transactions - How long does it take on average to receive ...

The Great Web of Slime

There is a web of invisible slime that reaches out from the artificial traditions of psychological think tanks, like The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, whose roots trace back to the Vienna Psychology Club; a web that stretches across the entire world and inserts itself into your lives in intrusive, unethical and corrupt ways. Groups are deceiving you for a dollar, for a vote, for your personal information, for your labor; for your body and soul. This deception is carried out using every screen you look at, every song offered to you, every sign on a billboard, every popular book, magazine and newspaper.
If you want honest information; if you want to see past the slime, you are going to have to look hard for it. If you are just starting down your journey of being cognizant of the deception, the scope is difficult to believe but well borne out by the evidence. We all know the news is dishonest, but the common myth is that it is for the ratings and for the views. The ways in which the news is dishonest is what is really difficult for people to swallow and the “why” still very much in debate until you understand the framework by which they operate.
Systemic corruption is no exception to the march of modernization; more sophisticated than ever and more capable of staying hidden to the average person. Modern day slavers control the narrative and the reason it is a spiritual conflict between good and evil is because there are a very small group of people who believe that stealing your agency/free will/consciousness lends itself to their ability to become gods, in their own right.
Understanding that the elite have deep occult traditions is important, though often scoffed at. However, to advertise their power and influence, occult messages are constantly and publicly advertised back and forth between these groups. It is no theory that think tanks have studied and implemented cult behavior even going so far as to create artificial cults in which to entrap people.
Faceless, emotionless, unempathetic organizations that are merely constructed of words on paper are able to impose these cult tactics on you with impunity and in secrecy. This is the heart of the problem; when it comes to an organization, company, agency, church, etc., these abstract constructs are very much not human, at all. Their existence is alien and unknown to human instincts, who assign human attributes naturally and without conscious thought. These constructs take advantage of normal, honest, empathetic individuals by mimicking empathy, not by actually being empathetic.
There are more slaves, now, than ever in human history and the methods of enslaving are far more insidious than ever. Modern slavery networks and the corrupt political ecosystems that allow them to endure are the heart of mankind’s problems. If we, as a society, were able to address the corruption that keeps these networks alive, then we, as society, would solve a lot of problems surrounding organized crime, in general, not just the problem human trafficking.
How do we do that? It is very simple; “Zero Trust” policies in organizations and 100% government transparency. That’s it. A great deal of time, effort and money are spent making sure these issues never hit the ballot box and are never part of the platform of a candidate you are given the option to vote for. The movies you watch are constantly reminding you of dangers that allow a select group of idiots to maintain secrecy that is undeserved and clearly wielded for uses other than helping society.
Common sense solutions are not prioritized by the media and politicians. Don’t be a part of the destruction of common sense and common courtesy. Stop taking the bait. Stop taking the path of least resistance. We are all guilty, but pushing yourself to be better and do better has a ripple effect in the world around you. Being a terrible person also has a ripple effect. There are enough bad ripples.
The concept of an “epiphany” is an important one; where a person’s mind changes on a physical, neurochemical level to the extent that their world view changes. The moment a person is “red pilled” is an epiphany and it is very much the concern of media and Internet shills and their manipulative overlords because they do not want people to have the realization that the system is corrupt from top to bottom and that both sides of most narratives. But, if you do have that realization, there is a plan for you; to do nothing and sit idly by as corrupt forces continue their work. When you have an epiphany, the neurochemical storm actually is a moment where you are most suggestible and most ready to be manipulated.
If you manage to raise your level of awareness across multiple narratives, the system almost doesn’t need to care about you, anymore, as they have likely already moved you to inaction and made you unwilling to tell others the truth.
While there is a great deal of science that goes behind manipulating people, the tradition is as old as human history, itself; it’s origins, magical from the perspective of the ancients. Whether you call mass manipulation “hypnosis,” “psychology,” “magic” or “science,” the fact of the matter is that it is there in a more constant form than ever, impossible to avoid, and invisible to those who aren’t paying attention or willing to research and think for themselves.
Like the idea of dark matter, you cannot see it directly (at least, when done well), but should be able to test and compare data data in different circumstances to detect it. There are many confirmed real world examples of mass manipulation that people should be aware of, because it is very easy for people to believe that it is not happening to them.
Many say that is too big of a conspiracy to keep secret; though we already see how it works with a variety of leaks, court cases and plenty of proven real world examples. If you encounter this argument, you have probably encountered someone who is hypnotized into misunderstanding the word “conspiracy”, where a group of people work together to commit crimes.
One easy way to create a consensus across media organizations is to enter into “non disparagement agreements.” For example, HBO entered into a non-disparagement agreement with Michael Jackson’s attorneys. A recent court case established that the agreement remains in effect even after his death. This means, with the right law firm, someone can enter into many unknown non disparagement agreements with many companies.
It sounds weird, but this is like black magic. Occult literally means hidden. Secret words have been spelled out that the public is not aware of, but creates the illusion that there is a consensus about any given personality; like say a politician, a singer or an actor. A web of mutual non-disparagement agreements works as a form of forensic interruption, preventing people being held accountable for crimes.
Between non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement agreements, there is a web of protected relationships where people, products and even governments are not allowed to be discussed in a negative light.
This has created an extortion racket by the media. If you don’t buy in, then you are fair game. Not only are you fair game, they will harass you until you buy in because they literally need something to do due to their lack of ability to speak negatively about their cohorts.
When you consider the nexus between government and media, the problem is compounded when you introduce the concept of keeping things secret for national security. Policy has created the circumstance that corporate and secret government interests are intertwined and they become aligned in keeping each other out of jail.
While a lot of this is managed at upper echelons, the system is merely taking advantage of human nature, which is why the government and media should be operating from a “zero trust” standpoint and not the other way around, like it currently is. There is and never has been any reason to trust the media or the government, and doubly so when their interests are aligned. There are many proven real world examples.
The first ingredient to modern mass hypnosis is saturation and repetition. Your first clue that the message is artificial is when many corporate, government and astroturfing battlegrounds all agree on the same thing.
Not only is a contrived message oft-repeated, it is generally very polarized; where, due to cognitive bias, it is designed for consumption by both sides with the ideal result of making one side feel schadenfreude and the other side feel outrage and injustice. Just being aware of this polarization tactic and allowing yourself to have more nuanced opinions that the black or white ones offered up to you, is incredibly effective at not taking the bait.
“Systems Psychodynamics” is the name of the psychological framework that is used to monitor and control people, primarily based on attacking and reforming “basic assumptions.” By controlling everyone’s basic assumptions using the repetitious push and pulling narratives, the levers of political and monetary behavior are controlled through “influencers.” This framework reads like it was written for social media, though, in reality, it is much older; social media merely enhances the effects.
One easy way to detect the agenda and the widespreadness of the corruption, without even knowing the finer points of mass persuasion techniques, is to see what is censored. Generally, the astroturfing campaigns seek to drown out good information that is contrary to their cause. However, when you find some information that is very damaging to their narrative, especially before they’ve scripted a response, it gets removed. Eventually, they will write up a standard response, but this takes time.
For this reason, I incubate a number of censorship experiments across multiple sites. While people easily get away with discussions about aliens and flat earth, conversations about modern slavery are shut down everywhere; particularly if you call people to action in reporting crimes. Sites that purport to be “free speech” will not allow you to openly hunt human traffickers and the “system” seems to hate vigilantes more than anything.
Most recently, the censorship around Covid “truth” is heaviest. Censorship of doctors has been swift and totalitarian. However, because I see generally what gets censored, first, I knew this was all a scam from Day One. The first SARS COV 2 tests, up until March, were merely SARS COV tests. Very literally. The SARS COV 2 tests hadn’t been invented, yet. Explaining that the body produces the CR3022 protein (what the antibody tests look for) for all human affecting coronaviruses was heavily censored. Even now, explaining this basic fact that exposes why a great deal of testing is fraudulent, is struck from both Right and Left astroturfing machines. If you really want a rabbit hole to dig through, search the coronavirus pandemic bonds that matured March 23, 2020.
Prior to that, the name “Eric Ciaramella” was one of the most censored things on the Internet. Censored, in that the information was deleted immediately. The motivations behind these multi-site censorship campaigns should have everyone concerned because it is consistently in support of Democrat and RINO narratives, politically, and always in favor of human traffickers.
However, even the Q Anon group will censor you with a variety of tactics if you speak of certain things in the wrong way or mention the possibility that they, themselves, are part of an astroturfing outfit. Fox News still won’t give a fair shake to the Uranium One/Skolkovo/Troika Laundromat evidence and it betrays them as controlled opposition/ a limited hangout, since it would destroy the Democrats.
Any “side” of politics you can be on, whether it’s fringe or mainstream or Right or Left, every group has limits to what truthful statements they will tolerate and the nexus where all the groups meet in alignment is when it comes to discussing modern day slavery and who is profiting from it.
Simply removing content is very overt and complaining about it to those who do it will usually earn you a mute or a ban. Running a “brand” across multiple platforms requires conformity to social media company ideologies, or you will be subjected to any and all means of censorship.
Covert means of censorship are also rampant. Upvotes.Club offers a service that not only promotes the content you want, but downvotes topics that run contrary to your marketing strategy. This is one of many astroturfing services. Shadow banning is another tactic that can be difficult to detect. “Deboosting” is common in social platforms, as well, where the number or type of viewers who see your content is limited. This breeds “echo chambers” across multiple Internet communities.
Out of frustration and curiosity, I began experimenting with different ways to engage with the shill communities. Very often, their own tactics work quite well against them. Years into this push and pull with these groups, my best strategy has evolved to monitor them as they often telegraph economic opportunity and subvert them from behind a layer of complexity a shill script can’t understand and is unable to deal with. When I noticed Bitcoin was being heavily shilled, I saw a signal to buy early. This was the catalyst for rethinking everything I was doing.
When I noticed that there was blatant fraud in the media about SARS COV 2, I noticed the exact same behavior I had seen before when I struck it rich with Bitcoin. I even went to my audience and said on a podcast, “the market will be back to normal levels in a month… six tops.” I bought the dip, knowing the numbers were fully overblown. My $TSLA experience has been quite enriching.
Every day, in the stock trading communities, shills are looking to pump and dump stocks and groups are spending money to illegally manipulate the stock market. However, you can use different ways to monitor social media to detect potential pumps and dumps. If you start seeing the same thing show up on different platforms, among different known shill groups, you know someone has paid for a pump and dump. So long as you have a set, small percentage to gain, you can avoid the pitfalls and get out early.
Right now, that is my “edge”, in trading. I don’t feel nearly as obligated to spread the truth to others, since I’ve realigned my priorities. These technological tools for being the first to news items, to new evidence, finding new ways of searching existing information; not only does it help you navigate past censorship, you can use it to make more “realistic” decisions about the world around you.
Politics and the stock market are inextricably linked. To be informed on one, is to be informed on the other. When you begin to pull in more intersecting information, like “systems psychodynamics” and overall agendas of differing groups, you are expanding your knowledge and your consciousness so that your intellect has more of a real world impact.
When you delve deep into ancient traditions, you will, eventually, learn of alchemy; usually the pursuit of endless wealth or the search for immortality. Day trading well is, essentially, modern day alchemy in that you are making money from thin air. Musicians transform what is in their mind into a product that can be sold. There are many forms of alchemy. Bitcoin is another great example of modern day alchemy. In my humble opinion, augmenting your own well-disciplined intellect with good computing practices can make you a modern day wizard; an alchemist.
Many people were saturated with pro-Nihilism marketing and ate it up with their Cheerio's while listening to Nirvana CDs. A couple of generations of nihilists later, combined with portable dopamine trap screens from waking moment 'til slumber, and people are literally having a hard time finding a reason to get out of bed in the morning.
Being a successful trader heals a lot of the damage from that consumerist propaganda and forces people to interact with the natural causes of their decision making.
The Market is not racist. The only color you have to worry about is green. The market does not celebrate your success or mock your failures. The opinions of critics do not count.
The Market does not care about your feelings or anyone else's.
All people enter the Market equal and there are no participation awards. There is no busywork. Your test scores do not matter. All that matters are results and that type of black and white simplicity makes the Market the most sane aspect of society, right now.
Though most of the obvious stocks have since reached preCovid normality, it has been easy to make money by sorting every ticker by Feb 20 high, then subtract the current price, calculate potential gain when they return to their old price and pick ones that had a high probability of doubling or tripling your money the fastest.
I understand it seems tangential, the stock market angle, but when you are routinely called a “conspiracy theorist”, it helps to be as realistic as possible and there is no better way to prove your theories than by putting your money where your mouth is.
The stock market is a vessel from which normal people (”retail investors”) are scammed constantly, for the benefit of institutional investors. The Epsteins, the Soros’, all the political elite; they are playing in this realm and they graduated to using AI and machine learning to augment their schemes years ago. In order to understand the elite, you have to understand their playground.
In order to compete in the information age, you need to augment your intellect using technology. If nothing else, use it to be meticulously organized. If you get organized in only one aspect of your life, make it your finances.
The Democratic party uses the ADA AI, named from Ada Lovelace and a competitor, in 2016, Cambridge Analytica, was used by the Republicans. These AI’s are augmented with databases and metadatabases of everything that can be served up by a social media APIs. They know everything about you and they don’t spy on your microphones, cameras and screenshots to catch you at crimes; they are spying on you in order to better teach you how to vote and spend money.
Combined with an army of astroturfing accounts, these AIs are quite good at manipulating what shows up on your screen. This type of censorship is bad for stock traders, researchers and people who just want a few honest answers.
In order to compete a bit better, I have taken to making by own custom feeds and scrapers, so that I can database text of many sites and subjects, which then is far easier to search, but is also able to sort information so that I can find what I am looking for in a few minutes, as opposed to trawling the same channels or search engines everyday and learning relatively little. I am really on the hunt for stuff that is voted up or noticed organically and is in that stage before it catches on by a shill group. I incorporate a lot of OSINT tools and I like to collect leaked databases to be able to compare information. It is very helpful to use machine learning to detect what I need as quickly as possible and serve it up to me, first.
Applying my own knowledge of how the astroturfing system works, I have developed strategies to target influencers with new and original information and I can quickly and easily get it to them without influencers even knowing I am the source of the information. I just have to identify the correct group to get my message out, then make sure their leaders see the information, who will naturally post it on their own and their followers will naturally vote information up for free. I don’t do this with stocks (questionable legality), but I do feed good news to the right people and I exert a lot less effort to get ideas across all platforms than I used to.
No astroturfing groups are into anti-consumerist ideas. “Hydro Homies” and “No Fap” are two great examples that recommend people be anti-consumerist and avoid specific products. As a result, these movements, despite being healthy and productive, have a lot of trouble gaining traction. There is no mainstream push for a truly healthy agenda. All contrived movements must pay to astroturf and shill because, otherwise, embracing their products and ideas is contrary to your well being. No shill group is working to save you money or trying to convince you to make the right decision, for yourself.
There are certain messages almost no one will add social media velocity to; detailed instructions on how to report crimes or catch pedophiles, leaked information that hurts both sides of the political spectrum, anything a little too technical or complex.
There are already efforts to make hijack the anti-human trafficking crowd. They will be tricked into meaningless pursuits that have no real world consequence. Money will be raised and wasted. News article after news article will be pumped out detailing how everyone is supporting victims and raising awareness. Meanwhile; nobody of consequence is arrested. The mining industry will continue to use forced labor and the networks they use will also feed the sex slavery and domestic servitude and the systemic policies and corrupt politicians will continue on unimpeded.
Let’s hope that changes, but it will require a lot more people getting off their asses and getting involved. It will require a lot more people speaking up outside of their echo chambers.
Ready. Set. Go.
submitted by The_Web_Of_Slime to TopConspiracy [link] [comments]

