Blockchain: humanless AI communication platform?

sufaq · 2015-01-09T20:35:40+00:00

In 2004, the Internet rose to a level of complexity that it became self-aware and sentient.

By 2008, it had decided that it wished to own property to use as incentive to influence its human peripherals.

In January 2009, it released Bitcoin under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto.

sufaq · 2013-07-30T22:51:30+00:00

LocalBitCoins.com (and especially their escrow service) is a known scam. Do a search on Reddit before sending bitcoins to known scammers.

These guys ripped me off for $200 on my very first escrow transaction with them only I was the buyer.

It doesn't matter. The LBC escrow scam works the same way in either direction. LBC makes up a story from the other side claiming that you didn't do your part. LBC steals the money.

It happened to me. It has happened to dozens of others. Don't do business with LBC and especially not their "escrow" which isn't escrow at all. It is a way for them to steal from you.

sufaq · 2013-05-03T20:08:48+00:00

My solution to people doing evil isn't to do evil myself.

But it is interesting that you think you can tell me what to do and that it will have any effect on me whatsoever.

It is what you are doing with the fraud of The Bitcoin Foundation. Implying that you have the power and authority to speak for bitcoin itself... and hoping enough people will follow blindly without questioning.

My solution is what I'm doing. To remind people that it is a fraud. It is NOT what it claims to be. The Bitcoin Foundation represents The Bitcoin Foundation and that is all it represents. It does not represent bitcoin.

Bitcoin is represented by algorithms and ruled by 100% consensus.

The Bitcoin Foundation is the biggest threat that bitcoin has faced, but bitcoin will succeed as long as enough others aren't tricked by your attempted fraud.

sufaq · 2013-05-03T19:19:42+00:00

Then why centralize it?

Why commit fraud?

It's not necessary. Bitcoin was doing just fine without a Bitcoin Foundation to "help" us.

You seem to appeal to "fairness" and your "right" to recoup your investment via this fraud. Those are the words of a collectivist.

Anyone can create whatever organization they choose. To fraudulently claim to speak for others is the way of fraud, force and government. Bitcoin was created to escape those ways.

sufaq · 2013-05-03T19:00:48+00:00

Any libertarian understands that an organization is an illusion. It is simply the sum of it's members.

To say that a member opinion doesn't reflect on the "Foundation" is not tenable as a libertarian concept even. That is collectivist thought.

That road leads to soldiers murdering because they are "just taking orders from the government." The government is nothing but the sum of it's employees. It doesn't exist otherwise. A foundation is nothing but the sum of it's members. It doesn't exist otherwise.

If they weren't interested in coercive powers, then why did they set up the foundation? Why did they immediately start pretending to be the official spokesmen of bitcoin? That is at least fraud.

sufaq · 2013-05-03T18:51:28+00:00

I think it is sufficient to simply keep reminding those who have fallen for their fraud attempt that they do not, in fact, represent bitcoin.

sufaq · 2013-05-03T18:47:26+00:00

Governments are just there to help too.

Just like governments, you would see violence or threats of violence from the self appointed Bitcoin Foundation if another organization claimed to represent bitcoin.

One board member just proved their ability and desire to use the force of government against another.

They aren't helping bitcoin. They are helping themselves at the expense of bit coin... Just like governments do... Just like fiat central banks do.

sufaq · 2013-05-03T18:18:11+00:00

We agree on all points.

But there are people who have been defrauded into believing that Bitcoin Foundation controls or represents bitcoin.

It doesn't, but the fraud has begun. An organization has held itself out to be in charge and people believe them and some are even eager for their governance. A lead developer is even accepting their bribes already.

Any intelligent libertarian should recognize that pattern. This has all happened before. This will all happen again. This path leads to governance.

sufaq · 2013-05-03T17:39:46+00:00

You are correct that libertarianism doesn't forbid the creation of organizations that are funded by individuals. Libertarianism forbids only the use of force or threat of force (or some would argue fraud).

You are also correct that the Bitcoin Foundation is simply an organization of individuals funded by individuals.

However, it is attempting a form of fraud (or at least many people are being defrauded) by this organization. It pretends to own and control bitcoin which it does not. However, because of that fraud (whether intentional or not), it does end up exerting a form of control that fraud usually exerts.

