Author Topic: Freedom is indeed about choice…  (Read 2885 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Thom

Freedom is indeed about choice…
« on: June 27, 2015, 04:41:15 pm »
Regarding the welcoming side of your comments I agree. This community needs to be more welcoming and demonstrate people are welcome here. Like it's been said before there is  and should be no regulations in place preventing people and companies from using this technology. It comes down to the individual then to decide if they get involved on a case by case basis.

I have no opinion one way or the other right now concerning banx.

I do however regarding the above. I agree people should be open minded and welcoming to those that align with the principles of financial freedom, non-violence and personal empowerment, in other words the core philosophy BitShares was built to promote. For those that don't share those ideals I say there's the door, go do your thing on some other playground.

Problem is that some in this community don't value those core beliefs as much as others. To further complicate things the platform itself provides tools that facilitate control by regulators and others that don't value those core beliefs or mistakenly believe that a highly regulated segment can coexist with an unregulated, so called "dark" segment.

I have my doubts about that, but hey - this is an experimental platform for technology as well as governance so I'm willing to see it through and to how it plays out. IMO it's a matter of time before the most powerful force, freedom lovers or regulators, become dominant and push the other group out.

So if anyone sees resistance to the foundational core beliefs that led to the invention of blockchain technology in general and BitShares specifically I say you better expect that here and grow a thicker skin. It shouldn't be personal; anyone that is perceived to assail or be contrary to the core principles that BitShares represents should expect some resistance. It's a matter of protecting the values that provide personal and financial freedom, and that benefits everyone that doesn't want to take advantage or exert control over others.

But alas, many don't understand or care about the core principles and are thus willing to accept regulatory interference under the false assumption it will make them safer and more secure. Others may understand the risks, but acquiesce to regulation to gain more widespread acceptance of BitShares, in hopes they can make big profits and come out ahead in a rigged game by doting their "I"s and crossing their "T"s to avoid the regulator's whims and their thirst for power to control others.

Choose the red pill or blue pill, it's up to you. Like Donald L. Kimball wrote in his book, The Choice, Freedom or Slavery, the choice is ours to make. Please choose wisely.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Permie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: krimduss
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2015, 05:10:52 pm »
Regarding the welcoming side of your comments I agree. This community needs to be more welcoming and demonstrate people are welcome here. Like it's been said before there is  and should be no regulations in place preventing people and companies from using this technology. It comes down to the individual then to decide if they get involved on a case by case basis.

I have no opinion one way or the other right now concerning banx.

I do however regarding the above. I agree people should be open minded and welcoming to those that align with the principles of financial freedom, non-violence and personal empowerment, in other words the core philosophy BitShares was built to promote. For those that don't share those ideals I say there's the door, go do your thing on some other playground.

Problem is that some in this community don't value those core beliefs as much as others. To further complicate things the platform itself provides tools that facilitate control by regulators and others that don't value those core beliefs or mistakenly believe that a highly regulated segment can coexist with an unregulated, so called "dark" segment.

I have my doubts about that, but hey - this is an experimental platform for technology as well as governance so I'm willing to see it through and to how it plays out. IMO it's a matter of time before the most powerful force, freedom lovers or regulators, become dominant and push the other group out.

So if anyone sees resistance to the foundational core beliefs that led to the invention of blockchain technology in general and BitShares specifically I say you better expect that here and grow a thicker skin. It shouldn't be personal; anyone that is perceived to assail or be contrary to the core principles that BitShares represents should expect some resistance. It's a matter of protecting the values that provide personal and financial freedom, and that benefits everyone that doesn't want to take advantage or exert control over others.

But alas, many don't understand or care about the core principles and are thus willing to accept regulatory interference under the false assumption it will make them safer and more secure. Others may understand the risks, but acquiesce to regulation to gain more widespread acceptance of BitShares, in hopes they can make big profits and come out ahead in a rigged game by doting their "I"s and crossing their "T"s to avoid the regulator's whims and their thirst for power to control others.

Choose the red pill or blue pill, it's up to you. Like Donald L. Kimball wrote in his book, The Choice, Freedom or Slavery, the choice is ours to make. Please choose wisely.
Hi Thom, I respect your input on this and I think we are largely in agreement.
Could you elaborate as to why you think coexistence is impossible?
Do you have a specific attack-vector in mind that would allow UIA compliance features to eventually spread to MPA's?
Or have you come to appreciate the extreme lengths the state will go to to retain control over others?
I can possibly envision a bts freedom-fork which may be needed to escape harsh measures from state on main-chain bts - but what measures could they be?

The Pirate party in Iceland seems to gave gained mass popularity very quickly, in my view due to the harsh restrictions placed on crypto in 2012. Crypto is still banned as far as I am aware.
Do you doubt the desire or ability of 'the people' to act in a similar way if bts was 'banned'.

I just don't see how they could ban it. Slow it down with slander, yeah - but control over information has been diminishing with the advent of the internet. Can not the same happen for finance?
JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?
BTSDEX.COM

Offline Thom

Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2015, 12:27:02 am »
Hi Thom, I respect your input on this and I think we are largely in agreement.
1 -- Could you elaborate as to why you think coexistence is impossible?
2 -- Do you have a specific attack-vector in mind that would allow UIA compliance features to eventually spread to MPA's?
3 -- Or have you come to appreciate the extreme lengths the state will go to to retain control over others?
4 -- I can possibly envision a bts freedom-fork which may be needed to escape harsh measures from state on main-chain bts - but what measures could they be?

5 -- The Pirate party in Iceland seems to gave gained mass popularity very quickly, in my view due to the harsh restrictions placed on crypto in 2012. Crypto is still banned as far as I am aware.
6 -- Do you doubt the desire or ability of 'the people' to act in a similar way if bts was 'banned'.

7 -- I just don't see how they could ban it. Slow it down with slander, yeah - but control over information has been diminishing with the advent of the internet. Can not the same happen for finance?

1 & 3 -- Sure. The two are incompatible and opposite in nature. I do appreciate the lengths the psychopaths and control freaks that put on the cloak of the label known as "government" will go to to retain control b/c I've studied history. It is the later that will drive them to push freedom loving individuals out of the ecosystem by labeling them "cyber-terrorists" and the like, eventually legislating them out of participation if they won't comply with all the tracking requirements that allow government to control, monitor and restrict what you can & can't do.

2 -- Not really, but if history is any indication (and it truly is) you can expect it to be a relatively slow process. They will use the media to adversely label people that don't want to submit, they will also use the people that won't think for themselves and just blindly do what they're told, reporting / spying on "dissidents" (get the slaves to police themselves).