Investigation of (Dis-)Favor 1\3 questioning freedom of will (in Macro-society)

This item began as a simple idea to investigate "social construct" theory, a trendy theme in academia and identity politics. It turned into a staggeringly complex constellation of ideas, with surprises galore.
The idea occurs to me: validate (or not) 'social construction' of beauty. If not, then sense of beauty is innate (source is not one's society, but genetic or other episocial influences).
Natural Tendency towards Beauty in Humans: Evidence from Binocular Rivalry 2016 | plos (technical study)
Reading in Contemporary Aesthetics "Why Beauty Still Cannot Be Measured", by Ossi Naukkarinen, because beauty is a personal determination, and a metaphor of favor, but how is it determined? Example: which of these women looks beautiful to you? note: only descriptor for the AI search is "beautiful woman", AI learns about beauty by sifting mega-data; how effective is it? (achieves given goal?) AI results are socially constructed in the most explicit way possible! Beauty may not be measurable, but it can be selected (parsed) from non-beauty. Measurement is a comparison of some phenomenon to an abstract dimension. Selection is a go, no-go choice.
What is Nudge theory? This item straddles the fence between Macro and Micro societies, paradigmatic Nudges come from Macro sources, but include an option to choose without pressure to conform. Micro sources are always more direct; which side of the fence are you on, friend?. (Greener side, of course.)
What about searching for "good", images? note how often the WORD good is pictured. Good is a language construct that must be interpreted from the individual's perspective.
Ok, now search for "favor" images note that AI mostly interprets favor as a small gift, not as a preference (which is difficult to represent by image)
Well then, search for "preference", images note that the word preference happens to be used by a line of hair care products from L'Oreal, which dominates the returns... commerce rules!
social construct (def, search result)
validate (or not) 'social construction' of beauty
Is Socialism a social construct? (LoL) Socialism Defined (EVERY Country is Socialist!) 2.2k views Sep 29, 2019 Rokn'MrE
To (social) Construct, or Not to (social) Construct, is there a choice? (note most results are about gender)
Parsing gender
Discussion of gender is not my direction of choice in this part 1 investigation. I want to seek how an actor (esp. me) makes a choice, in a quest for freedom of will. Perhaps come back to gender in a future item.
person makes a choice, in a quest for freedom of will (selections available)
Exemplar Hyp (Harry) Frankfurt’s compatibilist theory of free will 2009 5pg.pdf
I notice my choice of article was partly determined, partly free, but parsing out those factors would be too much divergence from the goal here. But Truth (a two side coin) is my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
(previous link, compatibilism):
3 It explains our intuition that human beings, but not lower animals, have free will. Lower animals lack free will because they lack the second-order volitions which are constitutive of free will. (This item is unnecessary and probably not true; how do we know animals have no "second-order volitions"? Having no other language than "body", we can only surmise (guess) what their volitions are. Volitions come before actions, we cannot see them or interpret them in any way. Brain conditions might be interpreted with MRI scanning, but to put a subject in a scanning device is to prevent any other actions. Such measuring ruins the connection between mental state and volition being measured, except we can safely assume that every measurement of animals must default to the volition to escape the measuring device.)
That's the first-order, highlighted deviation from compatibility theory. Clarification of "second-order volition": a path from choice to action has an intermediate "middle-way" tunneling mode, contracting (taking on) a desire to make a choice, prior to making the choice. In order to prove freedom, one must establish the mental preference for an imagined outcome in order to prove that preference did come from within the person and was not forced by other external deciding factors (genetic factors are pre-determined).
incompatibilism Note: the approach is wrong by the universal assumption, IOW that the intersection of determined and free is zero. It's a supremacy position, or superposition principle (LoL), the error is in over-simplification. The Logic Argument (p.5) is not representative of reality, which is more nuanced. Therefore, Frankfurt's thesis is good (denial of incompatibilism), but not due to the case presented (superposition).
Take Frankfurt's case (p.4) of Black vs Jones4 to be analogy for State vs Individual. Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars (other sources exist, search for yourself)
The (myusername) determinism/free-will duality hypothesis (denial of incompatibilism due to non-zero intersection):
Most choices, including the choice of desires, are determined by contingencies of which one is the natural desire of the actor to optimize his/her outcomes ("best wishes"). Is a person always compelled to have best wishes? What is best depends on a person's mental state, which is usually determined by external factors, but those can vary in cogency (impact on behavior). Consider the choice to commit suicide, certainly not a trivial choice. (The Chosen means of execution (puns intended) is somewhat more trivial, but again, partly determined by external conditions.)
Some choices, nearly all trivial, are free because no interfering contingencies are apparent during the choosing interlude. It may happen in hindsight, that a past choice is observed to be a mistake, usually because some contingency was overlooked or unknown during the choosing. This observation should be remembered so as to avoid repeating a future choice like that mistake. Choices always have risks, including the choice to do nothing.
Different day, slightly different approach... parsing choice. 1 important choices that have many deep effects later, for instances a marriage partner, a new job, a new residence; 2 trivial choices which have minor effects, risks or physical involvement, for instances a choice of toothpaste at the market, to like or not a web-link or museum exhibit.
According to (myusername)'s determined/free paradigm, type 1 choices are nearly all determined by pre-existing conditions (not free). Type 2 choice is the arena of freedom. I suppose a person's low risk-aversion parameter could expand the envelope of freedom, but that's a characteristic that develops during maturation, one's history of choices and ensuing responses. Successful responses lead to more freedom, failures to less. So even when freedom exists, it accumulates a history (habits) which become a determinant.
Contracting the Social Construct Disorder (it's contagious) Take 1:
How does an actor (person in question who comes to an internal state, or inner-construct) interact with a community or society? Must it be IRL, or can virtual interaction suffice to construct internal states? And more to my point, must the interaction be two-way (containing feedback), or simply via broadcast medium? (broadcast includes published books, articles, records, radio, TV or Internet A/V shows, etc.)
Interaction with broadcast media can be summarized by: a choice, a degree of attention and focus (time spent on and attention given to item), a like/dislike or more complex reaction to item, having future behavior influenced by item, to continue a stream of behaviors (especially sequential item choices) as consequence of influence of item, to develop a complex of attitudes built upon stream of items (eg. just mentioned 'risk aversion parameter and habit).
Before going on, I notice that broadcast media is like Sunshine, Rain, and Grace. It is made available by participation in a community, and falls without curse or blessing, it's all there for the choosing (or ignoring), depending on the contingencies.
Mind control theory? (because mind is the inner source of volition... behavior, control the mind (easy), hence control the behaviors (difficult otherwise))
Mind control courtesy Tavistock Inst.
Construction of Favor (or any knowledge) upon Familiarity
What is Social Construction? (cntrlZ)
"For instance, trees are only differentiated from other plants by virtue of the fact that we have all learned to see them as "trees."
But we don't all know about trees to an equal degree. I know rather much about trees from my interaction with them: living among them, planting them, sawing them, moving them, burning them, etc., not from reading or talking about them. No doubt, there are many persons all over the world who have very little experience of trees, and cannot 'construct' treeness as well as me. Direct experience is more realistic and developed than social constructs.
Favor and Familiarity are interwoven by choice
I chose to live alone with trees and not alone with sea, or desert (for examples), because it was easier to go with trees. Was the choice free? I could have chosen city or suburb with even more ease than forest, so ease of choice was not the deciding factor, it was my preference of lonely forest over crowded urb that decided me. So maybe it wasn't really about trees, it was about independence or something else like that. When we choose, we may not understand the contingencies, but our decision (choice) may be due to habits or patterns that have developed in the maturity process. Habits are strong determinants, and they develop, according to Ian Plowman, 4 ways.
The cntrlZ article makes the case for 'Strong Social Construction' based on that 'knowing' which is all about language, certainly a social construct.
Within the social construction of language is the game. Outside the social construction is reality, the real world. (a list of social constructs follows)
That makes it clear. Experiences (direct ones) without resort to language are NOT social constructs. That observation makes another distinction clear: gender may be a social construct, as it's a language issue, but sex is not a social construct, it is a direct experience issue that develops in the maturation process: birth, infant, child, puberty, sexy adolescent, sexy adult, old (unsexy) adult, death. Prior to puberty, sex is incipient in its development, but comes to life, (like a flower blooms) after a decade or so. Knowing about sex as a child is by observation from outside (thru the looking glass), after puberty, it's direct experience, and much later, it's a fading memory.
Regarding Looking-glass self theory the notion of socially constructed identity (defining the self by differences/ affinities to others),
... the outcome of "taking the role of the other", the premise for which the self is actualized. Through interaction with others, we begin to develop an identity of our own as well as developing a capacity to empathize with others... Therefore, the concept of self-identity may be considered an example of a social construction.
... makes a spurious expansion of identity formation to include everyone (a unity), or nearly so. According to Reisman's Lonely Crowd, there is a triality of social nature, expounded by parsing people into tradition, inner, and other directed personalities. This theme was a scholar's response to the US trend toward consumerism and conformity to "norms", (local traditions, eg. "keeping up with the Joneses") mid-20th century. The social construct crowd would be Reisman's Other directed personality, which may truly be the majority, in USA certainly. However, the tradition-following and inner-directed personalities are a significant minority. Let's not ignore them (I'm in there.)
What is “Mob Mentality?”
Herd mentality | wkpd
Are All Personality Descriptions Social Constructions? Sep.2019 | psytdy
... that objective reality does not directly reveal itself to us, is true beyond a doubt.
The preceding statement author, JA Johnson, is way off (and his article is full of falseness). Objective reality IS direct experience, no more revealing modality exists. Denial of this obvious fact (just lied about above) is a redefinition of the term (a social construct). Experience is beyond language, thus beyond 'description'. However the following is a true reveal about (((Yews))) (the like of whom Dr. Johnson seems):
It is true that when we describe someone with socially undesirable traits... we are constructing for them a social reputation that might decrease their chance of success in life. This is precisely one of the concerns of (((social constructivists, like Dr. Johnson))), that certain categorizations (eg. a separate race) reduce power and status.
Proof that Truth is not a social construct (relative to culture, like morality absolutely is)... What do you believe in? Cultural Relativism
Conformity is a social construct (should be obvious, it's a social source of choices). What causes conformity? Social interactions, which traditionally occurred (Macro-version) in newspapers, magazines, cinema and radio programs. As culture changed the popular media to radio, TV and then to Internet, and church attendance fell out of vogue, the advertising industry became more powerful in defining social constructs. That's why Internet censorship is so important.
Who are the 'influencers' in society? (They used to be parents, teachers, peers... now it seems to be YouTubers, like PewDiePie. But an intentionally underplayed contingent of influencers is the predominantly Left-Leaning academia, who collectively promote Marxist preferences and political activism toward Socialist positions. Academia is pushing social construction because it provides an intellectual framework that denies the old (social injustice), and says ok to their preferred ideology, Cultural Marxism (new social "just us"; socially constructed ideas can be anything you want, their cogency depends on efficacy of publication).
Micro-Social Constructs are most cogent (due to conformity being human nature), discussed in part 2.
Bottom Line (part 1)
If you like freedom, and are serious about it, you must distance yourself from society, because it tries to reconstruct you according to the norm... conform!
Before you go, think about what is a hermit?, which should not be confused with Hermetic, name derived from Greek god Hermes. 7 Great Hermetic Principles – The Teachings of Thoth (illustrated)... same topic 2016
Investigation of (Dis-)Favor 2\3, Micro-Societies
Social Circles; Mates, Kin, Friends
note on Mates: school-, (prison) in-, marriage-, ship-, etc. note on my link choices, page rank has a strong influence
Social group (aka circle)
Is Conformity Human Nature? Don't blow this list off, if you want to understand social constructs. At least look at first item.
What is Social Proof?
Are Micro-societies any less 'constructing' than Macros? Or do some constructs exist for all realms, macro and micro? I think they are more constructing, because micros carry feedback, whereas macro is all absorption, individuals have negligible effects on society at large. They act in a statistical sense, with a few exceptions.
Concept vs Percept (concepts are stable mental recordings, and physical manifestations of them; percepts are changing sensations and reflexes which depend strongly on the situation, memories of which are variable too)
Favor, Good, and Beauty are words that belong in the same 'conceptual basket' (ward), they are alike, all refer to action 'like', as an affective (and affirmative) perception. Conversely for the word's opposites.
Perceptions are non-language reactions to stimuli, therefore not social constructs. They may be evoked into a social arena via language (or other virtual records), but these are only shadows of the perception, so what is evoked is drawn up from the receiver's own memories of perceptions.
Division of Labor (and role models) are Social Constructs
Sex is the most basic divider of labor, for all societies, especially the most primitive. As societies develop towards more technical, sex falls away from the divider, as natural talent and innate interest gain influence, until the basic operations of reproduction remain, the core division. What about rankings in the division?
natural tendency for dominance?
Are males naturally dominant in nature? | qra
(arguments opposing) Male Dominance (theory) with (bogus) "Explanations", by 2 feminist authors using Marxist ideology 2017 | verso While this blog seems to have obvious (to me) flaws, it does raise interesting ideas and references.
what attributes help males gain social status? Basic: status is competitive. It takes talent and effort to win.
To Raise Male Status (18 Rules) | @rctvmn (not because age 18 is best)
Dominance vs Prestige 2010 | psytdy Note: blatant bias toward Prestige via argument parsing Pride. (author is Jewish, maligns DJ Trump (nationalist), lauds John Lennon (globalist))
modes of thought: socially-controlled vs spontaneous
Major Component of Social-Construction: Public Education 3 Modes of Thought Jan.2019
Kaufman again: How Renaissance People Think 2011 | psytdy Note: We discussed concept vs percept, here Kaufman refers to fellow-Jew Seymour Epstein's dual modish rational vs experiential theory, same idea set.
polymath (short for Renaissance Man)
Favor-Goodness-Beauty paradigm
Favor is not favored in prior art, Truth takes Favor's place in the Transcendental Spectrum: Transcendentals 5pg.pdf
We have already seen the idea in part 1 that Truth is a disputed transcendental in the social-constructionism academic universe. Academics use the "universal fallacy" that their favored item is part of an incompatible pair, which by logic excludes everything not in their favor. They want to ignore the nuances in order to push an ideology toward a supremacy of thinking, just like in a totalitarian state.
Whereas the (myusername) principle of Truth, it has a dual nature, 1 relative to a society (democratic consensus); and 2 absolute to reality (math/science/technology). So 'Favor' is a better term because objective proof (no contest) is not required (except the meaning of objective that says 'objection!', meaning 'contest'). 'Favor' implies bias which is the subjective reaction that matches Goodness and Beauty better than 'Truth'.
Apply Truth-Goodness-Beauty paradigm to social construction
it is unconcerned with ontological issues...
because the aim of constructionists is to justify a collective "truth" of their own construction. A social construct is not absolute, it's anything a society wants it to be ("social proof"). That's a good description of tyranny... The Empowered Female Parasite 2014 (that's a surprising result, here is one not-surprising.)
Social Proof: established by culture media (mind control, a monopoly 2012 (scroll down long graphic), of the Juice 2015), go back to part 1, macrosocial constructs.
Does Appreciation of Beauty have any innate sources? (otherwise it's all a social construct) Neuroscience of Beauty; How does the brain appreciate art? 2011 | sciam (in brain)
Onward (Dis)-Favor Readers...
Investigation of (Dis-)Favor 3\3, House of Not-Friends
Contracting the Social Construct Disorder Take 2
Living outside the 'Normitory" (away from Dreamland (everybody's asleep), to where Nessun Dorma (nobody sleeps))
It so happens that an ethnic group which originated in eastern Mediterranean Middle-East evolved to specialize in intelligence, commerce, morally corrupt enterprises, and crime. Essential to their success was eugenic traditions that applied artificial selection to just those same specialties, which makes this ethnic group a formidable enemy. They have developed a very strong sense of in-groupness, and a vested interest in social construct studies. A unified collective is a more effective competitor than an inchoate population of diverse individuals.
This group has as ethnic traits: global dispersion (aka Diaspora), preference for urban environments (aka Cosmopolitan, or Globalist), covert inter-group rivalry (aka InfoWar), and deception (aka MOSSAD). This cosmopolitan group must operate covertly and deceptively, because those are effective tactics, and they are a small minority (2% of USA), therefore weak in the democratic sense.
Immoral Social Constructs enforced by 5th column subversives
wethefifth (political audio series)
serendipity: freethink
Another construct search, without gender reference
Is morality a social construct? If so, how can concepts such as 'good' exist? (note especially the links in top comment, to reddit posts)
"Good" can be understood as a variation of "Favor" as a direct experience (perception) of "like", rather than some idealized notion of an obvious social construct such as "greater good" (a theoretical derivation by interventionist actors-with-agendas trying to impose their own preferences upon others, IOW ideology hegemony pushers, for instance viz da wiz)
Cultural hegemony is the Chosen's mitzvah, that we all must go to Emerald City, land of Oz, where YHWH (impostor) rules.
Cultural hegemony
Concepts of Ideology, Hegemony, and Organic Intellectuals in Gramsci’s Marxism 1982
There is no universal morality. Morality is much like Beauty, in the mind of beholder (actor who holds to a specific moral code). Morality is a social construct, and varies between societies. (I think a fair definition of morality is a code of ethics which is community-specific.) For a society to sustain, it needs to be isolate from conflicting societies. If different societies, with different moralities must coexist, the natural tendency for actors in the same niche toward dominance will destroy or remake the subordinate societies, which reduces the conflicts.
Status Hierarchies: Do We Need Them? blog 2012 | psytd
a need for 'virtue signaling'? It's natural, and likely unavoidable, evidence pride displays.
Status Assignments: by birth (heredity) or merit (talent)?
Let's assume your morality values social effectiveness. The best path to that is to have talented persons dominant (meritocracy). Next we happen to know that talent is hereditary, but not perfectly so. Therefore birth (kinship, aka kingship) is only an indicator of talent, which is infrequent among low status groups, much higher among high status kinship groups. Thus we must conclude that awarding status by pedigree and family privilege is not the best way to effectiveness, but it often does work. What works best then, must be? a competitive system of merit-proving, with special attention to high-status families. (Helps if the natural tendency for snobbish repression is circumvented, for examples Han-style Civil Service Exams, and the Roman military promotion avenue, which occasionally led to top gun.)
Sustainable Competitive Advantages (aka moats): Network Effects 2019 | sEknα
Our Brain's Negative Bias 2003 | psytdA
Fear: it's the greatest (motivator) 2009 Owen Benjamin made a video about Fear over TIME 16 min.
Dominance Hierarchy employs FEAR to dominate
Dominance hierarchy | wkpd Social dominance theory | wkpd
scaring children is not ok, Sydney Watson blog 11 min
tools for social mobility and dominance (list)
9 Important Factors That Influence Social Mobility Social dominance orientation | wkpd SDO should theoretically be highly important to Jews, as their ethos tends strongly to emulate it among themselves and denigrate it towards outgroups (Goyim). Thus we should expect to see this field of study monopolized by Jewish scholars. Studying the Gentile: Fanciful Pseudoscience in the Service of Pathologizing the Covington Boys | OO
Contracting the Social Construct Disorder Take 3
Different day from Take 2. Re-consider interactions with a community or society: traditionally occurred locally, on Sunday meetings at church, parties, having a beer after work, town hall or children's group meetings, (eg. PTA, scouts) etc.
Re-consider "contracting". Original idea was meant to acquire, like a disease, not by design (choice), but determined by contingency (unlucky chance). Today, "contracting" means getting smaller, shrinking, like a cooling branding iron, or melting ice. Iron has several crystalline phases, the cooler, the more compact (more atomic order). Ice is contrary to most materials, as its crystalline structure is larger than its liquid phase, so as it melts (entropy always increases, going to less ordered) its atoms become more fluid. In both cases, the natural mode of change is toward ambient temperature. This trend (recursion to the mean) is maybe the most unbroken law of all physics.
Re-considering "Disorder"; original idea was meant as a mental disease, like ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder), IOW anomalous condition, out-of-order, (order being assumed normal) in the human behavior dimension. Today it means individuals out-of-line, like discontinuities in a crystal. (Discontinuities are what make metal harder.)
When all the atoms of a metal are aligned (continuous), the state is called "annealed". This is the softest condition. When the metal has been "work hardened" by hammering, or forging, it acquires discontinuities (crystalline order becomes mucked up). This is a harder state. Hardness is measured by forcing a small ball into a test material and measuring the resulting depression (dent). Discontinuities resist dents and every other kind of deforming force (decreased plasticity (weakness) means increased elasticity and maximum yield (resilience, see Young's Modulus, Indentation hardness, Impact Toughness and Moh's Hardness)).
Now make analogy of metal with society. Non-conformist individuals (like followers of Marginotions) make society (if he-he-heeded) more resistant to outside forces (like George Soros, or seekers of Tikkun Olam) trying to make a dent in the established order (tradition, Protestant Ethic).
Contracting the Social Construct Disorder Take 4
Different day Re-consider "contracting" again. Today, it means make-a-deal, as in commercial contract. This kind of contract is in flux nowadays, as the advent of bitcoin has introduced a mathematical means of authorizing legal agreements (aka contracts) in a distributed ledger that makes such agreements social in a very direct sense. The social part of "social construct" is present in a world wide network of participating computer operators, while the construct part is present in a software package (app) that is now called "smart", meaning has built-in security and ongoing timely operations, like confirmation checking. In this contract-paradigm, the "disorder" part is due to it being outside of previous power-holding elites who are chagrined by the prospect of losing some of their powers to the Internetwork, which is out of their control. IOW disorder for elites, and made-to-order for independents. (note on that quote)
Social Contract per britannica (briefly) per wkpd
explicit vs implicit contracts Differences Between Implicit & Explicit Agreements (law) 2017 more specific, social contracts Social Contract Theory UT (includes videos, glossary)
to be continued: fairness is a social construct (contrast with deterministic fate)
study notes (all 3 parts, this series)
Gentrification, Displacement and the Role of Public Investment: A Literature Review 2015 pdf
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Owen+Benjamin+made+video+about+Fear&atb=v81-4__&ia=videos
why is 'social construct' a popular theme?
https://www.success.com/8-daily-habits-to-build-your-mental-strength/
Pareto principle implications for marital harmony, a very brief summary of research by J Cacioppo)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_society
https://thejewishwars.blogspot.com/2019/03/aipac-traitor-jews-having-successfully.html
https://theevilofzionismexposedbyjews.weebly.com/14-what-zionist-and-anti-zionist-jews-have-said-about-education.html
submitted by acloudrift to AlternativeHypothesis [link] [comments]