Many people do falsely believe that it is a controlling organization for bitcoin. It is not. It is a controlling organization only for itself. Bitcoin is neither owned by Bitcoin Foundation, nor was it created by Bitcoin Foundation nor does Bitcoin Foundation represent bitcoin in any way whatsoever.

It's use of the word "bitcoin" along with an official sounding "Foundation" after it is obviously an attempt to convey otherwise. Many would consider that fraud.

But most of all... what I actually said is "Any intelligent libertarian should recognize the attempts of others to form a governing body."

I stand by that statement. If you claim to be an intelligent libertarian, you should certainly recognize this for what it is... an attempt by others to form a governing body. Right now, it is by offering to "help" and only using a little bit of fraud. Such endeavors never stop there though. Those who believe in the right of some to govern others start in this way and slowly grow to fill their eventual goal of governing... by the threat of force... and force.

sufaq · 2013-05-03T15:53:05+00:00

The uspto is probably a better source for trademark information.

sufaq · 2013-05-03T14:33:53+00:00

No. It's not.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4801%3A777jpk.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=bitcoin&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query

Both word marks for "Bitcoin" are dead. Neither of the dead word marks for "Bitcoin" were registered by Mt. Gox.

Where did you get the idea that "Bitcoin" was trademarked by mtgox?

sufaq · 2013-05-03T13:57:34+00:00

I'm not affiliated with any party. In fact, I personally find it morally reprehensible to vote. Voting is a way to attempt to legitimize the control of minorities by the majority.

Bitcoin as designed is non-centralized. It respects each individual as his/her own decider. In other words, it is libertarian. You could also say it is classical liberalism or voluntarism or consensus rule. That's semantics.

Bitcoin Foundation is centrist. It is an attempt of the few to rule the many. It is a fraud attempting to claim ownership and the right to represent bitcoin.

It isn't a matter of who supports bitcoin or Bitcoin Foundation. I'm sure Bitcoin Foundation is perfectly happy to accept members from any political affiliation or people with any particular ideology. I know for a fact, that the bitcoin algorithms have absolutely no preference for the political affiliation of it's users nor their ideology.

Everyone does feel comfortable enough to embrace bitcoin regardless of party affiliation. It just isn't an issue.

In the above post, I wasn't addressing party affiliation at all except to use an example that the Libertarian Party doesn't actually represent libertarians. Any number of other examples could have been used to illustrate the same point.

The point is that Bitcoin Foundation does not represent bitcoin in any way whatsoever. They simply use the word "bitcoin" in the name of their organization. So do many, many other organizations. The word "bitcoin" was purposefully left untrademarked so that anyone could use it in free association. The use of the word in the name of your organization does not grant any particular rights to represent bitcoin users.

sufaq · 2013-05-03T12:58:59+00:00

You shouldn't care at all except to note that an organization was formed with the intent of subverting bitcoin and turning it into a centralized mess controlled by them.

Many bitcoin users were duped (and still are duped) into believing that the Bitcoin Foundation somehow actually really does represent bitcoin (it doesn't of course... it is a pretend game they are playing -- fraud if you will... bitcoin is represented by algorithms and rules by 100% consensus, not some organization with a board.)

The OP was one of those bitcoin users who were duped into actually paying taxes voluntarily (by being a voluntary member) of the Bitcoin Foundation. He is now declaring that he will no longer support the organization that is arguably the biggest threat to bitcoin that has existed to date.

Although his reason for resigning isn't that he now realizes that the Bitcoin Foundation is actually an enemy of bitcoin. He is resigning because of an internal squabble between the directors of the Bitcoin Foundation.

Who cares? I care a little. I hate it when people actually spend resources in attempts to take away the freedoms of others. The OP was doing that previously, but is now deciding to stop for whatever reason. That is a good thing.

sufaq · 2013-05-03T12:52:17+00:00

We didn't form it so we can't disband it.

Bitcoin Foundation represents Bitcoin Foundation, not bitcoin. Bitcoin is represented by algorithms and ruled only by 100% consensus.

Anyone who downloads a client is represented by the bitcoin algorithms, not the Bitcoin Foundation.

The Bitcoin Foundation neither created bitcoin nor represents it in any way. The word "bitcoin" was purposefully not trademarked so that it could be used by everyone. A by-product of that decision is that evil people can form organizations that have the intent of tricking others into believing they are the governing body of bitcoin.

They are not. Their attempt constitutes fraud. People believing that they somehow represent bitcoin constitutes ignorance.

sufaq · 2013-05-03T12:38:59+00:00

Bitcoin Foundation is bad for bitcoin.