4 -- If this plays out into the hands of the regulators and the masses adopt this platform, and they all conform to the KYC / AML regs, that will indeed put pressure on those that don't want to conform, and if that gets strong enough they would likely flee to where they can find less intrusion into their financial affairs. It might well lead to a fork and alternate chain (which might have to exist far underground if laws are passed against "uncertified / unofficial crypto chains) and the whole thing will start over again as the new chain strives to gain adoption. The cycle will repeat if we can't learn from our mistakes. I hate to be a pessimist but I do see this as a definite possibility. Do you think the Silk Road is really gone? I bet it continues, albeit as yet unknown and gaining more customers every day, like blackmarkets do.

5 -- Don't know enough about Iceland to comment on what the driving forces at play there are. From what I've seen the people there seem much less tolerant of bureaucrats and control freaks, especially the ones in finance like banksters. Quite a bit different attitude in the USA, where the populace has been dumbed down and hand-fed a line of propaganda about money, finance & banking for 100 year or more.

6 -- Yes, I doubt the will of the people here to resist like they apparently do in Iceland. My greatest hope lies in the knowledge it does not take a majority of the population to desire a change for the minority to act to make it happen. That's why many of us are here.

7 --- I don't think they can succeed in banning crypto, but they will try. Power never willingly gives up control, at least not without a struggle. Remember, nothing can stop an idea who's time has come. Is it time yet? Will enough people wake up and be willing to invest in a better way of living than control and violence against their fellow humans? It remains to be seen, and I don't get a nice warm feeling in my gut.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Permie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: krimduss
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2015, 11:48:45 am »
Hi Thom, I respect your input on this and I think we are largely in agreement.
1 -- Could you elaborate as to why you think coexistence is impossible?
2 -- Do you have a specific attack-vector in mind that would allow UIA compliance features to eventually spread to MPA's?
3 -- Or have you come to appreciate the extreme lengths the state will go to to retain control over others?
4 -- I can possibly envision a bts freedom-fork which may be needed to escape harsh measures from state on main-chain bts - but what measures could they be?

5 -- The Pirate party in Iceland seems to gave gained mass popularity very quickly, in my view due to the harsh restrictions placed on crypto in 2012. Crypto is still banned as far as I am aware.
6 -- Do you doubt the desire or ability of 'the people' to act in a similar way if bts was 'banned'.

7 -- I just don't see how they could ban it. Slow it down with slander, yeah - but control over information has been diminishing with the advent of the internet. Can not the same happen for finance?
1 & 3 -- Sure. The two are incompatible and opposite in nature. I do appreciate the lengths the psychopaths and control freaks that put on the cloak of the label known as "government" will go to to retain control b/c I've studied history. It is the later that will drive them to push freedom loving individuals out of the ecosystem by labeling them "cyber-terrorists" and the like, eventually legislating them out of participation if they won't comply with all the tracking requirements that allow government to control, monitor and restrict what you can & can't do.
I see this too.
But states fall, history also tells us that Empires do not last forever. My hope is that crypto will aid capital flight to more-free countries. The US can no longer control their financial borders. The free market is more profitable to the 99% and I believe that profit breeds profit. One defensible nation with ambition to gain wealth and high standards of living might be all it takes to start the cascade. Nukes and huge armies are also a threat - but if it comes to that we might all be doomed to servitude anyway.

Quote
2 -- Not really, but if history is any indication (and it truly is) you can expect it to be a relatively slow process. They will use the media to adversely label people that don't want to submit, they will also use the people that won't think for themselves and just blindly do what they're told, reporting / spying on "dissidents" (get the slaves to police themselves).

I feel that the internet could also make the difference in not repeating history. Gunpowder made previously suicidal attacks possible.
Although I concede that without critical thinking then no amount of information will help. Sock puppets and false-flag attacks are abound.
Even the 'true' conspiracy people on youtube (the new TV) are puppets. If you've heard of them - they're a liar, IMO. (Russel Brand, what a farce)

Quote
4 -- If this plays out into the hands of the regulators and the masses adopt this platform, and they all conform to the KYC / AML regs, that will indeed put pressure on those that don't want to conform, and if that gets strong enough they would likely flee to where they can find less intrusion into their financial affairs. It might well lead to a fork and alternate chain (which might have to exist far underground if laws are passed against "uncertified / unofficial crypto chains) and the whole thing will start over again as the new chain strives to gain adoption. The cycle will repeat if we can't learn from our mistakes. I hate to be a pessimist but I do see this as a definite possibility. Do you think the Silk Road is really gone? I bet it continues, albeit as yet unknown and gaining more customers every day, like blackmarkets do.
Everybody in the current financial system is already owned.
If crypto makes "cash" safe again, surely this is a major chink in their armour?
Is re-inventing sound money (bitcoin) not a lesson-learned from mistakes?
I know where you're going with all this, and I don't disagree with you but I think part of the solution is believing that the solution exists.
It's much easier to consent and concede if one gives up on hope.

Quote
5 -- Don't know enough about Iceland to comment on what the driving forces at play there are. From what I've seen the people there seem much less tolerant of bureaucrats and control freaks, especially the ones in finance like banksters. Quite a bit different attitude in the USA, where the populace has been dumbed down and hand-fed a line of propaganda about money, finance & banking for 100 year or more.
The US is not the only country in the world and it's people have not truly seen counter-examples to their way of life. I envision one trailblazing entity showing the way to everyone else.
Tyranny survives so long as the people have their bread and circuses.
The 'just in time' food distribution of the US would collapse with just 2 or 3 days of trucking strikes. Necessity is the mother of invention, and a hungry American is likely to be far more thorough in considering their options. How crypto solves this particular issue I'm not certain, but if the root-cause is fiat collapse then crypto would circulate as the black market preferred currency. Look at the US dollar in circulation in Argentina (also a power-hungry state).

Quote
6 -- Yes, I doubt the will of the people here to resist like they apparently do in Iceland. My greatest hope lies in the knowledge it does not take a majority of the population to desire a change for the minority to act to make it happen. That's why many of us are here.
Yes.
This is the beauty I see in Bitcoin. "Noone" cares about it's principles but the greed hype cycles will get it into the hands of every profit-motivated individual.
BitShares needs to do the same for business.
A free market is a profitable market and the only argument we need to win is that there is more money to be had by choosing freedom.

Quote
7 --- I don't think they can succeed in banning crypto, but they will try. Power never willingly gives up control, at least not without a struggle. Remember, nothing can stop an idea who's time has come. Is it time yet? Will enough people wake up and be willing to invest in a better way of living than control and violence against their fellow humans? It remains to be seen, and I don't get a nice warm feeling in my gut.
I believe it's time has come, for some.
The internet now connects previously disparate groups and allows them to build communities and alliances that were impossible before.
These motivated minority groups can form co-operatives unbound by geography and convey messages without fear of physical harm. The last barrier to overcome is relinquishing shame.
The clearnet is owned, and intimate details of personal lives are known. This allows states to blackmail those who care more for themselves than they do for their cause.
I think that is the bottleneck.
Maybe a shameless-campaign of some kind would help. Admired individuals detailing their 'shameful' lives enough times that it becomes obvious that every person is the same and the chance that ones 'faults' are unique are slim to none.

