NRG is Eternal!

Site Slogan

News:Current News: 3/30/2020 - You can now select your own theme from our list of themes. We're going to add a few to choose from. If you go to your profile, you'll find the option there. Happy theming!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Ntwadumela

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yet, Sophia implanted that very light in Seth, deceiving the Demiurge. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to perceive the delineation you're making when you're being laconic. Is it because we were talking about Jack being a "Jewish" archetype (connection to the Demiurge)? Still, do both aspects of "Light carrier"s not have an embedded facet of deception?

FWIW I think the issue of Satan was brought up to show how polarized expectations can ensnare our learning of these concepts. If they have us filling the wrong blanks we’ll never notice the right answers. Religions don’t arm us with the correct slots for the cosmic shapes, after (((rewrites))) they arm us with slots that will actively refuse those shapes.

Take the Demiurge for example, the Greeks assigned that title to a planet, simple as that, but the Gnostic hijack formed such a polarized story around that title, made it so evil, good luck fitting any shape through the Demiurge slot anymore. They created a ‘blank’ that doesn’t exist, there’s no ‘answer’ because any real demiurge is nothing like the Gnostic story describes.

That’s one immediate example of the above. The Demiurge isn’t Jewish, the rewrite convincing us he’s an evil deity opposed to Mankind is Jewish. Lucifer isn’t deceptive, the rewrite convincing us he has ill intent is deceptive... etc.

As I stated in my second or third post in the thread, this whole time I was trying to reconcile stories like the serpent in the garden or Prometheus being devoid of dichotomy when Jack's story wasn't.
I fully understand all of this...

Okay, I get it. "Lucifer" doesn't have to have any theme of tricking involved.

2
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Apologies if I missed something but who exactly is Jack supposed to be?

No need to apologize, we are all here to learn. The name Jack is often used to name trickster and a thief. And at the end of this story, a carrier of light.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This is what really confused me. A carrier of light at the end of his story? How does this mesh with Nick suggesting that Jack is supposed to be a "Jewish" thief? I'm having trouble reconciling carrier of light and jack also being conniving and malevolent.
Was I just not understanding Nick to be cynical?

Why do you think.of light as positive?

What was the default state of the universe

I think I'm taking a personification angle. I understand what you're suggesting: "Light" means knowledge here.
But, yeah, contrast is what really animates things. What is Light without Darkness?

More importantly, stripped of stigma,  what do the vast number of humans find more instinctively comforting, safe and tranquil


And to which are we conditioned to flock toward in times of uncertainty, such as right after death?

So, Jack carries Light (Lucifer), but a false Light. Does this not make him a deceiver?
I understand what you guys are pointing toward with the primordial darkness concept, "Let there be Light". Sure. But these two concepts seem to contradict to me, especially in light of the previous post I've made.
I'm not sure what I'm missing here.

So... why is the light false

I understand it wasn't the Divine Light of Sophia, but of Yaldaboath.
Yet, Sophia implanted that very light in Seth, deceiving the Demiurge. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to perceive the delineation you're making when you're being laconic. Is it because we were talking about Jack being a "Jewish" archetype (connection to the Demiurge)? Still, do both aspects of "Light carrier"s not have an embedded facet of deception?

There is no such thing as 'Divine Light' there is merely the wielder and their intent and in this case its 'Sophia' the entity that fell on some grand level and initiated some large part of humanity into a new age of ignorance (to keep things simple).

If Darkness is the true natural state of the universe then why is it that 'Light' is 'divine'? Why is the Darkness not divine instead? Why don't we hear about 'divine Darkness' instead?

Yes, I was just using the Gnostic tale to convey my understanding of the primordial darkness concept. No, I didn't fully explain my perspective.
It would be much easier if we quit making assumptions about what each other can comprehend and instead just answer questions plainly. I can't learn anything like this and it just feels frustrating when we have to keep pausing and stating we're on the same page or trying to teach through each other's assumed misconceptions.
I fully understand the fault in using dichotomous thought. Here I was illustrating my understanding of the stories and asking where Nick calling Jack Jewish fits in to this whole ordeal. Before, I was simply asking about Nick (to some extent also Grass) framing Jack one way or the other.

