Another male feminist gets accused of sexual assault. The kicker? he was the founder of Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook. The university that was recommended to braincels after the quarantine. (653 points, 283 comments)
A brief teardown of some of the flaws in the Lightning Network white paper
This post will perforce be quick and sloppy, because I have other things to do. But a recent comment provoked me to re-read the Lightning white paper to remind myself of the myriad flaws in it, so I decided to at least begin a debunking. When I first read the Lightning white paper back in early 2016, the sheer audacity of the author's preposterous claims and their failure to understand basic principles of the Satoshi paper just offended the living shit out of me. I presumed - incorrectly - that the Lightning paper would be soon torn to shreds through peer review. However Core was successful in suppressing peer review of the paper, and instead inserted Lighting as their end-all be-all scaling plan for Bitcoin. I'm sorry I didn't post this in 2016, but better later than never. Let's start with the abstract.
The bitcoin protocol can encompass the global financial transaction volume in all electronic payment systems today, without a single custodial third party holding funds or requiring participants to have anything more than a computer using a broadband connection.
Well now, that's an awfully gigantic claim for someone that hasn't even written a single line of code as a proof of concept don't you think? This is what's called "overpromising," the Nirvana fallacy, or more appropriately, "vaporware" - that is to say, a pie-in-the-sky software promise intended to derail progress on alternatives. In the very first sentence, the authors claim that they can scale Bitcoin to support every transaction that ever happens, from micropayments to multibillion dollar transfers, with no custodial risk, on a simple computer with nothing more than broadband. It will be perfect. Honestly everyone should have put the paper down at the first sentence, but let's go on.
A decentralized system is proposed
The authors claim that the system proposed is decentralized, but without even a single line of code (and indeed no solution to the problem they claim is the issue, more on that later) they have zero defense of this claim. In fact, the only known solution to the problem that Lightning cannot solve is centralized hubs. We'll get back to this.
whereby transactions are sent over a network of micropayment channels (a.k.a. payment channels or transaction channels) whose transfer of value occurs off-blockchain. If Bitcoin transactions can be signed with a new sighash type that addresses malleability, these transfers may occur between untrusted parties along the transfer route by contracts which, in the event of uncooperative or hostile participants, are enforceable via broadcast over the bitcoin blockchain in the event of uncooperative or hostile participants, through a series of decrementing timelocks
So right here in the abstract we have the promise: "support the entire world's transaction needs on a measly computer with just broadband, totally decentralized, and... (drum roll please) all that's missing is Segwit." Yeah right. Let's continue. First sentence of the paper itself reads:
The Bitcoin blockchain holds great promise for distributed ledgers, but the blockchain as a payment platform, by itself, cannot cover the world’s commerce anytime in the near future.
So the authors have constructed a false problem they claim to solve: scaling Bitcoin to cover every transaction on Earth. Now, that would be neato if it worked (it doesn't) but really, this is like Amerigo Vespucci claiming that the problem with boats is that the sails aren't big enough to carry it to the moon. We aren't ready for that part yet. . In infotech we have a saying, "crawl, walk, run." Lightning's authors are going to ignore "walking" and go from crawling to lightspeed. Using the logic of this first sentence, Visa never should have rolled out its original paper-based credit cards, because "obviously they can't scale to solve the whole world's financial needs." Again, your bullshit detector should be lighting up. Next sentence. So why can't Bitcoin cover all the world's financial transactions?
The blockchain is a gossip protocol whereby all state modifications to the ledger are broadcast to all participants. It is through this “gossip protocol” that consensus of the state, everyone’s balances, is agreed upon.
Got it. The problem is the "gossip protocol." That's bad because...
If each node in the bitcoin network must know about every single transaction that occurs globally, that may create a significant drag on the ability of the network to encompass all global financial transactions
OK. The problem with Bitcoin, according to the author, is that since every node must know the current state of the network, it won't scale. We'll get back to this bit later, because this is the crux: Lightning has the same problem, only worse. Now the authors take a break in the discussion to create a false premise surrounding the Visa network:
The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays, and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit. If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average. Continuously, that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year.
I'll just point out that Visa itself cannot sustain 47K tpscontinuously, as a reminder to everyone that the author is deliberately inflating numbers to make them seem more scary. Again, is your bullshit detector going off yet? Now we get to the hard-sell:
Clearly, achieving Visa-like capacity on the Bitcoin network isn’t feasible today.
So the author deliberately inflates Visa's capabilities then uses that to say clearly it just can't be done. But really, Visa's actual steady-state load can be accomplished in roughly 500MB blocks - which actually is feasible, or nearly so, today. 500MB every ten minutes is actually a small load of data for a decent-sized business. There are thousands of companies that could quite easily support such a load. And that's setting aside the point that we took 7 years to get to 1MB, so it's unlikely that we'll need 500X that capacity "in the near future" or "today" as the authors keep asserting.
No home computer in the world can operate with that kind of bandwidth and storage.
whoopsie!! Did he say, home computer?? Since when did ordinary Bitcoin users have to keep the whole blockchain on their home computers? Have the authors of the Lightning white paper ever read the Satoshi white paper, which explains that this is not the desired model in Section 8? Clearly the Lightning authors are expecting their readers to be ignorant of the intended design of the Bitcoin network. This is a classic example of inserting a statement that the reader is unlikely to challenge, which completely distorts the discussion. Almost nobody needs to run a fullnode on their home computer! Read the Satoshi paper!
If Bitcoin is to replace all electronic payments in the future, and not just Visa, it would result in outright collapse of the Bitcoin network
Really? Is that so? Isn't the real question how fast will Bitcoin reach these levels of adoption? Isn't the author simply making an assumption that adoption will outpace advances in hardware and software, based on using wildly inflated throughput numbers (47K tps) in the first place? But no, the author makes an unfounded, unsupportable, incorrect blanket assertion that -- even in the future -- trying to scale up onchain will be the death of the entire system.
or at best, extreme centralization of Bitcoin nodes and miners to the only ones who could afford it.
Again, that depends on when this goes down. If Bitcoin grows at roughly the rate of advancement in hardware and software, then the cost to . independently validate transactions - something no individual user needs to do in the first place - actually stays perfectly flat. But the best part is that his statement:
centralization of Bitcoin nodes and miners to the only ones who could afford it
Ummm... mining and independent validation has always been limited to those who can afford it. What big-blockers know is that the trick isn't trying to make Bitcoin so tiny that farmers in sub-Saharan Africa can "validate" the blockchain on a $0.01 computer, but rather to expand adoption so greatly that they never have to independently validate it. Running scalable validation nodes at home is dumb. But, there are already millions of people with synchronous gigabit internet at home and more than enough wealth to afford a beefy home computer. The problem is that none of them are using Bitcoin. Adoption is the key!
This centralization would then defeat aspects of network decentralization that make Bitcoin secure, as the ability for entities to validate the chain is what allows Bitcoin to ensure ledger accuracy and security
Here the author throws a red herring across the trail for gullible readers. It is not my ability to validate the chain that produces trustlessness. If that was the case, there would be no need for miners. Users would simply accept or not accept other people's transactions based on their software's interpretation of validity. The Satoshi paper makes it quite clear where trustlessness is born: it is in the incentives that enforce honest mining of an uncorrupted chain. In other words, I don't have to validate the chain, but Poloniex does. And, newsflash, big companies can very easily afford big validation nodes. "$20K nodes" is a bullshit number I hear thrown around a lot. There are literally hundreds of thousands of companies that can easily afford $20K nodes in the event that Bitcoin becomes "bigger than Visa." Again, the trick is getting many companies in every jurisdiction in the world onto the blockchain. Then no individuals ever need to worry about censorship. Adoption! let's continue. I'll skip a few sentences.
Extremely large blocks, for example in the above case of 8 gigabytes every 10 minutes on average, would imply that only a few parties would be able to do block validation
If this were written in 1997 it would have read
Extremely large blocks, for example in the above case of 8 megabytes every 10 minutes on average, would imply that only a few parties would be able to do block validation
Obviously, we are processing 8MB blocks today. The real question is how long before we get there. At current rates of adoption, we'll all be fucking dead before anyone mines an 8GB block. And remember, 8GB was the number the authors cooked up. Even Visa can't handle that load, today, continuously.
This creates a great possibility that entities will end up trusting centralized parties. Having privileged, trusted parties creates a social trap whereby the central party will not act in the interest of an individual (principalagent problem), e.g. rentierism by charging higher fees to mitigate the incentive to act dishonestly. In extreme cases, this manifests as individuals sending funds to centralized trusted custodians who have full custody of customers’ funds. Such arrangements, as are common today, create severe counterparty risk. A prerequisite to prevent that kind of centralization from occurring would require the ability for bitcoin to be validated by a single consumer-level computer on a home broadband connection.
Here the author (using his wildly inflated requirement of 8GB blocks) creates a cloud of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that "Bitcoin will fail if it succeeds" - and the solution is, as any UASFer will tell you, that everyone needs to validate the chain on a weak fullnode running on a cheap computer with average internet connectivity. How's the bullshit detector going? Now the authors make a head-fake in the direction of honesty:
While it is possible that Moore’s Law will continue indefinitely, and the computational capacity for nodes to cost-effectively compute multigigabyte blocks may exist in the future, it is not a certainty.