For the sake of argument let's say that I am naive and that doom really is around the corner, what do we do?
Should the compliance features of UIA's be removed?

If Thom was benevolent dictator (although nobody, particularly you I'm sure, would want that to happen), what would be your first actions?
JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?
BTSDEX.COM

jakub

  • Guest
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2015, 02:49:21 pm »
Thom, you say this:
...or mistakenly believe that a highly regulated segment can coexist with an unregulated, so called "dark" segment.
and then when Permie asks you to back it up with some arguments it turns out you have none.

And then you say this:
For those that don't share those ideals I say there's the door, go do your thing on some other playground.

But maybe this would sound much better:
"Welcome to BTS - Kingdom of Freedom. You can choose whatever you want and that even includes being a slave - if that's what you think is good for you".

Freedom is about being able to choose. People should be able to choose to be KYC/AML compliant (for whatever reasons) or not to be compliant. Luckily their choice doesn't affect yours.
I believe BTS will be much stronger if we can guarantee both attitudes to be able to coexist on the same blockchain.

(I'll stop here as this thread is supposed to be about BANX and we've already managed to hijack it to a completely unrelated topic.)
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 02:52:04 pm by jakub »

Offline Permie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: krimduss
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2015, 03:08:08 pm »
Thom, you say this:
...or mistakenly believe that a highly regulated segment can coexist with an unregulated, so called "dark" segment.
and then when Permie asks you to back it up with some arguments it turns out you have none.

And then you say this:
For those that don't share those ideals I say there's the door, go do your thing on some other playground.

But maybe this would sound much better:
"Welcome to BTS - Kingdom of Freedom. You can choose whatever you want and that even includes being a slave - if that's what you think is good for you".

Freedom is about being able to choose. People should be able to choose to be KYC/AML compliant (for whatever reasons) or not to be compliant. Luckily their choice doesn't affect yours.
I believe BTS will be much stronger if we can guarantee both attitudes to be able to coexist on the same blockchain.

(I'll stop here as this thread is supposed to be about BANX and we've already managed to hijack it to a completely unrelated topic.)
+5% for positive rephrasing.
Freedom is indeed about choice

Could we move this to another, more appropriate thread?
I think this is a needed public-conversation
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 03:12:05 pm by Permie »
JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?
BTSDEX.COM

Offline Thom

Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2015, 06:44:26 pm »
Thom, you say this:
...or mistakenly believe that a highly regulated segment can coexist with an unregulated, so called "dark" segment.
and then when Permie asks you to back it up with some arguments it turns out you have none.
Well, he just asked me to elaborate, not respond with a lengthy dissertation. As you point out I was already on my way to hijacking the thread so cutting my answer short was appropriate. Now that this discussion has been relocated (good call folks), I can provide a better answer.

My answer was that compliance to regs and choosing not to comply to them are polar opposites and observations of the powerful financial elite lead me to conclude they will not be satisfied to coexist with those that want to maintain control over their financial affairs. I will not offer exhaustive proof of that here, but there are numerous examples of the tactics used by powerful incumbents to increase their power or, work to create and maintain monopolies of control. Not recognizing that fact is what I fear is going on right now, and we are giving them the rope that may hang us.

I recognize this response to the question is inadequate. In my mind there are so many examples of how the powerful elite manipulate and control the mainstream world I can't understand why people fail to see them. Yet, it is necessary upon making an assertion to provide supporting evidence. My skill in the rhetoric leg of The Trivium Method is lacking, at least in a venue like this. Some people write entire books on the machinations of "The Elite", such as G. Edward Griffin's The Creature From Jekyll Island and that still isn't enough to satisfy some skeptics. I will give you one hypothetical example tho, and suggest you buy my book series, The BitShares Saga when it is released, where I will elaborate in detail and provide examples of how diametrically opposed interests in a closed system lead to a domination of one or the other. Ever heard of the sayings, "Good money drives out the bad" or it's opposite, "Bad money drives out good money"?

Plausible Hypothetical
Regulators tell a UIA issuer to confiscate / put on hold or remove someone from a whitelist (basically using the facilities we created for regulators to control participants of the UIA system). Response:
The targeted individual or company tries to protect themselves by moving assets or otherwise hiding them in a "dark side" account or some other ecosystem entirely, and that could be the excuse regulators use to whip up a false flag attack on "such financial terrorists that jeopardize crypto-currency or those that harbor them and give them refuge", like confidential accounts or accounts that employ the privacy measures BM spoke of here.

The primary motivation for inventing blockchain technology was to eliminate the need to trust middle men, and the UIA control measures that have been built into BitShares turn that on it's head and enable them, facilitate them, provide the ability to create middle men, contrary to the principle of a trustless, peer to peer ecosystem that birthed the first blockchain.

And then you say this:
For those that don't share those ideals I say there's the door, go do your thing on some other playground.
That is how I feel about it. Granted, it was a blunt response.

But maybe this would sound much better:
"Welcome to BTS - Kingdom of Freedom. You can choose whatever you want and that even includes being a slave - if that's what you think is good for you".

Freedom is about being able to choose. People should be able to choose to be KYC/AML compliant (for whatever reasons) or not to be compliant. Luckily their choice doesn't affect yours.
I believe BTS will be much stronger if we can guarantee both attitudes to be able to coexist on the same blockchain.

(I'll stop here as this thread is supposed to be about BANX and we've already managed to hijack it to a completely unrelated topic.)

Nice spin, but I fear a less positive outcome than you appear to expect. As soothing as your positive spin is, I feel it will not help people in the long run to avoid the difficult issues that need addressing, and will lead to an ecosystem that will result in even more control over people's finances and corruption than already exists in the mainstream financial world.

Your first sentence, "Kingdom of Freedom" is kindof ironic, b/c I believe that allowing the choice of KYC  / AML is a choice to be a slave. I also believe it will affect me, b/c it gives regulators power they didn't otherwise have here, and they will use it to my detriment whether I participate or not. It will have an indirect, spillover affect. Not right away, but over time. That's how they operate. Look how long it took them to raise taxes from "only on corporations and the wealthy" back in 1913-14 to what they were 50 years later. I'm sure lots of people were OK with it when "income taxes" were first enacted. Now look where we are.

Is that a "slippery slope" fallacy? It would be if I were not talking about historical fact, but since our "leaders" show they repeat this pattern it's not a fallacy but a warning, and I fear it will not be heeded.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 08:38:04 pm by Thom »
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Thom

Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2015, 07:33:54 pm »
For the sake of argument let's say that I am naive and that doom really is around the corner, what do we do?
1 - Should the compliance features of UIA's be removed?

If Thom was benevolent dictator (although nobody, particularly you I'm sure, would want that to happen), what would be your first actions?


