RE: East vs. West: China to dominate the world
I replied:
Jim replied:
I replied:
I also lost interest in you because you confidently asserted that we do not need a solution to the problem of coordinating large scale organized violence. We are always ruled by priests or warriors, or something of both, and the bitcoin governance model does not scale, and has hit its scaling limit.
I was referring to my argument that we Westerners need to adopt decentralized fiefdoms because restoration of a monarchy is probably not realistic (if the reasons I reiterated in my recent blog linked above are valid). In said blog I have responded to your original point of contention that we need large-scale patriarchy (i.e. monarchy) for our defense, by suggesting that we move to Asia and live in some country under China’s Belt & Road empire underway. I wonder if Australia or New Zealand will break free from the Five Eyes Uniparty progressivism and join the patriarchal Belt & Road empire? Are too many Australians are cucked? Are the legal immigrants to Australia adherents of demo[n]cracy or patriarchy?
I didn’t argue that we don’t [need] a coordination solution. Rather I argued that your proposal for the restoration of a monarchy is not likely going to be a realistic solution at this juncture. And I proposed looking for other solutions such as decentralized coordination and now I am adding to the suggestion of (at least temporarily) aligning with China’s coordination.
Hey I lost interest before you did. I didn’t reply again after you censored my last comment in the prior discussion some months ago. The discussion had reached a stalemate. Was pointless to waste time. I came back with some more organized/researched articulation in my recent blog and also a new suggestion.
…but not, however the problem of organizing large scale violence.
Possibly smart contracts might help patriarchy avoid winner-take-all imbalances, deceit, defection, and other problems with coordination. IOW, if 50+% of decentralized fiefdoms concur with some smart contract which calls for them to contribute coordinated violence given some violation signaled by said smart contract. Blockchains can help us check transparency while also enabling privacy. For example, homomorphic proofs can enable proving that some invariants were met or not met without revealing the private details of those.
I’ve been accused of having a highly unrestrained imagination.
Mining is not a satisfactory solution to governance. Bitcoin is controlled by a single pool of very large miners, totally vulnerable to state power, who have fled the the US hegemony to locations in the Chinese Hegemony…
I mentioned some months ago that there may be a solution to the proof-of-work mining centralization problem. Satoshi appears to have intentionally designed Bitcoin to become centralized whereas I contemplate that a few tweaks could have ameliorated the problem. Note there can be no such thing as CPU-only proof-of-work. For example, I blew up RandomX with both a generalized abstract argument and a specific case of that abstraction that applies to the RandomX design (check their Github issues for the thread).
The one hint I will give you is that it’s not the computational algorithm that needs be tweaked (although I have a significant improvement for that also), rather the protocol rules for choosing the longest chain. I’ve had this solution in mind for more than a year, but I’ve been dealing with liver health problems as a first priority. My liver was preventing me from sustaining enough brain energy to work effectively. Seems to be much improved due to MSM. Now I just need to decide where to settle down again and get back to being a programmer again.
I agree Bitcoin mining is apparently sufficiently centralized to allow the FATF to regulate it:
Proof-of-stake can not be a solution in any formulation because it will always devolve into patriarchy/oligarchy, which can be rubberhosed. Also decentralization should ideally be an antidote or resistant to the dysfunctional modes of oligarchy.
You made two foolish assertions, and I judged that if you did not understand the problem, you are unlikely to understand the solutions.
“When you don’t understand what the other person is doing, it can appear indistinguishable from voodoo” — Arthur C. Clarke [humorously paraphrased]
So then the fool thinks he is observing a fool. You’re no fool. Just sometimes a bit overzealous when dealing with nerds like myself who are not that articulate nor on point (probably worse when I was dealing with chronic fatigue, dementia, and discombobulated semi-consciousness).
My plan is:
Ditto. Just timing and details between here and there we may differ.
(been awake all night and do not have time to proof-read what I wrote)
The argument that return to divine right monarchy is not practical is just the argument that reversing progress is not practical.