3
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Dude...

"I like apples"

"I get it the apple is symbolic of temptation and the temptations sang, so you're saying to sing"

Don't make leaps, take steps

Hold on, Nick.
I was asking about the implications of framing Jack as being Jewish and how I was supposed to interpret it: post #21. As you'll recall, you then asked why I thought Light was positive. I didn't necessarily think that. I was actually asking about your making it seem like it was a good or bad thing and if I was supposed to interpret it one way or another, hence my asking about you calling Jack Jewish.
I relented; I said fine, I was misunderstanding you and made it seem like a personification, where it can be viewed as a good or bad thing.
This is when you asked me to convey my understanding of primordial darkness and I reciprocated, agreeing to the concept of "false light".
Your next comment was condemning my framing Lucifer as a deceiver. I thought then it was best to just cut to the chase, leaving behind dichotomous frames and simply repeated the question, this time leaving out the word that seemed to trigger the next response - I called it Trickster and not deceiver this time.
Here is where you assumed I meant Satan, but I'm, again, fully aware "Satan" just means "adversary".
Next, I gave examples of why I thought a crucial component of Lucifer was deception, namely in this situation agreeing Jack's light was false (deception). Next you again asked me about the primordial darkness concept and I illustrated my understanding of the typical story used, specifying why we consider the light of the Demiurge to be false.

Nick, I don't think I ever made a leap after my initial misunderstanding, which you never really answered, you just assumed I meant to say "bad guy" when I just meant the Trickster archetype (to me it's devoid of polarized perspective). Frankly, I was asking you about your dichotomous frame of Jack and I explicitly asked if you were just being cynical or something. Maybe I should've asked if it was supposed to be a fleeting example, not one through which I should perceive any deeper connotation of Lucifer.

I'm not sure why you're being impatient with me. I've tried to just cut back to the original question multiple times now...

4
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Apologies if I missed something but who exactly is Jack supposed to be?

No need to apologize, we are all here to learn. The name Jack is often used to name trickster and a thief. And at the end of this story, a carrier of light.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This is what really confused me. A carrier of light at the end of his story? How does this mesh with Nick suggesting that Jack is supposed to be a "Jewish" thief? I'm having trouble reconciling carrier of light and jack also being conniving and malevolent.
Was I just not understanding Nick to be cynical?

Why do you think.of light as positive?

What was the default state of the universe

I think I'm taking a personification angle. I understand what you're suggesting: "Light" means knowledge here.
But, yeah, contrast is what really animates things. What is Light without Darkness?

More importantly, stripped of stigma,  what do the vast number of humans find more instinctively comforting, safe and tranquil


And to which are we conditioned to flock toward in times of uncertainty, such as right after death?

So, Jack carries Light (Lucifer), but a false Light. Does this not make him a deceiver?
I understand what you guys are pointing toward with the primordial darkness concept, "Let there be Light". Sure. But these two concepts seem to contradict to me, especially in light of the previous post I've made.
I'm not sure what I'm missing here.

So... why is the light false

I understand it wasn't the Divine Light of Sophia, but of Yaldaboath.
Yet, Sophia implanted that very light in Seth, deceiving the Demiurge. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to perceive the delineation you're making when you're being laconic. Is it because we were talking about Jack being a "Jewish" archetype (connection to the Demiurge)? Still, do both aspects of "Light carrier"s not have an embedded facet of deception?

5
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Apologies if I missed something but who exactly is Jack supposed to be?

No need to apologize, we are all here to learn. The name Jack is often used to name trickster and a thief. And at the end of this story, a carrier of light.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This is what really confused me. A carrier of light at the end of his story? How does this mesh with Nick suggesting that Jack is supposed to be a "Jewish" thief? I'm having trouble reconciling carrier of light and jack also being conniving and malevolent.
Was I just not understanding Nick to be cynical?

Why do you think.of light as positive?