1 - I believe so, however I believe doing so is contrary to what the majority here want, tho these "features" were implemented without formal shareholder approval. I would have preferred a separate chain to support KYC / AML compliance, leaving BitShares proper to remain pure and true to it's original philosophy and principles, a peer to peer ecosystem built upon a trustless protocol. Had the merger not happened that might have been a logical result. It might even have been possible to fund "BitShares proper" from fees collected in such a KYC-AML chain. Who knows.

2 - Indeed, I would NOT want to be in that position. My answer is I don't have an answer. It's a difficult question. Would I be able to make better decisions than Stan or BM? Possibly, but more likely just different, some better some far worse. I have tremendous respect for Stan / BM / Cryptonomex / I3. I disagree with them on a few things, but I can't say I would do any better overall than they have.

The biggest hurdle they've faced is financing the development effort of the BitShares ecosystem long enough to perfect it. Is it possible to create an ecosystem without compromise to first principles AND gain sufficient adoption so the creation would be self-sustaining? The first attempt failed IMO. I don't think the 2nd attempt is the same animal (divergent principles) and it remains to be seen if it will be self sustaining.

It seems to me to accomplish what BitShares set out to do initially, 1) provide a cost effective alternative to the PoS security model, and 2) provide a consensus mechanism so all shareholders can influence control over the direction of the ecosystem, that shareholder voting would have been one of the earliest features to be implemented and tuned. Here we are now, and that is still not seen as important, tho I really applaud agent86's recent idea and effort to address this. I think you can see what is valued as much by what isn't given attention as you can by what is. DNS is another example I am disappointed with.

I love the innovations; BitShares 2.0 is truly game changing technology. Not sure where it's taking us, into a world of greater empowerment or more restrictions, of more freedom or more slavery.  It will be very interesting to see unfold.

I just want to do whatever I can to further the cause of long term freedom and empower the individual by encouraging personal growth and voluntary interactions without violence, fear and intimidation.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2015, 08:27:41 pm »
I just want to do whatever I can to further the cause of long term freedom and empower the individual by encouraging personal growth and voluntary interactions without violence, fear and intimidation.

 +5%
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2905
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2015, 11:35:13 pm »
I don't think the 2nd attempt is the same animal (divergent principles) and it remains to be seen if it will be self sustaining.

I'd be interested in seeing an analysis of how our principles are divergent...
(as opposed to implementation of 19 lessons learned about how to satisfy our original principles.)



« Last Edit: June 29, 2015, 12:23:00 am by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2905
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2015, 12:17:38 am »
Is that a "slippery slope" fallacy? It would be if I were not talking about historical fact, but since our "leaders" show they repeat this pattern it's not a fallacy but a warning, and I fear it will not be heeded.

We have one weapon you are not considering:  the ability to adapt!  We can fork and clone and sharedrop.

This is an arms race, with miles to go before we sleep.  (Apologies to Robert Frost.)

We need to consider what stepping stones may be needed to achieve freedom.

Fork to the left:  Provide a chain that banks and government lovers are more comfortable adopting.  Net result is more people get trained in the advantages of crypto.  But would any of us use it?  Really?  Not even to pay your cable bill?

Fork to the right: Provide a chain that has impregnable privacy to the point of total anonymity and ignores the current world order.  But how will value trickle into such a chain?

BitShares 2.0: Run the play right up the middle where left and right can trade with each other.  Government lovers (a pox be upon them) can first learn about crypto, then learn about freedom. 

Keep in mind that voluntary identity is a powerful force for civilization.  Why do you think small towns are more civilized than big cities?  Because reputation is an unbelievably important asset that you city-slickers can only dream about.

"I didn't see that, I only heard
But just to be sociable, I'll take your word" 
When I See an Elephant Fly
From "Dumbo"
Music and lyrics by Oliver Wallace and Ned Washington

Sometimes you want to go where everybody knows your name.


« Last Edit: June 29, 2015, 12:23:32 am by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Thom

Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2015, 03:16:30 am »
Is that a "slippery slope" fallacy? It would be if I were not talking about historical fact, but since our "leaders" show they repeat this pattern it's not a fallacy but a warning, and I fear it will not be heeded.

We have one weapon you are not considering:  the ability to adapt!  We can fork and clone and sharedrop.

This is an arms race, with miles to go before we sleep.  (Apologies to Robert Frost.)

We need to consider what stepping stones may be needed to achieve freedom.

Fork to the left:  Provide a chain that banks and government lovers are more comfortable adopting.  Net result is more people get trained in the advantages of crypto.  But would any of us use it?  Really?  Not even to pay your cable bill?

Fork to the right: Provide a chain that has impregnable privacy to the point of total anonymity and ignores the current world order.  But how will value trickle into such a chain?

BitShares 2.0: Run the play right up the middle where left and right can trade with each other.  Government lovers (a pox be upon them) can first learn about crypto, then learn about freedom. 

Keep in mind that voluntary identity is a powerful force for civilization.  Why do you think small towns are more civilized than big cities?  Because reputation is an unbelievably important asset that you city-slickers can only dream about.

"I didn't see that, I only heard
But just to be sociable, I'll take your word" 
When I See an Elephant Fly
From "Dumbo"
Music and lyrics by Oliver Wallace and Ned Washington

Sometimes you want to go where everybody knows your name.

I do hope you realize in the quote you used from me above, that the "leaders" I was referring to we're politicians, not you or Dan.

As for an analysis of "divergent principles", I will provide some of that tomorrow. I don't understand what you meant by the sentence in parenthesis after that.

Sometimes I feel like BitShares is a reality TV show with secret alliances and strategies that won't be revealed until after the show is over, but by then it doesn't matter anyway.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2905
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2015, 03:30:57 am »
Is that a "slippery slope" fallacy? It would be if I were not talking about historical fact, but since our "leaders" show they repeat this pattern it's not a fallacy but a warning, and I fear it will not be heeded.

We have one weapon you are not considering:  the ability to adapt!  We can fork and clone and sharedrop.

This is an arms race, with miles to go before we sleep.  (Apologies to Robert Frost.)

We need to consider what stepping stones may be needed to achieve freedom.

Fork to the left:  Provide a chain that banks and government lovers are more comfortable adopting.  Net result is more people get trained in the advantages of crypto.  But would any of us use it?  Really?  Not even to pay your cable bill?

Fork to the right: Provide a chain that has impregnable privacy to the point of total anonymity and ignores the current world order.  But how will value trickle into such a chain?

BitShares 2.0: Run the play right up the middle where left and right can trade with each other.  Government lovers (a pox be upon them) can first learn about crypto, then learn about freedom. 

Keep in mind that voluntary identity is a powerful force for civilization.  Why do you think small towns are more civilized than big cities?  Because reputation is an unbelievably important asset that you city-slickers can only dream about.

"I didn't see that, I only heard
But just to be sociable, I'll take your word" 
When I See an Elephant Fly
From "Dumbo"
Music and lyrics by Oliver Wallace and Ned Washington

Sometimes you want to go where everybody knows your name.

