Bitcoin is currently around US$120 000. It very briefly went through that psychological barrier, fell back to US$112 000, and will soon go decisively past US$120 000
Historically, Bitcoin followed a pattern of wild peaks and long depressing falls, but has now decisively broken from that pattern, because everyone wised up. The idiots stopped piling in on the peak, and the wise started buying on the dip.
We now have a lot of lettuce hands, people who when they think they see a wild peak, bolt. With the result that the wild peaks they think they see do not happen, Bitcoin rises slowly and steadily without wild peaks.
in 2014 Bitcoin hit a peak of a $1000, which was completely unjustifiable given the state of crypto currency tech at the time, the abysmal state of actual usage, and the inability to make transactions in reasonable time, but was a justifiable bet on its future prospects.
But this was a wild blow off peak caused by too many idiots with no comprehension or knowledge of crypto currency piling in.
It then fell steadily to the $250, with everyone proclaiming Bitcoin as pet rocks and Tulips. But now it was back on its long term growth path, and the saying “Buy on the dip” came to be widely said, and widely believed, which made each subsequent dip less severe, until now we no longer have severe dips.
It then proceeded to rise slowly and steadily to $2000 in 2017, whereupon we got another wild blow off peak to eleven thousand caused by the ignorant idiots piling in.
At this time, Bitcoin hit its much predicted scaling limit. Fees surged from $0.40 to over $50 and confirmation times spiked, with the result that payment processors were apt to lose your bitcoin, and bitcoin adoption dramatically reversed. Bitcoin was unusable as money, and use as money was the whole idea. The value of Bitcoin is based on the expectation that it will eventually replace fiat — but obvious what we had could not be used to replace fiat.
In 2018, however the level two currencies, liquid and lightning, were introduced to get us past the scaling limit. Bitcoin fell back to its long term growth path, $3 500, and resumed its steady path of growth, based on the expectation that it would replace fiat.
High and fluctuating transaction costs and frequent slow transactions remained a serious though steadily diminishing problem for a long, long time, but the growth of the level twos has fixed that problem, and now transaction times are low, and and transaction fees are around twenty cents per transaction.
Roughly at this time the current enormous horde of crypto currency scammers and shills appeared, promoting their innumerable knocks off the one true crypto currency, Bitcoin.
We now have something like ten thousand scam crypto currencies. Plus the non scam currencies Litecoin, Monero, and ZCash. ZCash recently changed its name, presumably reflecting its latest adoption of bleeding edge tech — I cannot keep track. It still ahead of its time. The latest tech looks insanely great — much as starship looks insanely great on paper, and will be insanely great once Musk fixes explosions on the launch pad and rapid unscheduled disassembly during re-entry. Right now, however, my bet is on Nova and Poseidon over the ristretto-25519 curve, which compared to what Zcash has adopted is less bleeding edge. Ristretto-25519 snarks are large and relatively costly to verify, but if you are using Nova, you only need one snark per block, and all the rest is Nova folds. So it can do what ZCash hopes to do, with technology that is slightly less bleeding edge.
Then in 2021 we got another blow off peak to $60 000, but this time considerably less wild. It then fell to $20 000, perhaps in part because the scaling limit problem did not yet seem solved, but hey, the solutions had only been running for a couple of years, and needed time for adoption.
And since then, Bitcoin has been steadily on its long term growth path, without crazy peaks or frightening crashes.
With the introduction of the Grail Bridge, I expect to see level two Bitcoins running on blockchains with more advanced technology, running on snark based blockchains.
Ideally we want lightning over snark based level twos.
I’ve been shilling Monero for a few years now
https://x.com/tuxpizza/status/1954224730606797146
Monero will very shortly be rendered technologically obsolete by snark based currencies.
But those new snarky things will be currencies one can “port” his existing BTC to, right?
Yes, they will have their own base native currency, in which one can do things like options and futures on the colored coins, and the colored coins will have a cryptographically enforced relationship to level one coins on other chains.
And, repeating, snark chains can potentially scale without limit, to millions of transactions per second. Fast transactions on a snark chain are more difficult. Level one transactions on a very large snark chain doing a very large number of transactions are likely to be rather slow, however I have seen a proposal for lightning on a snark chain that would provide instant transactions without lightning’s liquidity problems. I have not evaluated this proposal but the basic idea is that if the receiver lacks incoming liquidity, what he gets is an instant irreversible commitment to use the incoming money to create a channel.
If the transaction was in level two bitcoin, then lightning on the snark chain is level three bitcoin.
A lot of FUD the past month with Monero being 51% attacked, any insight into that drama?
Jim when you talk about the Grail Bridge you’re not thinking of bitcoinos and their presale? That’s the only thing that rings a bell for me with that phrase. They sponsor podcasts and stuff but never really took it seriously.
And when you talk about placing your bets you mean with regard to the crypto you’re developing personally right, not in a speculative sense of buying projects that use Poseidon?