What was the default state of the universe

I think I'm taking a personification angle. I understand what you're suggesting: "Light" means knowledge here.
But, yeah, contrast is what really animates things. What is Light without Darkness?

More importantly, stripped of stigma,  what do the vast number of humans find more instinctively comforting, safe and tranquil


And to which are we conditioned to flock toward in times of uncertainty, such as right after death?

So, Jack carries Light (Lucifer), but a false Light. Does this not make him a deceiver?
I understand what you guys are pointing toward with the primordial darkness concept, "Let there be Light". Sure. But these two concepts seem to contradict to me, especially in light of the previous post I've made.
I'm not sure what I'm missing here.

6
I don't think "Satan" is the Trickster. I was never under that impression. I understand the title means "adversary".
Wasn't one of the big points of the Promethean Myth his deception of Zeus? Prometheus feels like the shining example of the Lucifer title. The Serpent in the Garden was also a Trickster, no? Didn't he deceive El (Anu)?

How does "Satan" connect to Hermes? I'm not following and I'm assuming there's context I'm missing.

7
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thus Lucifer/Prometheus being a deceiver, eh?
I'll admit, it's difficult at times to change the dial between here and other places. Having to put more effort in to thinking about what you guys are talking about is still alluring to me, even after a couple of years of lurking around.

See but like... you're the one saying lucifer is the deceiver. Who rewrote and perverted the Bible? Was it slammin' sammy?

Is the Trickster not a manifestation of Lucifer?

8
Thus Lucifer/Prometheus being a deceiver, eh?
I'll admit, it's difficult at times to change the dial between here and other places. Having to put more effort in to thinking about what you guys are talking about is still alluring to me, even after a couple of years of lurking around.

9
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Apologies if I missed something but who exactly is Jack supposed to be?

No need to apologize, we are all here to learn. The name Jack is often used to name trickster and a thief. And at the end of this story, a carrier of light.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This is what really confused me. A carrier of light at the end of his story? How does this mesh with Nick suggesting that Jack is supposed to be a "Jewish" thief? I'm having trouble reconciling carrier of light and jack also being conniving and malevolent.
Was I just not understanding Nick to be cynical?

Why do you think.of light as positive?

What was the default state of the universe

I think I'm taking a personification angle. I understand what you're suggesting: "Light" means knowledge here.
But, yeah, contrast is what really animates things. What is Light without Darkness?

10
Let's Get Down & Dirty / Re: Memory check
« on: May 22, 2021, 02:19:14 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
From what I can tell, mining will be too prohibitive after a certain point. I think what we'll see in the future is less and less people opting to invest in the tech required to mine and instead just buying fractional BTC. So, that's the beauty of BTC: once it outgrows mining and adoption draws nearer, the idea is to lean more on the "Layer 2" solutions (scaling solutions) and avoid congesting the chain as much. The interesting thing is some are speaking currently about making infinitely scaleable solutions. I'm not sure how practical it is to frame it that way, but I can understand what they mean - it's more like they're suggesting that they can make it scale to the point where network congestion is no longer a complication.
Besides, "lack of supply" isn't really an applicable concept here. Many think you have to buy whole coins, but this is false. I think fractional BTC will be much more commonly spoken of in the near future, hence the brilliant foresight of the original cypherpunks who coined the term "satoshis" (basically just means cents, compared to saying "tenth of a dollar").

Quote
To say nothing of the fact three is nothing anyone has told me any crypto does that isn't already accomplished with fiat, p.m.s or other instruments

The crux lies in their ability to mesh with digital commercial infrastructure. Without the ability to digitize or scale (without so much cost like hyperinflation), p.m.s and fiat don't really compete. Some tend to mention Gold Money here or modern Credit, but those too have vivid faults. For instance, Gold Money has the same issues BTC currently does. It cannot scale. Besides, it sort of copies and pastes a lot of Blockchain concepts still... which is pretty awkward. Credit I don't think needs touched, but being immutable and no longer needing to trust anyone or relinquish custody seem like total defeat in my book.

