such a thing could work.Prior to the invention of Ethereum, > the vast majority of the population would not have understood how such a > thing could work. > But does the opinion of the public determine whether a given invention can > work? Your statement implies that the opinion of the masses is somehow > determinative of whether a technical advance should work. > Can you explain why you think that AP shouldn't work? Today? Your > position would have sounded plausible in 1995-96. Then, your technical > ignorance approximated virtually everyone else's. But a lot has happened > since then. > > > >I am against the whole idea > > I am fond of pointing out that governments killed about 250 million people > in the 20th century. See "Democide". > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide (although, the definition varies; > some people don't consider people killed in war to be victims of Democide. > I consider that position to be insanely foolish.) Were you against that? > If you were, how important do (or did) you think it was that this murder be > stopped? > If you agree that it was wrong that governments murdered 250 million people > in the 20th century, then it is inaccurate to say you are against the WHOLE > idea of AP. Because most people seem to agree that if AP was implemented, > governments would no longer be able to kill people in such vast numbers, > ever again. Maybe your (confused) position is that you don't want > governments to kill people, but you cannot figure out how to stop that from > occurring. Well, you can't, but I can. Am I really wrong? > >>, it's the same thing as > cracking down on cryptocurrency > > You do not explain that connection. > > >or dark markets to fight terrorism. > > > You do not explain that connection. > >>If you want to fight terrorism > > That depends on the definition of "terrorism". The U.S government doesn't > define "terrorism" as mere random violence against innocents, but adds the > condition that the motivation of the terrorist is to change laws or > government, or both. But to the extent that terrorism attacks innocents, I > agree it is wrong. And must be stopped. > >> build a society where terrorism is mute. > > > How about building a tool that makes "terrorism" completely unnecessary. > Tim McVeigh didn't have a "magic bomb" which, when detonated, killed only > the top 30 government employees responsible for the Waco massacre, even > though they might have been hundreds of miles away from each other. Do you > think that if McVeigh HAD access to such a "magic bomb", he would have > preferred instead to destroy an entire building in Oklahoma city filled with > innocents and relative-innocents? I consider such a position preposterous, > and probably you'd agree as well. AP can be described as a "magic weapon" > that can be used to target precisely the actual problem-causers, with little > and probably no collateral damage. Please explain your precise objection to > implementing it as I advocate. > >>Similar, if you want to fight politicians, build a society where politics >> are > either mute or they don't affect our lives so much. Wake up people! > > > If you can explain how to do that, speak up. > I am reminded of a joke, where a comedian says he bought a book titled "How > to be a successful millionaire!". The first page of the book simply > contained the words, "First get a million dollars". > But how? > >