I have a different take on bitcoin price action, I don’t think it has much to do with tech and adoption. Maybe I’ll push back on that later but for now what are the promising L2’s?
This is an implementation of a 2018 proposal for locking level two colored coins on a snark chain to an existing chain.
Snark chains potentially have infinite scaling. If you don’t understand the cryptography, and most people don’t because the cryptography is really hard, it is all ooga booga noise, drowned out by thunderous noise from shills of scammers.
Do you think cipher disks are still useful for manual encryption?
Yes: Veracrypt. The rest are controlled by our enemies. Microsoft is particularly notorious for incorporating NSA backdoors.
To our “anarchist” White Bread (and Joo Joo Nazis), Jewish subversion is real, but answer this. Who dismantled the West’s Christian State Religion and opened the flood doors to subversion in the first place?
Maybe this video while help you figure out the answer.
https://youtu.be/tMgVWKNNjfE?t=930
To other commenters, I’ve stumbled upon the YouTube channel ‘Wyatt Stagg’. It’s pretty quality analysis of subversion without getting trapped in Joo Joo hysteria. His video’ Michael Jackson: American Golem’ is horrifyingly concise on how extensively demonic the man was. I did not grow up watching or listening to media, so much of the pre-woke rot was not familiar to me. I recommend watching the video if anyone wasn’t familiar with the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udRycb_Uulo
Clearpill (maybe a Whitepill):
Demonic subversion hidden behind illusions are the most dangerous because it’s threats masses don’t see and know about which are the most dangerous.
When the mask came of in the woke 2000s and early 2020s, the demonic nature of the left was laid bare for everyone to easily see
The threat detection of all virtuous men ignited, and they have rallied to the good, the true, and the beautiful. Cthulhu is drifting aimlessly, for it has forgotten how to put the mask back on after freely swimming left for so long.
The most dangerous phase is over. The time to capitalize on it is here and it is. The only risk is that this period of grace isn’t fully capitalized upon.
Michael Jackson was clearly a bit mentally ill and probably being a child star was raped by faggots a lot as a kid and sure used to push a proto gay race communism agenda. Madonna was more willingly and consciously demonic. That being said at least they both made good music which I can’t say about say about Taylor Swift or really anyone making music today (why the fuck is she still popular I’ve yet to hear one catchy song from her its been over a decade).
Jackson and Madonna belong to the last generation that wrote at least some of their hits by themselves. Today’s stars are all in the Brezhnevist Soviet “VIA” (vocal instrumental ensemble) tradition, with everything being written by someone else.
Taylor Swift can’t sing. Her voice is lackluster (unlike her looks), and her lyrics (written by some “pro”) sound like a 5th grader girl writing down her insights about life in a diary. All of today’s Top 50 is either depressingly derivative, or repulsive (I see Post Malone on the screen I instinctively reach for my metaphorical holster)or simply lifeless and sloppy.
It makes sense why so many youngsters listen to K-Pop. It may also be derivative, but at least it’s made with a real passion for the craft, the best songs designed like an old-timey Swiss watch, instead of just throwing together some boring beats and sloppy bleats.
Miley Cyrus has talent, vocal-wise, but when you compare her version of ‘Jolene’ to the original by Dolly Parton, you can clearly hear the difference between a talented voice that bears audible traces of a multitude of gangsta cocks and high potency bongs, and a voice that at most has the traces of a bit of booze and some old-timey non-violent blowjobs.
The last glimmer of authentic and non-warped talent in western pop music was probably somewhere circa 2005 – 08.
And, of course, even banal vintage hits like ‘Smooth Operator’ or ‘Rhiannon’ sound like Beethoven or Sibelius, compared to today’s assembly-line slop. Such are the times.
> Michael Jackson was clearly a bit mentally ill and probably being a child star was raped by faggots a lot as a kid
Macaulay Culkin, with his “joke band” called The Pizza Underground. When someone guarantees him his safety in a convincing way, this dude will surely have tales to share. For now he’s only on record being adamant that Jacko was basically the only decent guy in the whole scene.
Despite it not being all that bad of an album, I still bear a grudge against Thriller given how much the media shoved it down our throats constantly in the early 80s. It was the camel’s nose in the tent with rap following hot on its heels. How they howled and hollered that MTV was too white, and the white(ish) musicians began to trip over each other to support sub-Saharan causes, not least of which was muh Apartheid.
There was a lot of fake and gay going on in the 80s, and poor Michael was the poster child for it. I prefer to remember him for his album Off the Wall:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUDvEcNU2l0
Hey Bellum Imperialis – how are you doing.
>To our “anarchist” White Bread (and Joo Joo Nazis), Jewish subversion is real, but answer this.
Sorry, this place is an echo chamber not a serious forum for discussion. As soon as I start telling too much of the truth I will be deleted. And anyway I never spoke of your (beloved) joos in terms of subversion.