Certainty? No. But, we should point out, the capacity to actually approach Visa is already at hand and in the next ten years is a near certainty in fact. But, surely, the solution that the authors propose is "around the corner" (- Luke-jr) ... /s . No, folks. Bigger blocks are the closest thing to "scaling certainty" that we have. More coming up....
To achieve much higher than 47,000 transactions per second using Bitcoin requires conducting transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain itself.
Now we get to the meat of the propaganda. To reach a number that Visa itself cannot sustain will "never" be possible on a blockchain. NEVER?? That's just false. In fact, I'll go on record as saying that Bitcoin will hit Visa-like levels of throughput onchain before Lightning Network ever meets the specification announced in this white paper.
It would be even better if the bitcoin network supported a near-unlimited number of transactions per second with extremely low fees for micropayments.
Yes, and it would also be even better if we had fusion and jetpacks. The thing is, these things that are promised as having been solved... have not been solved and no solution is in sight.
Many micropayments can be sent sequentially between two parties to enable any size of payments.
No, this is plain false. Once a channel's funds have been pushed to one side of the channel, no more micropayments in that direction can be made. This is called channel exhaustion and is one of the many unsolved problems of Lightning Network. But here the authors declare it as a solved problem. That's just false.
Micropayments would enable unbunding, less trust and commodification of services, such as payments for per-megabyte internet service. To be able to achieve these micropayment use cases, however, would require severely reducing the amount of transactions that end up being broadcast on the global Bitcoin blockchain
Now I'm confused. Is Lightning a solution for all the world's financial transactions or is it a solution for micropayments for things like pay-per-megabyte internet?
While it is possible to scale at a small level, it is absolutely not possible to handle a large amount of micropayments on the network or to encompass all global transactions.
There it is again, the promise that Lightning will "encompass all global transactions." Bullshit detector is now pegged in the red.
For bitcoin to succeed, it requires confidence that if it were to become extremely popular, its current advantages stemming from decentralization will continue to exist. In order for people today to believe that Bitcoin will work tomorrow, Bitcoin needs to resolve the issue of block size centralization effects; large blocks implicitly create trusted custodians and significantly higher fees. . (emphasis mine)
"Large" is a term of art which means "be afraid." In 1997, 8MB would have been an unthinkably large block. Now we run them live in production without breaking a sweat. "Large" is a number that changes over time. . By the time Bitcoin reaches "Visa-like levels of adoption" it's very likely that what we consider "large" today (32MB?) will seem absolutely puny. As someone who first started programming on a computer that had what was at the time industry-leading 64KB of RAM (after expanding the memory with an extra 16K add-on card) and a pair of 144KB floppy disks, all I can tell you is that humans are profoundly bad at estimating compounding effects and the author of the Lightning paper is flat-out banking on this to sell his snake oil. Now things are about to get really, really good.
A Network of Micropayment Channels Can Solve Scalability “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”
Here's where the formal line by line breakdown will come to an end, because this is where the trap the Lightning authors have set will close on them. Let's just read a bit further:
The above quote questions the relevance of unobserved events —if nobody hears the tree fall, whether it made a sound or not is of no consequence. Similarly, in the blockchain, if only two participants care about an everyday recurring transaction, it’s not necessary for all other nodes in the bitcoin network to know about that transaction
Here and elsewhere the author of the paper is implying that two parties can transact between them without having to announce the state of their channel to anyone else. We see this trope repeated time and time again by LN shills. "Not everyone in the world needs to know about my coffee transaction" they say, as if programmed. To see the obvious, glaring defect here requires an understanding of what Lightning Network purports to be able to do, one day, if it's ever finished. Payment channels, which Lightning is based on, have been around since Satoshi and are nothing new at all. It is and has always been possible to create a payment channel with your coffee shop, put $50 in it, and pay it out over a period of time until it's depleted and the coffee shop owner closes the channel. That's not rocket science, that's original Bitcoin. What Lightning purports to be able to do is to allow you to route a payment to someone else by using the funds in your coffee shop channel. IN this model, lets suppose Alice is the customer and Bob is the shop. Let's also suppose that Charlie is a customer of Dave's coffee shop. Ernie is a customer of both Bob and Dave's shop. Now, Alice would like to send money to Charlie. This could be accomplished by:
Alice moves funds to Bob
Bob moves funds to Ernie
Ernie moves funds to Dave
Dave moves funds to Charlie
or more simply, A-B-E-D-C Here's the catch. To pull this off, Alice has to be able to find the route to Charlie. This means that B-C-E and D all have to be online. So first off, all parties to a transaction and in a route must be online and we must know their current online status to even begin the process. Again: to use Lightning as described in its white paper requires everyone to always be online. If we accept centralized routing hubs, then only the hubs need to be online, but Lightning proposed to be decentralized, which means, essentially, everyone needs to always be online. Next, we need to know there are enough funds in all channels to perform the routing. Let's say Alice has $100 in her channel with Bob and wants to send this to Charlie. But Bob has only $5 in his channel with Ernie. sad trombone . The maximum that the route can support is $5. (Edit: not quite right, I cleaned this up here.) Notice something? Alice has to know the state of every channel through which she intends to route funds. When the author claims
if only two participants care about an everyday recurring transaction, it’s not necessary for all other nodes in the bitcoin network to know about that transaction
That's true -- unless you want to use the Lightning Network to route funds - and routing funds is the whole point. Otherwise, Lightning is just another word for "payment channels." The whole magic that they promised was using micropayments to route money anywhere. If you want to route funds, then you absolutely need to know the state of these channels. Which ones? That's the kicker - you essentially have to know all of them, to find the best route - and, sadly - it might be the case that no route is available - which requires an exhaustive search. And in fact, here we are over 18 months since this paper was published, and guess what? The problem of the "gossip protocol" - the very Achille's Heel of Bitcoin according to the author - has been solved with drum roll please --- the gossip protocol. (more info here) Because, when you break it down, in order for Alice to find that route to Charlie, she has to know the complete, current state of Bob-Ernie, Ernie-Dave, and Charlie-Dave. IF the Lightning Network doesn't keep *every participant up to date with the latest network state, it can't find a route. So the solution to the gossip protocol is in fact the gossip protocol. And - folks - this isn't news. Here's a post from ONE YEAR AGO explaining this very problem. But wait. It gets worse.... Let's circle around to the beginning. The whole point of Lightning, in a nutshell, can be described as fixing "Bitcoin can't scale because every node needs to know every transaction." It is true that every node needs to know every transaction. However: because we read the Satoshi white paper we know that not every user needs to run a node to validate his transactions. End-users should use SPV, which do not need to be kept up to date on everyone else's transactions. So, with onchain Bitcoin, you have something on the order of 10K "nodes" (validation nodes and miners) that must receive the "gossip" and the other million or so users just connect and disconnect when they need to transact. This scales. In contrast, with Lightning, every user needs to receive the "gossip." This does not scale. Note something else? Lightning purports to be an excellent solution to "streaming micropayments." But such micropayments would result in literally millions or billions of continuous state-changes to the network. There's no way to "gossip" millions of micropayment streams each creating millions of tiny transactions. Now, there is a way to make Lightning scale. It's called the "routing hub." In this model, end-users don't need to know the state of the network. Instead, they will form channels with trusted hubs who will perform the routing on their behalf. A simple example illustrates. IN our previous example, Alice wants to send money to Charlie, but has to find a route to him. An easy solution is to insert Frank. Frank holds 100K btc and can form bidirectional channels with Alice, Bob, Charlie, Dave, Ernie, and most everyone else too. By doing so, he places himself in the middle of a routing network, and then all payments come through Frank. Note that the only barrier to creating channels is capital. Lightning will scale, if we include highly-capitalized hubs as middlemen for everyone else to connect to. If the flaw here is not obvious then someone else can explain. Well. As Mark Twain once quipped, "if I had more time I would have written a shorter letter." I'll stop here. Hopefully this goes at least part of the way towards helping the community understand just how toxic and deceptive this white paper was to the community. Everyone on the Segwit chain has bet the entire future of Segwit-enabled Bitcoin on this unworkable house-of-cards sham. The rest of us, well, we took evasive action, and are just waiting for the rest of the gullible, brainwashed masses to wake up to their error, if they ever do. H/T: jonald_fyookball for provoking this Edit: fixed wrong names in my A-B-C-D-E example; formatting
For the newbies: You may have heard that Bitcoin works by "solving math problems", but what are the math problems?
Disclaimer: This has probably been covered before, and in more approachable language, so if this explanation is pointless duplication, let me know and I'll delete it. So the math problems in Bitcoin aren't your traditional math: your computer isn't solving algebra problems or partial differentials. They involve cryptographic hashes: you might've come across these when you download a file, where the website says "here's the file, and here's a hash you can use to verify that the file downloaded properly". So your process of verification would be:
Download -> Hash(Downloaded File) -> Is Hash The Same?