So, yeah, you've pinpointed the exact issue with where we are now, which admittedly doesn't surprise me at all. The elephant in the room (it's a tiny room, too) is that too many coins or tokens are simply not needed and are literal vaporware. You can just feel the eye rolls of anyone that's put good time in to learning about the space when you mention DOGE, for instance. 
The exciting part is I caught a project quite early that harnesses the Proof of Stake concept to revolutionize liquidity complications. For a taste of what I think Blockchain can do, I can meagerly attempt an explanation:
The project I'm currently most interested in makes it so the coins you hold can be bundled and used to create a node of sorts, which performs all kinds of complex functions for the network. A lot of projects use this kind of concept to fuel validations of the network, sort of like checkpoints on a long stretch of road where they make sure nothing is suspicious along the travel. This particular project understands that those nodes need to be up at all times, so they use cloud computing to keep them running 24/7; not doing so means a potential lapse in the network. There's a huge amount of processing power that isn't touched in doing so, which has prompted brilliant ideas by different community members, touched on by developers already. In essence, they suggest that since there needs to be virtual instances running 24/7 to support said nodes, they could use the rest of the computational "room" to perform other tasks (sort of like a macrocosm of quantum computing). The implications of this idea could potentially be extensive, but I personally do not understand enough of the science to explain it beyond this point. Bear in mind, the coins themselves are necessary for this because the idea (originally, at least) was to use these coins that stake the claim to the network to provide liquidity (which is a common use; even though it's reminiscent of faults of tradfi), they just seem to have stumbled upon more ways to innovate in coming up with the idea. I'm sure this isn't a good enough explanation though.

Alright, I'll try to lay off the rants now.

So I feel like a Nascar driver, slight wheel turns mostly circular, this may well be my fault so take no offense to this.

You're saying oh one day it will scale. No, it won't. You're saying gold cannot scale, p.m.s have scaled for literal millennia.

Essentially you acknowledge my point, than say "isn't that great, don't worry it will all sort itself out"  its had 15 years or so.  Now that the i.r.s. threw down reporting reqs on 10k or more how long till the next regulation?

In any event all, you've been told what will become of crypto holders. Do what you will with it.

Oh, no, I'm saying GoldMoney™, the Peter Schiff digital gold thing. Au has already stood the test of time, but I doubt any of us would consider shipping Au overseas for international business when we could do something instead that is accomplished practically instantly and at pretty much no cost. Frankly, I wouldn't consider sending it to the next state.

But it's already scaling, there is increasing volume being reported as stress tests expand. It's happening right now.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I understand the hesitation and don't blame anyone for being hesitant, but we either adapt and participate in or encourage innovating faster than regulators can regulate or we can get left behind, individually, communally, or nationally. Either way, I'm hedging my bets in multiple directions away from fiat like I think any sane person is considering doing increasingly.

11
Let's Get Down & Dirty / Re: Memory check
« on: May 21, 2021, 09:24:36 PM »
From what I can tell, mining will be too prohibitive after a certain point. I think what we'll see in the future is less and less people opting to invest in the tech required to mine and instead just buying fractional BTC. So, that's the beauty of BTC: once it outgrows mining and adoption draws nearer, the idea is to lean more on the "Layer 2" solutions (scaling solutions) and avoid congesting the chain as much. The interesting thing is some are speaking currently about making infinitely scaleable solutions. I'm not sure how practical it is to frame it that way, but I can understand what they mean - it's more like they're suggesting that they can make it scale to the point where network congestion is no longer a complication.
Besides, "lack of supply" isn't really an applicable concept here. Many think you have to buy whole coins, but this is false. I think fractional BTC will be much more commonly spoken of in the near future, hence the brilliant foresight of the original cypherpunks who coined the term "satoshis" (basically just means cents, compared to saying "tenth of a dollar").