I do hope you realize in the quote you used from me above, that the "leaders" I was referring to we're politicians, not you or Dan.

As for an analysis of "divergent principles", I will provide some of that tomorrow. I don't understand what you meant by the sentence in parenthesis after that.

Sometimes I feel like BitShares is a reality TV show with secret alliances and strategies that won't be revealed until after the show is over, but by then it doesn't matter anyway.

Sure.  No problem.  Just wanted to know in what way some might perceive BitShares 2.0 addressing these 19 lessons learned: https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/lessons-learned-from-bitshares-0.x/ as somehow a change in fundamental principles.

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2015, 02:54:16 pm »
The issue is power.  It's ok to have the bitshares network support regulatory compliance as long as those using the network have a choice and the principal of choice is unassailable.

What individuals value changes over time depending on experience, incentive, education, propaganda, culture.  Those who understand the need to decentralize the power of money naturally do not want to contaminate Bitshares by incorporating regulatory compliance functionality based on falsehoods and fear.  However, whilst so many minds are captured, whilst the lie of security remains highly pervasive, we may deflect scrutiny and increase network effect in the short term by camouflaging the true power of our constitution by code.  Hundreds of millions of people will soon wake up to the reality that you cannot trust any organisation that grants itself legitimacy through force.  They may take an interest then in the solutions we are building and demand adherence to principals many of us hold dear.   

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2015, 08:32:11 pm »
The issue is power.  It's ok to have the bitshares network support regulatory compliance as long as those using the network have a choice and the principal of choice is unassailable.


Exactly.

I don't believe that one is capable (in a logically justifiable sense) of selling their future self into slavery.  Therefore we need to ensure that there is not only a choice right now in the moment, but that this ability to choose is forever retained.
 
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline hadrian

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: hadrian
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2015, 10:42:26 pm »
Is that a "slippery slope" fallacy? It would be if I were not talking about historical fact, but since our "leaders" show they repeat this pattern it's not a fallacy but a warning, and I fear it will not be heeded.

We have one weapon you are not considering:  the ability to adapt!  We can fork and clone and sharedrop.

This is an arms race, with miles to go before we sleep.  (Apologies to Robert Frost.)

We need to consider what stepping stones may be needed to achieve freedom.

Fork to the left:  Provide a chain that banks and government lovers are more comfortable adopting.  Net result is more people get trained in the advantages of crypto.  But would any of us use it?  Really?  Not even to pay your cable bill?

Fork to the right: Provide a chain that has impregnable privacy to the point of total anonymity and ignores the current world order.  But how will value trickle into such a chain?

BitShares 2.0: Run the play right up the middle where left and right can trade with each other.  Government lovers (a pox be upon them) can first learn about crypto, then learn about freedom. 

Keep in mind that voluntary identity is a powerful force for civilization.  Why do you think small towns are more civilized than big cities?  Because reputation is an unbelievably important asset that you city-slickers can only dream about.

"I didn't see that, I only heard
But just to be sociable, I'll take your word" 
When I See an Elephant Fly
From "Dumbo"
Music and lyrics by Oliver Wallace and Ned Washington

Sometimes you want to go where everybody knows your name.

Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Thom

Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2015, 01:08:40 am »
The issue is power.  It's ok to have the bitshares network support regulatory compliance as long as those using the network have a choice and the principal of choice is unassailable.

What individuals value changes over time depending on experience, incentive, education, propaganda, culture.  Those who understand the need to decentralize the power of money naturally do not want to contaminate Bitshares by incorporating regulatory compliance functionality based on falsehoods and fear.  However, whilst so many minds are captured, whilst the lie of security remains highly pervasive, we may deflect scrutiny and increase network effect in the short term by camouflaging the true power of our constitution by code.  Hundreds of millions of people will soon wake up to the reality that you cannot trust any organisation that grants itself legitimacy through force.  They may take an interest then in the solutions we are building and demand adherence to principals many of us hold dear.

I gain more respect for you every time you post Ben. Haven't seen a single post I'd take issue with.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Riverhead

Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2015, 02:54:39 am »

Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post.

I can see this actually happening in the form of riders. Currently in US politics, and I'm sure many other places, you package a change everyone wants with a smaller one that nobody asked for. Like a bill to fund education will get a rider that gives a tax credit to oil refineries (a horrible example, but it does happen).

A fork could implement a very much needed/wanted change and the government compels the developers to include the feature they want. If the primary feature is sufficiently good/profitable/needed it'll get voted in even with the rider.

People are people regardless of the medium. So if it happens in government it'll happen in blockchains. Any ideas how to prevent this?

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2015, 05:43:17 am »
The issue is power.  It's ok to have the bitshares network support regulatory compliance as long as those using the network have a choice and the principal of choice is unassailable.

What individuals value changes over time depending on experience, incentive, education, propaganda, culture.  Those who understand the need to decentralize the power of money naturally do not want to contaminate Bitshares by incorporating regulatory compliance functionality based on falsehoods and fear.  However, whilst so many minds are captured, whilst the lie of security remains highly pervasive, we may deflect scrutiny and increase network effect in the short term by camouflaging the true power of our constitution by code.  Hundreds of millions of people will soon wake up to the reality that you cannot trust any organisation that grants itself legitimacy through force.  They may take an interest then in the solutions we are building and demand adherence to principals many of us hold dear.

I gain more respect for you every time you post Ben. Haven't seen a single post I'd take issue with.

Thank you Thom. That means a great deal to me. I feel the same for you.  To be connected here, sharing common ideals is an enormous privilege and immeasurable source of hope to me.

Offline Thom

Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2015, 05:44:27 am »

Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post.

I can see this actually happening in the form of riders. Currently in US politics, and I'm sure many other places, you package a change everyone wants with a smaller one that nobody asked for. Like a bill to fund education will get a rider that gives a tax credit to oil refineries (a horrible example, but it does happen).

A fork could implement a very much needed/wanted change and the government compels the developers to include the feature they want. If the primary feature is sufficiently good/profitable/needed it'll get voted in even with the rider.

People are people regardless of the medium. So if it happens in government it'll happen in blockchains. Any ideas how to prevent this?

If the "fork to the left" chain were totally separate from the "fork to the right" chain then it significantly reduces the opportunity for a rider to affect both chains. The communities each have their own values and their own delegates and any changes proposed must be acceptable to the delegates and shareholders to be adopted. All proposals of a "general applicability" should be met with a higher degree of scrutiny to to avoid any unwanted impact. Having separate chains provides protection from "riders" that way. That's not what is happening tho. I seriously doubt there are enough funds to support 2 completely separate chains right now.