Tech Wizard

“This person does not exist, huh?” Another empty Saturday of my recently unemployed schedule slides by without a thought as to appointments to keep. My finger slides endlessly through Reddit’s constantly generating front page, all concern to the content long gone. I tap the link and find a website that purports presenting randomly generated faces.
I’ve not exactly the sharpest attention to detail so at first the randomly generated faces seem normal to me. Eventually, even the dimmest eye can begin to discern uncanny features on the randomly generated faces. Ridges over eyes are too pronounced and the skin appears wrinkled in some places and smooth in others. Irises differ in shape and size and sometimes even color. That’s just the little stuff. Refresh the page over again long enough and you start to come across aberrations such as glasses that don’t connect to their lenses or hats that do not cast a shadow.
Scroll long enough and you are lucky to come across the blatant abominations of a soulless AI that only such a program could create. Facial features appear deformed and broken, melding into their surroundings in a discolored and melting mess. Companions of the photograph’s focus are inhuman monsters with mouths sutured shut and eyes that stare emptily into your soul.
You know- basic computer fun.
That being said, it grows old real fast to a mind that has been nurtured into a desire for instant gratification and a desire for entertainment. I click out of the new tab and go back to scrolling Reddit. The message hits my iPhone with a sharp ring and a notification box slips out of the top of the screen.
Jay: Hey, can I borrow a phone-charger adapter? All mine are in use right now.
I roll my eyes though its not exactly a great burden on my back.
Me: Sure, but you need to come down here.
I hear the ceiling above creak and squeak as my upstairs neighbor hoists himself off of his couch and walks across his living room floor. My apartment is an old building, full of the wear and tear of a building from a fading age, built in a rural area in expectation of local development that never came. I hear the upstairs door open and shut, and the stairs outside rattle with Jay stomping down the stairs. He knocks on the door twice and then comes inside without invitation.
In the two years that I’ve lived in this apartment, Jay’s the only one that I’ve become on a first-name basis with. I’ve always had a hard time making friends due to general social awkwardness, but Jay seemed invulnerable to any sense of shame or ability to sense offense. Eventually, he wormed his way into my affections, despite being nearly ten years older, through sheer persistence and ignorance.
“Hey man,” Jay says with a friendly smile that changes a bad case of resting bitch face to a welcoming warm glow. “Is it in your spare drawer?” Jay was an imposing man that was somewhere between muscular and chubby and had a pair of horn-rimmed glasses dangling from the collar of a dusty blue button-up. His hair was beginning to migrate from the middle of the top of his head to an ever thickening beard that would rival that of any philosopher.
“Yup.” I nod, returning his gesture. “In the kitchen.”
“Cool.” Jay nods and slips his flip flops off and walks into the kitchen at a near jog. “Hey, I’m going to Family Fare later, do you wanna go along?”
I shrug, “Sure. I need to get some rice.” I go back to my phone and then glance back at him. “Ooh, some steak also.”
Jay comes out of my kitchen with a outlet-USB adapter cradled in his left hand. “Cool, I’ll text you.” He begins going for the door before I interrupt him. “What are you working on today? You seem too excited to be designing a website for a church.”
Jay’s smile returns with an intensity to rival the sun. “Oh yeah, I don’t think I’ve told you about it yet.” He holds out his hands, both flat, though his left one cradled the USB adapter under his thumb. “Alright, picture this. Only you are the one who knows your schedule, right? Or how hot you like your room at night, right?” He pauses enough for a half nod on my part, but quickly continues. “Alright, now imagine that you can clone a little copy of all your little likes and dislikes and install it onto a server that runs your smart home, after bundling it with an AI. Then, this little copy of you could do everything that you want to do on a digital basis, making your life way easier!” He stops and stared at my face.
“Isn’t that the plot of a Black Mirror episode? Maybe a bunch of them?” I ask, blurting out the first thing on my mind.
Jay seemed confused for a moment, then shrugged, “Is that the technology Twilight-Zone thing you keep trying to get me to watch?”
I nod in reply and Jay gives me a sidelong glance. “They haven’t done it though, right? Like in real life?”
“I don’t think so.” I say with a shrug. “I don’t even think they have the capability to design commercial AI yet though.”
“I’m not concerned about what they can do.” Jay says with a dismissing wave. “The idea is still potentially profitable, right?”
“I guess.” I reply and Jay’s smile returns. “But what about the ethical and moral problems of creating a being capable of understanding reality, adding a person to it, then trapping them into a role. Isn’t that similar to creating life just to subject it to slavery?”
Jay holds both his hands up in mock defense without dropping his smile, “Woooah, Mister Philosopher over here. I don’t care about that stuff, come on. Plus I’m gonna create safeguards against that stuff.”
“Whatever, man.” Shaking my head, I scroll back up to the link to the web page in my history. I open up the randomly generated face of an elderly Asian woman and then turn the phone around to show Jay. “Hey dude, what do you think of this?”
Jay steps forward and takes the phone into his hand. “Looks like a face. Looks like its been messed with a bit on Photo-shop or something.” He turns it back around. “Like the nose is too elongated here.” He points to the left nostril. “What about it?”
“Hit refresh.” I say and he taps the button. The page reloads and another face shows up. This time, its a young black woman with a companion whose face is distorted beyond any recognizable parameter as a human.
“Wow.” Jay says and taps the button again. He tosses the phone back to me and it drops onto my lap, showing a picture of a redheaded man, smiling with a flesh-colored hat. “That’s crazy stuff right there dude, I wouldn’t mess around with it too much.”
I smile, “What do you mean?”
“Looks like a viral site or something. Trust me, just don’t mess around with it.”
“Viral?” I begin as Jay slides on his flip flops. In place of his usual smile is now a gruff expression, him appearing lost in thought. I continue on, sitting up. “Isn’t iOS sand-boxed to hell? How would I get a virus from a site on Reddit’s front page without someone commenting about it?”
“Trust me, Peter.” Jay’s rough tone takes me by surprise. “I don’t know very much, but I know what I’m saying when I say that you should stay off that page.”
He opens the door and then walks out without another word.
I snort and press the sleep button, letting the generated man’s face sink into darkness and drop the phone onto the floor next to the couch. Getting up, I head to the kitchen and begin sorting through my cupboards and refrigerator, searching for food items I’m going to need. Milk, beans, apples, etc. Knowing I’m going to need to make a list, I head back into the living room and snag my phone from the living room floor. After typing in my pass code, the man’s face reappears. I snort again while walking into the kitchen.
I grew up with this stuff. It’s not like I don’t recognize a viral download when I see one. Where’s the Trojan download request, or pop-ups? I think to myself. I refresh the page again just for laughs.
A smiling Caucasian smiles at the camera, fairly normal in appearance. There is, of course, a blue mucoid blob next to her in frame, but all in all there is nothing sinister or dark about this. No real Nosleep material, as it were.
I close out of the tab and tap out a list of things to buy with my dwindling savings. Hopefully my unemployment would get sorted out soon. I’ve never gone on unemployment before and my father, who had some knowledge of the law, said my case seemed ideal for it.
The thought of what Jay had said begins to irk me slightly. Does he think that I’m a dumbass or something?
I need paper towels too. I tap that into my list.
I know that I’m not great at detecting tone or hidden meanings behind words, but it seems weird that Jay would say that to me.
Toilet paper? No, I’m good at that. Same as toothpaste and floss. I do need mouthwash, though.
There’s no way that’s a virus. I think. Sighing, I finish up my list and open up Safari again. I navigate to the list of comments below the link. Scrolling down, I see no comments about malicious software or hackers or anything like that. Just Imgur links to disconcerting results and threads mocking the realism of the pictures.
Setting down the phone on my coffee table, I grab the remote to my TV and flipped it on. Grabbing the GameCube controller hooked up to my Switch and turned the console on and try to idly explore Hyrule in Breath of the Wild, but my mind is occupied too much to be distracted.
Minutes pass by and my mind begins to delve into all the bad possibilities, like that I had offended Jay, or perhaps he did really think I was that stupid- as my mind is apt to wander.
“Ugh.” Groaning, I finally set the controller down and go to the door for my beat up hi-tops. Jay’s pretty hard to offend and he knows me pretty well, so he wouldn’t think it is too weird if I asked for clarification about his statement.
I walk out into the hallway and close the door behind me.
Sure is cold out today. I think, even though a quick glance to the double glass doors at the front of the complex confirms they are both shut.
The trip upstairs is quick and I knock on Jay’s door.
“If it’s Peter, then come in!” A voice calls from within.
Opening the door, I step into an apartment far more cluttered than my somewhat minimalist interior design. Stacks of manuals and technical magazines clutter the floor, intermixed with CDs in jewel cases and USB sticks. Old laptops are stacked on top of computer towers along the back wall on either side of a couch that is clear enough for a blanket and pillow, both of which are oddly neat and folded. In the center of the living room are three plastic totes spilling over with green computer components, neatly bundled cords and wires, and random adapters and such. As long as I’ve been friends with Jay, I’ve never actually set foot in his apartment. I’ve seen the inside, but we always hang out at my place.
“Jay, where are you?” I call out over the quiet hum of box fans spraying cool air all over the room. The window is open, despite it being winter.
“In the bedroom!” Jay replies and I head for the door before Jay steps out and shuts it behind him. In the glimpse that I have of his bedroom, I see boxes on shelves with blinking lights and neatly arranged cords that I can only conclude is some kind of server setup or something.
“Jeez man, are you mining bitcoin or something?” I ask half-jokingly, but Jay shakes his head.
“Naw. That become unprofitable a few years back. What’s up?”
“Listen Jay, I was just wondering about what you said. I don’t want you to think I meant offense if I offended you about-” Jay interrupts me with an upheld hand.
“I figured you were coming in about that. I shoulda phrased it better. I’m sorry.” He says with an apologetic frown. “It’s nothing.” I reply and pause, “But what is so wrong about that site? I couldn’t find anything about it. I mean, it just seems like...” I trail off, waiting for a response.
Jay sighs and shakes his head, “Listen, you don’t like math or stuff like that, right?”
I shake my head but continue before he says anything, “No, but I’m pretty curious about this.”
Jay looks away reluctantly and then speaks. “Okay, listen. The site that you showed me has a program that generates a randomly-featured face, right?”
“Okay?” I say. Jay moves to the couch and grabs his pillow and blankets in a nice stack. He removes them to the top of the plastic totes and takes a seat. After waiting for me to sit, he continues, lacking any of the excitement that he usually gets about technology.
“When the program blends faces together, it gets what appears to be on the surface, a new face. Depending on the sample size of the data fed into the database the program pulls from, any type of face could be generated. The number of possibilities goes up with each entry into the system.”
“So what?”
“So, if a large enough sample size exists, and a large enough amount of randomized features exist, then the output has, for our purpose, an infinite number of possibilities.”
“But it’s not infinite. For it to be infinite-” Jay interrupts me with a nod, “Yeah, yeah, but for OUR purpose, its infinite.”
“Okay?”
“So eventually, given enough time, the system will generate a face that is identical to a face that is in reality, right? Even with all the distortions and whatever, eventually one will get created, right?”
“Given enough time.” I quote him back his own condition.
“Yup. The more people messing with it, the more that it has the chance to output a real value.”
“So why does any of this matter? Are you gonna tell me the person stops existing?” I begin to chuckle but stopped when I see him shaking his head sadly.
“What, Jay?” I tease, less joyfully than I had. “You superstitious?”
Jay reaches into the pocket of his sweats and pulls out an iPhone. Typing on the screen, he quickly pulls up the website and points to the URL. “You see the name of the website?”
“Yeah. What about it?” Speaking with a shrug, I watch his face grow deadly serious.
With a few taps, Jay opens a window to the side of the website filled with what I surmise is the code for the operation.
“Do you see all this?” Jay taps a few places on the text-filled window and then flips it to show me a bunch of meaningless brackets, colons and equal signs intermixed with words.
“Yeah, its just code.”
“Okay.” Jay says. He taps something on the screen a few times, sets the phone down and mumbles something that sounds like “I guess I trust him.”
He reaches forward and taps me on the nose. “Boop!” A small shock that feels like a static discharge burns my nose and I recoil.” Ow.
“What was that for?” I calmly ask, beginning to grow pissed off.
Without a word, Jay lifts his phone and shows me the text window.
Strange symbols and letters formed from slashes and grammar symbols appear to be intermixed with the code now. They seem almost to project themselves from the screen in an odd mimicry of a 3-D movie. It’s hard to see the text behind it, or even anything as my focus is locked onto the floating runes. They seem to float out of the screen, growing brighter and brighter as reality grows dim.
Then Jay shuts the screen off. I have to blink a few times to clear my vision of the etched symbols.
“Wow. Wow. WOW.” I begin to stutter out, but Jay snaps his fingers in front of my face to reclaim my attention.
“I might as well go all the way.” Jay says with a shrug. “The name of the website is something called a ‘True Statement’ in that it is unconditionally true. It’s always true that the output of the website does not exist. So if the output is a real person, than that person ceases to exist, with all effects and differences they’ve made in reality changing with them. Reality has already changed six times since this thing was created. When you showed it to me, it seemed off so I came up and checked the source code.”
“What? What do you-” I interrupted, but Jay kept speaking.
“These symbols are, at a basic level, magical spells in the code that do stuff. This was created by someone bad.”
“How do you even know all of this?” I asked and he shrugged. “I’m good with magic. I mean, technology makes it way easier than it used to be.
I stare at him stunned. I regret the first thing that rolls out of my mouth. “So I guess you could say you are a tech wizard, huh?”
Jay stares at me, mouth hanging open. “Are you serious?” He stands up, gesturing with his hands frantically. “That’s your response to this? A pun?” He puts his hand on his forehead. “I was freaking out about someone finding this out, but...” he trails off.
“So now what?” I ask.
Part two here: https://www.reddit.com/nosleep/comments/arnhwt/tech_wizard_part_2/
submitted by Secondbornwriter to nosleep [link] [comments]