But OK, I watched the video. First, I remember that inception movie as retarded hollywood garbage. The only “message” I get from it now is that the bad guy is japanese, so the movie is anti-japanese, jew hollyood garbage – and meaningless beyond that. Second, the interpretation the guy makes of the movie is rambling nonsense as far as I’m concerned. Lastly he ends whining about “liberalism” “subverting” “western civilization”, which of course I regard as the non plus ultra of nonsense.
No one gets deleted for telling what they think is the truth. You get deleted for unresponsive repetition. After you have told the same “truth” too many times without responding to other people’s critical discussion of your “truth”, then you will be deleted.
You are claiming “censorship” as an excuse for not responding to critical discussion. It is the other way around. If you don’t respond to critical discussion, and just say the same thing over and over again, you get deleted for spamming.
Obviously liberalism is subverting western civilisation. How can you deny that liberalism is a murder suicide pact after seeing this?
The friendly mask has fallen off, revealing a murder suicide pact. Evil destructive and self destructive conduct is valorized, resulting in self destruction. They want to knock over our applecarts so that they can snatch up some apples.
The liberal project is to liberate us from the bonds of history, race, culture, family, and morality. If each man is liberated from the bonds of history, race, culture, family, and morality, each man perishes alone.
You keep repeating that, and I keep saying it’s a misrepresentation. If I keep repeating myself, it would be grounds for deletion. So you can have the last word. Because this is…an echo chamber.
Nah, I am going to let you have the last endless repetition, since giving myself the last word would be even more repetition. So if deleted, you are guaranteed to have the last word unless other commenters chime in. My last word will merely be something like “You said this before. Too many times.”
If it is an echo chamber, it is because anyone who disagrees has their script, which script was written by someone who has no idea what other people are saying here. I am happy to have debate — if it is debate, and not a script from which you are unable to deviate, and therefore unable to make relevant response to those who dispute your script.
Your line is that you cannot make relevant response because it is going to be censored. If that was the case, nothing you posted would have been seen in the first place.
You are defending liberalism as obviously correct. Seem obviously malicious, destructive, self destructive, hateful and self hating. The mask has fallen off. Since not obvious that liberalism is correct, especially now after everything that has gone down, needs explanation and justification.
From the beginning, liberalism wanted to liberate us from history, culture, tribe, race, family, and morality. Now we know what liberation from history, culture, tribe, race, family, and morality looks like.
So, I invite you to explain what you presuppose as obvious.
>Your line is that you cannot make relevant response because it is going to be censored. If that was the case, nothing you posted would have been seen in the first place.
I already acknowledged that you have allowed me to make relevant responses, but, you also tend to ignore the responses hence the repetition. I’ve also seen that in some cases if things
>From the beginning, liberalism wanted to liberate us from history, culture, tribe, race, family, and morality.
Liberalism is a moral system based on natural rights. It doesn’t liberate you from morality at all. Likewise a free society requires a liberal culture – so it can’t liberate you from culture. Race and morality are unrelated as far as liberalism goes, but that doesn’t “liberate” you from race – what would “liberation” from race even mean.
Yes liberalism sides with individuals against groups. I don’t want to be ruled by the socialist mob, I don’t know about you. And I don’t want to be ruled by the conservative mob either. Or the technocratic mob – take a look at the Lewis quote I posted.
Sorry, left a sentence unfinished above. Meant to type this
“I’ve also seen that in some cases if things get too out of hand you accuse people of being dishonest or unresponsive, which might be true, or just an excuse for deletion. “
The natural rights of the individual. Which means, among other things, that marriage has no rights, that family has no rights. Which means that men don’t get sex, women don’t get love, and no one gets grandchildren. Marriage 1.0 is inherently illiberal. Marriage is illiberal. Family is illiberal.
And it is based on the universal rights of the individual. But some people are less fit than others to exercise some rights, and some people are natural slaves. Which means that your universal human rights tend to get redefined downwards to the lowest common denonimator, the rights of a slave. If you allow plains apes the equal right to keep and bear arms, you have a problem. If tribes and faiths have rights, the millet system, easier to accommodate differences.
If straights and gays are equally entitled to universal human rights, and state should make no distinction between worshippers of Christ and worshippers of Satan, then what is wrong with this picture:
Obviously liberalism is subverting western civilisation. How can you deny that liberalism is a murder suicide pact after seeing this?
If individual human rights, what is wrong with drag queen story hour?
And I am repeating myself, wasting space and boring our audience. This is an indication that you are not responding. “A system of individual rights” sound great. It sounds like pink unicorns farting rainbows. But here we are. We have a system of individual rights and it is grotesquely and brutally oppressive. Similar to the rules based international order where Harvard, the New York times, and US State Department make up the rules as they go along.
So stop just replying “pink unicorns farting rainbows”. when we are being swarmed by rats, cockroaches, spiders, leeches, and tics.
If universal human rights are so great, where are the missing grandchildren and what is wrong with drag queen story hour?
