Re: BCH finally hit the fan
> Besides, you already have general prediction markets already > What are your thoughts on that? There are a great many games out there, more and more everyday (as open tech rightly hath no pause itself), many of which many fail to understand. Play on, merrily, my friends and fiends.
Re: Assasination Politics - Frequently Asked Questions
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018, 3:12:44 PM PST, juan wrote: > I think the question/answer format could be useful here to highlight the more serious 'issues' with AP and the overall workings of the system. So off the top of my head, here are two questions: > 1) wouldn't the rich and powerful use AP against honest people? There is nothing inherent about the AP system that would prevent anyone (with even a small amount of money) from using it against anybody else. But I anticipated that AP would have organizations (possibly many of them) which would each have their own individual policies, in competition with each other. Long ago (in my AP essay) I pointed out that if _I_ ran an AP-type organization, I would (at least initially, until it had brought down all governments) have a policy to refuse any 'contracts' except for people who have violated the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle). But even that policy would initially have to be further restricted, because somebody ought to decide who was 'worthy' of being targeted, and who isn't 'worthy'. There would ideally be some fact-finding that would have to be done. (analogous to today's juries in criminal trials.) I wouldn't put myself in the position of needing to decide complex questions. Without a jury system, an AP system cannot fully substitute itself for today's criminal justice system. Thus, an AP organization that _I_ run (if I ran one...) would initially only take contracts/bets against people who are, or were, government employees. The reason is that generally, it wouldn't take a jury to decide the simple question of whether that person did or had worked for government. Eventually, when governments have been destroyed, it will be useful to set up court-like proceedings, somewhat analogous to today's criminal courts, to decide questions of whether a given person violated another person and his rights. But unlike existing courts, and juries, these new courts will be VOLUNTARY. At least, "voluntary" in the sense that a defendant would probably prefer to have an opportunity to defend himself, rather than merely being "donated to death". Notice, however, that while that might be MY policy for MY hypothetical AP organization, there is essentially nothing I could do (despite having been the author of the AP essay) about somebody else running a different AP organization, with its own chosen policies. You could imagine somebody else running a different AP organization with different scruples. Imagine one that would take any contract, against anyone. Which organization would survive and prosper? I have argued that MY hypothetical organization, targeting only people who have arguably violated NAP, would be cheaper than the other. I assert that potential assassins would be willing to work for less if they knew their targets deserved that targeting. And, there would be less competition for contracts against possibly-innocent targets, and as we all know, competition tends to reduce prices. So, the system would tend to deter unjustified killing. Unjustified killing would cost more, and (I hope) many fewer people would want to pay for it. I have argued, therefore, that there would be market pressure to make the targeting of "innocent" people difficult and expensive, compared to the targeting of "guilty" people which will become easier and cheaper. " 2) wouldn't AP be used to lynch people that the mob dislikes? Say, black people in places with a majority of trump voters. " Before I had written and published the first part of my AP essay, I anticipated that once such a system started, it might actually be somewhat dangerous to be a "famous" person. (But I don't recall actually stating this in the essay; I need to go back and remind myself what I wrote!) At least, it would be far safer to be essentially unknown. And, other people since then have thought of the same possibility. Today, you can have an actor who is famous for playing villains. What happens in an AP-operating world, where people (including somewhat mentally-unstable people) think of this actor as being a 'bad guy'? One partial answer might simply be: Actors who play 'bad guys' will probably have to be paid more, to compensate them for their risk! But of course, once most or possibly all AP-organizations employ 'juries' to limit the people who are ultimately targeted, it should be difficult to find an AP organization that would accept those contracts...unless that actor truly was a 'bad guy'!!! Jim Bell
Assasination Politics - Frequently Asked Questions
I think the question/answer format could be useful here to highlight the more serious 'issues' with AP and the overall workings of the system. So off the top of my head, here are two questions: 1) wouldn't the rich and powerful use AP against honest people? 2) wouldn't AP be used to lynch people that the mob dislikes? Say, black people in places with a majority of trump voters. (feel free to rephrase my questions in proper english =P )
Re: BCH finally hit the fan
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 19:58:38 + (UTC) jim bell wrote, replying to gmkarl > And what speech occurs can > probably be made anonymous. How would "the rich" target their "enemies" if > they cannot identify them? > Jim, you are taking anonimity for granted it seems, but in reality the current system is a surveillance state and it gets worse by the day. > > I still don't understand how you expect "the rich" to know who their enemies > are. It's hard to target what you can't identify. Except we live in a global surveillance state. > > Rather than the AP server running at one specific, hidden location, under > Augur and Ethereum, AP will run 'everywhere', potentially on hundreds of > thousands or even millions of computers. It would be pointless to try to > take thousands or even tens of thousands of computers offline. That's a good point. After all, the key property of things like bitcoin and ethereum is that they are 'permisionless' or 'censorship resistant' gmkarl >> AP itself provides a method to exercise power secretly. People with >> more money can put bigger prices on their opponents' heads. > > You keep ignoring the question: How do people know who "their enemies" > actually are? Or you keep ignoring the fact that we don't have anonimity at all. Under the current system, the government and the corporations that reason.com love so much have complete control over the communications infrastructure. The way to fix that is to overthrow govcorp...but in order to attack them using AP we need anonimity. So unless you can destroy govcorp you won't get anonimity, but you need anonimity to destroy govcorp. Seems problematic. > > That's a good reason to want to weaken governments. I think governments, at > most, should only be asked to do what must be done collectively, even where > they do that. as a side note, what you said is the standard 'justification' for complete communism or any other form of totalitarianism. Because of course the phrase "what must be done collectively" is meanignless and can cover anything and everything any particular social engineer likes.
Re: Documentary: Stateless - Anarchy Emigrates by Todd Schramke
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 5:37 AM, grarpamp wrote: > > > These guys are a joke, trying to capitilize on anarchy to push forward > > > their own agentas. I am disgusted. > > > Is there any transparency > > Anarchism is free to capitalize, agenda, critique, and disclose. I guess it really is. I shouldn't be amazed that people can be deceptive, despisable, or any other characterization you can think of, no matter their political orientation. I got a glimpse of it during my visit in Acapulco, it's only now that I am starting to realize the world. Excuse my ignorance.
Re: BCH finally hit the fan
You fail to understand that society is not comprised only by rational actors and is more complex than a simple if-else statement. Adding one more thing to spread fear and death is redundant. On a massive scale this ends up being at best a PR disaster for the people backing it up. Besides, you already have general prediction markets already out there working like Augur as I mentioned earlier. What are your thoughts on that? ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 6:47 AM, grarpamp wrote: > > creating a tool to murder people > > No. > > AP is really only invoked as legitimate defensive action > to aggression, as would any other existing and well > calibrated natural response to same. > > Most fail to recognize the important early mechanism of AP... > that well before such defensive measures need or are ever > applied, before any exact prediction is made, an AP system > properly acts in its native form as a strong and escalating > discouragement to those considering or acting out various > levels of aggression, theft, force, murder, etc upon others. > > Simply put, any would be aggressor would be crazy > to risk continuing down a course of action that might > attract any number of rational funders and predictors > into the market. > > For the vast majority of situations, the very few proof > of functions warranted upon defense aside, > AP could be a rather effective and in fact nonviolent > tool for change for the better > > Two other often noted scenarios are... > > - Boss equivalents playing game of Mutual Assured Destruction > among themselves... often a generally pointless expense to begin with. > > - Random statistical noise of cheap / easy predictions accepted by > nutbags, crack addicts, oppurtunity, fame, etc. That's the game called > life, no different than all of history, AP is agnostic and moot there. > Try funding predictions for mental and physical healthcare, work, > housing, defense, whatever, to lower those rates of occurance. >
Re: BCH finally hit the fan
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, December 17, 2018 8:58 PM, jim bell wrote: > Furrier: > > You show your biases when you say "creating a tool to murder people". > Arguably, the AP as a new tool (as I foresee it) would also allow people to > defend themselves from aggression, and I define "aggression" to include being > victimized by governments. > Most weapons can be misused. A gun can protect, but yes, it also can murder. > Or, you can also accidently drop it, on rare occasions it will fire, and the > bullet might go through a flimsy apartment-complex wall and strike somebody > next door. Does that make entirely illegitimate the concept of a gun? You > seem to think so, that merely because a weapon can be used to 'murder', there > is something inherently wrong in making and using it for self-defense. Don't dilute my message. I am not against protecting private property. AP is not that kind of a tool. > And while you go on to concede that 'the government' causes problems, you > don't say how to eliminate government. I, at least, claim a system that > seems to have the ability to do so. At least, plenty of people have had the > ability to consider the matter, and nobody that I'm aware of has proposed > that an AP-type system couldn't be implemented that could stop current > governments. At least, not since about 2002 when a guy named Bob Murphy made > a stab at it. That's 16 years. > http://www.anti-state.com/the-politics-of-destruction/Also, see: > https://libertarianinstitute.org/blog/can-libertarian-society-provide-national-defense/ > × "human-respecting tools and systems, that are also voluntary, decentralized, censorship-resistant, and provide utility to everyone with as fair access as possible." > You said, "If you want to change the world, create first and foremost > human-respecting tools and systems". > > Fine words. Can you be more specific? You went on to say, Tools that do not harm others physically or mentally. Tools that have as low social cost as possible while providing real utility (not Brave New World-style utility). > "that are also voluntary, decentralized, censorship-resistant, and provide > utility to everyone with as fair access as possible." > > The version of AP I've long advocated would have those characteristics, I > believe. With the one exception that AP wouldn't be "voluntary" to those it > will eventually target, but for a good reason: They will be the ones who > have been aggressing against the rest of us. It could be said, however, that > even AP would be "voluntary" those those people too: They will have the > choice to stop aggressing against the rest of us. Stop, and live. Don't > stop, and die. Human-respecting and voluntary are the most basic aspects of the tools I am advocating for really. > Show us a flaw in an AP-type system, one that appears not to be able to be > fixed, and you will make a major name for yourself. Or, design a system to > get rid of today's governments, and people will remember your name forever. I don't need to. AP is flawed by design and it's never going to be implemented (at best you get something like Augur). > On Sunday, December 16, 2018, 1:52:20 PM PST, furrier > wrote: > > Your idea sucks because creating a tool to murder people is not adding > anything new to the picture. We already have it and it's called "the > goverment". Like any other violence-provocative tool that fits the status > quo, the more powerful people are going to take control of it and use it for > their own purposes more effectively that you will. > > If you want to change the world, create first and foremost human-respecting > tools and systems, that are also voluntary, decentralized, > censorship-resistant, and provide utility to everyone with as fair access as > possible. You wouldn't know but some cryptocurrencies fit as example. > Community initiatives around the world that are based within the community > and seek alternative ways to reach consensus about things and live a > respecting life are moving along those lines. > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 11:05 PM, jim bell wrote: > >> Any answer from Karl or Furrier? >> >> Naturally, I'm genuinely interested to find out if my AP idea has any flaws. >> Many people could say, and no doubt many of them have said, 'I just don't >> LIKE your AP idea, Jim!'. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Or that >> it isn't necessary. >> >> A person could really make a name for himself if: >> >> 1) He figured out a distinct flaw in the AP idea, such that it wouldn't >> work.. >> >> >> OR >> >> 2) He figured out a solution that would make AP unnecessary. >> >> Has anybody done this? I haven't seen it. >> >>Jim Bell >> >> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, 5:52:45 PM PST, jim bell >> wrote:
Re: Last letter from Tim May
On 18/12/2018 11:27, juan wrote: CoinDesk asked cypherpunk legend Timothy May, author of the “Crypto Anarchist Manifesto,” to write his thoughts on the bitcoin white paper on its 10th anniversary. https://www.coindesk.com/enough-with-the-ico-me-so-horny-get-rich-quick-lambo-crypto Great stuff, and as ever, a huge inspiration for my work. Crypto currency is an unfinished revolution, and I hope to finish it.
Re: Tim May (fwd)
On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 01:22:04PM -0400, Robert Hettinga wrote: > Give ’em hell, Tim, wherever you are. > RIP Tim. I didn't know you. There might be something true in the folklore that one isn't entirely dead while the alive crowd remembers them.