Say you downloaded a copy of Audacity for OSX, and the site says "the MD5 hash for audacity-macosx-ub-2.1.2.dmg is 535e103d9bc4a4625d71260c3a427d09 if you want to check it downloaded properly". So you download the file, head to your command prompt, and:
Hey, it's the same. Now, hashes work by taking all the numbers in the file and Doing Something to them; the simplest would, of course, be the checksum: add all the numbers together. One big problem with checksumming though: if you add 1 to a number somewhere in the file, and subtract 1 elsewhere, you get a corrupted file with the same checksum. Not ideal. So algorithms like MD5, SHA-1 and the like arose, which do more complicated things. The number that falls out of these is quite large: MD5, for example, outputs a 128-bit number (the biggest value is something like 80 quintillion quintillion) but it's not the absolute value of the number that's important, just the fact that it's the same as what the website says it should be. Aside: "But if the hash is just a huge number, why does it have those weird letters in?" It's just written in hexadecimal (base 16) instead of base 10. In your average decimal base-10 number, the digits are 0-9 and the number values go units, tens, hundreds, thousands, etc. In base 16, the digits are 0-9 then a-f (ten to fifteen), and the number values go units, sixteens, two-hundred-and-fifty-sixes, four-thousand-and-ninety-sixes, etc. Now. Bitcoin uses this same technology (it uses the SHA-256 algorithm in particular) to hash the contents of each block of transactions that comes through. It looks a little like this:
Hash of the last block -----\ | Hash of the transactions --+ SHA256 -> This block's hash in this block | (twice) | Current time ----------/
And thus the block chain gets built: "this block's hash" falls out of the above algorithm, and gets fed into the algorithm for the next block. Except SHA-256 doesn't take long to compute; a cellphone can do literally millions of these hashes per second. Here's where the genius of Bitcoin comes in: there's an artificial limit placed by the algorithm on how fast blocks can be generated, and it doesn't matter how fast your computer (or the whole network of computers) is at generating these hashes. It works by adding one thing to the above diagram:
Hash of the last block -----\ | Hash of the transactions --+ SHA256 -> This block's hash in this block | (twice) | Current time ----------+ | A number to twiddle -------/
(The technical literature actually calls it a "nonce".) I said above that the numeric value of the hash isn't important when you download a file, just the fact that it matches what the website says it should be. In Bitcoin, the numeric value of the hash is important: it needs to be less than a certain value (the "target") for the block you make to be accepted by the network. For example, (as of the time of writing) the last block had a hash of 000000000000000001ef62f299ea93356f4d52c75ff3cc442b4a073e90f947e0; look at all those zeros at the front! SHA-256 is very good at making an even distribution of its numeric value: futz with the content of what you're hashing even a tiny bit, and the number that falls out is vastly different. So, you need to do a lot of twiddling of that nonce, to find a block where the hash comes out with all those zeros at the front. In fact, you need to do so much twiddling that, on average, the entire network of computers doing this will only find one solution to the problem every ten minutes. That solution gets broadcast to the network, the other computers will plug it in as "the hash of the last block", and keep going. One more question you might have: what happens when computers suddenly get a lot faster at doing these calculations, and they can rattle their way to a solution in a minute, or 30 seconds? Bitcoin has a solution: change the target, to make it even lower. This is referred to as a "change in difficulty", and happens around every two weeks if the blocks come out every ten minutes (every 2,016 blocks). If the blocks come out faster, the difficulty changes sooner, and changes by more, to get things back on the ten-minutes-per-block track. Conversely, if computers suddenly get very slow at doing this work and blocks only come out once an hour, the difficulty will change to make life easier. (Again, it'll only change every 2,016 blocks, so it might take a while to build the chain up to that point; until then, we'd have to suffer with slow blocks.) So, I hope this was useful, and that it was accurate. It helped to clarify things in my mind, at least; let me know if it helped (and if I missed anything).
Tucker lost his show at cnn after j. Stewart roasted his ass for 30 min. Tucker is a shitbucket that has the audacity to call himself a journalist. By allah if you call opinion pieces journalism, i will shoot myself right here.
This. This isn't a matter of "two groups disagree", this is one group wanting to either murder or enslave the other group. You can't reconcile that. Never forget that they think we should be killed merely for disagreeing with them.
I believe there will be War, but the war will be interrupted by something and everybody will stop fighting and go back home. There's going to be massive solar flares that make the Carrington event look like a light bulb shorting out. Power grids will be wiped out and anything electronic will be rendered useless. This event will cause more death and casualty than all the wars the world has ever waged combined. And when Humanity is at its Darkest Hour a race of benevolent aliens is going to come and be our "Saviors". They will uplift us spiritually, heal the planet, and bring us into a New Age of Enlightenment and peace and prosperity. But ultimately at the end of the day I believe these beings will be the ones that were the architects of the solar flare to begin with. They believe to save Humanity, it first must be destroyed. Though their intentions may be benevolent, I believe they should leave Humanity alone and let us figure things out by ourselves.
I believe that trans people are entitled to the same basic rights as anyone else. They should be protected when it comes to access to housing, health care, and job protection. I don't hate or even dislike trans people. I don't believe they deserve special privileges or treatment. I believe in science and science says mammals can't change biological sex. I am not going to humor someone by denying science just to make them feel better. Men can not become women no matter how much they want. By saying 'if you don't agree with whatever I say it's violence or I will kill myself' is what abusive people say to manipulate other people. I don't play those games. Not agreeing someone can magically become a woman by putting on a dress isn't violence or killing anyone. it's common sense. And anyone who says they are going to kill themselves until you don't agree with them either needs to be evaluated by a medical professional or quit being abusive and manipulative. The only provable violence I have seen is from trans women to gender critical women. "Kill all TRFS" and "PUNCH TRFS" while they walk around with weapons are the norm. Or memes where they threaten our lives with guns.
“And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: “And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”
The Dems will make up some ridiculous bullshit to blame on Trump and the media will repeat it endlessly and ignore completely everything you just said. They have no shame. They are sold out to evil. There is no level they won't stoop to in order to win. There is no bargaining with this, the Democratic party must be destroyed.
I feel like as a poor white person that pays taxes, has a job and is putting them selves through school I should be executed for being white. Yes. I deserve to be killed for being a normal person. I’ve never really done anything malicious to anyone but I deserve death none the less.
I've literally never seen anyone in frenworld actually say that people should be killed. I used that sub quite often and knew all the subliminal messages, none of them implied actual killing. Chapo on the other hand advocates violence all the time.
Yes. I got him so upset he self reported saying I should kill myself and he was going to kill himself because he told me he couldn’t not respond and hoped drama gets banned. It was fucking hilarious. He accused me of working your account, quietus(a mod) and I forget the others. Then another guy straight up accused me of being a paid foreign troll to come in and disrupted drama hahaha. I have found that legitimately just telling people the truth fucks with them super hard. Because people who operate on pure projection don’t imagine I could be some totally normal guy who is telling the truth about why I was up all night etc. it’s 10X better than any ridiculous story.
There's nothing he can do. He has to cut, cut, cut or the fucking province is going to go bankrupt. The Ontario Liberals should be executed for what they did to the province's finances. I actually believe Ontario will never recover and will go bankrupt. There's almost no way out. Any premier who tries to fix it will get voted out and the Libs will just spend another 300 billion buying votes. Bankruptcy is guaranteed.
I suppose we would decimate their army, in the classical understanding of "decimate", which meant to reduce something to 90% of its original size. We are not that good at killing soldiers. We're great against buildings, but not against an actual military.
I don't understand American men. I would kill everyone who did this to me. Make it look like a robbery gone wrong for my wife and a revenge killing against the judge. They have lots of enemies. I would ensure I would get my kids back and never let her family see them again. Plus the Psychiatrist would have an unfortunate accident. It's not illegal, It's justice. And I would plan an alibi and make sure I would not get caught. These people deserve it.
I think Ben is saying that we should use disproportionately more force to show that we can crush them. The problem a lot of people are seeing is that this leads to warmongering since every response is extreme. “You place sanctions on us? Well, the US will bomb your military locations and kill hundreds of people. I know you won’t declare war since we have just shown you a glimpse of what is in store. By the way, take off the sanctions or we will nuke you next time.” Proportionality is a major part of just war theory. I’m surprised Ben doesn’t understand that (or maybe he is ignoring it on purpose?)