I Dared My Best Friend to Ruin My Life - He's Succeeding

My name is Zander, and my best friend is trying to ruin my life. It started out very small, but has quickly grown out of control.
I'm currently sitting inside a church, using their WiFi to post this story and taking advantage of their air conditioning. I’m posting this story in case… Well in case he finds me and kills me soon. It's only a matter of time now, and I want someone to know what happened before I die.
Two years ago, my friend David and I were sitting on the couch at my house thoroughly bored. It wasn’t a temporary boredom either. It was a resounding boredom with life. We both worked full time at the local movie theater making minimum wage and cleaning up after idiots who couldn’t keep popcorn and soda in their mouths. We had graduated high school two years prior and had no plans to attend college.
Life looked bleak for us. College didn’t sound appealing, work was annoying, and the little free time we had was blown on video games and YouTube. We both still lived with our parents too, which made dating somewhat embarrassing. Looking back, I’m sure we were suffering from mild depression on top of everything else.
These life circumstances blended together to create the perfect storm for what I now have to call my reality.
As we sat on the couch at my parent’s house, channel surfing the TV, David asked me if I was bored with life. I responded in the positive, and he sighed.
“High school was so easy because we knew our purpose and our goals were set for us. Outline the english essay. Finish the math homework. Get decent grades. Pass the driving exam. Be home by curfew. Find a girlfriend. Now that we’re out of high school, there’s no structure. Our lives have become meaningless and we are just floating through space with no aim or purpose.”
“Would you go back to high school then?” I asked. He shook his head.
“In the moment, high school was annoying. It’s only after looking back that I see how much better it was than I realized.”
“What’s the solution, then?” I asked.
“Either go somewhere that has structure and can deliver what high school gave us, or create our own structure,” David replied.
“Well I don’t want to go to college or the military,” I said. “And I can’t think of anywhere else that provides the same structure. Guess I have to make my own, but I have no idea where to start.”
“The thing about high school was that it required a minimum effort. If you didn’t give that minimum effort, you would face the consequences. The consequences were bad enough that you and I would put effort into school. When high school ended, that minimum effort level decreased. Now our minimum effort is not enough to improve ourselves. Whatever structure we build has to have those consequences built in and a minimum effort that forces us to improve constantly.”
David was, and is, a very intellectual person. He thinks about everything, if you can’t already tell. I was pretty dumb compared to him, but I stuck around because he always had interesting things to say. This conversation definitely counted as interesting.
I won’t bore you with the entire conversation that we had, but it lasted an hour where we discussed how to build structure into our lives.
I want to emphasize here that boredom is dangerous. Well, it’s not dangerous by itself, but it can quickly lead to dangerous things. Boredom can lead to pain, accidental children, technology that disrupts a monopoly, and even death.
Our boredom led to a dare.
“I dare you to try and ruin my life,” David said.
“What does that mean?” I asked.
“It’s a way to build structure into my life. If I know that you are always trying to ruin my life and actively trying to make me fail, then I am driven to fight back and act on initiative.”
“But how could I ruin your life?” I asked.
“You could ruin anyone’s life if you gave it enough thought, planning, and action,” David said with a smirk. “I’m not going to give you any ideas. I just want you to try and ruin my life.”
I remember sitting back and thinking about what he meant. The first thoughts that came to mind were about tripping him occasionally, or hiding his toothbrush every time I went to his house. My young mind didn’t fully understand how serious David was being. His mind was running three tracks above mine, so I didn’t know what I was getting into when I said, “okay, I’ll try to ruin your life. But I dare you to do try and ruin my life as well.”
He smiled with a newfound enthusiasm, and I smiled back. I had hoped it would be a great way to relieve my boredom with life. David stood up and punched me in the leg as hard as he could. I shouted at him, mostly out of surprise. He just laughed.
“The dare starts now,” he said, grabbing his shoes. “We are no longer friends, we are nemeses.” He opened my front door and looked over his shoulder. “Good luck,” he said. “I hope you’ll work half as hard as I will.”
Once he left, I just sat there rubbing my sore thigh. Okay, I thought, if he wants a war, he’ll get a war.
That night, I had laid awake trying to think of ways to make his life harder for him. My ideas were all so childish and useless compared to what he would later throw at me. I’m too embarrassed to list my ideas from back then.
I wish I could say I remembered the day David turned against me for real. But it was so subtle that I didn’t notice right away. To my face, David acted completely normal.
While we were at work, I would sprinkle popcorn over a section he had just cleaned and point it out to him. He would just laugh, and say, “is that supposed to ruin my life?” Then he would clean it up. I expected him to do the same to me, but he didn't. His lack of visible retaliation made me bored again so I stopped. Looking back, I suspect that behind my back he was sabotaging my image with our other co-workers and our boss.
Out of the blue, my boss called me into his office and told me that I was fired because I wasn’t doing a good enough job. David acted sorry i was leaving and we promised to hang out again soon.
I left, thinking I could make this something good and get a real job. That dream died, and I ended up at McDonald’s instead.
After I had been at McDonald’s for a month or so, my parents confronted me. They asked me if I had been stealing cash from their wallets. I had never stolen a cent from them, and told them so. They backed off, but only for a week until my mom’s debit card went missing.
They confronted me again, this time very angry. They accused me of withdrawing several hundred dollars using my mom’s debit card. I have no siblings, so it wouldn't have been anyone else in the house. It turned into a screaming match and they demanded that I move out as quickly as possible. With my small cache of savings, I found an apartment near the local community college that housed college students. The rent was affordable enough for me, so I moved out within the month.
I moved in and became instant friends with two of my roommates, Clark and Ivan. Our other roommate, Isaac, kept to himself and stayed in his room playing video games 24/7. Life got good again because I hung out with Clark and Ivan frequently.
David and I had stopped hanging out after I was fired from the movie theater. I hadn’t forgotten about him, but I had forgotten about the dare. Every once in a while, I would message him on Facebook or shoot him a text to ask if he wanted to hang out, but my messages were always ignored. Eventually I gave up.
Within six months, I had a great life going. I was dating a girl named Katie, I had been promoted to crew trainer at McDonald’s, which paid better, and my bank account was slowly growing.
I only recognize this as David’s doing when I look back, but an obscene amount of junk mail showed up with my name on it every single day. Magazines, credit card offers, vacation ads, and even physical letters from real people who claimed to be excited to be my new penpal. I sorted through them every day trying to find some pattern. Clark and Ivan thought it was hilarious. When I came home late from work, they would sometimes toss the junk mail in the air like confetti as I walked through the door, cheering that the Mail King was home.
One day, I remember feeling sick of getting all this junk mail and deciding to sit down, call every subscription to cancel. I recruited Clark and Ivan to help me, and we sat down with snacks one afternoon and started to crank through phone calls.
In a few days, the tide of junk mail subsided and we celebrated our efforts. That only lasted a week.
The next week, it started coming back in full force. There was twice as much as before, and even some pornorgraphic magazines in the mix. Not only did my physical junk mail increase, but my email became unnavigable through all the new spam messages. Google moved a lot of it to the spam filter, but there were still hundreds of emails that made it through. My email had been subscribed to websites I’d never even heard of.
Clark and Ivan were blown away by the new tide of junk mail. The event was dubbed “Return of the Junk” and became a great ice breaker for Clark and Ivan to introduce me to other people at parties.
One day I was browsing Facebook’s “People You May Know” section when I came across someone’s profile that had my picture, but a different name. The account was open for anyone to view and had a lot of porn posts, status updates full of swearing, and praises to Hitler. I frowned when I clicked on their pictures. Most of the pictures were the same ones from my Facebook account, but there were some pictures of me that weren’t on my account or anywhere else online. Keep in mind, I didn’t remember my dare to David, so I was feeling pretty creeped out.
I hit the report button and let Facebook know that the account was a fake and went on my way.
I think three months or so later is when more stuff started to happen. Katie and I are getting very serious and discuss moving in together. The junk mail still rolls in and I’ve started to just throw it away. Ivan has moved out to go to an actual university, so a new roommate Jackson has moved in. Clark and I attempted to befriend Jackson, but he’s similar to Isaac and locked himself in his room most of the time.
A new game became available for pre-order, so I submitted my email to reserve a copy. When I tried to log into my email to make sure the reserve code was there, I couldn’t log in. I hit “Forgot Password” and it asked if I wanted to use my phone number to reset the password. I pressed yes and waited for my phone to light up. It never did. I pressed the button three more times, but no text ever came. I tried old passwords I used to use, but none of them worked. I frowned, but eventually just walked away from my computer. I’d try again a different day.
I sat down on the couch and pulled up Facebook on my phone. A popup appeared. “You’ve been signed out,” it said. Then it jumped to the login screen. I thought I’d hit the logout button on accident, so I just typed in my email and password. It didn’t work. I tried again, but it still told me the password was incorrect.
My phone buzzed in my hand. Katie was calling me. I answered it and immediately became concerned. She was sobbing.
“Katie?” I said.
“You coward,” she spat. “You don’t get to just Facebook me that shit, no you have to talk to me and tell me with your voice.”
“Katie, what are you talking about?” I asked.
“Don’t play stupid, asshole. Say it.”
“Say… what?”
“You Facebook me and say we are through, but when I call, you deny everything? What the hell are you trying to pull, Zander?” Katie hissed.
“Katie, my Facebook got hacked! I was literally just trying to log in when you called. Are you at home? I’m coming over. We are not done, we are far from done, sweetheart.”
It took me some time to convince Katie that it hadn’t been me, but she relented when I showed her that I couldn’t log in. I googled how to get my Facebook account back and contacted their helpcenter. Thankfully, they were able to get me back into my account. Lots of links to porn sites had been posted all over my page by whoever jacked my account, so I spent time deleting all of those. I also spent time answering family members who asked about the “strange content” I had been posting. Awkward.
Katie also found out through her feeds that my Twitter and Instagram had been hacked. The accounts were posting hundreds of crude messages and pictures. Those two sites took a little more effort, but eventually I regained control over those too. Fixing my email took a couple of days, but I got access again.
Not wanting to repeat the experience, I made my passwords into really long strings of numbers, letters and symbols. Each account had a different password. For anyone who has done this, you know how impossible it would be to memorize your passwords. I wrote them down on a sheet of paper and put it in my dresser drawer. I didn’t intend to get hacked again.
I'm telling you where I put the paper so you'll know how freaked out I was when Facebook signed me out again the next week. I checked my other accounts. Locked out again. I shot Katie a text to warn her and then called the Facebook help center again. They gave me access to Facebook and gave me the same warning about making a long password.
When I told them the type of precautions I had taken last time, they suggested checking my computer for viruses in case there was a keyloggers collecting all the information I typed.
I called a computer repair center and asked what I needed to do to get my computer scanned. They asked me to bring it down and they'd check it out.
I had a desktop, so ‘bringing it down’ required a lot of unplugging. When I got down behind the computer to unplug everything, I found a tiny USB stick that I'd never seen before. I frowned and tried to locate its contents on the computer. The computer said no USB was attached.
The computer repair guy confirmed that the USB drive was a keylogger. He asked if my computer had ever been anywhere that anyone could walk up and use it. I told him no and he said he had no idea how it could have gotten there.
He didn't charge me anything, just warned me to keep an eye on my computer.
I changed all my passwords again, going through the motions to get my accounts back.
A few days later, I received three, yes THREE credit card bills in the mail. I still had the habit of skimming through the junk mail in case there ever was anything super important. I'm glad I did, because I might never have found out about the credit cards that were registered in my name.
I called the credit card companies to inform them that they were mistaken. I had never signed up for a credit card. My parents had warned me about them so often that I'd been deterred from ever getting one. Before you comment and tell me I need them to build my credit, yes I know that now.
A quick google search told me what to do next. I called Equifax, which is a company that calculates your credit score and tells creditors that it's okay for you to open a credit account. I placed a 90-day fraud alert on my credit. They said they would call me if anyone tried to open a credit account in my name.
The dude at Equifax was kind enough to tell me what I needed to do next. He asked me to go online and view my credit report. If I saw any accounts I didn't recognize, I was to write them down and fill out a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) explaining the situation. Once I had that submitted, I was to file a copy of it with the police and create a police report. Then I had to take those two reports and call each of the credit companies that had issued credit to my identity and start the dispute process. I instantly felt very discouraged at the amount of effort this would require. It felt utterly insane to be required to follow all these steps just because I was the victim of identity theft. God damn.
Clark was horrified at what had happened and looked at his credit score. He was relieved when it came back clean. I made Katie check hers too just in case. Also clean.
I'll take a minute to tell everyone reading that you are entitled by law to one free credit report per year from each of the three credit score companies. That means you can and should check your credit three times a year. Clark and I set reminders on our phones to check the scores again in 4 months. I asked Katie to do the same.
When I first found out about the accounts, I had called my parents to ask if they had opened any accounts in my name. If they had, I'd at least know who the culprit was. They told me they hadn't opened any accounts, and I warned them about my problems. They promised to check their credit score.
Two weeks after I had called them, my dad called. They found fifteen fraudulent accounts between the two of them. What the hell? I told him the steps he needed to take, and he was grateful for my help and warning.
I know this is boring to read, but I want you to realize how insanely painful it was to fix all of this shit. Seriously, watch your credit reports and nip identity theft in the bud before it happens to you.
I had requested detailed bills from the credit card companies that had issued the fraudulent accounts, and they mailed them to me. The bills were full of online purchases. The accounts had been opened almost a year ago, and in that time they thief had spent $62,000 between all the fraudulent accounts. I was pretty upset that in a full year, I had only just found any credit card bills in the mail. I must have been tossing them with the mountains of junk mail. Now I know that the masses of junk mail were deliberate and calculated so the bills would blend in and hopefully get thrown away
The first few transactions were from stores like Target, Walmart, etc. But the further down I went, the less I recognized. One word stuck out to me: bitcoin. I had learned a little about it from my Facebook feed as I had some friends from high school who touted it as the next real currency. According to the credit card statements, several thousand dollars had been exchanged into bitcoin.
I started really researching bitcoin and trying to figure out what it was and why an identity thief would want it. To make the explanation short, bitcoin allowed my thief to make completely anonymous purchases online. It was as if he'd gone to an ATM and drained all the credit cards into cash. I didn't foresee the credit card companies ever getting their money back.
David now had a hell of alot of cash he could use to ruin my life. I didn't know it was him at the time, obviously, but now I do.
Guys, identity theft is a serious crime and is very damaging to everyone in the economy. And while the theft had been bad, my life was about to get a whole lot worse.
That’s all I have time to write for now. I have to go and get some serious shit taken care of. I'll write again as soon as I can.
My name is Zander, and my best friend is trying to ruin my life.
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
 
Series 2
submitted by Zandsand90 to nosleep [link] [comments]