Quote
To say nothing of the fact three is nothing anyone has told me any crypto does that isn't already accomplished with fiat, p.m.s or other instruments

The crux lies in their ability to mesh with digital commercial infrastructure. Without the ability to digitize or scale (without so much cost like hyperinflation), p.m.s and fiat don't really compete. Some tend to mention Gold Money here or modern Credit, but those too have vivid faults. For instance, Gold Money has the same issues BTC currently does. It cannot scale. Besides, it sort of copies and pastes a lot of Blockchain concepts still... which is pretty awkward. Credit I don't think needs touched, but being immutable and no longer needing to trust anyone or relinquish custody seem like total defeat in my book.

So, yeah, you've pinpointed the exact issue with where we are now, which admittedly doesn't surprise me at all. The elephant in the room (it's a tiny room, too) is that too many coins or tokens are simply not needed and are literal vaporware. You can just feel the eye rolls of anyone that's put good time in to learning about the space when you mention DOGE, for instance. 
The exciting part is I caught a project quite early that harnesses the Proof of Stake concept to revolutionize liquidity complications. For a taste of what I think Blockchain can do, I can meagerly attempt an explanation:
The project I'm currently most interested in makes it so the coins you hold can be bundled and used to create a node of sorts, which performs all kinds of complex functions for the network. A lot of projects use this kind of concept to fuel validations of the network, sort of like checkpoints on a long stretch of road where they make sure nothing is suspicious along the travel. This particular project understands that those nodes need to be up at all times, so they use cloud computing to keep them running 24/7; not doing so means a potential lapse in the network. There's a huge amount of processing power that isn't touched in doing so, which has prompted brilliant ideas by different community members, touched on by developers already. In essence, they suggest that since there needs to be virtual instances running 24/7 to support said nodes, they could use the rest of the computational "room" to perform other tasks (sort of like a macrocosm of quantum computing). The implications of this idea could potentially be extensive, but I personally do not understand enough of the science to explain it beyond this point. Bear in mind, the coins themselves are necessary for this because the idea (originally, at least) was to use these coins that stake the claim to the network to provide liquidity (which is a common use; even though it's reminiscent of faults of tradfi), they just seem to have stumbled upon more ways to innovate in coming up with the idea. I'm sure this isn't a good enough explanation though.

Alright, I'll try to lay off the rants now.

12
Let's Get Down & Dirty / Re: Memory check
« on: May 21, 2021, 05:06:12 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Public, Decentralized ledgers cure the Catherine Autsin-Fitts problem. We aren't allowed to audit the ledger, as it's Private. What we want is a Public ledger so that we can properly determine the value of the asset we all use.
I'm sure the "governments won't let that happen" argument is pending and maybe I'm just an idealist, but the idea of digital money makes a lot of sense because of the utility. I fully and completely understand the issues with fiat and wouldn't dare disagree with the inevitable arguments against centralized fiat, but if the innovators among us who manage proper solutions to the limits of centralized fiat can formulate a way to offer the masses a public decentralized ledger that can't be unplugged or muted, centralized finance sees the memento mori.

This talk about "it has arbitrary value" is not wrong, but it misses the finer point entirely: what Blockchain offers is a solution with limitless utility that fixes the glaring faults of digitized centralized finance.
Crypto, therefore, is necessary for many reasons, chief among them being the prospect of auditing the ledger we all have to interact with.

I don't think Doubt alone shouldn't stop us from pursuing a more level commerce arena and while I fully recognize we'll have significant trouble deploying this kind of fix, it doesn't make sense to me not to try.
See, a big issue too many people make, in my view, is that they don't read the Cypherpunk Manifesto, which clearly defines the differences between what tptb do and what /ourguys/ intend to do. Privacy and Secrecy are important to understand; Secrecy means no one can understand what you do with your money, which just means a big X on the ledger whereas Privacy means un-affiliating all of your money with all of the prying eyes that you never needed to touch it. To understand this difference is to capture the essence of what the Cypherpunks intended: you were never meant to have a private ledger like that of Monero or Zcash. Instead, the idea was to deploy something that was immutable, requires zero trust and can't be reversed, all so we can at any time go and be sure that the ledger adds up and that the currency is properly valued. This particularly highlights the faults with centralized finance. The original concept made a lot of sense because it introduced a lot of economic tools with which to manage society. Yes, it got corrupted along the way and reinvented to be a energy zapping machine, but we can patch those leaks if we embrace digitization with transparency, privacy and auditability in mind.