“This is a very important picture. I was at a domestic violence conference and all of a sudden I saw this woman, Millie Bianco, with a picture of her daughter, Lisa Bianco. Lisa was a very badly beaten woman. She took out a protection order and filed charges against her husband. He went to prison because the abuse was horrific. But he was always saying: ‘When l get out, I’m going to kill that fucking bitch. She put me in here; I’m going to kill her.’ “One day, the prison gave him a day furlough, with a car, to supposedly go and see his mother. Instead, he went to Lisa’s house. She had a beeper that would tell her when he came close, because he had to have a tag on his ankle. She was in the shower, the beeper went off, she went running out into the street naked. He was there with a sawn-off shotgun, and he beat her to death. “He got the death penalty and was executed, but for the mother, that’s nothing. It’s like, the system let him kill her.” Source: The Guardian
Circle has still not responded to Peter Todd about whether they are implementing censorship or surveillance technology
so let me summarise, mike hearn is a developer that has been pushing for blacklists, censorship, supporting regulation .etc he is a crony in the worst way. peter todd is the developer who has done loads for bitcoin. the anonymity techniques in dark wallet were invented by him. he works for the people. mike hearn wants to censor peter todd. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=418071.msg6412027#msg6412027 circle is a new company that is always promoted by the foundation and their crew of people. they always appear at the top of conference lists for finance .etc http://bitcoin2014.com/http://www.bitfin.com/ jeremy allaire (circle ceo), makes statements that bitcoin needs to abandon its libertarian roots. we need to take this plaything away from the anarchists kind of attitude. http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-abandons-anti-establishment-wall-street/ mike hearn is working with circle: http://www.coindesk.com/circle-advisory-board-members-burns-appointment/ circle is working on tracking and surveillance tech: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=418071.msg6403720#msg6403720 they refuse to answer questions (this is one of many, can't find the rest): http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/25ou9f/good_morning_reddit_we_know_youve_been_wondering/ mike hearn says the bitcoin dev model needs to change. backing up gavin (chief scientist of bitcoin foundation who is actually more like a figurehead to legitimise the foundation)... this is his way of pushing out elements by formalising the dev process to stop people to participate and take control. http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/28zts3/mike_hearn_interview_quotes_progress_on_the/ circle also this month made a similar statement (on coindesk): http://www.coindesk.com/circle-ceo-jeremy-allaire-issues-challenge-bitcoins-core-developers/ note how he says "unwelcoming to new participants" - same words as mike hearn. if you want to dev bitcoin, there's nothing stopping you. go write code or participate. don't try to assert control. it's all related, bitcoin foundation being official with their claim to legimitimacy but no merit to back that up. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=322328.msg3460051#msg3460051 "Just got a call from the bitcoin foundation. They wouldn't go on the record to comment on the article but just kept telling me "off the record" that you lot [Dark Wallet] have no credibility and that a much better story is some venture capitalist yesterday investing $9m in bitcoin..." ~email from journalist when we were doing DarkWallet crowdfunding. btw check this, http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2646ei/bitcoin_foundation_has_4600000_in_assets_90_in/ and despite all those resources they have done jack shit for bitcoin. there is some big corruption going on here. foundation people are all flying all-expense paid fancy trips, paying themselves high salaries whilst most wallet developers and the opensource projects (which people use) in this space are without resources. they have contributed nothing to the community. there's been no proof otherwise besides some minor grants for ~$10k or so. http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2aycxs/hi_this_is_ben_lawsky_at_nydfs_here_are_the/ people are like "oh dear, we need better legislation" without realising the foot in the door danger. it's like the used car salesman who rips you off with an overpriced crappy car which you jump on after "he speaks to the boss" (i.e smokes a ciggy), knocking down his initial high offer. wow! what a bargain! G8 magazine, June 2013 "Protecting digital economies": "If the leaders of the European Union and United States could be convinced to take a lead on these initiatives [banning Bitcoin], that would be a huge contribution to making the internet a safe place for financial transactions. At the same time, it would also strike a blow against those who would try to destroy the fabric of our world’s well-being." JP Morgan, Feb 2014 "The audacity of Bitcoin": "But followers of financial history know the limitation of a system based on a fixed or slow-growing money supply: it imposes uncomfortable financial discipline on governments, households and corporates. [i.e governments, consumers, the corporations" (goes on to talk about how printing dollars was used to fund WW1 and the Vietnam war as a good thing) ECB, Oct 2012 "Virtual currency schemes": "Authorities need to consider whether they intend to formalise or acknowledge and regulate these schemes. In this regard, a likely suggestion could sooner or later involve virtual currency scheme owners registering as financial institutions with their local regulating authorities. This is a similar trajectory to the one PayPal has undergone, as it was granted a banking licence in Luxembourg in 2007 after its service became popular. This is not an easy step, but it looks like the only possible way to strike a proper balance between money and payment innovations on the one hand, and consumer protection and financial stability, on the other." Mark my words. The problem is not with this regulation needing to be fixed. They will probably tone down the proposal and it will be hailed as a victory within the community, yet be another step toward normalisation of their activities. http://www.coindesk.com/ben-lawsky-friend-foe/ "The choice for the regulators is: permit money laundering on the one hand, or permit innovation on the other, and we’re always going to choose squelching the money laundering first. It’s not worth it to society to allow money laundering and all of the things it facilitates to persist in order to permit 1000 flowers to bloom on the innovation side.” ~ Ben Lawsky funny he's affiliated with chuck schumer too who is a populist and someone who in the early days was very anti-bitcoin (silk road). i love the whole tone of this propaganda piece which is like "he's such a nice guy". I bet he has good manners too. maybe you all appreciate this article, http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-dark-wallet-developers-plan-for-startup-governments-run-on-bitcoin
lakompi 61 points 14 hours ago Core is not the cause of any civil war here, they did nothing to start such a thing, they only provided technical analysis and their resulting opinions and proposals on how to deal with the scaling issues.
Look at them, just look at the sheer level of ignorant bullshit, Core single handedly caused 4 forks and counting, and they still try to spin that Core is innocent.
No need to panic though
You only say "No need to panic" when you know people are panicking.
next week we'll have more than double the on-chain space already, when SegWit finally activates
LOL this is pure bullshit, you only get 1.7x even if everyone moves to SegWit, which will take years even if Core don't get forked into oblivion. This kind of bullshit gives people false expectations and it's going to back fire twice as hard when Core can't deliver.
so that glass ceiling will move away a lot. The next step should not be yet another blocksize increase, but continuing to make txes more efficient in space usage (schnorr etc), and kick off decentralized off-chain scaling solutions like Lightning, Sidechains etc.
Look how he tried to sell "segwit will make everything ok" Here comes the fun part, users asking innocent questions, and shills giving total bullshit answers, but people are not buying it Innocent member asked a question about LN:
sha777888[S] 8 points 14 hours ago how many channels will actually be set up within the next month? Me transferring between my wallets will not create a channel
Shill gave a bullshit reply:
[–]lakompi 7 points 14 hours ago Even for one-off payments you only need to open one payment channel. Thats the beaty of the lightning network I do not expect immediate relief when LN is released, it will take a while, but it will come. The segwit increase is hopefully enough of a 'stop gap messure' to give us enough time for that.
Which instantly got busted by another user:
[–]CatatonicMan 6 points 13 hours ago Why would you open a LN channel for a one-off payment? LN needs at least three transactions per channel to make opening one worthwhile.
Then the shill continued to spin:
[–]Pretagonist [score hidden] 8 hours ago You don't open a channel to another person just like you don't use your modem to connect to another person's modem anymore. You open a channel to one of the LN hubs and that hub is connected to other hubs and one of those is connected to the entity you want to pay. The drawbacks is that you have to "lock up" the funds the channel needs
Innocent user questions (fucking lol here):
[–]AllanDoensen [score hidden] 2 hours ago Is a hub like a bank?
The shill spin continued:
[–]cyberamine [score hidden] 6 minutes ago Think of it as opening a bank account where the bank does not own your deposit.
LOL fuck me, the shill actually had the audacity to tell people to think of Bitcoin as a bank. More people got impatient:
[–]LarsPensjo [score hidden] 7 hours ago None of these links explain why 2MB is bad. They all talk about the process and timing, not about the technology. As long as there isn't any clear explanation why 2MB is bad, there will be low understanding why the change is stalled indefinitely.
The shill continued with more bullshit:
[–]G1lius [score hidden] 6 hours ago That's because 2MB is not bad. What's bad is the process, timing, lack of any other technical improvements or bugfixes and an overall total disregard of all the research done surrounding hardforks.
People still didn't buy it:
[–]stale2000 [score hidden] 4 hours ago If the problem is process, and timing, then Core should publicly state that they support a blocksize increase, and put all this work on the Core roadmap, along with expected dates of completion. They won't do this though. They removed the blocksize increase from their roadmap, with the recent one that was released.
Then of course, paleh0rse, our truth warrior over there spoke the truth again:
[–]paleh0rse [score hidden] 6 hours ago That narrative doesn't fly when everyone already knows that the real world results are ~2MB and ~4MB for SegWit and SegWit2x, respectively -- and even these low figures are only likely once all transactions utilize SegWit. Never let the actual data get in the way of a good spin, though... ;)
Another shill jumped in:
[–]maaku7 [score hidden] 1 hour ago I am. I'll say that a 2x increase at this time is inherently bad.
Got busted straight away:
[–]killerstorm [score hidden] 1 hour ago But you aren't saying that 2 MB is bad, are you? :D (Of course, there is Luke-jr who is saying that, but there are also people who say that Earth is flat, we shouldn't take them into account.)
With Bitcoin Cash 8MB right in front of them, the /Bitcoin reality distortion field is crumbling, if /Bitcoin is having this much trouble spinning bullshit now, imagine what will happen after SegWit gets activated and it still takes hours to get a confirmation. Expectation is the mother of all frustrations. I can't wait to see what happens on /Bitcoin when SegWit fails to deliver. Get your popcorns ready.