BITCOIN DIVORCE – BITCOIN CORE VS BITCOIN CASH EXPLAINED

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are confusing, especially to newbies. They are likely unaware of the history and reasoning for the existence of these two coins. This ignorance is likely persisted by the censorship practised at bitcoin and Bitcointalk.org for several years. (rbitcoinbanned includes examples of the censoring.)
Most of the following is an explanation of the history of Bitcoin, when there was only one Bitcoin. Then it explains the in-fighting and why it forked into two Bitcoins: 1) Bitcoin Legacy and 2) Bitcoin Cash, which happens in the last section (THE DIVORCE). Feel free to suggest edits or corrections. Later, I will publish this on Medium as well.
BITCOIN WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF WAR
For Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator, and the initial supporters, Bitcoin was more than just a new currency. It was an instrument of war.
Who are they fighting against?
The government and central banks.
There is an abundance of evidence of this, starting with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original software.
BATTLE FOR ONLINE GAMBLING
Governments around the world ban online gambling by banning their currency from being used as payment. The original Bitcoin software included code for Poker. Yes, Poker.
Here is the original code: https://github.com/trottieoriginal-bitcoin/blob/mastesrc/uibase.cpp
Search for “Poker”, “Deal Me Out”, “Deal Hand”, “Fold”, “Call”, “Raise”, “Leave Table”, “DitchPlayer”.
Bitcoin gave the middle finger to the government and found a way to get around their ban. In the initial years, it was mainly gambling operators that used Bitcoin, such as SatoshiDice. Was this a coincidence? Gambling is one of the best, if not, the best application for Bitcoin. It was no wonder that gambling operators embraced Bitcoin, including gambling mogul Calvin Ayre.
Bitcoin enabled people to rebel against the government in other ways as well, such as Silk Road, which enabled people to buy and sell drugs.
ANTI-GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANS AND CYPHERPUNKS
Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy. They are against authority and state power. Cypherpunks are activists advocating widespread use of cryptography as a route to social and political change. Their common thread is their dislike for the government.
Bitcoin was created by libertarians and cypherpunks.
Satoshi Nakamoto used cryptography mailing lists to communicate with other cypherpunks such as Wei Dai. Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:
“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.”
Satoshi Nakamoto was rebellious to government control. Someone argued with Satoshi by stating: “You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.” Satoshi replied:
"Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.”
Nakamoto was critical of the central bank. He wrote:
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.”
It is no wonder that the first supporters of Bitcoin were libertarians as well, who agreed with Satoshi’s ideology and saw the potential of Bitcoin to fulfill their ideology.
One of the biggest benefits that Bitcoin supporters want, is “censorship resistance”. What does this mean? It means: to be able to spend your money any way you want. It means: how to get around government regulations and bans. It means: how to do something despite the government.
Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin supporter, heavily criticizes the government for engaging in wars around the world that kills civilians and children. When he ran as a Libertarian candidate in an election against the Republicans and Democrats, he criticized the ATF and FBI for murdering children in their raid in Waco, Texas. At the time, Ver and many other merchants were selling fireworks on eBay without a license. The ATF charged Ver and sent him to prison, but did not charge any of the other merchants. (https://youtu.be/N6NscwzbMvI?t=47m50s) This must have angered Ver a lot.
Since then, Ver has been on a mission to weaken and shrink the government. When he learned about Bitcoin in February 2011, he saw it as his weapon to accomplish his goal…his instrument of war.
Ver was already a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. He sold his company, bought Bitcoins and was the first to invest in Bitcoin startups, such as Bitpay, Blockchain.info, Kraken, Bitcoin.com, Bitcoinstore.com and others. Then he worked full-time to promote Bitcoin. Bitpay became the largest Bitcoin payment processor. Blockchain.info became the largest provider of Bitcoin wallets. Much of the growth of Bitcoin since 2011 can be attributed to Ver's companies.
More evidence of Ver’s anti-government sentiment emerged when he recently announced that he is working to create a society with no government at all (FreeSociety.com).
HOW TO WIN THE WAR
To win the war, Bitcoin must be adopted and widely used by the masses. When people use Bitcoin instead of their national fiat currency, the government becomes weaker. The government can no longer do the following:
It is not only important to get the masses to adopt Bitcoin, but it is also important to get them to adopt it quickly. If it takes a long time, governments will have more time to think twice about allowing Bitcoin to exist and will have more justifications to ban it. They can claim that Bitcoin is used for ransomware, terrorism, etc. If Bitcoin is adopted by the masses to buy everyday goods, such as food and clothing, then it will be harder for them to stop it.
IS BITCOIN WINNING?
Yes and no.
Bitcoin has definitely become more popular over the years. But, it is not achieving Satoshi Nakamoto’s goals.
Satoshi defined Bitcoin and his goal. The title of his white paper is:
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”
Is Bitcoin being used as cash? Unfortunately, it is not. It is being used as a store of value. However, the title of Satoshi’s white paper was not:
“Bitcoin: A Store of Value”
There is utility in having a store of value, of course. People need it and Bitcoin has superior features to gold. Therefore, it is likely that Bitcoin can continue gaining in popularity and price as it continues to compete and take market share away from gold.
However, both gold and Bitcoin are not being used as currency.
If Bitcoin does not replace fiat currencies, will it weaken governments? No, because no matter how many people buy gold or Bitcoin (as a store of value), they do not weaken governments. To do so, Bitcoin must replace fiat currencies.
BITCOIN LOSING TO FIAT
In the initial years, Bitcoin was taking market share from fiat currencies. But, in the past year, it is losing market share. Dell, Wikipedia and airlines have stopped accepting bitcoin. SatoshiDice and Yours switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
Why are there high fees and long completion times?
Because of small blocks.
SCALING DEBATE – THE BIG MARITAL FIGHT
Why isn't the block size increased?
Because Core/Blockstream believes that big blocks lead to centralization to fewer people who can run the nodes. They also believe that off-chain solutions will provide faster and cheaper transactions. There are advocates for bigger blocks, but because Core/Blockstream control the software, Bitcoin still has the original, one megabyte block since 8 years ago. (Core developers control Bitcoin’s software and several of the key Core developers are employed by Blockstream, a private, for-profit company.)
Businesses, users and miners have asked for four years for the block size to be increased. They point out that Satoshi has always planned to scale Bitcoin by increasing the block size. For four years, Core/Blockstream has refused.
The Bitcoin community split into two factions:
This scaling debate and in-fighting went on for several years. You can read more about it at: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783
SMALL BLOCKERS VS BIG BLOCKERS
Why has Blockstream refused to increase block size? There are a few possible reasons:
  1. They truly believe that big blocks means that fewer people would be able to run full nodes, which would lead to centralization and that the best roadmap is with off-chain solutions. (However, since 2009, hard disk space has exploded. A 4TB disk costs $100 and can store 10 years of blocks. This price is the equivalent to a handful of Bitcoin transaction fees. Also, Satoshi never planned on having every user run full nodes. He envisioned server farms. Decentralization is needed to achieve censorship-resistance and to make the blockchain immutable. This is already accomplished with the thousands of nodes. Having millions or billions of nodes does not increase the censorship-resistance and does not make the blockchain more immutable.)
  2. Blockstream wants small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations to justify the need for their off-chain products, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. Lightning Network will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This is the only way that Blockstream will be able to repay the $76 million to their investors.
  3. They propose moving the transactions off the blockchain onto the Lightning Network, an off-chain solution. By doing so, there is a possibility of being regulated by the government (see https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7gxkvj/lightning_hubs_will_need_to_report_to_irs/). One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by politicians and bankers. According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Does Bilderberg see Bitcoin as one component of their master plan?
  4. They do not like the fact that most of the miners are in China. In this power-struggle, they would like to take away control and future revenues from China, by scaling off-chain.
Richard Heart gives his reasons why block size should not be increased, in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ
He cites latency as a limitation and the reason for doing off-chain scaling. However, latency has been dramatically reduced since 2009 when Bitcoin started with 1MB blocks. Back then, most residential users had 5-10 Mbps internet speed. Now, they have up to 400 Mbps up to 1 Gbps. That’s a 40 to 200X increase. Back in 2009, nobody would’ve thought that you can stream 4k videos.
He implies that 10 minute intervals between block creations are needed in order for the blocks to sync. If internet speed has increased by 40-200X, why can’t the block size be increased?
He claims that bigger blocks make it more difficult for miners to mine the blocks, which increases the chances of orphaned blocks. However, both speeds and the number of mining machines have increased dramatically, causing hashing power on the network to exponentially increase since 2009. This will likely continue increasing in the future.
Richard says that blocks will never be big enough to do 2,000 transactions per second (tps). He says that all of the forks in the world is only going to get 9 tps. Since his statement, Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone have shown that a 1 core CPU machine with 3 Mbps internet speed can do 100 tps. (https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M) Rizun thinks that visa level (2,000 tps) can be achieved with nodes running on 4-core/16GB machines, bigger blocks and parallel processing to take advantage of the multiple CPU cores.
Even though Rizun and Stone are showing signifiant increases in tps with bigger blocks, the big blockers have never been against a 2nd layer. They’ve always said that you can add a 2nd layer later.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS MINERS
According to Satoshi, Bitcoin should be governed by those with the most hashing power. One hash, one vote. However, Core/Blockstream does not agree with this. Due to refusals for four years to increase block size, it would seem that Core/Blockstream has been able to wrestle control away from miners. Is this because they want control? Is this because they don’t want the Chinese to have so much, or any, control of Bitcoin? Is this because they prefer to eventually move the revenue to the West, by moving most of the transactions off chain?
DIFFERENT AGENDAS
It would seem that Businesses/Users and Core/Blockstream have very different agendas.
Businesses/Users want cheap and fast transactions and see this as an immediate need. Core/Blockstream do not. Here are some quotes from Core/Blockstream:
Greg Maxwell: "I don't think that transaction fees mattering is a failing-- it's success!”
Greg Maxwell: "fee pressure is an intentional part of the system design and to the best of the current understanding essential for the system's long term survial. So, uh, yes. It's good."
Greg Maxwell: "There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.”
Peter Wuille: "we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later”
Luke-jr: "It is no longer possible to keep fees low.”
Luke-jr: "Just pay a $5 fee and it'll go through every time unless you're doing something stupid.”
Jorge Timón: "higher fees may be just what is needed”
Jorge Timón: "Confirmation times are fine for those who pay high fees.”
Jorge Timón: “I think Adam and I agree that hitting the limit wouldn't be bad, but actually good for an young and immature market like bitcoin fees.”
Mark Friedenbach: "Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome."
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.”
Greg Maxwell: “There is nothing wrong with full blocks, and blocks have been “full” relative to what miners would produce for years. Full blocks is the natural state of the system”
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I'm afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people (and the large Bitcoin companies) relax”
Why don’t Core/Blockstream care about cheap and fast transactions? One possible reason is that they do not use Bitcoin. They might own some, but they do not spend it to buy coffee and they do not use it to pay employees. They aren’t making hundreds of transactions per day. They do not feel the pain. As engineers, they want a technical utopia.
Businesses/Users on the other hand, feel the pain and want business solutions.
An analogy of this scaling debate is this:
You have a car that is going 50 kph. The passengers (Bitcoin users) want to go 100 kph today, but eventually in the future, they want to go 200 kph. The car is capable of going 100 kph but not 200 kph. Big blockers are saying: Step on the accelerator and go 100 kph. Small blockers are saying: Wait until we build a new car, which will go 200 kph. Meanwhile, the passengers are stuck at 50 kph.
Not only do Big blockers think that the car can simply go faster by stepping on the accelerator, they have already shown that the car can go even faster by adding a turbocharger (even bigger blocks) and making sure that every cylinder is firing (parallel process on multiple CPU cores). In addition, they are willing to use the new car if and when it gets built.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS USERS
If you watch this debate from 2017-02-27 (https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY), an analogy can be made. Core/Blockstream is like the IT department and Bitcoin.com (Roger Ver and Jake Smith) is like the Sales/Marketing department (users). Core/Blockstream developers hold, but do not use Bitcoin. Blockstream does not own nor use Bitcoin.
Roger Ver's companies used to use or still use Bitcoin every day. Ver’s MemoryDealers was the first company to accept Bitcoin. Johnny seems to think that he knows what users want, but he rarely uses Bitcoin and he is debating one of the biggest users sitting across the table.
In all companies, Marketing (and all other departments) are IT’s customer. IT must do what Marketing wants, not the other way around. If Core/Blockstream and Roger Ver worked in the same company, the CEO would tell Core/Blockstream to give Roger what he wants or the CEO would fire Core/Blockstream.
But they don’t work for the same company. Roger and other businesses/users cannot fire Core/Blockstream.
Core/Blockstream wants to shoot for the best technology possible. They are not interested in solving short term problems, because they do not see high fees and long confirmation times as problems.
BLOCKSTREAM VS LIBERTARIANS
There are leaders in each camp. One can argue that Blockstream is the leader of the Small Blockers and Roger Ver (supported by Gavin Andresen, Calvin Ayre, businesses and some miners) is the leader of the Big Blockers.
Blockstream has openly called for full blocks and higher fees and they are preparing to scale with Lightning Network. As mentioned before, there is a possibility that Lightning hubs will be regulated by the government. Luke-jr tweeted “But State has authority from God” (https://twitter.com/LukeDashjstatus/934611236695789568?s=08)
Roger Ver wants Bitcoin to regulate the government, not the other way around. He wants to weaken and shrink the government. In addition to separation of church and state, he wants to see separation of money and state. He felt that Bitcoin can no longer do this. He pushed for solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
THE DIVORCE
To prepare for off-chain scaling, Core/Blockstream forked Bitcoin by adding Segwit, which I will refer to as Bitcoin Legacy. This is still referred to by the mainstream as Bitcoin, and it has the symbol BTC.
After four years of refusal by Blockstream, the big blockers, out of frustration, restored Bitcoin through a fork, by removing Segwit from Bitcoin Legacy and increased the block size. This is currently called Bitcoin Cash and has the symbol BCH.
Bitcoin Legacy has transformed from cash to store-of-value. It had a 8 year head start in building brand awareness and infrastructure. It’s likely that it will continue growing in popularity and price for a while.
Bitcoin Cash most resembles Satoshi’s “peer-to-peer cash”. It will be interesting to see if it will pick up from where Bitcoin Legacy left off and take market share in the fiat currency space. Libertarians and cypherpunks will be able to resume their mission of weakening and shrinking the government by promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Currently, Bitcoin Cash can fulfill the role of money, which includes medium of exchange (cash) and store-of-value functions. It will be interesting to see if off-chain scaling (with lower fees and faster confirmations) will enable Bitcoin Legacy to be used as a currency as well and fulfill the role of money.
This is an example of the free market and open competition. New companies divest or get created all the time, to satisfy different needs. Bitcoin is no different.
Small blockers and big blockers no longer need to fight and bicker in the same house. They have gone their separate ways.
Both parties have want they want. Blockstream can store value and generate revenue from their off-chain products to repay their investors. Libertarians (and gambling operators) can rejoice and re-arm with Bitcoin Cash to take on the government. They can continue with their mission to get freedom and autonomy.
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

My JNM'S Curious Attachment with God

So my JNB's birthday came and went without any contact between myself and my JNF which is likely going to cause my JNM to blow up at me and DW. So, instead of dwelling on the blowout in our future, DW and I are taking a trip down memory lane and writing a post about all my JNM's strange religious behavior, which is probably all BEC stories but it's a good way to lighten the mood. Also, this was good for both of us and she has many other facets that are strange, offensive, confusing, and overall llama feed, and it might be time to get her a name, if anyone has any suggestions.
Disclaimer: I am not religious myself, but I truly have no problem with religious people. I have a problem with people who falsely use the trappings of religion in order to be a dick and to shame others. Which is my mom.
The Atheist Children:
My JNB and I don’t agree on much but one of the few things we do agree on is the fact that neither of us are religious. My JNB is quite vocal about this and will even call out my JNP’s for being “idiots” for believing in “fairy tales” and for some reason my JNP’s are perfectly fine with him being disrespectful. Anyways, when I was in High School my parents took me to confirmation school to get me “confirmed in the faith” and with most things back then, I just went along with it to stay in the shadows to avoid confrontation. About three or four weeks in I told my JNM that “I didn’t want to go to those classes anymore because I didn’t believe in God.”
She then blew up on me, saying that I was going to hell and “why don’t [I] just go along with it?! It doesn’t hurt you and you don’t lose anything by doing it!” She apparently chose to forget that it lost me my Sunday mornings (when we still went to church as a family) and every Wednesday evening for that stupid class. My JNM finally set up a meeting between me and the pastor so that he could “teach me the errors of my ways,” I remained unconvinced and just went along with the class and eventually got “confirmed in the faith” which is something that I still regret.
A couple years go by and my JNB is on one of his atheist rants again and my JNM looks over at me and says “you don’t believe this do you?!” When I responded with “Yes” my JNM was utterly horrified and she “couldn’t BELIEVE that her son was an ATHEIST!” (apparently it doesn’t count when my JNB is one) She was terse with me for awhile and eventually it all blew over until I got to college and I mentioned that my DW (then GF) was an atheist raised by atheists.
Bad decision.
She scolded me for having an atheist gf and said things like “how could you date an atheist?!” which I responded with something like “easily considering I am one?” She apparently chose to forget that fact about her son and was re-horrified to find out that information. Since then she has re-discovered that DW and I are atheist a handful of times and her reaction has been about the same every time.
The Exodus from Sunday Church:
Growing up, JNB and I spent a lot of time with our second cousins (JND’s cousin’s family) who were EXTREMELY religious. Honestly I’m still curious why the patriarch of that family wasn’t a pastor. Anyways, we switched from our first church to the one that the cousin’s went to when I was in about fifth grade because my JNM “just loved the music there so much more than our old church!” Which was true, the music was better which made the hour long lecture a bit easier for my atheist-ass, but in retrospect I think the real reason was to get closer to the cousin’s family.
The matriarch of that family was a real piece of work, she was incredibly judgemental, manipulative and above all else, a “good christian woman.” She would be extremely passive-aggressive to my JNM about how “[JNM’s] kids are following a bad path.” My JNM fell for it completely and my cousin’s mom had her wrapped around her finger and my JNM was convinced that if she would just behave like the cousin-mom, all her problems would go away.
Then comes the time when my parents “kicked out” my JNB because he was selling drugs out of their house. By “kicking out” they meant that they took his car back (after giving it to him) and sold it, he was no longer allowed in the house, but he got to keep the credit card they gave him (that they paid), the cell phone that he had (that they paid for), and a handful of other things that I can’t think of right now. When all this was first happening, cousin-dad asked my JND “what, if anything, could he do to help the situation with my JNB” which my JND responded with “nothing, we are going to take care of it.”
During this period my JNM started taking antidepressants because she “kicked out her son!” and “how could he be alone on CHRISTMAS?!” (She’s got one of those doctors she can pay to agree with webMD hysteria and give her pills/diagnoses aka martyr-tokens)
Turns out he wasn’t alone on Christmas.
The cousin-family invited him over on Christmas so that he wouldn’t be alone as well as try and indoctrinate him into their specific brand of judgemental christianity as well as show my JNP’s how much more loving and forgiving they were as a family. This, understandably, really pissed off my JNP’s to the point where they cut off all contact with cousin-family, stopped going to Sunday church and were isolated from a large portion of my JND’s (very large) extended family (who, as I’m writing this, my DW just realized that none of those individuals ever tried to contact my parents again after this, which, indoctrination runs deep but that’s a statistical anomaly when we’re talking about this sheer number of catholics having babies at catholic rates. Maybe gasp my JNP’s did something...wrong...No, it can’t be).
Looking back on this from where I am now, I wonder how much of all of that is true. I know I didn’t like the matriarch, but the patriarch seemed like a good guy to me despite the fact he was so “meddling” whenever they look back on it. And it seems strange that they never found another church afterwards, almost like they learned that “church friends” wouldn’t act the way that they wanted “friends” to act. So they just...stopped with organized religion altogether despite the fact it had been important enough to my mother for her to threaten pre-teen me with going to hell.
The Church:
So my JNM moved around a fair amount as a kid due to her father's government job and eventually landed in the state where she went to high school and college (and got married to my JND). Despite the fact that she no longer lives in that state, and hasn't for nearly three decades, she is OBSESSED with decorating her house with decor from that area. The most prominent decoration in her house is many (5+) paintings of her "favorite church in the whole world." She has commissioned a few custom paintings of that church through the years and she hangs them proudly on the wall.
After hearing this, you might expect her to still be a very religious type right? Wrong. I once asked her "hey mom, why don't you ever go to church?" To which she responded "I go to [favorite church] twice a year and that fills my spiritual tanks enough to last me until the next trip! I love that place so much! I just feel God there!"
One of the church's "attractions" is that you can send them photos of your loved ones which they will then post on a huge wall so that the people who visit this church will pray for them. She has repeatedly and gleefully informed me and my DW (who again, also isn’t religious) that she put pictures up there so that people will give us their prayers, like we can spend them or something, like spiritual bitcoin. Again, I think that people praying for someone they love is actually a really important and sweet brand of kindness that exists in healthy relationships with God. This isn’t that. This is shaming us by saying “you all are so bad, you need total strangers to pray for you”. DW and I are planning on visiting that church and ripping down our pictures because it feels like a huge invasion of privacy (maybe because it is).
Decor in general:
Holy Crucifixes Batman. She sees a square foot of home state specific color painted wall without a fake happy posed family photo on it and thinks “hey, I could fit a crucifix here, I’ve got about forty new ones that are all encrusted with state specific semi-precious stones”. Every room, every wall. She has a Christmas decoration she pulls out every year that’s like...a Christmas tree shaped thing made of crucifixes hanging on it.
In a very long story that I’ll have to extrapolate on sometime, our wedding shower was at her house, and along with all of my carefully curated childhood pictures being out on every surface (which I didn’t agree to and there was no attempt to get DW’s baby pictures), the crucifixes had multiplied since the last time I was at her house. My JYMIL and my DW were chatting and looking at my baby butt and had a conversation we still laugh about.
JYMIL: You know, the conflict you guys are having might be due to misunderstanding
DW: Nah, it’s because I didn’t let their GC call me a slut without saying anything. And I encourage my DH to say things. In general, we say too many things.
JYMIL: I just can’t see the problem they have with you kids. There has to be a reason. Is this a religious house?
DW: No
JYMIL: Not any?
DW: No one goes to church, says grace, reads scripture, follows scripture, speaks openly about religion aside from making road trips to see grandma half an hour longer twice a year… (to see the church)
JYMIL: stares at elaborate configuration of crucifixes on the wall Oh.
“Spirituality”:
JNMom looooooves to say that she’s “spiritual”. It’s unclear what that means. Sometimes it means that she doesn’t like having bible verses quoted in full at her when she’s truncating them so that they mean something else that makes her look good. Sometimes it means that she forgot Easter wasn’t originally about bunnies and demanding her children show up to brunch. Sometimes it means that she can’t spell “Lutheran” and definitely not “Presbyterian” so she cannot actually say what kind of Christian she is OR choose a church to go to that fits her so unique beliefs. They’re so unique, guys, no one but her understands her unique “spirituality” and it’s ever shifting and mutable nature to align with whatever she wants to use it as an excuse for. There is literally nothing that can’t be “spirituality”-ed away.
One of the ways that she has “coped” with DW, myself and JNB being atheist is that instead of saying “please pray for X” she will say “keep X in your thoughts” as a way to keep us “spiritually engaged in the situation” and that “positive vibes do wonders”. And again, that’s all well and good, but this is justnomil where we all know that “Keep X in your thoughts” actually means “X is in my thoughts because I’m so charitable and giving and kind. The Kindest. Capital K. Don’t ever forget it and if you ever think I’m not being Kind, remember when I kept X in my thoughts. Speaking about how Kind I am counts as being Kind and wow, my Kind tanks are full today.”
On not knowing how to talk to children about God:
My DW was the one to tell me that this story was creepy, I didn’t put it together on my own. My paternal grandpa died when I was six and it was the first big death that I coped with, before any pet deaths or anything, and understandably, I had questions and gasp feelings that weren’t entirely in line with my mother’s. Her solution?
She put an angel statue in my room and told me that my grandpa was in it and he was watching me from heaven. She even made up a special prayer for me to say before bed which included the line “and let little angel [my name], sleep soundly in his bed, something something, Grandpa is watching you in your bed.” And maybe some kids would be comforted by this, but I, already analytical, was horrified that my loving grandpa was now stuck in a creepy porcelain thing that watched me while I slept.
I felt that the tiny scrap of privacy I was just starting to have, you know, a room where I could close the door and play legos by myself, was being grossly violated. I cried, I had nightmares, I couldn’t sleep knowing that statue was watching me and that my grandpa wasn’t the grandpa I remembered anymore. She also got me a handful of dream-catchers to help me with my nightmares because she’s extremely culturally insensitive and it’s not like mixing christianity and mis-understood appropriation of paganism went off horribly in the past or anything.
Did they take the statue back? Nah. It got donated to goodwill (She’s so Charitable, guys, giving her old shit to goodwill a couple times a year so that she can buy new stuff. The Kindest.) which again, creepy, because didn’t she imbue value on it by telling me that my grandpa lived in that thing? To a kid, didn’t she just kind of entrap my grandpa in kitsch and then give him away? No, she didn’t think about it that way so there’s no merit and she wanted new useless tchotchkes.
submitted by lbrockma to JUSTNOMIL [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are confusing, especially to newbies. They are likely unaware of the history and reasoning for the existence of these two coins. This ignorance is likely persisted by the censorship practised at bitcoin and Bitcointalk.org for several years. (rbitcoinbanned includes examples of the censoring.)
Most of the following is an explanation of the history of Bitcoin, when there was only one Bitcoin. Then it explains the in-fighting and why it forked into two Bitcoins: 1) Bitcoin Legacy and 2) Bitcoin Cash, which happens in the last section (THE DIVORCE). Feel free to suggest edits or corrections. Later, I will publish this on Medium as well.
BITCOIN WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF WAR
For Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator, and the initial supporters, Bitcoin was more than just a new currency. It was an instrument of war.
Who are they fighting against?
The government and central banks.
There is an abundance of evidence of this, starting with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original software.
BATTLE FOR ONLINE GAMBLING
Governments around the world ban online gambling by banning their currency from being used as payment. The original Bitcoin software included code for Poker. Yes, Poker.
Here is the original code: https://github.com/trottieoriginal-bitcoin/blob/mastesrc/uibase.cpp
Search for “Poker”, “Deal Me Out”, “Deal Hand”, “Fold”, “Call”, “Raise”, “Leave Table”, “DitchPlayer”.
Bitcoin gave the middle finger to the government and found a way to get around their ban. In the initial years, it was mainly gambling operators that used Bitcoin, such as SatoshiDice. Was this a coincidence? Gambling is one of the best, if not, the best application for Bitcoin. It was no wonder that gambling operators embraced Bitcoin, including gambling mogul Calvin Ayre.
Bitcoin enabled people to rebel against the government in other ways as well, such as Silk Road, which enabled people to buy and sell drugs.
ANTI-GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANS AND CYPHERPUNKS
Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy. They are against authority and state power. Cypherpunks are activists advocating widespread use of cryptography as a route to social and political change. Their common thread is their dislike for the government.
Bitcoin was created by libertarians and cypherpunks.
Satoshi Nakamoto used cryptography mailing lists to communicate with other cypherpunks such as Wei Dai. Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared after 2010, but we can refer to his writings. He wrote:
“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.”
Satoshi Nakamoto was rebellious to government control. Someone argued with Satoshi by stating: “You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.” Satoshi replied:
"Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.”
Nakamoto was critical of the central bank. He wrote:
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.”
It is no wonder that the first supporters of Bitcoin were libertarians as well, who agreed with Satoshi’s ideology and saw the potential of Bitcoin to fulfill their ideology.
One of the biggest benefits that Bitcoin supporters want, is “censorship resistance”. What does this mean? It means: to be able to spend your money any way you want. It means: how to get around government regulations and bans. It means: how to do something despite the government.
Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin supporter, heavily criticizes the government for engaging in wars around the world that kills civilians and children. When he ran as a Libertarian candidate in an election against the Republicans and Democrats, he criticized the ATF and FBI for murdering children in their raid in Waco, Texas. At the time, Ver and many other merchants were selling fireworks on eBay without a license. The ATF charged Ver and sent him to prison, but did not charge any of the other merchants. (https://youtu.be/N6NscwzbMvI?t=47m50s) This must have angered Ver a lot.
Since then, Ver has been on a mission to weaken and shrink the government. When he learned about Bitcoin in February 2011, he saw it as his weapon to accomplish his goal…his instrument of war.
Ver was already a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. He sold his company, bought Bitcoins and was the first to invest in Bitcoin startups, such as Bitpay, Blockchain.info, Kraken, Bitcoin.com, Bitcoinstore.com and others. Then he worked full-time to promote Bitcoin. Bitpay became the largest Bitcoin payment processor. Blockchain.info became the largest provider of Bitcoin wallets. Much of the growth of Bitcoin since 2011 can be attributed to Ver's companies.
More evidence of Ver’s anti-government sentiment emerged when he recently announced that he is working to create a society with no government at all (FreeSociety.com).
HOW TO WIN THE WAR
To win the war, Bitcoin must be adopted and widely used by the masses. When people use Bitcoin instead of their national fiat currency, the government becomes weaker. The government can no longer do the following:
It is not only important to get the masses to adopt Bitcoin, but it is also important to get them to adopt it quickly. If it takes a long time, governments will have more time to think twice about allowing Bitcoin to exist and will have more justifications to ban it. They can claim that Bitcoin is used for ransomware, terrorism, etc. If Bitcoin is adopted by the masses to buy everyday goods, such as food and clothing, then it will be harder for them to stop it.
IS BITCOIN WINNING?
Yes and no.
Bitcoin has definitely become more popular over the years. But, it is not achieving Satoshi Nakamoto’s goals.
Satoshi defined Bitcoin and his goal. The title of his white paper is:
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”
Is Bitcoin being used as cash? Unfortunately, it is not. It is being used as a store of value. However, the title of Satoshi’s white paper was not:
“Bitcoin: A Store of Value”
There is utility in having a store of value, of course. People need it and Bitcoin has superior features to gold. Therefore, it is likely that Bitcoin can continue gaining in popularity and price as it continues to compete and take market share away from gold.
However, both gold and Bitcoin are not being used as currency.
If Bitcoin does not replace fiat currencies, will it weaken governments? No, because no matter how many people buy gold or Bitcoin (as a store of value), they do not weaken governments. To do so, Bitcoin must replace fiat currencies.
BITCOIN LOSING TO FIAT
In the initial years, Bitcoin was taking market share from fiat currencies. But, in the past year, it is losing market share. SatoshiDice, Yours.org and Bitmain switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
Why are there high fees and long completion times?
Because of small blocks.
SCALING DEBATE – THE BIG MARITAL FIGHT
Why isn't the block size increased?
Because Core/Blockstream believes that big blocks lead to centralization to fewer people who can run the nodes. They also believe that off-chain solutions will provide faster and cheaper transactions. There are advocates for bigger blocks, but because Core/Blockstream control the software, Bitcoin still has the original, one megabyte block since 8 years ago. (Core developers control Bitcoin’s software and several of the key Core developers are employed by Blockstream, a private, for-profit company.)
Businesses, users and miners have asked for four years for the block size to be increased. They point out that Satoshi has always planned to scale Bitcoin by increasing the block size. For four years, Core/Blockstream has refused.
The Bitcoin community split into two factions:
This scaling debate and in-fighting went on for several years. During this time, the controllers of bitcoin and Bitcointalk censored big blockers. Comments that criticized small blocks or supported big blocks, were deleted. You can read more about it at: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783
SMALL BLOCKERS VS BIG BLOCKERS
Why has Blockstream refused to increase block size? There are a few possible reasons:
  1. They truly believe that big blocks means that fewer people would be able to run full nodes, which would lead to centralization and that the best roadmap is with off-chain solutions. (However, since 2009, hard disk space has exploded. A 4TB disk costs $100 and can store 10 years of blocks. This price is the equivalent to a handful of Bitcoin transaction fees. Also, Satoshi never planned on having every user run full nodes. He envisioned server farms. Decentralization is needed to achieve censorship-resistance and to make the blockchain immutable. This is already accomplished with the thousands of nodes. Having millions or billions of nodes does not increase the censorship-resistance and does not make the blockchain more immutable.)
  2. Blockstream wants small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations to justify the need for their off-chain products, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. Lightning Network will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This is the only way that Blockstream will be able to repay the $76 million to their investors.
  3. They propose moving the transactions off the blockchain onto the Lightning Network, an off-chain solution. By doing so, there is a possibility of being regulated by the government (see https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7gxkvj/lightning_hubs_will_need_to_report_to_irs/). One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by politicians and bankers. According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Does Bilderberg see Bitcoin as one component of their master plan?
  4. They do not like the fact that most of the miners are in China. In this power-struggle, they would like to take away control and future revenues from China, by scaling off-chain.
Richard Heart gives his reasons why block size should not be increased, in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ
He cites latency as a limitation and the reason for doing off-chain scaling. However, latency has been dramatically reduced since 2009 when Bitcoin started with 1MB blocks. Back then, most residential users had 5-10 Mbps internet speed. Now, they have up to 400 Mbps up to 1 Gbps. That’s a 40 to 200X increase. Back in 2009, nobody would’ve thought that you can stream 4k videos.
He implies that 10 minute intervals between block creations are needed in order for the blocks to sync. If internet speed has increased by 40-200X, why can’t the block size be increased?
He claims that bigger blocks make it more difficult for miners to mine the blocks, which increases the chances of orphaned blocks. However, both speeds and the number of mining machines have increased dramatically, causing hashing power on the network to exponentially increase since 2009. This will likely continue increasing in the future.
Richard says that blocks will never be big enough to do 2,000 transactions per second (tps). He says that all of the forks in the world is only going to get 9 tps. Since his statement, Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone have shown that a 1 core CPU machine with 3 Mbps internet speed can do 100 tps. (https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M) Rizun thinks that visa level (2,000 tps) can be achieved with nodes running on 4-core/16GB machines, bigger blocks and parallel processing to take advantage of the multiple CPU cores.
Even though Rizun and Stone are showing signifiant increases in tps with bigger blocks, the big blockers have never been against a 2nd layer. They’ve always said that you can add a 2nd layer later.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS MINERS
According to Satoshi, Bitcoin should be governed by those with the most hashing power. One hash, one vote. However, Core/Blockstream does not agree with this. Due to refusals for four years to increase block size, it would seem that Core/Blockstream has been able to wrestle control away from miners. Is this because they want control? Is this because they don’t want the Chinese to have so much, or any, control of Bitcoin? Is this because they prefer to eventually move the revenue to the West, by moving most of the transactions off chain?
DIFFERENT AGENDAS
It would seem that Businesses/Users and Core/Blockstream have very different agendas.
Businesses/Users want cheap and fast transactions and see this as an immediate need. Core/Blockstream do not. Here are some quotes from Core/Blockstream:
Greg Maxwell: "I don't think that transaction fees mattering is a failing-- it's success!”
Greg Maxwell: "fee pressure is an intentional part of the system design and to the best of the current understanding essential for the system's long term survial. So, uh, yes. It's good."
Greg Maxwell: "There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.”
Peter Wuille: "we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later”
Luke-jr: "It is no longer possible to keep fees low.”
Luke-jr: "Just pay a $5 fee and it'll go through every time unless you're doing something stupid.”
Jorge Timón: "higher fees may be just what is needed”
Jorge Timón: "Confirmation times are fine for those who pay high fees.”
Jorge Timón: “I think Adam and I agree that hitting the limit wouldn't be bad, but actually good for an young and immature market like bitcoin fees.”
Mark Friedenbach: "Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome."
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.”
Greg Maxwell: “There is nothing wrong with full blocks, and blocks have been “full” relative to what miners would produce for years. Full blocks is the natural state of the system”
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I'm afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people (and the large Bitcoin companies) relax”
Why don’t Core/Blockstream care about cheap and fast transactions? One possible reason is that they do not use Bitcoin. They might own some, but they do not spend it to buy coffee and they do not use it to pay employees. They aren’t making hundreds of transactions per day. They do not feel the pain. As engineers, they want a technical utopia.
Businesses/Users on the other hand, feel the pain and want business solutions.
An analogy of this scaling debate is this:
You have a car that is going 50 kph. The passengers (Bitcoin users) want to go 100 kph today, but eventually in the future, they want to go 200 kph. The car is capable of going 100 kph but not 200 kph. Big blockers are saying: Step on the accelerator and go 100 kph. Small blockers are saying: Wait until we build a new car, which will go 200 kph. Meanwhile, the passengers are stuck at 50 kph.
Not only do Big blockers think that the car can simply go faster by stepping on the accelerator, they have already shown that the car can go even faster by adding a turbocharger (even bigger blocks) and making sure that every cylinder is firing (parallel process on multiple CPU cores). In addition, they are willing to use the new car if and when it gets built.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS USERS
If you watch this debate from 2017-02-27 (https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY), an analogy can be made. Core/Blockstream is like the IT department and Bitcoin.com (Roger Ver and Jake Smith) is like the Sales/Marketing department (users).
Core/Blockstream developers hold, but do not use Bitcoin. Blockstream does not own nor use Bitcoin. Roger Ver's companies use use Bitcoin every day. Ver’s MemoryDealers was the first company to accept Bitcoin. Johnny seems to think that he knows what users want, but he rarely uses Bitcoin and he is debating one of the biggest users sitting across the table.
In all companies, Marketing (and all other departments) is IT’s customer. IT must do what Marketing wants, not the other way around. If Core/Blockstream and Roger Ver worked in the same company, the CEO would tell Core/Blockstream to give Roger what he wants or the CEO would fire Core/Blockstream.
But they don’t work for the same company. Roger and other businesses/users cannot fire Core/Blockstream.
Core/Blockstream wants to shoot for the best technology possible. They are not interested in solving short term problems, because they do not see high fees and long confirmation times as problems.
BLOCKSTREAM VS LIBERTARIANS
There are leaders in each camp. One can argue that Blockstream is the leader of the Small Blockers and Roger Ver (supported by Gavin Andresen, Calvin Ayre, businesses and some miners) is the leader of the Big Blockers.
Blockstream has openly called for full blocks and higher fees and they are preparing to scale with Lightning Network. As mentioned before, there is a possibility that Lightning hubs will be regulated by the government. Luke-jr tweeted “But State has authority from God” (https://twitter.com/LukeDashjstatus/934611236695789568?s=08) According to this video, Luke-jr believes that the government should tax you and the government should execute heretics. Luke-jr's values are diametrically opposed to libertarians'.
Roger Ver wants Bitcoin to regulate the government, not the other way around. He wants to weaken and shrink the government. In addition to separation of church and state, he wants to see separation of money and state. He felt that Bitcoin can no longer do this, so he pushed for solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
MIKE HEARN EXPLAINS BLOCKSTREAM
Mike Hearn is one of the first Bitcoin developers. He explained how Core/Blockstream developers (source):
THE DIVORCE
To prepare for off-chain scaling, Core/Blockstream forked Bitcoin by adding Segwit, which I will refer to as Bitcoin Legacy. This is still referred to by the mainstream as Bitcoin, and it has the symbol BTC.
After four years of refusal by Blockstream, the big blockers, out of frustration, restored Bitcoin through a fork, by removing Segwit from Bitcoin Legacy and increased the block size. This is currently called Bitcoin Cash and has the symbol BCH.
Bitcoin Legacy has transformed from cash to store-of-value. It had a 8 year head start in building brand awareness and infrastructure. It’s likely that it will continue growing in popularity and price for a while.
Bitcoin Cash most resembles Satoshi’s “peer-to-peer cash”. It will be interesting to see if it will pick up from where Bitcoin Legacy left off and take market share in the fiat currency space. Libertarians and cypherpunks will be able to resume their mission of weakening and shrinking the government by promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Currently, Bitcoin Cash can fulfill the role of money, which includes medium of exchange (cash) and store-of-value functions. It will be interesting to see if off-chain scaling (with lower fees and faster confirmations) will enable Bitcoin Legacy to be used as a currency as well and fulfill the role of money.
This is an example of the free market and open competition. New companies divest or get created all the time, to satisfy different needs. Bitcoin is no different.
Small blockers and big blockers no longer need to fight and bicker in the same house. They have gone their separate ways.
Both parties have what they want. Blockstream can store value and generate revenue from their off-chain products to repay their investors. Libertarians (and gambling operators) can rejoice and re-arm with Bitcoin Cash to take on the government. They can continue with their mission to get freedom and autonomy.
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