However, if the regulators seriously threaten Cryptonomex with "implement this quietly or get locked in a cage" the community would be fucked, IF Cryptonomex acquiesced and "did as they're told".  If the regulators want to force their will upon either chain they have the power to make it happen, IF people give them that power and buckle under their threats. And although it's much milder, I can see the point of view that providing tools for regulators to restrict free trade based on their legislative whims is a type of acquiescence to implied threats. Sure, you can spin it as "giving people a choice", but I don't think helping regulators is to gain market share is a good trade off. I see it as helping the enemy, an "ends justifies the means" position. "Would you kill 3 people to save 6?" a lifeboat scenario. That's why I said before I can't see coexistence working out, tho I doubt the coercion would be done in such a direct manor.

How well can the community possibly "vet" every new developer that Cryptonomex hires to make sure they're not a government infiltrator that sabotages the code or adds back doors. There are many possible attack vectors. Having separate chains is not a garantee of security but it would at least provide a clean dividing line and ability to separate issues that affect personal freedom.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #20 on: June 30, 2015, 06:45:27 am »

Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post.

I can see this actually happening in the form of riders. Currently in US politics, and I'm sure many other places, you package a change everyone wants with a smaller one that nobody asked for. Like a bill to fund education will get a rider that gives a tax credit to oil refineries (a horrible example, but it does happen).

A fork could implement a very much needed/wanted change and the government compels the developers to include the feature they want. If the primary feature is sufficiently good/profitable/needed it'll get voted in even with the rider.

People are people regardless of the medium. So if it happens in government it'll happen in blockchains. Any ideas how to prevent this?

The health (integrity of core principals) of our Bitshares constitution by code is contingent upon several factors;
The code being open
New code being continually peer reviewed
The implementation of changes being approved by majority consensus
Effective means of education & communication with the electorate
The composition of the electorate - knowledge, activity
Effective reputation system
Suitable means for delegation of responsibilities along with accountability
The ability to fork the code & sharedrop
Other factors...

We rely upon the assumption that individuals in a free system will act in their own interest and those interests will generally align with the interests of others. This represents the power of the people, the power of direct consensus. Everyone who participates within the Bitshares network knows the rules and that everyone must adhere to the same rules. Changing the rules is where the most risk to integrity comes so we must do everything we can to ensure those changes continue to be vetted at every level.

Riders are only possible currently because there is a lack of transparency and no direct accountability. Choice is again the most important factor. If the government is capable of compelling code changes, then we've failed at being decentralized. Having workers from multiple jurisdictions will help. The adoption of regulation compliance features is a choice, using those features is a choice, removal of those features would continue to be a choice.

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #21 on: June 30, 2015, 08:52:31 am »
We also all need to remember that we could sell all our bitshares, delete all wallets from our systems, and the chance of either Dan or Stan kicking in our doors in the middle of the night and throwing us in a cage is effectively zero.  The chance of them contracting this door kicking out, while perhaps larger Is also very small. 

Ultimately this is a voluntary relationship on all sides. 

I am not saying don't be concerned.  I'm not even saying don't speak out.  I'm just bringing up the big picture viewpoint I use when I feel that this community has made a mistake.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2905
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #22 on: June 30, 2015, 11:59:44 am »

Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post.

I can see this actually happening in the form of riders. Currently in US politics, and I'm sure many other places, you package a change everyone wants with a smaller one that nobody asked for. Like a bill to fund education will get a rider that gives a tax credit to oil refineries (a horrible example, but it does happen).

A fork could implement a very much needed/wanted change and the government compels the developers to include the feature they want. If the primary feature is sufficiently good/profitable/needed it'll get voted in even with the rider.

People are people regardless of the medium. So if it happens in government it'll happen in blockchains. Any ideas how to prevent this?

If the "fork to the left" chain were totally separate from the "fork to the right" chain then it significantly reduces the opportunity for a rider to affect both chains. The communities each have their own values and their own delegates and any changes proposed must be acceptable to the delegates and shareholders to be adopted. All proposals of a "general applicability" should be met with a higher degree of scrutiny to to avoid any unwanted impact. Having separate chains provides protection from "riders" that way. That's not what is happening tho. I seriously doubt there are enough funds to support 2 completely separate chains right now.

However, if the regulators seriously threaten Cryptonomex with "implement this quietly or get locked in a cage" the community would be fucked, IF Cryptonomex acquiesced and "did as they're told".  If the regulators want to force their will upon either chain they have the power to make it happen, IF people give them that power and buckle under their threats. And although it's much milder, I can see the point of view that providing tools for regulators to restrict free trade based on their legislative whims is a type of acquiescence to implied threats. Sure, you can spin it as "giving people a choice", but I don't think helping regulators is to gain market share is a good trade off. I see it as helping the enemy, an "ends justifies the means" position. "Would you kill 3 people to save 6?" a lifeboat scenario. That's why I said before I can't see coexistence working out, tho I doubt the coercion would be done in such a direct manor.

How well can the community possibly "vet" every new developer that Cryptonomex hires to make sure they're not a government infiltrator that sabotages the code or adds back doors. There are many possible attack vectors. Having separate chains is not a garantee of security but it would at least provide a clean dividing line and ability to separate issues that affect personal freedom.

Coexistence in our case simply means that we can, with some restrictions, trade against assets that otherwise would never be issued on our chain.

"I'd love to issue my ACME-IOU-USD on BitShares, but our compliance officer says we can't."

We say, give them the tools that they need to play in our sandbox.  Then, anyone who wants to use that asset can decide if meeting its regulatory requirements is worth it.

The same options are out there right now - BitShares just connects them on one interoperable backbone.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 12:02:18 pm by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Permie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: krimduss
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2015, 01:38:24 pm »

Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post.

I can see this actually happening in the form of riders. Currently in US politics, and I'm sure many other places, you package a change everyone wants with a smaller one that nobody asked for. Like a bill to fund education will get a rider that gives a tax credit to oil refineries (a horrible example, but it does happen).

A fork could implement a very much needed/wanted change and the government compels the developers to include the feature they want. If the primary feature is sufficiently good/profitable/needed it'll get voted in even with the rider.

People are people regardless of the medium. So if it happens in government it'll happen in blockchains. Any ideas how to prevent this?

If the "fork to the left" chain were totally separate from the "fork to the right" chain then it significantly reduces the opportunity for a rider to affect both chains. The communities each have their own values and their own delegates and any changes proposed must be acceptable to the delegates and shareholders to be adopted. All proposals of a "general applicability" should be met with a higher degree of scrutiny to to avoid any unwanted impact. Having separate chains provides protection from "riders" that way. That's not what is happening tho. I seriously doubt there are enough funds to support 2 completely separate chains right now.

However, if the regulators seriously threaten Cryptonomex with "implement this quietly or get locked in a cage" the community would be fucked, IF Cryptonomex acquiesced and "did as they're told".  If the regulators want to force their will upon either chain they have the power to make it happen, IF people give them that power and buckle under their threats. And although it's much milder, I can see the point of view that providing tools for regulators to restrict free trade based on their legislative whims is a type of acquiescence to implied threats. Sure, you can spin it as "giving people a choice", but I don't think helping regulators is to gain market share is a good trade off. I see it as helping the enemy, an "ends justifies the means" position. "Would you kill 3 people to save 6?" a lifeboat scenario. That's why I said before I can't see coexistence working out, tho I doubt the coercion would be done in such a direct manor.