I was approached by Steven Dai to make a coin. He immediately offered my 100 BTC and 10% of Bitbay which he said he would buy. The Bay never concerned me, i would give them for bounties anyway. SO i meet BTER who is cordial and says he loves our tech etc. Then I'm introduced to a guy named Bob and his friend Gekko. They want to do this project and I get uneasy. When I finally agree with Steven on the condition they take things slow and maybe keep my name low key, Gekko and Bob use their pump group to plaster my damn name all over. Again, i never wanted to be lead dev they kept pushing that on me(wonder why) No matter how many times i tried to distance myself from the project they forced my name all over it. So I gave in, manned it up and embraced it. Then the whole bs starts. I had refused to talk about the project and Steven quickly sent me BTC assuring they were serious and wanted to help. He said they would help dev for Blackcoin fund Halo etc. When they run the ICO they make a new offer. They claim in addition to the 100 they throw me another 91 and split the ICO 5 ways. And everyone would help chip in to build the coin. They even discuss a 5/5 multisig account. BTER was OK with escrowing it so i proceeded with caution. What happened next was outrageous. They continually talk about pumping the ICO of course with actual Bitcoins. I ignore it mostly thinking they are whales thats just what they do. (At least the put in physical coins). A bit later I realize they got some back because Steve was unsure that the ICO would fund which is why he claimed Bob was there. It was making me incredibly uneasy but I figured "Ok they still said they would help develop" Only Lin and Steven wanted to develop. Gekko immediately hit everyone with a 20K dollar bill which i insisted nobody pay because everything was clearly shady. Even when i demanded to go over each line item. I questioned why the bill wasnt discussed in advance (and i wasnt even doing the finance) Gekko then started to threaten me and thats when the endless threats started. From there they claim they have the bitcointalk people etc to hurt my reputation. They then threaten Steven who caves in and gives half of the dev fund. Then Bob and Gekko pretended to not know what I got paid in the ICO. Even though it was posted in their face. They made me fill out HALF of an FAQ on google docs with only tech stuff the other half had some bullshit distribution of funds. Daily i would ask people for project managers, devs, coders and things to make a business. Which Bob and Gekko said were unimportant, altcoins were useless etc. Then they pretend to be surprised about the coins I got, they threaten Steven for Baycoins which him and Lin give. And it apalled me they immediately sold them and blamed me. On the phone they start with threats some of a very personal nature and also again in skype chats. I asked Steven for more info on the ICO he claims Bob got 500 BTC and nobody was supposed to get free bitbay and Bob promised to pay his group which was to be in exchange for promotion etc. What he really did was pocket the coins of course. A chat log reveals this as a surprise and amazement at their audacity. This fails to mention that him and Gekko also split 191 BTC a piece which was unearned and they betrayed their word of saying they would pay into developement. Instead they insisted I was the dev I should also pay which i was fine with but thought everything they did was evil and dubious. Later on they start two threads planning to tie my name to the coin. This can be seen by the obvious knowledge and body of research that was done into my personal life which they spent all day talking bad about me and insisting I discuss what was really going on with the project. Of course I really wanted to protect investors at this point and Steven who i felt bad for seeing him get pushed around. (that always gives me a soft spot I hate seeing others pushed) I tell Bob and Gekko to leave when Bob comes back and tries to extort 70 BTC and (hes so stupid he forgot how much bay i was holding again even though he was told many times) I refused told him to leave. Gekko(Ryan) comes back threatens to harm me, ruin my reputation and then even threatens my family. It was not the first time he did threats of these nature (both him and Bob) They then go to the forums and work day and night insulting me tying my name to the ridiculous ICO. I findally had enough after they threatened BTER with chat logs for 100 btc so I cracked and responded to the lying bullshit on the forums. They post a chat log that was just edited down Judge me if you want for taking a license. I'm sorry. I really am very upset. But what they are doing is beyond wrong. Moreso than any behavior i have yet to see in crypto. Never in a million years did i think simply taking some bitcoins to do a software clone would come with so many strings attached. The people who say "i told you so" are of no help either as they did not expect this I will admit, they did get me riled up and i made the mistake to get excited. Im going to admit i was a bit naive. I went one year without work seeing Sean literally bleed to find angels and I was so relieved to finally have a deal come forward and promised friends and loves ones i would not turn the "next one down" but you already knew that Nothing can be as bad as knowing Bob and Gekko. Now they send out their group with deliberate paid tasks to talk bad about me which was his plan ever since he wanted to pocket the bitcoins. Just when im so close to a new Halo release and markets, Im on the phone with people interested in the project and i have to deal with an all out paid attempt at defamation and character assassination by heartless ruthless greedy people. (at this point I could be karpeles himself and not deserve the total bullshit) Meanwhile this theif makes off with 691 BTC and so does his friend Ryan with no goal to pay it back whatsoever and they add insult to injury by laughing about it. Maybe the government was RIGHT about crypto after all. With this level of greed, who in reality was i busy protecting. They had no respect for my privacy either. Cowards hiding behind fake names protect their own privacy but not for the one with the courage to release his own name. I developed software for the joy and love of expressing creativity. Not this. And lets say of course i feel/felt and have remorse for the investors. Thats why I wanted to peg. The coin so badly with the hopes of saving them. A cheap price to pay indeed 100 BTC license in exchange for this. I should have declined this one too. One reason ive been poor is to forgo this. Judge me if you want for my mistakes. I'm man enough to own up to them. I would still develop tech despite this distraction. And I never wanted to be lead dev of bitbay, i saw what was going on and wanted to peg to protect investors. Of couse, Bob will spend 24 hours a day pretend im some sort of devll.
There is a Specter Haunting the Internet, the Specter of Euphoria.
While the word "gamer" has a lot of baggage these days, I will admit that I play a lot of video games, especially online video games. I can't even recall off the top of my head everything I've committed to or at least dabbled in, in the last few years, so I'll mention a few relevant to a rather weird phenomenon that is the subject of this story: Star Trek Online (became a lifetime subscriber well before it went free to play. Especially during "weekly" story updates that were not so weekly, was a blast for a while. High point was probably Legacy of Romulus). Planetside 2 (This one spoiled me: I just can't get into tiny-ass repeating maps with rigid 6v6 or 12v12 or 20v20 fights anymore so I'm stuck with this one when it comes to shooters) Old Republic (worth playing through at least a few times for the class stories). World of Warcraft (played for years, increasingly disappointed after Lich King, quit during Draenor, Legion not interesting me). These are not the only things I've played recently, but what do they all have in common? The Specter of Euphoria. Each of them (yes, even Planetside 2) have had a weird thing happen in a commonly-shared chatroom. Be it Earth Spacedock, Vaiken Fleet Station, or Stormwind Trade Channel, a specter haunted them all, at roughly the same time, and at the time, I had no idea why they sounded alike. This was primarily in Star Trek Online, so I'll derive the "conversation" from there, which was more like a guy standing on a street corner, waving an "THE END IS NIGH" sign, but with some specific differences, such as the wrath of God not being what to fear, but the wrath of, uh, well, the guy holding the sign. I'll call the guy King Skynet, because it's a fine mishmash of his dreams and ideals and where he sees himself: ruling the world, but instead of a mountain of treasure around his Hyborean throne, there'd be Bitcoin. Somehow. He was already well into his prophecies, and according to someone I asked, was there for several hours already. King Skynet: lol u laugh now, but all of u are replacable. u all will b replaced. I had the overwhelming urge to chime in. AngryDM: Replaced? In a video game? Are you referring to farmer bots and aimbots? We already have those. King Skynet: players.... game devving.... all of u... replaced.... AngryDM: Okay. Who will buy the games? King Skynet: the economy will be self aware.... u ever read Accelerando? I had to look that up. Sounded like a cautionary tale in summary, or failing that, a speculative "this is what happens with runaway AI" as a thing to dread, not celebrate. AngryDM: Okay. What's in it for you? King Skynet: lol.... who do u think will b in charge? AngryDM: Let me guess, you? King Skynet: good guess.... This exchange went on for a while, a dreadful long while. It went on, also, in other games in a short span. I dare wonder if it was the same person lurking at the NC warpgate, in Vaiken Spacedock, in Stormwind. I'm not sure what'd be better: if it was the same guy or if it was him and his buddies, because this Specter of Euphoria haunted my corners of the online world for roughly a week like this. Summary of the Specter's spooky prophecies: Very very soon, the world would be consumed by an uncaring AI with nothing else in mind but growth and self-perpetuation. People would be obsolete, except of course the wise Dilbert-like software engineers that were the true powers behind the throne. Very soon after, because hockey-stick-shaped-curves are magic, the solar system would be reduced to base components and repurposed into tech toys. Pretty soon after that, because hockey-stick-shaped-curves, the galaxy. Pretty soon after that, the universe. Everything bulldozed, processed down. Back to Earth Spacedock, here. "Okay. So everything in the universe is made into stuff, right?" King Skynet: Things u cant even dream of.... AngryDM: What then? King Skynet: I dunno, lol! prob kill myself when im bored. There you have it: a brave new world. For months, almost a year, the specter was intangible, mysterious, with no clear connections I could find. This stuff simply HAD to come from somewhere, so I asked around, and one helpful soul linked me to this. Behold, the motherlode, the source of every fedora, neckbeard, trenchcoat, and set of fingerless gloves on the internet: Behold, the Manifesto of the Dark Enlightenment! "F. T. Marinetti posted:
1. We want to sing the love of danger, the habit of energy and rashness. 2. The essential elements of our poetry will be courage, audacity and revolt. 3. Literature has up to now magnified pensive immobility, ecstasy and slumber. We want to exalt movements of aggression, feverish sleeplessness, the double march, the perilous leap, the slap and the blow with the fist. 4. We declare that the splendor of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing automobile with its bonnet adorned with great tubes like serpents with explosive breath ... a roaring motor car which seems to run on machine-gun fire, is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace. 5. We want to sing the man at the wheel, the ideal axis of which crosses the earth, itself hurled along its orbit. 6. The poet must spend himself with warmth, glamour and prodigality to increase the enthusiastic fervor of the primordial elements. 7. Beauty exists only in struggle. There is no masterpiece that has not an aggressive character. Poetry must be a violent assault on the forces of the unknown, to force them to bow before man. 8. We are on the extreme promontory of the centuries! What is the use of looking behind at the moment when we must open the mysterious shutters of the impossible? Time and Space died yesterday. We are already living in the absolute, since we have already created eternal, omnipresent speed. 9. We want to glorify war — the only hygiene of the world — militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman. 10. We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice. 11. We will sing of the great crowds agitated by work, pleasure and revolt; the multi-colored and polyphonic surf of revolutions in modern capitals: the nocturnal vibration of the arsenals and the workshops beneath their violent electric moons: the gluttonous railway stations devouring smoking serpents; factories suspended from the clouds by the thread of their smoke; bridges with the leap of gymnasts flung across the diabolic cutlery of sunny rivers: adventurous steamers sniffing the horizon; great-breasted locomotives, puffing on the rails like enormous steel horses with long tubes for bridle, and the gliding flight of aeroplanes whose propeller sounds like the flapping of a flag and the applause of enthusiastic crowds. "
These guys are legends, at least in their own minds. They are at the crossroads between the many roads of being enlightened by one's own intelligence. Was this just a single very ambitious soul spending a week spreading the good news of the tech singularity and how it'll make everyone fear him, or did "Mencius Moldbug", Nick Land, F. T. Marinetti and the rest of the shadow basement council all decide to get Steam accounts at the same time? EDIT: Oops. Seems like F. T. Marinetti was a century-ago prototype of the "Dark Enlightenment". Doesn't change much of what I said except to say "horrible people obsessed with technology-based power fantasies also existed before the Internet".