[…]
But progress has happened before, many times, and been reversed before many times, and the first step in that reversal is usually a warrior taking imperial power with the priests trembling before his praetorians.
The tide comes in, and then it goes out, and the turning of the tide is warriors taking power from priests.
Note how disingenuously (or unwittingly myopic?) Jim presents counterarguments. I didn’t argue that restoration is not practical forever. I only presented a political-economic argument for why restoration of “divine monarchy” may be implausible until after the West has crashed and burned first into the political-economic abyss.
When the counterparty to a discussion refuses to acknowledge the counterpoint and proceeds to argue a strawman, then there is no discussion. Just one guy (Jim)pretending the other person (myself) isn’t speaking.
When Jim starts behaving as a myopic, authoritarian zealot, that’s when I again realize that it’s both a waste of my time to try to interact with him. Thus he can never be an effective and capable leader of a thought movement such as for restoring monarchy. Has “incorrigible” (i.e. my absolute truth way or get off my lawn) stamped on his forehead. Also I wouldn’t want to live in a patriarchal monarchy that restored Jim’s sycophants to positions of significant power. I’d trust Xi Jinpeng before I would trust those myopic, arrogant, gullible mofos.
If reversing progress is not practical, then we are stuck with child protective services criminalizing the biological family, with Sarbanes Oxley converting accounting from a method of tracking the creation and transfer of value, to an ever growing collection of holy rituals empowering an ever growing collection of priests to screw over merchants whenever merchants attempt to create value and move it around. We are stuck with law that allows a person identifying as a man to have sex with a person identifying as a woman, but criminalizes the heterosexual mating dance, criminalizes the behavior that heterogamous organisms need to successfully reproduce.
Jim pretending I don’t read his blogs and thus that I need to be instructed as the possible ramifications of failing to truncate the left singularity. I have told him numerous times that I have read most of his blogs and I have cited dozens of his blogs in my blogs, even my recent blog Trump Assassinated in 2022? Civil War by 2026?.
He’s erecting a strawman that will lead naive readers to think I must not have any valid point because I must not be aware of the seriousness of the matter, completely leading the naive reader away from the fact that the possible implications of not stopping the left singularity are not a refutation of my political-economic argument about the plausibility of stopping the left singularity at this juncture. Note that Jim did not even address that political-economic argument. Instead he erected this strawman to presumably side-step the crux of the discussion. Typical of a disinformation, pysops modus operandi.
That’s misleading and either disingenuous or unwittingly myopic decorum.
Other very smart individuals who have tried to contribute to Jim’s blog have also stopped because it’s so obvious that Jim habitually shoots himself in the foot.
Your proposed solution to bitcoin centralization is too idiotic to merit a response. Tweaking the algorithm can only have a modest effect on centralization, which is caused by the necessary coupling between scaling and mining.
You didn’t even grok what I wrote about it, lol.
Scaling is easy to solve. It’s the control of the longest chain that is the Achilles Heel.
Don’t lecture me about things I know better than you.
Satoshi believed that we should not let the best be the enemy of the good enough, and figured we could deal with scaling problems when they arrived. The important thing to do was to get a working decentralized crypto currency out there and running. But now scaling problems have arrived.
“Satoshi” was a con-artist who knew exactly what he had created and the long-range plan.
What Jim doesn’t grok is that the scaling issue that causes centralization in Bitcoin doesn’t apply in an alternative sharded system design, but that the 50+% attack on the longest chain remains a centralization threat. And that there’s no way to surely prevent the centralization in mining farms, even if the computational algorithm for the proof-of-work is made less advantageous for ASICs. Thus the Achilles Heel shifts to ameloriating the power of that centralization. Let a thousand forks bloom. So which one of the thousands is the objective one? Jim is so arrogant that he thinks he is sufficiently more knowledgeable than me to justify declaring me to be an idiot about a subject which I researched and blogged about intensely since 2013. I’m still waiting for him to make a claim or point which puts my knowledge on this subject matter to shame.
Jim often can’t see over the forest and gets stuck on tree bark of his limited imagination and expectations.