To be frank, tptb endeavoring to collapse the wider crypto market only really proves the point I'm making, I'd like to think.
After all, the game for many decades has been whack-a-mole when it comes to upward mobility glitches. If money is worth nothing, then we all have nothing to lose anyway. Why not at least try? I was poor two years ago. I now have access to capitol that would have made absolutely zero sense to me just a few years ago.
I'm having a lot of trouble reconciling this situation in my head. It feels like figuring out a tough math problem and being told I did it wrong even though things very visibly add up on my end.

What does crypto bring that is unique? And do you really think blockchain is anonymous

Great questions.
So, crypto currencies specifically, as in not necessarily blockchain infrastructure, are varied widely. The two competing consensus methods are Proof of Work and Proof of Stake. The former uses a model where the capacity is capped. The idea is to counter the likes of inflation by using computational power to validate the network. The latter is a scaling concept that allows models to expand as needed.
Right now, the wider implications of the battle between the two consensus models is moot. Currently, you ask either what the tech can perform (if you want a long-term hold) or you ask how much hype there is behind a given project (literal gambling). In essence, the actual monetary interaction of given assets isn't all that compelling, but there are some emerging models that make interesting use of specific assets (as in, not the code structure that enables the technology whereby the project manages the use case). The kinds of things I'm looking at are computing power. I could explain more about this, but that would require peeling back a lot of adjacent layers.
The real answer to the first question at present is not a whole lot, but there are a few things that help us see areas that could be covered. There's emerging projects every day. I can think of a couple of ideas, but I'm admittedly not informed as much as I should be so that I could better explain the ways they work, but I didn't find curiosity in a few particular projects because of what specifically the asset itself does, but the wider project.
The short answer is there's too much "coin/token not needed" going around. My hope is this changes soon, so I stay away from "look what this coin/token does" and instead find more interest in what use cases interest me.

The second answer is a bit more complicated. Firstly, of course I don't think they're anonymous. In my estimation, that's actually why I find so much value in public, decentralized ledgers. I don't really like the idea of being closely monitored and I doubt any others do, but I do understand that if I want to go shopping, I do have to expose myself to "walmart shoppers". If I want to fill up my gas tank in my car, sometimes, I unfortunately have to come across some idiot smoking a cigarette. If I want to shop with a particular retailer, I would compare established perspectives about them to determine if I should shop with them; price is a big one, the level of their political involvements (why give money to someone that annoys me with needless pandering?), whether or not they overcharge customers, whether or not they have a retarded mask policy. In the same vein, I understand that I have to make some concessions when it comes to interacting with the wider market. Now, this doesn't mean I enjoy the thought of being monitored, but I do understand that without digitization which scales to meet the demands of global commerce (whether or not we prefer it), I'm going to be left behind in some regard.
Alas, my aim was never to be anonymous or to have secret transactions, but to rid myself of custody disputes, of data miners, needless escrow services, etc. My aim isn't, however, getting duped in to promoting Monero or some "privacy coin" so we can just start this whole process all over again, where no one (with maybe some exceptions) can audit the chain to properly determine the actual value of the asset.

But, the problem we're noticing and trying to correct isn't that we don't have enough privacy, even if that's what everyone thinks we want. Instead, the issue was dealing with private ledgers, which we aren't allowed to understand and which we get punished for asking questions about. Therefore, Blockchain fixes our problem by disallowing someone like Mark Cuban, who is operating a hypothetical money-laundering scheme, to cleanly wash a million dollars. If I, Joe from down the block, go to buy groceries, I fit right in. No one notices. In the crypto community, whales (people with lots of assets, which I'm sure you know, I'm just covering bases) are watched religiously. Every movement they make is tracked by scavengers looking to "chase the pump by the whales". They have nowhere to hide, but any random user can fit right in.