I have recently come to appreciate Filippo Tommaso Marinetti's Futurist Manifesto again. It's easy to reject some of the ideals he proposed, especially with the knowledge we have today. We know today that speed is wasteful and that the machines cease to be fascinating and start to be bothersome when they dominate the landscape. Still, the manifesto has to be understood and appreciated in its own context. Italy was the remnant of a former glorious civilization. Whereas England, the United States, France and increasingly Germany too were changing the world and entering unknown territory, Italy was clinging onto its past. It's stifling to the young to be forever living in the shadow of the accomplishments of their ancestors. To Marinetti, a country with too many museums becomes a graveyard. Most interestingly perhaps, Marinetti argued that the young cling onto the past because the future is denied to them. I think this is more relevant today than ever before. It's especially true for Western Europeans. Whereas the Indians, the Chinese, even the Eastern Europeans to some degree, can look forward to a glorious future, as Western Europeans we grow up surrounded by a sense of former glory. The cognitive coping mechanism for long has been to deny the glory ever existed. "No, we did not accomplish something amazing. The British empire left nothing but genocides behind and the fact that homosexuality was officially illegal until the latter half of the 20th century is an unspeakable atrocity." The man in denial will state. When you lose your girlfriend, the girl was a bitch all along. When you lose your empire, the empire was a racist mistake all along. Simultaneously there has been a kind of guilty indulgence in the past, especially by women. Young women enviously watch television drama series about an era in which they would have been confined to the kitchen or expected to feign lightheadedness at the slightest upsetting incident. An era when wearing pants would have led people to think you've lost your mind and marriage was sufficient to rob you of any meaningful sense of autonomy. An era when men where vile, cruel, bigoted, jealous, authoritarian and possessive, rather than cowardly begging for the world's approval. You won't openly acknowledge that this is the era you yearn back for of course. No, if pressed, you will readily claim to look forward to the glorious future when a woman earns as much money as a man for her meaningless cubicle labor and can walk around campus bent over spreading her asshole without any misogynist rape apologist daring to suggest that she's "asking for it". Only then can we rest. The exact problem we're dealing with is that this era is never coming back. Some of you might be able to live as modern day hunter-gatherers scouring through the remnants of Western civilization a few decades from now, but what we had two centuries ago simply won't come back. When you can finally make peace with this simple principle, you can finally respond to the changes of your environment and begin to adapt to it. Of course this isn't just true for lonely young women yearning for a Mr. Rochester to come sweeping them up. It's true for ponytailed intellectuals struggling to reconstruct the religion of their ancestors based on fragmentary writings by Icelandic bishops and Norwegian black metal lyrics too. Wodan lies dead in his grave next to Mr. Rochester. The thing to do is to take that impulse, to forget all context and to see where it leads you. The greatest art in history was created by people who raised a giant middle finger to the context they were born into. The past stops being better than the present when you stop yearning for it. This is the 21st century and I'm glad to be a human being born today. I'm taller and healthier than any man in my family. I can become a secret millionaire by hacking a Bitcoin exchange, I can grow giant redwood trees in my backyard, I can take psychedelics to communicate with archetypal entities and I can simulate entire worlds through the press of a button. It's a good thing that the stories we write today will not be the same as those written in the past. If this era was not meant to be, the laws of physics would have prohibited it from coming into existence. It's frightening, it's unprecedented and it's unbelievable, but if you can't deal with this phenomenon laid out in front of your eyes, then the error lies within you, not without. The only thing I can think of that the past has to offer to the present is Marinetti's manifesto of youth. The Futurist Manifesto is a celebration of youth. We're no longer building on the foundations of the past, it's time to build something entirely new. I do not believe in the blind worship of science and technology. I only believe in science and technology infused by the audacity of youth. Only a young man dares to ask why Neanderthal man has not arisen from his grave already, a question to which a conclave of stiff old men have nothing to offer but tiresome hesitation and doubt. Do you think we will use the tools you passed on to us to finish your simplistic humanist project? Are we but an extension of your self? No, we are beings of our own and we will build something entirely new with them. We do not even fear the failure you have set us up for, because our goals are entirely different from yours. Peak oil, climate change? Ha! We scoff at your condolences old man! Success to us is when our emaciated corpses nourish the wolves and the Neanderthal man opens the oysters growing in our abandoned underwater office complexes with his bare knuckles! We do not fear destruction, we celebrate it! We are youth and we respond to every warning you have to offer with nothing but fearless audacity. I see before me, a society that is entirely dominated by youth. We will do what nobody before us has done, which is to invade and colonize old age without mercy, until finally it loses its stranglehold over society. How will it be accomplished? You will not age. Two centuries ago, the thought that a thousand children could be born and only six would not live to see their first birthday would have been inconceivable. Today we take it for granted. I do not preach the abolition of death, because we do not fear death. I see something much more realistic ahead of us, which is a society where we understand what causes us to age and choose to say no to it. Old age exists for a reason. It made sense when only a few of us lived to see it. It's fine to have a single wise patriarch in a village, it becomes oppressive when they form the majority of the population. Today we are brought into this world with a near guarantee that we will live to see old age ourselves. I think old age is a folly. Around the age of thirteen there will come a time when you will be building a tree house with your friends, some younger children will pass by, you will feel embarrassed and return to loitering on the street. It is at this moment when you die. Everything from this point on is a shadow of your true self, a culturally sanctioned alternative for what it is you really hoped to accomplish in life. Your true self still lives as a ghost within the unfinished tree house. If you listen carefully, you can hear his haunting cries when you stop playing video games because your girlfriend thinks it's for losers, or when you miss the bus because you're afraid of looking foolish by running. He struggled to breathe when he heard you enrolled in computer science. He always thought he would grow up to be a goat herder. But youth doesn't die of old age. Youth dies of neglect. I can nourish my youth and I do so on a daily basis. Like a tropical animal brought back to a zoo, we are only just beginning to discover its diet. Psychedelics cause a lasting change in human personality, increasing our openness to experience to the degree that we appear decades younger. This isn't the end of what we can do, it is the beginning. I will readily admit that I am a transhumanist. But my transhumanism isn't the blind worship of progress. Like the Aka pygmies of the Congolese rain forest, I believe that I can merge with Jengi, the spirit of nature. In the process, I become something more than merely human. A potato is not starch. What starch is, is a basic building block that a potato uses to amplify its own essence. We seize this starch and we use it to allow our own body to grow itself. But what happens when we consume coffee, or cacao? The same can not be argued. It is clear the the coffee plants leaves its own fingerprint upon us. You can recognize a man under the influence of coffee quite readily, but you can not recognize whether a man has had a lifetime supply of potatoes pass through his intestinal tract. Some plants turn us into a composite organism, like a Lichen. As human beings we are defined by our minds, but what defines a plant? The essence of a plant is defined by the chemical substances it produces that set it apart from the other plants. What you have to understand is that you are not in control over these organisms. They manipulate you. You are no different from the mouse infected with T. Gondii that seeks out the scent of cat urine for reasons he does not understand. The scent of freshly cut grass sends volatile compounds into the air that suppress anxiety in your brain in the same manner as it does in a rat. The toxic mold growing in your shower releases chemical substances that induce depression. So what are you then? Man the conqueror? You operate entirely within the constraints placed upon you by organisms around you and within you, like a puppet on an invisible string. So my transhumanism is not a rebellion against nature, but a