How to Plot and Draw Support and Resistance - For ... How to Check Bitcoin Transaction Status on Blockchain  Check Bitcoin Pending Payment Why bitcoin transactions are so slow and why there is a huge risk of double spending? How To Send And Receive Bitcoin With Coinbase - YouTube Bitcoin ATMs - How To Use Them - YouTube

A Bitcoin transaction, by design, will get one confirmation after an average of 10 minutes.Even before a confirmation has been received, a transaction is generally irreversible. If you were to send a second (double-spend) transaction, using the same inputs as a transaction you've previously sent, I suppose there might be some custom-developed nodes that would give it priority if the ... How long does a Vigil Mass last when there are confirmations? About 4-6 hours.Roman Catholic AnswerThe depends on how many confirmations there are, and how many readings are used. The average block time can actually be slightly shorter or longer depending on if the total hash power of the Bitcoin network is growing or shrinking. Ignoring this detail though, this is why 6 confirmations take about 1 hour on average.Nov 3, 2015 read more >> Bitcoin confirmations represent the number of blocks in the block chain that have been accepted by the network since the block that includes the transaction. In simpler terms it represents the difficulty of a double spend attack. With zero confirmations no proof of work has been done, so you can't tell if anyone considers the transaction valid. I remember when the internet meant running slip over telnet. Co-founder @LondonAerospace & @CryptoCLASS. Pope of the Church of Erisian Discordianism. Extropian. Yesterday i was searching through my email to try remember when i first heard about (and bought) bitcoin. The first reference in my email was a twitter notifi

[index] [12949] [28465] [32080] [29211] [31256] [8110] [22575] [41873] [47930] [29502]

How to Plot and Draw Support and Resistance - For ...

Don't forget to subscribe and hit that notification '🔔' & visit our base camp at https://cryptodaily.co.uk - When Is Bitcoin Going Down? The most important e... In this video tutorial, I show you how to easily send and receive bitcoin from Coinbase to your blockchain wallet. Sign up for Coinbase and get $10 worth of ... This is a update to our previous videos on the Bitcoin correction. I also briefly discuss MACD and RSI and how to use them as confirmations. Please watch the previous videos for big picture ... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. i show in this video how to check your Bitcoin transaction Details on Blockchain or how to check Bitcoin Pending Payment in Hindi/Urdu By Dinesh Kumar. Block...

#