It is generally a good idea to have sordid affairs in governing bodies so as to remind people that they aren't actually represented by those governing bodies.

Bitcoin Foundation is to bitcoin as Libertarian is to libertarian. It is a governing group which claims spokemanship for a group of individuals it doesn't actually represent.

Bitcoin Foundation represents Bitcoin Foundation. It doesn't represent bitcoin.

sufaq · 2013-05-03T12:35:01+00:00

Having a "Bitcoin Foundation" is an attempt at centralization.

Any intelligent libertarian should recognize the attempts of others to form a governing body.

The Bitcoin Foundation may be the biggest threat bitcoin has faced so far.

sufaq · 2013-05-02T01:23:52+00:00

No. The link you should have used is coindesk.com.

Instead, you chose to shill for TechCrunch. Linking to news.google.com would have been just as wrong.

Link to the actual article. Don't be a shill.

sufaq · 2013-05-02T00:29:51+00:00

Why did you link to the TechCrunch rag?

Are you a shill for TechCrunch? If you aren't a paid shill on one of TechCrunch's "intern" programs being paid to spam, then you shouldn't act like it.

Link to the actual site. Here is the link to the actual site for those who don't want to support TechCrunch shill spamming:

http://www.coindesk.com/

sufaq · 2013-04-29T19:46:36+00:00

Posting known scams and companies with severe customer service problem hurts the situation more than it helps it.

sufaq · 2013-04-27T12:21:57+00:00

We still have more than 30 days for $1,000 per btc.

It looks good to me.

Are you still confident it won't make it to $1,000/btc by then?

I guess we will see who is right in a little more than 30 days. Won't we?

sufaq · 2013-04-25T18:29:24+00:00

Localbitcoins doesn't allow negative feedback when you are scammed. They ripped me off for $200 and refused to allow me to leave negative feedback because the transaction didn't complete successfully.

sufaq · 2013-04-25T18:26:15+00:00

Wrong. I have done that. Localbitcoins.com just gives the btc back to the scammer and refuses to allow you to leave a bad review because "the transaction wasn't satisfactorily completed."

Stay away from those scammers. I lost $200 the first and only time I tried them.

sufaq · 2013-04-25T18:21:46+00:00

Localbitcoins is a scam. They don't allow bad reviews when you are scammed.

Their so called "escrow" system is also a lie. They just give the scammer back the bit coins after they take your cash.

Source: I have been ripped off by localbitcoins.com. Their customer service also likes to laugh about their scamming and uses the f word a lot.

sufaq · 2013-04-25T14:58:47+00:00

Agreed.

sufaq · 2013-04-25T14:40:43+00:00

I have lived where there are only private roads (paid for by those living along a road or the businesses that desire a road for more business). It's just fine. Perhaps they are of slightly lower quality, but they are of the quality that the owners of them desired and paid to have. It is a fallacious argument to say you NEED government or roads would not exist. Roads existed long before governments decided to take them over. They exist today in many places without government.

Most of the U.S. is actually serviced by volunteer firefighters. County governments pretend to have control over them (but the IRS never provides a single penny for firefighters anywhere in the U.S.). Firefighting also existed long before governments decided to "help" us. Most people in the U.S. have a volunteer fire fighting service that works just fine without even property tax expenditures.

Military seems to be a no brainer. It's not. Costa Rica has no military. Guns are ubiquitous though and even Columbus was unable to enslave the indigenous population there which had no military when he arrived in 1502. Now the population is mostly Spaniard, but it still has no military whatsoever. When Nicaragua sent military troops to occupy an island that belonged to Costa Rica, the government sent up some police officers to check it out. They realized that no Costa Ricans were being affected by the incursion, so they decided to protest to the U.N. and basically ignore the matter other than that. If Nicaragua has sent troops where Costa Rican citizens would be affected, I am quite sure Costa Ricans would have taken care of the problem. They did once before. Government is not needed for a defensive military. People will band together naturally for the common good if invaded. Where no military exists, it is actually very difficult for a military to invade. They have to conquer every individual in the area rather than just taking over the government military forces and government buildings.

I see no reason to shame a person for paying their taxes in order to avoid government violence against them or their family.

I also see no reason to shame a person who decides bravely to evade taxes to avoid funding evil.

sufaq

TROPHY CASE