How well can the community possibly "vet" every new developer that Cryptonomex hires to make sure they're not a government infiltrator that sabotages the code or adds back doors. There are many possible attack vectors. Having separate chains is not a garantee of security but it would at least provide a clean dividing line and ability to separate issues that affect personal freedom.

Coexistence in our case simply means that we can, with some restrictions, trade against assets that otherwise would never be issued on our chain.

"I'd love to issue my ACME-IOU-USD on BitShares, but our compliance officer says we can't."

We say, give them the tools that they need to play in our sandbox.  Then, anyone who wants to use that asset can decide if meeting its regulatory requirements is worth it.

The same options are out there right now - BitShares just connects them on one interoperable backbone.
I see BitShares as the mycelium (mushrooms) spreading throughout the financial-earth, connecting ecosystems together and exchanging resources and information.
You get to choose which fruit you pick, and it's up to the humans roaming this financial-earth to point out and shame the bad-apples growing from a poisonous tree.
Except this blockchain-realestate cannot be fenced or enclosed to exclude or imprison any other party. Those who use the blockchain resources most efficiently to profit from meeting the needs of the market will "win", not those who can claim ownership and demand rent most effectively.
I believe this analogy holds true if the core values of freedom of choice cannot be suppressed by anyone.
The health (integrity of core principals) of our Bitshares constitution by code is contingent upon several factors;
The code being open
New code being continually peer reviewed
The implementation of changes being approved by majority consensus
Effective means of education & communication with the electorate
The composition of the electorate - knowledge, activity
Effective reputation system
Suitable means for delegation of responsibilities along with accountability
The ability to fork the code & sharedrop
Other factors...

We rely upon the assumption that individuals in a free system will act in their own interest and those interests will generally align with the interests of others. This represents the power of the people, the power of direct consensus. Everyone who participates within the Bitshares network knows the rules and that everyone must adhere to the same rules. Changing the rules is where the most risk to integrity comes so we must do everything we can to ensure those changes continue to be vetted at every level.

Riders are only possible currently because there is a lack of transparency and no direct accountability. Choice is again the most important factor. If the government is capable of compelling code changes, then we've failed at being decentralized. Having workers from multiple jurisdictions will help. The adoption of regulation compliance features is a choice, using those features is a choice, removal of those features would continue to be a choice.

You can't stop nature and you can't stop market forces either.
Removing the ability to provide compliance features would be an attempt to control market forces, IMO.


« Last Edit: July 03, 2015, 01:48:30 pm by Permie »
JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?
BTSDEX.COM

jakub

  • Guest
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2015, 08:34:27 am »
I just want to do whatever I can to further the cause of long term freedom and empower the individual by encouraging personal growth and voluntary interactions without violence, fear and intimidation.

Thom, I understand and share your feelings on emotional level.
Where I do not agree is the philosophical level.

My position is this: If I have true freedom I should be able to choose not to be free and still be part of the freedom community.
So for me freedom is big enough to include its opposite.

Imagine this situation:
I am a beggar and I ask you for money, you send me 100 bitUSD and I immediately burn it.
Now, if you are upset with me - it means you have not truly given me the money.
You thought you did and your intentions were good but in fact you did not part with your money (as you still had some expectations attached to it) so it was not a true act of giving.

For me the same thing applies to freedom.
Let's give people freedom and still include them in our community if they choose to not to use this freedom.
For me only this will be a true act of freedom-giving.

Offline sittingduck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2015, 12:07:58 pm »
Great analogy with the beggar. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Thom

Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2015, 04:43:49 pm »
I just want to do whatever I can to further the cause of long term freedom and empower the individual by encouraging personal growth and voluntary interactions without violence, fear and intimidation.

Thom, I understand and share your feelings on emotional level.
Where I do not agree is the philosophical level.

My position is this: If I have true freedom I should be able to choose not to be free and still be part of the freedom community.
So for me freedom is big enough to include its opposite.

Imagine this situation:
I am a beggar and I ask you for money, you send me 100 bitUSD and I immediately burn it.
Now, if you are upset with me - it means you have not truly given me the money.
You thought you did and your intentions were good but in fact you did not part with your money (as you still had some expectations attached to it) so it was not a true act of giving.

For me the same thing applies to freedom.
Let's give people freedom and still include them in our community if they choose to not to use this freedom.
For me only this will be a true act of freedom-giving.

Quote from: permie
Removing the ability to provide compliance features would be an attempt to control market forces, IMO.

I respectfully disagree with all of this. The beggar analogy is flawed. It assumes the giver was upset based on an issue of ownership but in fact it could be his upset was due to wasting resources that could benefit someone. I'm sure the giver would have been willing to give for any other purpose than to disrespect the giver's efforts to earn the money or to selfishly burn it so NOBODY would benefit. It's practically a fraud what the beggar did. It was a very vindictive act that took advantage of the giver's generosity to accomplish nothing more than to deprive the giver of the gift and then destroy it, helping no one.

To permie I also disagree. It is a matter of principles. It is a contradiction on it's face. How can BitShares say it stands by it's principles and promotes freedom but also build in tools that destroy ownership? Admit it, this is a compromise for the sole purpose of gaining adoption by more people. It promotes forceful control of another's assets with a big stick of power by providing the big stick of power to anyone that wants one. You look at it as "Removing" a feature but I look at it as we are adding the ability for one entity to control the assets of another entity, to nullify the purchase, to offer something in place of true property ownership. It provides the tools of confiscation making it possible inside the BitShares ecosystem rather than barring them entry to prevent the ultimate corruption that will occur like it did in the mainstream financial ecosystem.

The claim that BitShares is all about freedom of choice may be true, but building bad choices into the system is essentially incentivizing bad choices. This could well become the Achilles heel of BitShares. Granted, it will likely lead to a boom in growth first, but those that are here and believe in the first principles BitShares was founded on will fade away as more of that big stick of power begins to permeate the ecosystem, and it will. Allowing regulation is the first crack in the dam.

I myself will not participate in buying any assets that don't provide me with exclusive ownership rights. That is not ownership it is a rental or lease. Those that want to enter into such arrangements are people who don't understand basic property rights or, are wiling to risk the loss of access or use of property. Those people don't have true ownership of the property, only the illusion of ownership. I will not buy into that. Unfortunately the illusion won't be realized until the big stick is used on the first poor bastard the controllers wish to make an example of.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Myshadow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #27 on: July 17, 2015, 02:21:44 am »
I respectfully disagree with all of this. The beggar analogy is flawed. It assumes the giver was upset based on an issue of ownership but in fact it could be his upset was due to wasting resources that could benefit someone. I'm sure the giver would have been willing to give for any other purpose than to disrespect the giver's efforts to earn the money or to selfishly burn it so NOBODY would benefit. It's practically a fraud what the beggar did. It was a very vindictive act that took advantage of the giver's generosity to accomplish nothing more than to deprive the giver of the gift and then destroy it, helping no one.