“universal individual human rights” is code for war on history, race, culture, civilisation, and family. It is an attack on the substrate of our existence. We can only be free within a framework that meets our spiritual needs.
And I continue to repeat myself, because I don’t see you responding:
The liberal project is to liberate us from the bonds of history, race, culture, family, and morality. If each man is liberated from the bonds of history, race, culture, family, and morality, each man perishes alone.
Your reply seems to be “No that is not the liberal project”. Well. Just look. Are you telling us that is not the liberal project? If that is what you are telling us, say it out loud.
Obviously the family has a property right in members of the family. And the family is represented by the man of the family, which is not quite the same thing as the man of the family having an individual property right in members of the family, though it comes mighty close. A corporation has a property right in its factory, and this property right is exercised by its CEO, but he does not personally and individually own the factory, and similarly the man of the family does not personally and individually own the members of this family. “Individual rights” denies the property rights of collective entities in people, but without those property rights of collective entities in ourselves, each man is alone, helpless, and then devoured.
The liberal project was always to knock over the applecarts of the privileged so that liberals could grab some apples. But now we are out of applecarts, and out of apples.
Individual rights in physical property are the bedrock of our society, history culture, and civilisation. But individuals have to interact with other individuals, and then the concept of individual rights gets weaponized to destroy interactions that some people don’t like. And they really really don’t like the way men interact with women. I was watching Matty Bites you tube channel (not because it is watcheable, it is estrogen drenched and full of progressive delusion, but for insights into why women keep voting for people who hate them, and insights into female sexual nature and female sexual delusion)
Matty writes romance comics, and is terribly troubled that “problematic” romance comics are so popular. And her viewers, who are undoubtedly all female except for me, tell her to keep on reading a webtoon that she dismissed as problematic.
So she reviews it:
The story she reviews is that the male love interest kills protagonist’s entire family, except for the protagonist, whom he marries, under circumstances where it is made clear that she marries him, or dies. He then has sex with her, but tells her he hates her, and acts like he hates her. The protagonist decides that not being killed was the wrong choice, and keeps trying to commit suicide, and the male love interest keeps trying to keep her alive and starts to display obvious concern for the protagonists welfare and psychological state — starts to cherish her. And pretty soon our reviewer totally has the hots for the male love interest, and is explaining to herself and her audience why he was totally right to kill the protagonist’s entire family for good progressive reasons and really kind to to marry her at gunpoint for good progressive reasons, and has forgotten that the webtoon was problematic. No, the reason for the protagonist’s suffering is her own insufficiently progressive character flaws, not her husband’s cold mistreatment.
Women think they want this individual human rights nonsense, but it is obvious that it makes them unhappy. The problem is that women just don’t like consensual sex. Hence most of the successful comics in the market Matty wants to sell to are “problematic”, even though she is all fired up to write stories that are properly progressive.
That’s literally the Shillish phrase for “I am a shill”.
No one but a shill ever makes this protest. Ever. If a normal person, who is not a shill, finds himself persistently outside the overton of window of some community and therefore of low status within that community, he either (a) conforms, (b) leaves or (c) limits his participation, usually to an observational role (lurking).
There are only two groups of people who refuse to quiet down after repeated reprimands, and instead seek to forcefully impose their own communication standards by way of incessant whining (carefully worded to sound prideful and indignant, but shameful whining in reality): Shills, and Karens. And you obviously aren’t a Karen.
“But muh Twitter” – yeah, I’m aware of the apparent irony here, but the difference is that Twitter advertised itself as an absolute free speech zone and then started censoring in a classic bait and switch, whereas Jim’s blog is obviously moderated and has never claimed to be otherwise.
Free speech is impossible except on a moderated platform, because if you talk about something that the state does not want you talk about, you will be drowned out by an army of shill astroturf exercising the heckler’s veto. Thus was Usenet destroyed. I watched it happen.
I expound on this problem at length in “social networking“, and link to others who fought the unmoderated free speech battle for longer than I did. I think they were slower to realise what they were up against than I was. Normality bias.
abstract: Speech is suppressed by censorship, and on “free speech” platforms by state sponsored shill spam. Crypto currency transaction metadata goes over insecure networks, so we need a secure, uncensorable, and spam resistent Web 3.0 both for freedom of speech and economic freedom.
Your proposal is also (appropriately) oriented around closed communities and intransitive or minimally-transitive relationships. Meaning, people you don’t know at all cannot insert stuff into your feed, and even friends of friends cannot appear in your feed unless your first-degree friend reposts them, and then only that specific post will appear.
The ability to limit interactions with strangers, and to completely eliminate interactions with outright nuisances, is a critical element of censorship-free social networks. Enforced, always-on whitelisting eliminates the majority of rewards for parasitic behavior, especially sock puppetry – there’s no benefit to a million sock puppet accounts that no one sees or hears.
>That’s literally the Shillish phrase for “I am a shill”.
Whose shill am I, in your opinion.