So, while I understand some holes are still left, certain tech is being innovated as we speak, namely Lightning and ZK-Rollups, which just may bolster the hiding among the crowd theory I suggested. I personally don't know enough about the specifics, but I can tell you that there are some levels of interaction that seem valuable in remedying the issue I've brought up.
Essentially, anonymity isn't what we want out of Blockchain. What we want is to rid ourselves of the greedy pricks that don't have any business involving themselves in our finances. The aim isn't to keep no one from finding out about what we do with our money, but not broadcasting what we do with our money. The anonymity thing isn't the right place to focus upon and I think the Cypherpunk Manifesto luminates this idea.

I know this is long, but when have you ever known me to be short with words?

Im.not trying to paraphrase you so please correct me if necessary. What I take from your answer is.

What is unique about crypto?
A: its inflation proof? I mean they can issue infinite coins. Because they pinky promise they won't isn't reassuring

Do you think its anonymous?
A: no but I don't want it to be even though that's how its sold to everyone.

And scale will be a nightmare,even.if it ever develops utility. It currently takes an hour to process a singular transaction with an astonishingly low usage in commerce. If thousands of transactions become millions the number of people needed to hash go up as does the cost while the efficacy of said hashing declines. To say nothing of what it would do to energy costs and availability. Also hope you dont like gpus, they'll be 6 figs each for midtier

Quote
its inflation proof? I mean they can issue infinite coins...

I think before moving forward I should distinguish that what I'm suggesting is an ideal Blockchain use case, not necessarily one that already exists, but not the ol' FedCoin. I don't approve of tptb having a "FedCoin". I detest the idea. We, The People, should decide how our currency is minted and managed because the government is organized (under the rules of the Constitution) by citizens, not the other way around. Therefore, our solution to woes with centralized finance should be establishing decentralized finance.
Anyway, yes. Some are inflation proof. Some have rapid deflation mechanisms. Some have leverage mechanisms that mimic traditional finance tools (which is the utility part of modern currency and is much needed). Some networks have significant computing power built in that depends on the coins/tokens. There are governance mechanisms that depend on coins/tokens. Personally, I think this is an area that desperately needs improvement. Not enough projects incorporate a need for the actual cryptocurrency asset itself and it just sits there as a placeholder for seemingly arbitrary value. This is why I invest in tech though.
Bitcoin, for instance, was coded so that it's harder to mine (not mint) new coins every four years, taking roughly twice the amount of power to get the same amount before each iteration of halveing. There's no more Bitcoin that can be minted, but since it's Proof of Work, the remaining amount that exists, which isn't in circulation, is only accessible by the miners (which demands a lot in requisite) and there's only so much more they can mine viably. This is why the price builds and falls in cycles every four years. Again, I'm sure anyone talking about this has studied it enough to know this, I'm just covering bases.
The way Proof of Stake works is how you described though, more or less. They can indeed infinitely print more tokens at a whim, but no one decides this and makes up the number that will be minted. Instead, blocks are mined by simply holding tokens. In holding tokens (in these staking platforms), the amount of tokens you earn increases respective to the amount held. This is why studying tokenomics (how tokens are spread out among the network) is so important and common for even basic investors. If someone holds basically all of it and can just keep "printing" and dumping on you exponentially, you don't want to buy in. It would be pointless. This is why people talk about "tokenomics" so much. As you know, assets need to scale to meet demand, so this isn't just pointless printing like the FED has been up to.
Keep in mind though, the issues with our government aren't limited to infinite inflation or even hyperinflation. Instead, it's more like them pretending to lose trillions, maybe even a hundred trillion dollars. This is why I say public and decentralized ledgers are important but the idea of Proof of Stake doesn't bother me. In fact, this ties in to the last thing you said, about scaling networks. PoS is actually that very solution (so far). In addition to that though, there are scaling solutions being implemented and currently adopted as we speak. Lightning is a scaling solution for Bitcoin (recently Musk touted it), along with ZK-Rollups, just like I mentioned before. The glaring issues with lack of scaling at the moment are creating a ruckus among the wider community because of exactly what you've said. In response, innovators have been working on aforementioned tools to make transaction speeds and fees much more palatable. But these are just non-Ethereum solutions. There's loads of alternatives to ETH (which is changing from PoW to PoS) and even plenty of scaling solutions for it in trial at the moment. In fact, I think what's being called "Layer 2" is precisely the fix that would cure the problem you've mentioned and also the next big innovation (along with actually having the coin/token do something).