To permie I also disagree. It is a matter of principles. It is a contradiction on it's face. How can BitShares say it stands by it's principles and promotes freedom but also build in tools that destroy ownership? Admit it, this is a compromise for the sole purpose of gaining adoption by more people. It promotes forceful control of another's assets with a big stick of power by providing the big stick of power to anyone that wants one. You look at it as "Removing" a feature but I look at it as we are adding the ability for one entity to control the assets of another entity, to nullify the purchase, to offer something in place of true property ownership. It provides the tools of confiscation making it possible inside the BitShares ecosystem rather than barring them entry to prevent the ultimate corruption that will occur like it did in the mainstream financial ecosystem.

The claim that BitShares is all about freedom of choice may be true, but building bad choices into the system is essentially incentivizing bad choices. This could well become the Achilles heel of BitShares. Granted, it will likely lead to a boom in growth first, but those that are here and believe in the first principles BitShares was founded on will fade away as more of that big stick of power begins to permeate the ecosystem, and it will. Allowing regulation is the first crack in the dam.

I myself will not participate in buying any assets that don't provide me with exclusive ownership rights. That is not ownership it is a rental or lease. Those that want to enter into such arrangements are people who don't understand basic property rights or, are wiling to risk the loss of access or use of property. Those people don't have true ownership of the property, only the illusion of ownership. I will not buy into that. Unfortunately the illusion won't be realized until the big stick is used on the first poor bastard the controllers wish to make an example of.

Thom I wholeheartedly agree with your philosophy fundamentals and very much agree alot of your posts, but I think this issue isn't as clear cut as you think it is. The ability to enter voluntarily into a contractual agreement for someone to have control over your assets is a freedom like any other and important in certain use cases. I also think it is very important to allow for both scenarios and that the incentives aren't skewed either way by the blockchain whether its total freedom of your assets, or the abdication of ownership to play out and let the pieces fall where they may.

My reasoning for this is that it provides a clear cut Apples to Apples comparison of exactly why freedom is so incredibly goddamn important! I'd take the other side of the argument and say without this clear cut case, in the future people who choose to abdicate slavery over freedom will manage to convince people their way is better due to the r-selection bias(Generally leftism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory) the great abundance of resources freedom and innovation inevitably creates. If there is a clear cut case of failure (I know there are many of these, but people generally think of countries and cultures as apples to oranges comparisons with too many confounding factors to draw accurate conclusions from) or more likely, many small clear cut cases as a constant reminder then most humans may eventually overcome their genetic biases toward r-selective traits when faced with the r-selective pressure of abundant resources.

I feel that whilst it may be a bumpy ride, and alot of people will lose alot of money making bad decisions, this is the best long term solution... Give humans a system without the freedom to hang themselves and they'll inevitably fuck it up just like John B. Calhouns mice did.

If they don't do that I think they'll change it and hang themselves when they collectively forget why they're doing it in the first place/rationalize it away very badly due to r-selected genetic biases toward collectivism.

I think the Swinging pendulum of Political bias toward r-selection pressures in resource abundant environment is the societal wrecking ball we're seeing that is about to smash through the politically and historically unaware masses dreams and livelyhoods... If you can allow these opposing viewpoints to play out in the one place where it is abundantly clear which strategy is better then we'll see real societal progress the likes of which we can't even begin to imagine right now due to the immutability of the blockchain as a historically accurate and constant reminder of the terribly bad results of one over the other... At least that is how it works in my head... Thoughts?

Disclaimer... I just read this book and it may have had an unusually large influence on this post :P http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/
« Last Edit: July 17, 2015, 03:07:07 am by Myshadow »

Offline Permie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: krimduss
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #28 on: July 19, 2015, 11:27:49 pm »
Thom I wholeheartedly agree with your philosophy fundamentals and very much agree alot of your posts, but I think this issue isn't as clear cut as you think it is. The ability to enter voluntarily into a contractual agreement for someone to have control over your assets is a freedom like any other and important in certain use cases. I also think it is very important to allow for both scenarios and that the incentives aren't skewed either way by the blockchain whether its total freedom of your assets, or the abdication of ownership to play out and let the pieces fall where they may.

My reasoning for this is that it provides a clear cut Apples to Apples comparison of exactly why freedom is so incredibly goddamn important!
+5%

So long as there is a clear cut separation between controllable assets and Market Pegged Assets, with reasoning and fail-safes ensuring that the separation remains indefinitely then I do not think there is a problem.

Quote from: Thom
I look at it as we are adding the ability for one entity to control the assets of another entity, to nullify the purchase, to offer something in place of true property ownership
Then that particular asset is not property, but a contract or agreement of some other kind. So what?

If you want property then buy MPAs and don't trust any issuing-entities.
Why can't there be both? BitShares aims to assimilate all areas of finance, sometimes people want somebody else to have access to their assets.
Reputation and competition will "regulate" these issuers and nobody is forcing anybody to use them. Maybe that is the danger that you predict, but external-force cannot be solved by bts code.

BM has talked about the need to move away from a contract based society, as it requires force to guarantee all promises. Instead, reputation and web-of-trust type systems should replace them.
MPA's do not require trust, but for everything else that does then UIA and asset-control is available.

I understand that an absence of an answer here doesn't mean that 'infection' is impossible, but I would like you to hypothesize on how a bad-actor could corrupt the MPA system, specifically using the tools given to them by UIA control.
If UIA's didn't have 'compliance' features, then how would these attack vectors be mitigated?

I am assuming you are worried about a government using the threat of imprisonment to force users to adopt a fiat 2.0 bitasset, where they have all the power and control they currently wield.
How do UIA compliance features aid them in this endevour?
"USE THIS OR ELSE!" would seem to me to work just as well if only MPA's existed, they could just premine their own bts chain and get people to use that instead.

My reasoning for this is that it provides a clear cut Apples to Apples comparison of exactly why freedom is so incredibly goddamn important!
I don't think compliance UIAs help baddies, but they do allow users to experience holding both free and controlled assets and help them realize the benefits and pitfalls of each.
JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?
BTSDEX.COM

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2905
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: Freedom is indeed about choice…
« Reply #29 on: July 19, 2015, 11:44:59 pm »
I don't think compliance UIAs help baddies, but they do allow users to experience holding both free and controlled assets and help them realize the benefits and pitfalls of each.

This.

BitShares is, among other things, a great platform for educating people about their options.

Even if we were to encounter a completely evil anti-chain that was the antithesis of everything we believe in, it would at least represent a chance to compare and contrast the differences while we remain unflinchingly true to the principle that freedom means allowing people to have choices we don't like.



Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.