counter-revolution. I submit to the totality of the world around me and recognize myself as nothing more than its instrument, subject to an order too complex for me to understand. I merge with what I consume, whether I like it or not. If I consume the hopelessness and existential dread of a pig that has grown up without ever seeing mud or sunlight, I become its misery. Vitamin D, Omega 3 ratios, I don't care about the emotionally detached lexicon you use for it to give yourself an aura of credibility and professionalism. My understanding is the same as that of an African pygmy who worships the forest that lives on within him. But how does this relate to youth? Because of their diet and lifestyle, Amazon men in their 80's have arteries of Americans in their 50's. Those who live in alignment with the natural world around them remain young. And what is the role of science and technology? Science and technology serve merely as instruments, to allow us to learn to live in alignment with the natural world. Science is a tool, what matters are the goals it is used for. We can use science as one of many tools to become symbiotic organisms, integrated in nature. The reward we earn is the freedom to cast off the cloak of old age. What we have to understand and accept is that youth will not come to us through a techno-fix. You will not upload your mind to a computer. No, the organisms around you are the holy grail you yearn for. I believe that ultimately, we will even push forward the very concept of menopause. The cultural revolution this entails is a spectacle to behold. Today all men around the world yearn for and compete over a woman roughly between the ages of twenty and thirty. It is their biological imperative. The woman does not understand the gift she is given, until her body eventually loses its splendor and she can merely look back upon youth with envy. We increased our life expectancy from around 40 in the 19th century, to almost 90 years today. But why? Why is a woman's reproductive window today the same as it was in 1800? We have merely extended senility. I would sacrifice every year after 65 without a moment of hesitation, if it would grant me ten more years of childhood. Rhetoric is cheap, I understand. But I believe the possibility is there. Consider the case of Brooke Greenberg, who still appeared in every sense of the word as an infant until she died at age twenty. She still had her baby teeth and the size and mental age of a one year old. I'm not yearning to be an infant forever, but it reveals the untapped biological potential that exists. In theory, we can delay every step in the aging process. We already know how to accelerate these steps, you accelerate them yourself when you smoke a cigarette, inject steroids or eat a hamburger. Rats have seen their hair regrow and muscles strengthen through chemical substances that kill their senescent cells. These substances can kill the cells that prohibit your fat cells from multiplying too, the consequence being that a forty year old woman could still have the full cheeks of a twenty year old. Stem cells injected into the hypothalamus allow the hypothalamus to rejuvenate and send a signal of youth to the rest of the body. The list of accomplishments booked in recent years is too long to bore you with here. What I am arguing is as following: An extension of physical youth will bring about a cultural and political renaissance. I don't care what happens to retirement, raise the retirement age to a hundred years for all I care. Those who are truly intelligent and have a fiery untamable passion for life burning inside of them, who see a form of beauty around them so vast and all-encompassing that they could not begin to articulate it, will manage to extend their youth for decades. We will see women in their sixties conceiving naturally and seventy year old freegan crust punks hitching rides on freight trains. "But what about Down syndrome?" Down syndrome is not caused by old age itself, it's caused by a woman running out of high quality eggs and the body responding by resorting to whatever egg is still available. The body is capable of a degree of regeneration that we do not recognize. It used to be thought that neurogenesis does not occur in adults. Then we discovered it happens in the hippocampus and the striatum. We now know that neurogenesis occurs in the hypothalamus too, from where the aging process is imposed upon the rest of the body. Similarly, we used to think a woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have. We now know that certain conditions can cause a woman's body to spontaneously grow new eggs. Because of our modern healthy diets, the age of menopause is increasing across Europe. The speed of aging is the speed at which we decay, minus the speed at which we regenerate. If the prior can be reduced and the latter increased, we bring about a dramatic decline in the speed of aging. We have known for years how to slow the decline, but now we are beginning to understand how to increase the speed at which we regenerate. Cannabidiol can be used to promote the differentiation of stem cells into neurons. It thereby rejuvenates the brain. What we have started exploring so far is merely the tip of the iceberg. Today we face the prospect of a revolution of youth. I can not think of a more exciting time to be alive.
This Week in Bitcoin: Taxes, Forks, Pranks and Porn
Bitcoin in Brief is your roundup of everything that matters from all over the vast cryptosphere that you might have missed. This week’s daily editions included stories about taxes, forks, pranks, porn and so much more. This weekly edition will bring you up to speed with everything covered; just make sure you keep up. A Panther’s Moonshot Bet On Monday we reported why Pantera Capital bets on a moonshot bitcoin price point, how the world’s most popular decentralized digital asset has been forked more than 70 times, and a growing list of countries likely to let you keep your crypto profits. Additionally covered were Yahoo! Japan which confirmed that it is entering the crypto space by acquiring a stake in an exchange, and a good-hearted wager between bitcoin core and bitcoin cash supporters that exemplifies how ecosystem actors should treat one another. The Tax Man Effect The world’s biggest economy faced the tax man on Tuesday, as the United States and its crypto traders had to pay for last year’s gains. Economists and market bulls were insisting that this fact caused dramatic sell offs, leading to haircuts across the board. We also covered I Pay You, the supposed hack of Ian Balina, and the release of a bitcoin themed clothing line for babies. Pornhub? We’ve Never Heard of Pornhub On Wednesday it was revealed that Pornhub, a website we’re sure you never heard of before because nobody watches porn on the internet, has joined the crypto revolution. We also reported about how South Korea’s loss of ICOs is Switzerland’s gain; how bitcoin is blamed for every crime under the sun; why Ethereum’s Vitalik Buterin is accused of favoritism; and why bitcoin cash (BCH) is getting a ton of love from CNBC’s Brian Kelly. ICO Scares Investors With Ghost Prank On Thursday we indulged ourselves with a bunch of crypto crime news stories, including an international bitcoin heist escape, the fury of a scorned woman, a bear spray robbery, and some whole food violence. The biggest issue of the day was a German online news source claiming that Savedroid has apparently taken the money and run. The company website was replaced with a meme picture, “Aannnd it’s gone.” Founder and CEO Yassin Hankir tweeted a picture of himself on a beach, long gone. All this after having raised $50 million in an ICO. Investors were not pleased. Truths, T-Shirts, Things That Matter The most talked about issue on Friday was the stance that Kraken’s chief executive took against the latest actions by authorities in New York. Jesse Powell has refused to complete a questionnaire, and instead respond with strong-worded language. “When I saw this 34-point demand, I immediately thought ‘The audacity of these guys – the entitlement, the disrespect for our business, our time!…I realized that we made the right decision to get the hell out of New York,’” he said. We also reported about a deal between privacy web browser Brave Software and Dow Jones Media Group to test blockchain technology in digital publishing; and another crypto clothing line – this time for hip adults – by The Hundreds a streetwear brand from Los Angeles. Coinsecure Working With Authorities This Week in Bitcoin: Taxes, Forks, Pranks and PornCoinsecure, the hacked Indian bitcoin exchange, has updated clients on Saturday about its repayment plan. The team said they have been flooded with calls and emails over the last few days regarding the disbursement of funds. And they claim to have been working with the authorities tirelessly since the incident and that there have been a lot of back and forth with several data requests. They add that they have been working on providing the data requested and that has consumed the majority of their time. They wrote that: “We’d like to inform you, that we have started work on the claims process. Our legal team is currently reviewing contracts and our teams are working on putting together the claims form for your perusal. We are hoping that by the following weekend, we should get started and you should be able to submit your claims withdrawal requests. Please understand, that with authorities being involved and investigations underway, things do slow down a bit and we have to follow processes outlined by the authorities.”
The top ten movers and shakers from Inside Bitcoins in Vegas.