I replied:
Jim replied:
Allah replied:
You should really do a full post on your past as a commie entryist. You know how to talk a lot without saying anything. What are Americans doing in Iraq? Keeping Jews Safe?
what he has to say about nailing an Iranian general.
Big loss for local goyim. If Iran falls, we’ll be next.
The American invasion of Iraq was to impose progressivism. Maybe it was also to make Jews safe, but the Obama sponsored Color Revolution in Egypt certainly was not to make Jews safe.
There can be multiple congruent truths.
Soros et al hate patriarchy. Iraq was run by a patriarch Saddam. They want to bring us to a multicultural world that undermines parochial control, wherein the only patriarchs are those who control the entire world via the 666 system. IOW, foster maximum disorder at the local level while consolidating the control grid.
I’m not blaming the typical Jew. They can be our friends. But those behind the curtain who have hijacked Judaism as Zionism for other purposes…
Then we can pontificate about who likely created Bitcoin and how this might plausibly become the reserve currency of the 666 system — transaction volume scaling isn’t needed for the reserve currency in a two-tier currency system wherein only $billionaires will transact in Bitcoin.
All those neocons working for the New American Century seem to be aligned with this consolidation of power in varying degrees of compartmentalization.This is one of the reasons (in addition to the physical evidence and physics considerations) I did not agree with your (what I believe/understand to be) simplistic assessment of 9/11, but I will not reignite that tangential debate again.
P.S. Seems you and I are not enemies, just some differences in analysis, knowledge, experience, and historical context? I could be swayed though by clear arguments in the future but not here on your blog trying to have a debate about 9/11 in this narrow columnar format. If we want to debate 9/11, we need a conference where we all come together and debate face-to-face with all the necessary experts in the various fields and sub-disciplines.
[…]
You tell me, do you think we’ll do better next to a neutralized or Western-subverted Iran?
Did the Shah of Iran cause the problems for Turkey that the Ayatollahs are causing for Turkey?
Saddam was the buffer between the two. Now gone because of the neocons.
Our military exists to serve the aims of those who want to manufacture Hegelian dialectic crises so that appropriate reactions must be taken which ultimately grind patriarchy into a power vacuum of chaos that can be filled by progressivism, social media, public education, etc…
Much better to let the patriarchs fight each other and consolidate power among themselves. Every time our military is deployed, we’re losing because it’s always weakening the natural order between competing patriarchs. Sunni and Shia are the two brothers offshoots of the Muslim patriarchy.
Jim your heart is in the right place. And your mind is sharp. And you’re more articulate than I am. But you sometimes you don’t see over the forest.
Allah replied:
Jim replied:
Allah replied:
You are again ignoring the role of the West in this. Americans and Jews killing Iranians is not going to teach Iranians that killing Turks have consequences, especially not in Iraq. It is certainly good that our enemies fight each other, but it’s not good if one of them wins. If Jews get what they want it is going to be much worse for Turks.
It is going to teach the Iranians that attacking Americans in Iraq is a bad idea, which is a broad hint that attacking Turks in Turkey is a bad idea.
Nonsense.
[…]
And how happy are you when one of them eventually wins?
I don’t care. I expect the winning side will immediately start purging itself, forever finding new enemies within its own ranks.
[…]
The more Islamic faction always intends to murder the less Islamic faction, and so Mohammedans always identify with and support those who intend to murder them.
I am worrying about the West making short work of Iran then quickly turning its sights on us.
Again Jim can’t see over the forest to the fact that globalists want to destabilize all patriarchy except their 666 global one. Jim seems to think that a power vacuum in the Middle East is in our favor. But the power vacuum will be captured by globalist propaganda in mass media and social networks.
Jim seems to incorrectly think that Islam is entirely unstable and naturally devolves to complete absence of patriarchy. No! Islam may be worse than Christianity, The solution we do not want and The only good Muslim is a bad Muslim, but it’s not as bad for all patriarchy (i.e. Christians like us) as fostering a power vacuum of chaos to be captured by the globalist elite propaganda control grid. Cripes Jim!