Joo joo joo shilling has as far as I can tell mainly been an FBI thing and still is because Nick Fuentes since J6 is an FBI asset.
My perception is that Nick Fuentes has been an FBI asset from the beginning. A lot of good people facing years of imprisonment under harsh conditions were turned in J6. Pretty sure Nick was not one of them. Always in the enemy’s pocket from the beginning.
18 months ago I had some discussions and debates about crypto with Jim and a few other commentators.
As I recall it was mostly collegial and a good conversation, though I’m a bit out of the mainstream here. For example I use Ethereum daily, and don’t hate it.
But one thing about the conversation was that sometimes I would write a pretty long post, and Jim would quickly reply with a few lines.
I would reply again with a long post.
Then Jim would edit his formerly short post, fleshing it out and sort of responding to my second post.
Or, I would reply to Jim’s short post with another short post, and then he would expand on his, so it looked like my short post ignored 99% of the substance he had brought up
To someone reading the thread after the edits, it would look like I was– not repeating things Jim had already said, not being unresponsive exactly– but it made me look worse for sure. Sometimes my second post would end up looking like quite a non sequitur.
I didn’t complain at the time, and in that particular conversation I’m sure Jim’s edits overall made the thread better reading for anyone who was following. Likewise I’m not defending White Bread here or anyone else in particular who comes up short in a debate in the comments. A lot of what I said 18 months ago doesn’t look so great today.
But in a more adversarial conversation you can imagine how frustrating even small edits might feel. Like a reality TV show where they reshoot the scene with just the star, letting him appear to land great comebacks he only thought of later.
“I will repeat again that these four occurrences are the only places [in Scripture] where Strong’s Hebrew #3610 [כלאים, kilayim] is used, and from the King James Version it is rendered once as “seeds” at Deuteronomy 22:9 [where it is actually “divers seeds”], and three times as “diverse kind”, “mingled seed” and “mingled” at Leviticus 19:19. But, the King James Version cannot always be trusted, so we will turn to the lexicons for a better understanding of the original languages (in this case Hebrew, Arabic & Ethiopic). Sometimes, when the lexicographers can’t find a root word in Hebrew, they will often turn to the Arabic because of the similarity of the two languages.”
https://christogenea.org/comment/98
Do you see the linguistic problem? Note: using an alphabet that has been developed by another people is not nearly as problematic, in case people point out that Futhark (or the Latin alphabet) is Fenician/Etruscan in origin as well. If normies made it a habit to learn Hebrew e.a. this would do a lot to alleviate the problem.
So is Trump going to swing niggers’ heads off and make Moon Man real?
That’s my President.
“But Mossadnik, you’re not an American…”
I SAID THAT’S MY PRESIDENT.
But seriously, I wonder what’s planned for the vibrant yoofs in the Democrat cities. Any long-term, effective solution to black crime will necessarily involve the physical removal of some plains apes, and swifter + harsher (at least as they would perceive it) handling of the rest of them.
Ok Jim, here’s some more truth you cannot handle. I’ve been keeping this “card” for a while, looks like it’s time to play it.
This comes from Lewis’ Abolition of Man :
“The final stage is come when Man by eugenics, by pre-natal conditioning, and by an education and propaganda based on a perfect applied psychology, has obtained full control over himself. Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to Man. The battle will then be won. We shall have taken the thread of life out of the hand of Clotho’ and be henceforth free to make our species whatever we wish it to be. The battle will indeed be won. But who, precisely, will have won it?
For the power of Man to make himself what he pleases means, as we have seen, the power of some men to make other men what they please. In all ages, no doubt, nurture and instruction have, in some sense, attempted to exercise this power. But the situation to which we must look forward will be novel in two respects. In the first place, the power will be enormously increased. Hitherto the plans of educationalists have achieved very little of what they attempted and indeed, when we read them — how Plato would have every infant “a bastard nursed in a bureau”, and Elyot would have the boy see no men before the age of seven and, after that, no women,’ and how Locke wants children to have leaky shoes and no turn for poetry — we may well thank the beneficent obstinacy of real mothers, real nurses,
and (above all) real children for preserving the human race in such sanity as it still possesses. But the man-moulders of the new age will be armed with the powers of an omnicompetent state and an irresistible scientific technique: we shall get at last a race of conditioners who really can cut out all posterity in what shape they please.
The second difference is even more important. In the older systems both the kind of man the teachers wished to produce and their motives for producing him were prescribed by the Tao — a norm to which the teachers themselves were subject and from which they claimed no liberty to depart. They did not cut men to some pattern they had chosen. They handed on what they had received: they initiated the young neophyte into the mystery of humanity which over-arched him and them alike. It was but old birds teaching young birds to fly. This will be changed. Values are now mere natural phenomena. Judgements of value are to be produced in the pupil as part of the conditioning. Whatever Tao there is will be the product, not the motive, of education. The conditioners have been emancipated from all that. It is one more part of Nature which they have conquered. The ultimate springs of human action are no longer, for them, something given. They have surrendered — like electricity: it is the function of the Conditioners to control, not to obey them. They know how to produce conscience and decide what kind of conscience they will produce. They themselves are outside, above. For we are assuming the last stage of Man’s struggle with Nature. The final victory has been won. Human nature has been conquered — and, of course, has conquered, in whatever sense those words may now bear.”
Great, at least someone has been paying attention to my nerd-kike book recommendations, heh.
(Everyone should actually read that short book. Not sure what Brown Toast was going for here, but anyway, The Abolition of Man presents a compelling philosophical argument.)
Being a Lewis fan myself, I’m on the edge of my seat in anticipation of our friend continuing his lecture.
>Not sure what Brown Toast was going for here
Really
>The Abolition of Man presents a compelling philosophical argument
Well he’s making the case for natural law, except that his version of natural law is deformed by christiantiy. But that’s not what I’m getting at.
As far as I concerned Lewis presents a compelling description of the path that technological civilization will take. Of course he’s not the first one to say it, but it’s relevant here since you mentioned him and Jim really likes “technology”…while trying to pose as a “conservatives”.
A young Lewis made a similar critique against Chesterton, something akin to “he’s so sensible except for that pesky Christianity nonsense.” His autobio Surprised by Joy explores this more, IIRC.
Well, he did not propound opposition to technology per se; rather, he sought to align technological/scientific progress with Gnon’s will:
That is the conservative approach, not Luddism. It’s perfectly consistent with this blog’s worldview.
Lewis is talking about a “science” that doesn’t exist at all. It is something he imagines and it is what he would like science to be, not what it actually is. He continues :
“Perhaps I am asking impossibilities. Perhaps, in the nature of things, analytical understanding must always be a basilisk which kills what it sees and only sees by killing.”
So calling me a luddite is just an attempt at ignoring reality. Reality is going the way Lewis describes it.
Lewis and many others can envision a better “science” and work to make it be because they cherish this thing called hope.
Hope is not a synonym for wishful thinking. Daydreaming is plentiful while hope is precious in its rarity.
Hope is made all the rarer due to those who make it their mission in life to kill it on sight, to draw others into a crab bucket of despair.
“Lewis is talking about a “science” that doesn’t exist at all. It is something he imagines and it is what he would like science to be”
This is a brazen lie about The Abolition of Man. Either that or you idiotically got exactly the opposite of the point Lewis is making in that book. Are you accustomed to spewing your stuff in forums where no one has read the relevant texts? The entire point of that book is to warn against the thing you say that Lewis is advocating in the passage you quoted.
(Which is NOT the part that Mossadnik quoted. I’m talking about the extended quote that you, White Bread, posted earlier.)
An ever popular shill tactic is to claim that some authority respected on the right is saying the opposite of what he is saying. The classic example being commies spin Adam Smith as a commie.
Brown toast hates science, hates technology, and hates western civilisation. So he tell us that our respected intellectual predecessors hated it also, that the core of the highest part of Western Civilisation is liberalism, not Cathedrals.
He has a point, in that individual rights in physical property are core, but the rest of individual rights is a poison tree with poison fruit. And, on an issue dear to my heart, free speech is a private property right, for you can only have free speech on a moderated platform — the battle for liberal progressive free speech, where you try to have free speech on a fully open platform, was fought and predictably lost long ago. Speech is free if many people and small groups of people own their own platforms, and can moderate them as they see fit.
No one here has ever, to my knowledge, called themselves conservative.
I believe you’re in one of the numerous state dept shilling organizations, perhaps with a longer leash than normal. Or perhaps not.
You support liberalism, is that liberalism for both sexes? We have a specific criticism of liberalist policies when it comes to women and their nature. Can you tell us in your own words what we think, and then express why we are wrong?
I would venture a similar guess, but hasten to add that it is not incumbent upon us to answer that question correctly, or at all.
The oh-so-clever “oh yeah, which one?” turn-the-tables response is, itself, another hallmark of shills and malign actors everywhere. This is not a criminal court in which an accuser is required to prove an accurate and precise sequence of events beyond any reasonable doubt. It is long-established doctrine that a shill is simply one who pursues an obvious agenda that is counterproductive to the community and therefore parasitic upon it, and is unresponsive to criticism and counterargument. It is a catchall term and it matters not whether the individual in question is literally on an agency’s payroll, or severely mentally ill, or merely a profoundly unfunny troll.
>Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to Man. The battle will then be won.
>For we are assuming the last stage of Man’s struggle with Nature. The final victory has been won.
It is clear that human nature can be changed and already has been changed. The clearest example is the racial, ethnic, and cultural differences between those groups… and yet, it is clear that the groups have obvious and significant differences in average outcomes. Some are extremely successful, some are extremely dysfunctional, and many are somewhere in-between. What ultimately determines success versus dysfunction is obedience to the laws of Nature or Nature’s God. Rather than Nature surrendering to Man, this is only proof that Man surrenders to Nature, and it is those who obey the law most obediently that ultimately come out on top. Gnon has the final say.
Tl;dr, yes, man can change his nature to be slothful, fat, vile, ugly, disgusting, demonic, and ultimately pathetic evil things of revile, but ultimately Nature and God will not allow such to propagate for long.
@White Bread
The Lewis quote would imply an elite that is actually competent at wielding power. Perhaps it was so in Lewis’ time, but it is no longer the case.
You mean modern day technocrats are incompetent so we shouldn’t worry? I wouldn’t count on that.
Competent elites will destroy you if they want to destroy you, and help you if they wish to help you.
With incompetent elites, anything they do at any point can destroy you, even if they are “trying to help you”. A fine very specific example is the Maui tragedy, where only those who didn’t obey the authorities during the big fire, survived.
Incompetent elites, even when they are not consciously evil, are not in touch with empirical reality, and even the slightest movement from their part can and does lead to horrendous outcomes. They start from fake logic, choose fake date, enact a series of events to achieve a fake goal, and the real results in empirical reality is suffering and death. In local politics, in international politics, even in tiny sub-systems like schools and family units.
When specific policies lead to constant death and suffering, such as with turning a blind eye on grooming gangs, or child castration and brainwashing, or euthanasia for the poor and the insane, the “symbolic good” which they are pretending (or honestly attempting) to want to achieve, becomes the latest mask behind which demons are being fed human sacrifice.
Not regressing to solipsism and demon-feeding is not a default state, rather it takes constant effort for a human system to not go there. Incompetent elites, even if they go to their graves claiming they were only trying to heal the world, are servants of demons who feed them a steady diet of human sacrifice, even if consciously they believe to be elves of light.
The hypothetical example Lewis was thinking of is something like NICE from That Hideous Strength- they plan to ‘solve’ the problem of elite decay (and everything else) with immortality and abandoning the human form. Of course in the story, it was a ruse by demons, it implodes and everyone involved dies horribly.
I agree with him here- absolute power of everything is more of a thought experiment because an elite attempting to grab it will quickly realizes its only enemies left are each other.
New “manosphere” type theory I came across that overlaps with my educational upbringing. [*deleted*]
This is an explanation of cultural changes as a bottom up phenomenon. But we can see the heavy hand. Culture is downstream of power.
You’re deleting a crucial point, [*yes I am, because it is only “crucial” if one presupposes culture is autonomous, comes from the bottom up. But culture is downstream from power, comes from the top down*]
Anonymous Fake, I have told you many times to stop presupposing things that are controversial on the reactionary right. You have to argue those things, not presuppose them. And the big unstated claim that you are pushing here is that power is downstream of culture. That it is technology and stuff changing society, not Hollywood, Harvard, and USAID. But these days the entire Republican movement, not just us, is pointing the finger at Hollywood, Harvard, and USAID. And if you want to disagree with us and most of Maga, you are going to have to argue it, just not presuppose it as if it was uncontroversial and everyone agreed. Assuming it is uncontroversial and everyone agrees is argument from fake consensus. And argument from fake consensus is not permitted on this blog
And even argument from real consensus needs to be supported by primary sources.
Thus, for example, when I was telling brown toast that individual human rights make women deeply bitter and unhappy, I did not just tell him we are all agreed that individual human rights make women deeply bitter and unhappy, nor reference the massive manosphere literature on this topic. I pointed to an exhibit: Matty’s Youtube channel.
> Urbit
The entire and massive problem with all “P2P/Distributed” apps today can be summarized as follows:
1) They are developed by namefags aka: non-anons, who having chosen to be namefags (pride/$ is corrupt, and corruptible), thus are subject to arbitrary control by the State and other influences.
[eg: Tor Project, and non-Satoshi coin models re fair launch and anon]
To solve this you must be anondev. You can become a namefag 20+ years later after your protocol has effected change. People can speak as users, but only if they are skilled in maintaining the necessary separation, delays, language… all far more difficult and risky than simply remaining anon.
2) They operate over a network that is subject to arbitrary control by the State and Corporations.
[eg: the “Internet”]
To solve this you must [*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*]
Monero 51% news
Qubic just reached 51% share of Monero. This is a huge feat. They will be the first to manipulate a cryptocurrency with a 51% attack. They intend to orphan all blocks from every other miner, making themselves the only mining entity of Monero. The only way to mine Monero will be through them and they are 3X more profitable than mining Monero directly. They are giving half the profit to miners and selling the other half of the profit to buy QUBIC and send it to the burn wallet. If they mine 100% of the Monero blocks this gives them 432 Monero mined per day. This is $118,342.08 at the current Monero price. They keep 50% of that and give the rest to miners making their profit $59,171.04 of Qubic being burned every day. $414,197.28 burned a week and $1.656 million burned every month. This is insane. This is history being made here. Qubic a less than 300 million dollar market cap will be the sole miner of a 6 billion dollar market cap coin.
Privacy Coins are great at routing around and even eventually fully disintermediating the State.
But smalltime players are still vulnerable to big angry dogs.
Design your protocols accordingly.
Also, difficult to grow and entrench yourselves without your own Global Maxi Marketing Team going hard 24×365.
Bitcoin should have been made private, privacy would have been the one to capitalize on Govt’s early and long inability to stop the entrenchment and use of any given crypto.
Now you’re stuck playing a twisted race to try to backport privacy into a now non-privacy crypto enabled world where any such privacy has been further memed and lawed out of existance. A far more difficult prospect.
Which is why the BTC Maxi memeology decade is hated by a lot of OG type people… all NGU, GovCorp cozy, ETF, zero privacy, scale unserious, compromised, sold out.
Privacy in level twos is entirely doable — it is just that the big pockets do not want to fund it. And coin mixers are back, after all the centralised coin mix servrices were taken down or taken over by the FBI.
It is not the maxis fault. I am a maxi. And I never maintained a large investment in Monero because I foresaw this kind of problem. Bitcoin is the one true crypto currency. Same as gold is money, silver ceased to be money in the long depression, and platinum was never money. Metcalfe’s law. There can only be one. There is no alternative but to fix Bitcoin at level two.
The fifty one percent attack is a fundamental problem with proof of work. Here is an alternative solution to the consensus problem:
Every so often, each client wallet of a peer, for example monero wallet gui, not monerod, generates a bullet proof that proves that it owned base currency worth X at the most recent block height that was a multiple of 214, and that assigns voting rights proportional to that amount of base currency to a long running always up peer, its own monerod if its own monerod is always up and running, some other monerod if its monerod almost always finds this other monerod up and running when it comes up.
At every block, ever peer gets a random rank, such that the probability of being rank
n+256is half the probability of being rankn, and the probability of being ranknis proportional to the amount of voting rights assigned to it. The probability of being rank code>n+m is an integer approximation to 2^(-m/256) of the probability of being rank code>n/code>. An approximation that is piece wise linear between multiples of 256 will suffice.At every block, each peer that finds itself with higher rank than any it has recently connected to, or a rank comparable to what is usual in winning blocks, proposes its own total order. The block with the highest ranking proposer wins. If there are several different chains of blocks competing, the chain whose chain of proposers had highest rank wins.
Each peer has its own secret key and public key, and the voting rights are assigned to that public key. To get random assignment of rank, we need a true random public oracle, something that cannot be predicted or manipulated. This is a hard problem, and there are some horribly expensive, slow, and ineffectual solutions out there. Here is a better solution:
Each block contains the random value for determining ranks at the next block, or each block at a block height that is a multiple of thirty two contains a random value that will determine everyone’s rank for the next thirty two blocks. The rank of a peer depends on the value it gets by a deterministic signature of the previous value. The deterministic signature of the previous random value by the peer that set the current total order becomes the new random value for determining ranks at the next block, or next thirty two blocks. Since the signature is determined by the secret key and the previous signature, the peer cannot manipulate it, and since most peers do not know the secret keys of most other peers, it cannot be predicted.
[*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*]
Yeah, even if QUBIC doesn’t do any re-orgs, and even if they’re exaggerating their hash rate somewhat, it’s concerning that such a small operation could come so close to rattling Monero.
Hard to hold more than 1% of your crypto in XMR long term after this imo
Add to that the thorough failure of Tari, their long awaited L2
Add to that fluffypony’s physiognomy, and his handle
The classic way to get decent privacy is to send your BTC to an exchange and withdraw it to another address. Trageogre was nice for this, as they had about 10 years of history, were non KYC, and had XMR. But they seem to have exit scammed 2 weeks ago. It was never true privacy, but good enough in at least 50% of cases, but now all that data is probably in government hands, if it wasn’t all along. But the loss makes XMR and other privacy coins less liquid
I’m going to blindly assume that QUBIC’s strategy wouldn’t work to undermine BTC’s decentralization.
BTC mining is alarmingly centralised. I am very worried about it.
Jim, please tell when ETH is going to crash, cuz we don’t wanna get rekt an poe, kthx.
Ether is never going to crash. Just continue its long slow decline relative to Bitcoin.
How you say that? Because the evidence confirms the opposite…
https://bitinfocharts.com/ethereum/
Clicking on “all time” button shows eth:btc lows steadily rising over “long” time, literally beating btc. And eth raw price is now effectively at ATH too.
You are correct. Ether had been falling relative to bitcoin to May of this year, but has staged a recovery of which I was not aware.
US Gov may be adopting eth as main layer and eth treasuries are becoming a thing.
Is Bitcoin Lightning private/as private as Monero?
No. But Lightning is more private than Bitcoin. It could easily be made considerably more private. There were plans to do it, and yet oddly and troublingly, those plans have not been put into effect.