1) Bobby Lee: CEO of BTC China (now the largest bitcoin exchange in the world), Bobby gave a presentation on Bitcoin in China, perhaps the most important panel of the entire conference. He clarified what last week's Chinese government announcement meant for the future of Bitcoin as both a regulated investment and payment system in China. As an investment, it has been given the green light for now, which is important. But as a payment system, it is banned outright, which is very bad news...mostly for China. 2) Charlie Lee: All you need to know about Charlie, a Coinbase executive and creator of LiteCoin, is that he is the understated, non-anonymous founder of the leading alternative currency to Bitcoin. Which naturally meant that people were literally lining up to take pictures with him. Though he was taken by surprise, he smiled for every single one. Upon seeing this, I asked him to sign my chest, but unfortunately he thought I was kidding. He and his brother are as nice and humble as people say they are. I was disappointed that there wasn't a panel on "alt-currencies" with him and the founders of some of the other cryptos. 1a, 2a) "BitDad" (Bobby & Charlie's father): The Lees brought their father to Vegas, where he was affectionately referred to as BitDad for producing two of the industries most important pioneers. 3) Patrick Murck: Head of the Bitcoin Foundation, the industry's leading advocacy group, Murck just testified before the Senate re Bitcoin's potential. All week, I pitched the idea of insuring Bitcoin deposits to other attendees and received overwhelmingly positive reception. But when Murck told me "this needs to happen," I had to double back to my room to change my boxers. 4) David Johnston & Michael Terpin: These two are co-founders of BitAngels, the industry's leading Bitcoin investor network. That alone makes them important. But they are more than just Bitcoin enthusiasts, and BitAngels is about more than just money. Johnston and Terpin have built an entrepreneurial network that turns ideas into companies by syncing likeminded, specialized teammates with the appropriate engineering, finance, and/or legal complements to form a solid founding team. 5) Robert Cho: Today, if you are an investor that wants to own Bitcoin, but prefer to avoid direct investment in digital currency (like many less tech-savvy investors), the only game in town is SecondMarket's Bitcoin Investment Trust, which already raised over $65 million from accredited investors. Cho is the VP responsible for the trust, and has blazed the path for other Wall Streeters to follow in SecondMarket's footsteps. In fact, one major US hedge fund plans to announce a Bitcoin position in the next several weeks. (A long position, of course.) 6) Paige Freeman: My conversation with Paige was short and sweet, but she definitely deserves mention because of how quickly her team at BitPay is on-boarding new merchants. (She's VP of Sales.) They now have over 15,000 merchants on their platform and recently announced that they passed the $100mm transaction processing milestone. Bitcoin investments rely on underlying value in the payment system and $100mm is a big number. It shows people are doing more than mere speculating. 7) Vinny Lingham: I wish I had had more time to speak with Vinny. As the merchant complement to BitPay, his company Gyft, a mobile gift card company, is extremely valuable to the Bitcoin community. Very few major merchants accept Bitcoin today, but you can buy Gyft cards with Bitcoin. And those can be spent at retailers like Amazon, Target, Nike, etc. Ergo... 8) Brock Pierce: I am surprised that some enterprising attendee didn't go out and have "Brock Pierce 2016" t-shirts printed after his panel to wrap up Day 1 of the conference. Two of his best quotes, which were border-line shouted into the microphone because he was so excited: "Professional investors that invest in the currency as if it is an index fund have a moral obligation to invest in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Otherwise, the infrastructure won't get built." "Bitcoin will be the biggest area of VC investment in 2014. Just like VCs asked: "What is our social media strategy?" during the early Facebook / LinkedIn / Twitter years, I guarantee you they asked: "What is our Bitcoin strategy?" at partner meetings after Jim Breyer's investment in Circle." Also, in case Brock's name sounds familiar, it's because you may remember him as the kid who played a young Emilio Estevez in the Mighty Duck movies. 9) Andreas Antonopoulos: The probable VP on Brock's Bitcoin Presidential ticket. He's too "fire-and-brimstone" to be at the top, but holy shit could he fire up the Bitcoin base. Andreas is a writer, speaker and Bitcoin entrepreneur. He was asked to respond to bankers and politicians who questioned whether Bitcoin was "legitimate" and delivered an exasperated soliloquy on the audacity of our "morally bankrupt, corrupt and illegitimate banks and governments" passing such judgment on Bitcoin. I think the crowd nearly gave him a standing ovation when he wrapped up. Follow him on twitter to spice up your feed. @aantonop 10) Stewart Quealy: Media Bistro did a phenomenal job with the conference, and much of the credit goes to Stewart, the primary organizer and emcee for the entire conference. Great guy, and you should look forward to meeting him at future events. Agree disagree with this list? Let me know who I missed. @twobitidiot; (You can also subscribe to my Daily Bit by emailing [email protected] best post to date was the now-prophetic thesis on how Coinbase was a $BN company)
I went to open another account with them, cause they are my bank. Some greeter person asked me if I had an appointment...I didn’t. It’s a bank, who makes appointments? They said to make one online and come back then - I looked around and the fucking lobby was empty. May they finish disappearing quickly.
People are actually taking time writing thoughtful responses on this thread and all you're doing is replying with cheap passive aggressive criticisms. I'm not going to pretend to know economics so no I don't have anything on this thread to contribute, but I'm not being rude to those that are either. YouTube has some excellent videos on breathing exercises and meditation if you're ever interested in getting frustrations out in a healthier manner.
Why are you silencing inquiry with your insults? You're actively dissuading a persuit for understanding because you're judging the quality of the fora; While offering literally no alternatives; Just unbridled contempt for the audacity to be in a space that you, for some reason, want to curate into an elitist club for emotionally myopic.
(1 ) Guarantee you have nothing to say about this <--called it
Yeah I predicted your incompetent behavior. What now? Staring at your computer screen with your dumb fucking mouth wide open?
to type out a vastly unverified yet very specific sounding statement such as this
Didn't call it but wow you also have nothing to say about this either? You were blindly making up bullshit, why do you think that's ok to do? No fucking answer again, huh genius? Do you just type out bullshit that's wrong and then jump to more bullshit when you're called out? It costs you nothing to spout bs and then other people have to spend time showing why you're wrong? Look at you.
Not every year from 1980 to 2018, just over the entire period
Go ahead and compare that to the gains from 2014q2-2018q2. What do you find? oh wait, did you want to be the only mother fucker that can cherry pick dates? Go on, what do you find? I'll wait.
Like I said no real gains.
literally quotes real gains ... then says no real gains ... lol there is nothing you can say to back up this drivel, one more stupid redditor found out on the internet
There is definitely a close relationship between the money supply and economic activity. My issue is that the author of the article seems to think there are schools of thought in economics. It demonstrates a lack of familiarity with modern economics. I would also take issue with an article that referred to a "Socialist school."
I agree, but it is completely irrelevant to the content of the article. The author never referred to the authority of the austrian school, never used their concepts, and didn't praise it in a significant way. Hence I don't see the reason why you claim their economics is bad. You say schools of thought don't matter, yet you reject an article that is pretty much independent of any school of thought because it mentions one in subclause. I can't follow that logic at all.
Then tell me one incorrect austrian idea that is exposed in this article. You could have cited that part in your first part as evidence of bad economics and I would have had no objections. Simply mentioning the history of the austrian school, especially on a part they actually kind of got right and was taken over by modern economists, is not a sign of bad economics. If you claim the economics in the article isn't sound, show it. Right now all I see is: The term "Austrians" is present in the article, therefore it's bad economics. I consider that to be one of the worst lines of reasoning.
Yeah if russian insurance companies have to force drivers to install dash cams before giving coverage, then your people are untrustworthy garbage. Their whole culture revolves around screwing people to get ahead
According to the 2020 ACI Speedpay Pulse report, one in four consumers has increased their usage of the biller’s website to pay bills, while one in five has decreased the number of payments they send by mail or make in person at a physical location. In addition, more consumers prefer digital statements (48.2%) to paper statements (25%), while around a quarter prefer to receive both digital ... “If you’re stupid enough to buy [Bitcoin], you’ll pay the price for it one day.” Get the entire 10-part series on Timeless Reading in … of blockchain-based solutions to real-world problems. But what is Bitcoin and why would I have the audacity to compare it to something … JP Morgan - Audacity of Bitcoin - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Bitcoin From day one, Bitcoin was directly at odds with the agenda of central bankers, who wanted total control over the money supply, and an end to all cash. Bitcoin was the epitome of audacity. Then, dark markets made Bitcoin sinister. Governments scrambled to put a lid on illicit commerce and capital flight denominated in bitcoin. Bitcoin became notorious for thumbing its nose at the authorities in ... Can Audacity only delete the stuff I just recorded with backspace instead of all the audio? 2. Distortion in Audacity. 3. Simple one-channel audio-interface plus analog mixer, or multi-channel USB audio interface? 1. Connecting a Keyboard to Record in Audacity . 3. Enhancing a frequency band with Audacity. 2. Recording Sound Through Casio Keyboard Using Audacity. 2. Setup and requirements to ...
What One Sip of Diet Soda Does to Your Brain - YouTube
Cryptonix is here to help by providing a free introduction & guide to bitcoin, cryptocurrency & blockchain. Learn how it all works all in one place. How / where to buy or store bitcoin and crypto ... Are diet sodas bad for you? Are they healthier than regular sodas? These are some of the questions many have on their mind. Today, we're looking into the sci... Today I am sharing how much money youtube has paid in the past two years a.k.a. for 2 million views. Hope you guys enjoy. #howmuchyoutubepaidme #howmuchmoney... Adobe makes so many software that it can be quite overwhelming for even a professional to understand what each one is used for. Many people who are new to th... These are the effects I have most often used in Audacity. They will hopefully help me as much as they help you. In this video I show Noise Reduction, Truncate Silence, and Normalize. Download ...