Quote
no but I don't want it to be even though that's how its sold to everyone.

Unfortunately, most know very little about Blockchain still. The idea, as outlined in the Cypherpunk Manifesto, wasn't to avoid anyone finding out about what you do with your money, but to avoid involving everyone and their neighbor in your financial business. These are very distinct differences to make. One fixes the problem Catherine Austin-Fitts presented and one just resurrects the issues we face now. In fact, there are Secret networks out there now. I mentioned Monero before. The funny thing is, Monero has something called a View Key, wherein you can opt-in to revealing yourself and the sizes of your transactions. Maybe the argument should be, "let's use Monero and make officials reveal their view keys as part of their oath, so that we ensure accountability." I can stomach that. As someone else pointed out, Monero supposedly hasn't been cracked yet, hence the IRS offering a reward for doing so (oh, they've said the same about Lightning, by the way). The issue then is someone like Bill Gates compromising the chain we're all using by having the same "privacy" as us (you know what I mean, "non-profits" for money laundering and all that jazz).
To make this shorter, no I don't think we should be entirely anonymous because then government employees and crooks can and that's how we've got this black budget issue where you get in trouble if you ask about it and the whole Audit The Fed thing, which is why 9/11 happened (as is a popular suggestion).
However, there are solutions that involve fixing the problems with the government in the ways I've presented while also letting people maintain levels of anonymity beyond just hiding in the crowd and depending on tedium scaring regulators away for one's hypothetical naughty behavior. The idea is to implement privacy AND solutions that scale the network(s) to meet demand.

Hopefully this clears things up.

13
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Apologies if I missed something but who exactly is Jack supposed to be?

No need to apologize, we are all here to learn. The name Jack is often used to name trickster and a thief. And at the end of this story, a carrier of light.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This is what really confused me. A carrier of light at the end of his story? How does this mesh with Nick suggesting that Jack is supposed to be a "Jewish" thief? I'm having trouble reconciling carrier of light and jack also being conniving and malevolent.
Was I just not understanding Nick to be cynical?

14
Let's Get Down & Dirty / Re: Memory check
« on: May 21, 2021, 03:17:50 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The only truly private way to buy and sell things is in precious metals or barter...

lets have some fun too:

Many moons ago, Grug tribe had shiny rock. Then longnose tribe say, no need, green leaf not heavy, better than shiny rock.

Grug tribe have no shiny rock anymore, but longnose tribe now have more shiny rock every moon, not give to Grug tribe. Only green leaf.

Grug wonder, why longnose tribe gather shiny rock, if green leaf better? Really make Grug think.



My suggestion is a short-term solution that involves jewing the "Jews".
It won't work for long because they'll find a way to fag it up like usual, but if we can limit their ways to quit siphoning our energy away while we give innovators time to get around their "fix" to the problem we create for them, then the aim is innovate faster than they can regulate. From the look of things, they're scrambling as we speak to FUD the wider market. Between the crashes and constant threat of more tiresome "compliance", it's clear what frens are doing is bothering the hell out of them.

15
Let's Get Down & Dirty / Re: Memory check
« on: May 21, 2021, 03:01:49 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
even in our kinds of circles/chats i see support for crypto, some dream of moving away from the (((beast))) system, but I don't see it that way, seems crypto is feeding the beast directly. it might be wilful ignorance on my part, but I somewhat shut off when i hear people talking about blockchain technologies or techinical financial words, just seems inherently jewish to me and dont want to pollute my brain with financial pilpul. I never saw any value in it whatsoever. If you dont hold it you dont own it.

This is why "not your keys, not your coins" is such a popular mantra.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk