Re: [silk] (no subject)
On 06/20/2011 11:26 AM, Anand Manikutty wrote: I completely agree. If anyone has something to say on this subject, now would be a good time. :) Bharath
Re: [silk] (no subject)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Anand Manikutty manikuttyan...@yahoo.comwrote: Sorry I disagree. Here is what I think:
Re: [silk] (no subject)
Is john cage on silk? -- srs (blackberry) -Original Message- From: Mahesh Murthy mahesh.mur...@gmail.com Sender: silklist-bounces+suresh=hserus@lists.hserus.net Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:33:26 To: silklist@lists.hserus.net Reply-To: silklist@lists.hserus.net Subject: Re: [silk] (no subject) On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Anand Manikutty manikuttyan...@yahoo.comwrote: Sorry I disagree. Here is what I think:
Re: [silk] Anyone in Berlin?
Hey Dnesh! Bernhard and me are there at the 29th! Dont know if you know us still we could have a drink maybe :-) cheers Eva Am 17.06.2011 17:29, schrieb Dinesh Venkateswaran: Dear All, Me lurker is unlurking to ask if anyone on silklist is in Berlin between 29 june - 2 july? I am there for the open knowledge conference, and would be glad to meet any of you that might be there. Thank you. Dinesh
Re: [silk] (no subject)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Mahesh Murthy mahesh.mur...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Anand Manikutty manikuttyan...@yahoo.com wrote: Sorry I disagree. Here is what I think: blank pun
Re: [silk] Anyone in Berlin?
Hi Eva, thanks, looking forward to meeting you both. I shall get to know you then :) Dinesh On 20 Jun 2011, at 08:19, Eva Jansen jansen@web.de wrote: Hey Dnesh! Bernhard and me are there at the 29th! Dont know if you know us still we could have a drink maybe :-) cheers Eva Am 17.06.2011 17:29, schrieb Dinesh Venkateswaran: Dear All, Me lurker is unlurking to ask if anyone on silklist is in Berlin between 29 june - 2 july? I am there for the open knowledge conference, and would be glad to meet any of you that might be there. Thank you. Dinesh
Re: [silk] (no subject)
On Monday 20 June 2011 12:20 PM, Bharath Chari wrote: On 06/20/2011 11:26 AM, Anand Manikutty wrote: I completely agree. If anyone has something to say on this subject, now would be a good time.
Re: [silk] (no subject)
On Monday 20 June 2011 01:37 PM, Biju Chacko wrote: blank pun LOS !
Re: [silk] (no subject)
On Monday 20 June 2011 12:40 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Is john cage on silk? Was. Now collecting mushrooms.
Re: [silk] (no subject)
On 20 June 2011 13:37, Biju Chacko biju.cha...@gmail.com wrote: blank pun My response is on this mailing list:
Re: [silk] Bitcoin
Charles, On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Jon Cox j...@experiments.com wrote: Currencies are consensual belief systems. ? ?No they are not. ? ? ? In the USA, I *must* pay taxes in USD, ? ? ? not Bitcoins, regardless of my level ? ? ? of belief or consent in either. ? I only took issue with the word consensual. They're still consensual. I don't have to use Hungarian Forints, no matter what Hungary says. Only if I want to do business with Hungary do I have to use Forints. Similarly you could decide to only accept transactions in Bitcoins, and that would be consensual as well. Consent implies an non-extorted assent. Jail is used to extort the use of USD for certain purposes. Consider the following: Q: Did you rape this woman at gunpoint? A: No. It was consensual sex. She agreed to it. Q: Did you threaten to shoot her if she did not comply? A: Yes. Q: And you call that consensual sex? A: Yes, she agreed to it. Defining consent as any form of assent, whether extortion is present or not, strains the common meaning of the term to the point of absurdity. Even more, as long as currencies are fungible (albeit with friction) you can accept only Bitcoins, Hungary can accept only Forints and you can still transact business. That statement has no bearing on the issue of consent. There is no problem with Bitcoins - as long as someone is willing to make a market in them in some other convertible currency (but there's the rub.) Yes, there are plenty of problems with Bitcoins, both in the abstract and its implementation. Some of Bitcoin's flaws are shared by other currencies. Others are particular to Bitcoin. Want an example? Ok, check out the recent crash in Bitcoin's value: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrikj7fy4MU http://venturebeat.com/2011/06/19/popular-bitcoin-exchange-mt-gox-hacked-prices-drop-to-pennies/ http://leanback.eu/bitcoin/plots/20110619195756-mtgox.png Yes, the value of Bitcoins crashed from $17.50 down to $ 0.01 in the span of about 5 minutes yesterday, and though people were allowed to buy at $0.01, they probably won't be able to cash out, because Bitcoin just announced a rollback. A rather timely illustration, wouldn't you say? ;) Bitcoin has its share of unique issues and missed opportunities. Criticism of it is not automatically trolling, nor does it necessarily imply a lack of understanding of Bitcoin itself, or the nature of fiat currencies/barter in general. If you're interested in learning about Fed for the sake making informed comparisons to other currencies, I'd recommend: Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (by William Greider). It's a slog in some places, but a very good book overall. The level of scholarship documentation provided is impressive. Cheers, -Jon
Re: [silk] Bitcoin
On 06/20/11 17:59, Jon Cox wrote: Yes, the value of Bitcoins crashed from $17.50 down to $ 0.01 in the span of about 5 minutes yesterday, and though people were allowed to buy at $0.01, they probably won't be able to cash out, because Bitcoin just announced a rollback. A rather timely illustration, wouldn't you say? ;) That wasn't Bitcoin itself, just mtgox, the biggest exchange. Somebody hacked an account and sold a heap of bitcoins at a negligble price, so the exchange froze itself before the USD were actually cashed out and is resetting to the state before the exploit... There's been a few bitcoin heists, down to the usual computer security issues; bitcoin itself has, interestingly, remained unbroken, which bodes well for its underlying security. The mtgox heist could have happened just as well with any online banking system; it's just that the bitcoin economy rather new, so there's lots of little bit players suddenly finding themselves transferring hundreds of thousands of dollars without having the expertise or capital to build the kinds of security that banks do... ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/
Re: [silk] Bitcoin
Alaric, * Alaric Snell-Pym (ala...@snell-pym.org.uk) [110620 11:29]: On 06/20/11 17:59, Jon Cox wrote: Yes, the value of Bitcoins crashed from $17.50 down to $ 0.01 in the span of about 5 minutes yesterday, and though people were allowed to buy at $0.01, they probably won't be able to cash out, because Bitcoin just announced a rollback. A rather timely illustration, wouldn't you say? ;) That wasn't Bitcoin itself, just mtgox, the biggest exchange. Somebody hacked an account and sold a heap of bitcoins at a negligble price, so the exchange froze itself before the USD were actually cashed out and is resetting to the state before the exploit... Hold on a moment. Because 100% of the worth of a Bitcoin is in its gamed network value (it has zero intrinsic local value), special importance is placed on faith its real-world institutions. Saying that it was just mtgox sounds absurd. They are the largest Bitcoin exchange. The vulnerability to a compromise like this was only made possible due to an absolutely stunning level of operational negligence and/or incompetence: Rather than using 2-factor security, Mt. Gox went with one of the most idiotic security choices of all: non-salted MD5 passwords. The result? 2300+ passwords were cracked in 24 hours on an old Pentium server. Enjoy:https://uloadr.com/u/8C.txt Bitcoin is therefore a 100% faith-based immature currency with full code transparency but almost no institutional transparency or independent auditing. That's a recipe for trouble. An institutional problem like the one at Mt Gox should not be able to crash the currency from $17.50 down to $ 0.01 in 5 min, then put the people who *do* buy in a state of uncertainty. All bets are that those who bought at $0.01 probably won't be able to cash out because of the rollback. A currency is more than the bits. A currency is also its institutions. So now, how will the people who bought at $0.01 be treated? Will it be considered legal in all jurisdictions in question? On and on. That's my point. There's been a few bitcoin heists, down to the usual computer security issues; bitcoin itself has, interestingly, remained unbroken, which bodes well for its underlying security. The mtgox heist could have happened just as well with any online banking system; it's just that the bitcoin economy rather new, so there's lots of little bit players suddenly finding themselves transferring hundreds of thousands of dollars without having the expertise or capital to build the kinds of security that banks do... The issue is what *happens* when such theft occurs, not that it *can* occur. Of course currency *can* be stolen. Of course servers *can* be hacked. That should not not cause a currency collapse and/or leave people dangling in an uncertain state who bought between the collapse and the rollback. All currencies are systems; they need to be analyzed from a systems perspective, or else you'll wind up like one of those poor people holding Bitcoins: $17.50 to %0.01 in 5 minutes. This is what I mean when I say: a currency is also its institutions. -Jon
Re: [silk] Anyone in Berlin?
Hi Dinesh, I've been being very lurkish myself, mainly because i am saving my brilliance for later - i'd like some understanding on that point. I'll be in Berlin on the 29th of June. if u have some time during the day then, I'd love to meet up and meet another lurker. don't know if the open knowledge conference is also open for everyone but that would seem logical - perhaps i can simply meet you there. you can reach me at troubadou...@hotmail.com for practicalities. Grtz, Wilfried Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:29:01 +0100 From: dinesh.mad...@gmail.com To: silklist@lists.hserus.net Subject: [silk] Anyone in Berlin? Dear All, Me lurker is unlurking to ask if anyone on silklist is in Berlin between 29 june - 2 july? I am there for the open knowledge conference, and would be glad to meet any of you that might be there. Thank you. Dinesh
Re: [silk] Anyone in Berlin?
On 20 Jun 2011, at 21:42, voornaam achternaam troubadou...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Dinesh, I've been being very lurkish myself, mainly because i am saving my brilliance for later - i'd like some understanding on that point. I'll be in Berlin on the 29th of June. if u have some time during the day then, I'd love to meet up and meet another lurker. don't know if the open knowledge conference is also open for everyone but that would seem logical - perhaps i can simply meet you there. you can reach me at troubadou...@hotmail.com for practicalities. Grtz, Wilfried Announcing the Silklist Lurkers meet at Berlin, 29 June 2011. Wilfried, you got to register at okcon.org to attend the conference. We can meet up in the evening anyway. My number is +44 754 052 4436. Thanks Dinesh Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:29:01 +0100 From: dinesh.mad...@gmail.com To: silklist@lists.hserus.net Subject: [silk] Anyone in Berlin? Dear All, Me lurker is unlurking to ask if anyone on silklist is in Berlin between 29 june - 2 july? I am there for the open knowledge conference, and would be glad to meet any of you that might be there. Thank you. Dinesh
Re: [silk] Bitcoin
On 20-Jun-11 10:29 PM, Jon Cox wrote: They're still consensual. I don't have to use Hungarian Forints, no matter what Hungary says. Only if I want to do business with Hungary do I have to use Forints. Similarly you could decide to only accept transactions in Bitcoins, and that would be consensual as well. Consent implies an non-extorted assent. Jail is used to extort the use of USD for certain purposes. Consider the following: Q: Did you rape this woman at gunpoint? A: No. It was consensual sex. She agreed to it. Q: Did you threaten to shoot her if she did not comply? A: Yes. Q: And you call that consensual sex? A: Yes, she agreed to it. Defining consent as any form of assent, whether extortion is present or not, strains the common meaning of the term to the point of absurdity. Jon, You're confusing what 'consent' means in this context. The 'consent' in the term 'consensual belief system' as applied to currency systems like bitcoin or the USD implies 'assent that this exists'; and NOT 'assent to use this'. i.e, the USD exists because two parties to a transaction agree that it exists - whether the use of this particular currency is enforced or not. Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Bitcoin
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Jon Cox j...@experiments.com wrote: They're still consensual. I don't have to use Hungarian Forints, no matter what Hungary says. Only if I want to do business with Hungary do I have to use Forints. Similarly you could decide to only accept transactions in Bitcoins, and that would be consensual as well. Consent implies an non-extorted assent. Jail is used to extort the use of USD for certain purposes. For certain purposes aka Doctor it hurts Forints are required for certain purposes as well, and yet I am not compelled to use Forints for anything at all. Now I would agree that there is a problem with the market in governments in that coercive governments have a monopoly but that is not fundamentally a problem with their currencies. Neither you nor I are *required* to use USD at all. The fact that the US Government requires transactions with it to be in USD is no more or less coercive than you requiring any transactions with you being in BitCoins. If you don't want to use USD, don't transact with the US Government (i.e. move out of the US and stop doing business with it.) If I don't want to use BitCoins, I won't do business with you. -- Charles
Re: [silk] Bitcoin
Udhay, Consent implies an non-extorted assent. Jail is used to extort the use of USD for certain purposes. Consider the following: Q: Did you rape this woman at gunpoint? A: No. It was consensual sex. She agreed to it. Q: Did you threaten to shoot her if she did not comply? A: Yes. Q: And you call that consensual sex? A: Yes, she agreed to it. Defining consent as any form of assent, whether extortion is present or not, strains the common meaning of the term to the point of absurdity. You're confusing what 'consent' means in this context. The 'consent' in the term 'consensual belief system' as applied to currency systems like bitcoin or the USD implies 'assent that this exists'; and NOT 'assent to use this'. i.e, the USD exists because two parties to a transaction agree that it exists - whether the use of this particular currency is enforced or not. I think you're using consensual in a very different way than it was in the original post. Consider the quoted statements below: I don't have to use Hungarian Forints, no matter what Hungary says. Clearly, I am only as free to not use Forints as I am free to not do business with Hungary. Hence, I might be compelled to use Forints against my will as surely as a person might be raped. Only if I want to do business with Hungary do I have to use Forints. If I must do business with Hungary, then I am not free to avoid the use of Forints. The meaning of consensual here is tied directly to a decision regarding whether or not to engage in doing business with other party (Hungary). Similarly you could decide to only accept transactions in Bitcoins, and that would be consensual as well. By talking about what I decide to do (or not do), and relating that directly to a concept of what the word consensual means, it is clear that the word consensual means assent to use, not assent it exists in this context. That is the reason why I objected to it in the first place. Clearly a currency does not depend upon any freely given assent to use it. Seignorage is big business, and monetary arm-twisting is commonplace. The so-called agreements made between many developing countries and the IMF, for example, are often just about as consensual as the forcible rape described in my first example: scary organ music awful rumbling noise Haiti: Help! IMF: Oh look, you just had a natural disaster! Haiti: Help! IMF: Want some money, my desperate little friends? Haiti: Help! IMF: OK Sign on the dotted line. :) scary organ music builds Haiti: Help! Haiti: Help! Haiti: Help! crescendo!!! IMF: Sign! IMF: Your people are dying. Better sign quickly lights dim Haiti: Help! Haiti: Help! fade to black -Jon
Re: [silk] Bitcoin
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Jon Cox j...@experiments.com wrote: You're confusing what 'consent' means in this context. The 'consent' in the term 'consensual belief system' as applied to currency systems like bitcoin or the USD implies 'assent that this exists'; and NOT 'assent to use this'. i.e, the USD exists because two parties to a transaction agree that it exists - whether the use of this particular currency is enforced or not. I think you're using consensual in a very different way than it was in the original post. No, Udhay is using it in the sense of the original post (and quoted from it.) I am using it in a different sense. :) I don't have to use Hungarian Forints, no matter what Hungary says. Clearly, I am only as free to not use Forints as I am free to not do business with Hungary. Correct. Assume for the moment that you do not believe in forints in the sense Udhay is using. You believe they are fictitious, with no real value. So you won't (voluntarily) do business in them or with them. Hungary on the other hand does believe in them and will only do business using them. So you are exactly correct. You are only as free not to use forints as you are free to not do business with Hungary. Which, as far as I can tell, is completely. No one is compelling you to do business with Hungary. Hence, I might be compelled to use Forints against my will as surely as a person might be raped. Even if forints were a completely consensual currency, you could be forced to use them. You can be forced to use BitCoins, or barter, in exactly the same way. Your argument does not address the consensuality (in either sense) of the currency. If I force you to use GNU at gunpoint does that make GNU un-free? No. It makes me a thug. Are you claiming no one would use USD, Forints, or BitCoins if they weren't forced to? That's prima-facie untrue given the popularity of the USD in transactions that not only don't involve the US Government, but are voluntary consensual transactions between freely consenting individuals with a choice of currencies or barter. -- Charles
Re: [silk] (no subject)
On 20-06-2011 11:26, Anand Manikutty wrote: I took a few days to think over it, and I have to agree with you. Truer words were never spoken. -- Madhu Menon http://twitter.com/madmanweb MCorp Hospitality Consulting: http://mcorphospitality.com
Re: [silk] Bitcoin
Charles, Now I would agree that there is a problem with the market in governments in that coercive governments have a monopoly but that is not fundamentally a problem with their currencies. Well, it's not a problem for those who can print it, that's for sure! Well not the short medium term anyway. It is a problem for the remainder of us because it creates a power structure that is designed to concentrate the ownership of real assets into the hands of a small club of oligarchical despots via their self-serving monetary policy. As the saying goes: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. We all remember the no-strings bank bailout, right? Well, that happened precisely because of fundamental structural problems in our money creation system. There's no way around that. Neither you nor I are *required* to use USD at all. The fact that the US Government requires transactions with it to be in USD is no more or less coercive than you requiring any transactions with you being in BitCoins. If you don't want to use USD, don't transact with the US Government (i.e. move out of the US and stop doing business with it.) If I don't want to use BitCoins, I won't do business with you. If you're suggesting that I *could* abandon my elderly relatives who can't travel in order to not do business with the US Government, and that my failure to do so represents an a non-coerced choice to use USD, then I invite you to visit the nearest rape crisis center and explain to someone who had a knife pointed at her that she actually had consensual sex. I mean, she could have taken the gash across her throat, ey? Well then, why not go for it? Hmm? Thought so. The position you're staking out here is only defensible by adopting positions in a theoretical argument that you'd never implement in the real world. I think that's kind of silly. Well anyway, good luck on that field trip! :) Cheers, -Jon
Re: [silk] (no subject)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Anand Manikutty manikuttyan...@yahoo.comwrote: How weird, same thing happened to me. Here are the pictures:
Re: [silk] Bitcoin
Charles, No, Udhay is using it in the sense of the original post (and quoted from it.) I am using it in a different sense. :) Ok. It was ambiguous in Eugen's post which sense of the word was intended, but from yours, as quoted by Udhay, it was. I don't have to use Hungarian Forints, no matter what Hungary says. ? Clearly, I am only as free to not use Forints ? as I am free to not do business with Hungary. Correct. Assume for the moment that you do not believe in forints in the sense Udhay is using. You believe they are fictitious, with no real value. So you won't (voluntarily) do business in them or with them. Hungary on the other hand does believe in them and will only do business using them. So you are exactly correct. You are only as free not to use forints as you are free to not do business with Hungary. Which, as far as I can tell, is completely. No one is compelling you to do business with Hungary. You have granted that there could be some country X, using some currency Y, that compels me to do business with them. That is enough. ? Hence, I might be compelled to use Forints against my will ? as surely as a person might be raped. Even if forints were a completely consensual currency, you could be forced to use them. You can be forced to use BitCoins, or barter, in exactly the same way. Your argument does not address the consensuality (in either sense) of the currency. If I force you to use GNU at gunpoint does that make GNU un-free? No. It makes me a thug. Well that, and it also makes my use of GNU in that case non-consensual. All I'm pointing out is that the use of a particular currency need not be consensual. It may be coerced. I'm concerned that this discussion is little more than a Clang Bird now, and that soon it will fly up its own backside. Are you claiming no one would use USD, Forints, or BitCoins if they weren't forced to? No. I am saying that some people some of the time might not wish to use these currencies. Nothing I've said would indicate that I believed that no people would ever wish to use them. The question seems like it's designed to set up a strawman and knock it down. That's an utterly pointless exercise. That's prima-facie untrue given the popularity of the USD in transactions that not only don't involve the US Government, but are voluntary consensual transactions between freely consenting individuals with a choice of currencies or barter. Of course. I have to say, I was hoping for a bit more of an in-depth conversation about currency, barter, systems-level analysis, Petri nets, seigniorage, arbitrage, webs of trust, distributed commit, security, fractional reserve, commodity proxies, prioritized transactions, the IMF, game theory, and so forth. It's nobody's fault but mine. I kept hoping it would turn into something more substantial than word-quibbles and sophistry, so I kept going when I should have really given up long ago. Well, now I have. Wrong door. Sorry. -Jon
Re: [silk] (no subject)
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Amit Varma amitbl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Anand Manikutty manikuttyan...@yahoo.com wrote: How weird, same thing happened to me. Here are the pictures: Sorry to go off on a tangent, but:
