The Pledge of Resistance – Saul Williams – Anarchast Intro

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Bitcoin, Philosophy | Posted on 04-04-2014

I remember walking down the street in downtown Gangnam many years ago and someone trying to give me a pamphelt with “The Pledge of Resistance” and “Not in Our Names” on it. I took the pamphlet, glanced at it, and figured it was some nonsense socialist garbage. I wasn’t interested in yet another “save the children” bit of nonsense that was “probably” the exact opposite of what it purported to be. I already “knew” that whatever cause was being pimped out was 99% likely to be doing the exact opposite.

After all, aren’t all the “activists” socialist assholes? I don’t know what I did with it. I probably threw it out.

But I was wrong and I missed out then.

Jeff Berwick used that as the intro to his Anarchast show on Youtube. It’s powerful.

Pure, power.

SAUL WILLIAMS PLEDGE OF RESISTANCE

We believe that it is our
responsibility to resist the injustices
done by our government,
in our names.

Not in our name
will you wage endless war
there can be no more deaths
no more transfusions
of blood for oil.

Not in our name
will you invade countries
bomb civilians, kill more children
letting history take its course
over the graves of the nameless.

Not in our name
will you erode the very freedoms
you have claimed to fight for.

Not by our hands
will we supply weapons and funding
for the annihilation of families
on foreign soil.

Not by our mouths
will we let fear silence us.

Not by our hearts
will we allow whole peoples
or countries to be deemed evil.

Not by our will
and Not in our name.

We pledge resistance.

We pledge alliance with those
who have come under attack
for voicing opposition to the war
or for their religion or ethnicity.

We pledge to make common cause
with the people of the world
to bring about justice,
freedom and peace.

Another world is possible
and we pledge to make it real.

The music in the Anarchast intro really adds a lot to that. It’s really well done.

I recently won the AllCrypt t-shirt slogan contest. I put forth 43 different slogans with several of them being variations of quotes from that poem by Saul Williams. I’m very happy to say that AllCrypt has chosen several of the entries I submitted, and one of them was based on that poem by Saul Williams:

Another world is possible, and we pledge to make it real.
– Saul Williams, The Pledge of Resistance

That’s some pretty powerful stuff.

The winner blog post is here:

https://www.allcrypt.com/blog/2014/04/winner-of-the-t-shirt-slogan-contest/

They’ve chosen 4 of my entries (some edited):

Silly: Mega Doge Sex Nuts. Yeah, we have those.

Drugs: Wanna legally buy some POT and METH with Bitcoin? (Tweaking wording before it goes to print. We’ve gone through 8 revisions. We’re indecisive)

Political: Another world is possible, and we pledge to make it real. – Saul Williams, The Pledge of Resistance

Suggestive: We do it DOGE style.

Now, I really like all of those. And they’re going to send me a t-shirt, so I have to choose one… That’s a tough call. I want to promote crypto. I want to promote so many things, but to choose just one… I have to go with #3 there. Saul Williams has such a beautiful piece of spoken poetry there.

I don’t want to just make people laugh; I want to make them think.

As Jeff Berwick would say…

Peace, love, and anarchy.

Huntercoin: Welcome to the Blockchain!

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Bitcoin, Logic, Philosophy, Software | Posted on 24-02-2014

Tags: , , , ,

Huntercoin-logoHuntercoin is a crypto currency game that is played on the blockchain. This is significant, and particularly that “played on the blockchain” part.

The blockchain is a public ledger of account that can be used for currency transfers, assets, smart contracts, smart property, snippets of code, escrow, distributed companies, distributed property, and yes – even GAMES!

But all of that seems very distant, abstract, and probably even bizarre. What is a “smart contract”? What is a “distributed exchange”? What is…? What can I do practically? What use is this? How can I visualise this?

Forget all that. Let’s just play a game. Huntercoin… It will all become much clearer soon…

Players send orders to the Huntercoin network. They do this through client software, or what you might think of as “the game program”. Their orders are registered in the blockchain then read by all the other players as they download the latest block in the blockchain and process the orders for all the other players.

Since everything is done securely through cryptography, nobody can fake orders or ignore orders or change them. The only thing you can do is see what happened. We’ll look more at this below.

Now, if you’ve played Huntercoin, or if you’ve read in the forums, you’ll have encountered the deadly “Pending” monster that seems to go on forever sometimes. You’ll also see the game speed up or slow down.

I’m a bit fuzzy on “pending” and stuck transactions. You can run “huntercoin-qt.exe -rescan” though, and that should “unstick” the transaction. However, that will take a while for the client to start again. The other options are to “deletetransaction” or “rebroadcast” the transaction.

For the speeding up and slowing down issue, this is quite interesting. To understand what’s happening, you need to know a few basic things about crypto currency mining.

Miners all compete for a block. They solve very difficult mathematical puzzles that can take longer or shorter to solve. The difficulty factor changes to cause the problem to become more or less difficult, and that change regulates the time it takes to “find a block” to “about” 1 block every X minutes, depending on the coin.

Bitcoin blocks come at a rate of about 1 every 10 minutes. Litecoin takes about 2.5 minutes. Huntercoin has 2 algorithms, SHA-256 and scrypt, set to find blocks every 2 minutes, and averaging to 1 block per minute due to there being 2 algorithms.

As blocks are found on the Huntercoin blockchain, a turn is processed. Here’s a table showing some blocks found with the times and algorithms.

Id Date Algo Time since last block
63979 23/02/14 13:00:51 sha256 0:00:07
63978 23/02/14 13:00:44 scrypt 0:00:21
63977 23/02/14 13:00:23 scrypt 0:01:28
63976 23/02/14 12:58:55 sha256 0:00:57
63975 23/02/14 12:57:58 scrypt 0:01:41
63974 23/02/14 12:56:17 scrypt 0:01:05
63973 23/02/14 12:55:12 scrypt 0:00:18
63972 23/02/14 12:54:54 scrypt 0:00:14
63971 23/02/14 12:54:40 scrypt 0:00:51
63970 23/02/14 12:53:49 sha256 0:00:53
63969 23/02/14 12:52:56 sha256 0:00:47
63968 23/02/14 12:52:09 scrypt 0:00:56
63967 23/02/14 12:51:13 sha256 0:00:51
63966 23/02/14 12:50:22 sha256 0:01:54
63965 23/02/14 12:48:28 scrypt Average time: 0:00:53

There you can see that the actual algorithm that finds a block fluctuates. You can also see a 7 second block, a 14 second block, and a 1:54 block. But the average time there is 53 seconds, which is pretty close to 1 minute. A larger sample would push that number closer to 1 minute.

Gamers that are expecting a perfectly linear flow-of-time will be disappointed. Time does not flow in a perfectly linear fashion on the blockchain – it flows in averages.

But this really only adds to the challenge of the game. It adds a dimension that we’ve not really seen before in real-time games – non-linear time. While some gamers will complain about this, they should embrace it as it is not going to change because that’s the nature of the blockchain. It’s simply better to accept it and deal with it. If you can use it to your advantage, that’s what we call “skill”.

In the game, since you’re publishing your orders, they are all out in the open for anyone to read. Here’s an actual example:

{
    "color" : 3,
    "0" : {
        "x" : 94,
        "y" : 453,
        "dir" : 9,
        "stay_in_spawn_area" : 0,
        "loot" : 0.00000000
    },
    "1" : {
        "x" : 248,
        "y" : 435,
        "fromX" : 245,
        "fromY" : 441,
        "wp" : [
            252,
            427,
            248,
            375,
            248,
            373,
            248,
            370,
            246,
            361,
            242,
            357,
            217,
            349,
            206,
            343,
            155,
            292,
            154,
            286,
            142,
            271
        ],
        "dir" : 8,
        "stay_in_spawn_area" : 0,
        "loot" : 0.27500000
    }
}

Under “1” you’ll see the x & y coordinates (248,435). You’ll also see “wp”, which is the set of waypoints for the hunter. Those are where the hunter will go, if nothing happens in the meantime.

So you can see exactly where players are going!

Does that ruin the game?

Absolutely not! At any time that hunter could change course or do something different at any time, e.g. destruct and kill surrounding hunters that are a different colour.

But sending those orders leaves the player free to do other things and not worry too much about sending more orders for that particular hunter. This balances the need to keep your plans secret with the need to not enter every single step.

So, what does this mean for playing so far? Well, probably that you should plan your moves 2 blocks ahead. When you send your orders by clicking the “Go” button, you often end up waiting for a couple blocks. A little bit of planning can remedy this, and your game will go a bit smoother.

That’s a quick look at Huntercoin, the blockchain, and how to play with a better understanding of the blockchain.

Hopefully I’ve given you a better understanding of Huntercoin and how it uses the blockchain to enable a game. And hopefully you can imagine other ways that the blockchain can be used for smart contracts, property, distributed companies, and many, many more as of yet unimagined uses for the blockchain.

If you’re not already onboard the Bitcoin/crypto train, it’s far from too late. This is early. Get on board for the fast-track to the future of transactional systems.

Cheers,

Ryan

Central Banking – A Century of Failure

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Bitcoin, Logic, Philosophy, Police State, Politics, Poverty, Solutions to Problems | Posted on 22-12-2013

Tags:

The last century has been a complete catastrophe for money/currency. The criminal banksters won in a stealth move on December 23rd, 1913. Since then, they have managed to create more wars and death than at any point in history.

The central banking disease has since spread to almost the entire world. With control of the Iranian central bank now falling into the clutches of the central banksters, it seems only Cuba and North Korea remain, and they don’t need any help in creating misery – they’ve got communism to help them fail there.

But is seems appropriate that after a century of financial terrorism inflicted on the people of the world, that 2013 would be the rise of Bitcoin and crypto currency. Decentralised through a peer-to-peer network, crytpo currencies are faster, easier, and cheaper to use than the worthless digitally controlled fiat printed by the central banksters.

2014 will be an interesting year as crypto currencies consolidate their position as a sane alternative to the destruction wrought by the banks. Major retailers will begin accepting Bitcoins while smaller operations begin accepting Bitcoins and other crypto currencies.

There will be more turmoil as the banksters fight back. They will use the state as their weapon. They will push for regulations and laws. Their arguments boil down to only a few:

  • Terrorism
  • Drugs
  • Child porn
  • Tax evasion
  • Centralisation

They might come up with something else, but it’s unlikely. There is no good reason to not use decentralised crypto currency. Ultimately, it’s about control. And if they lose control of the money supply, they lose their ability to steal from people.

The banksters will use their puppets in government to attempt to create legislation that makes using crypto currency impractical. They will attempt to create new bureaucracies and legal hurdles that make complying with the law either impossible or impractical. They will use the state to attack the people as they always do. They are monopolists. They cannot compete because they have no skill sets that are worth paying for. They require the violence of the state to compel people to their will.

They won’t win. Too many people know what they are – vampires sucking the life blood out of humanity.

We’ve had a century of failure. It’s high time for the demise of the banksters and a century of prosperity. Well, more than just a century of prosperity, I hope. So long as people study what really happened in history, they’ll fight to keep the banksters staked and in their coffins.

Bitcoin and the Democratisation of the Value of Currency

1

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Bitcoin, Mobile, Philosophy | Posted on 06-12-2013

bitcoinI have yet to see anyone note a fundamental difference between fiat currencies and bitcoins: that fiat currency supposedly has value through the decree of a government, whereas bitcoins gain their value from the voices of the people. And that these two approaches fall into two categories: centralised control, and decentralised control. The decentralised control of the value of bitcoins is the democratisation of currency value.

This really can’t be overstated.

Fiat comes from the Latin word for “let it be done” and means an “official” arbitrary order, decree, or sanction. The value then rests in the acceptance of the authority of whatever is making that decree, or in the ability of that “authority” to enforce its decree.

Bitcoins on the other hand have no such authority to declare their value or violence to enforce their value. Their value comes purely from people voluntarily participating in the bitcoin economy by using it.

For example, as a customer you can go to many different stores. If one store only accepts bitcoins, you are free to go to another store. If you wish to use bitcoins, and a store does not accept them, you are free to go to a store that accepts bitcoins. If you wish to trade in your fiat currency for bitcoins, you can purchase them privately from someone, or you can go to an exchange, which is simply a marketplace for bitcoins.

The value of goods and services in bitcoins is then set by the market. Where one merchant may charge 0.0005 bitcoins for an orange, another merchant may charge 0.00075 for an orange. You are free to shop where you will.

But the importance of this really, really can’t be overstated. (The democratisation of currency.)

Let me recap so far:

Fiat currency: Given value because some government says so. People must obey the decree (or risk being thrown in a cage) and have no voice.

Bitcoins: Given value through the voices of countless millions of people. No government voices have any authority (though they may try to manipulate public opinion).

Do you remember Napster? It was a file sharing service. However, Napster used centralised servers. This made it possible to shut Napster down.

Are you familiar with BitTorrent? It’s a P2P file sharing protocol. However, it is decentralised with no central servers. It cannot be so easily shut down. Just ask the fellows at The Pirate Bay about that.

Is the parallel between Napster/BitTorrent and fiat/bitcoins becoming apparent?

As centralised systems, both fiat currencies and Napster are subject to a single point of failure. They are not resilient and quite fragile.

As decentralised systems, both bitcoins and BitTorrent are resilient with no single point of failure. A failure in any given node is pretty much irrelevant to the system as a whole. (I don’t mean the technical aspect of bitcoins here, although that is also decentralised and highly resilient. Here I specifically mean the way in which bitcoins obtain value is decentralised, and highly resilient. i.e. Free market.)

Some will point out the volatility in bitcoin exchanges as evidence that it isn’t resilient or that it is subject to failure. This doesn’t follow. Volatility only illustrates that the system is in fact working, and that there are competing voices speaking out about how much bitcoins should be valued at. The system itself is agnostic as to its own value.

That is, the “volatility” objection confuses the output of the system (the value of bitcoins) with whether or not the system is working.

This does not mean to say that bitcoins will skyrocket up to $1,000,000 per bitcoin. Much less that bitcoins will continue to grow at a rate of an order of magnitude per year, which would value bitcoins at $1,000,000+ sometime during 2016. (The actual growth is around 1 order of magnitude every 9~10 months. We’re being pessimistic here.)

What this does say is that it is far harder to collapse bitcoins as a currency than it is to collapse a fiat currency. No single node can declare a value for bitcoins. All nodes participate in its valuation. Provided those nodes decide that bitcoins are valuable, and that more nodes are added, the output of the bitcoin system will value bitcoins cointinually higher. (Pun intended.)

We are looking at the democratisation of currency here. No more dictatorial edicts. No more authoritarian force. No more being told how you can earn a living and how you can spend your earnings.

V is for VoluntaryThis is the end of authoritarian power in currency.

This is the voice of the people.

You have a real vote.

You have real power.

You can put the fruits of your labour into the trust of mathematics and the fundamental principle of the universe that guarantee those mathematical equations.

With bitcoins, the choice is entirely up to you. If you wish, you can vote for its value and purchase bitcoins. If you don’t want to participate, nobody is forcing you, which you cannot say about your local fiat currency.

This is a revolution and an evolution in what currency is. You now have to ask yourself which side of history will bitcoin and crypto currencies fall on, and which side of history do you want to be on.

Peter Schiff on Gold vs. Bitcoins Misses the Point

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Logic, Money, Philosophy, Security | Posted on 22-11-2013

Tags:

Peter Schiff is absolutely one of the smartest guys out there, and I have a lot of respect for him. However, he’s still missing the point about bitcoins and how they have intrinsic value. But first, here’s his most recent video on the topic:

bitcoinPeter is stuck on how gold has intrinsic value through physical usage where bitcoins have no physical usage and therefore no intrinsic value. He is quite correct if he means that bitcoins have no physical intrinsic value. However, this is not what he means. He means that they have no intrinsic value whatsoever. This is where he misses the point. Read the rest of this entry »

Killing Cops is OK. Sometimes.

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Cynicism, Philosophy, Police, Police State, Politics, States | Posted on 08-09-2013

Tags: , ,

V is for VoluntaryThe topic of violence really sets a lot of people off. Those that love it, get upset when you point out that they participate and endorse it. Those that abhor violence, get testy when the topic of defense comes up.

The first of those is easily seen in any discussion of tax with a statist. Lots of those out there, and not hard to find.

The other case, where people advocate violence for defense (outside of the state), isn’t so common. But there are 2 good examples out there.

The first, and best known, is Larken Rose’s “When should you shoot a cop?” (Video at CopBlock)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cElTyqJkMEw

He raises some good questions.

A more recent phrasing of the question is by Chris Cantwell in his article, “Concord Police, Go and Get Your Bearcat“.

Chris says the obvious when it comes to defending yourself:

So what to do? It’s a terribly unpopular thing to say, but the answer, at some point, is to kill government agents. The government agents know that, and that’s why they want a tank.

There really isn’t anything very controversial about what they’ve said, i.e. If the state initiates violence (aggresses) against you, you are well within your rights to defend yourself or resist that violence with violence.

If someone is trying to kill you, or attacking you and could kill you, you’re a complete moron if you refuse to use lethal force to save your own life (or that of another person).

Rudolph Rummel is a political scientist that has done a great deal of research on democide (governments murdering people).

He estimates that in the 20th century alone, about 262,000,000 people were murdered by various states/governments.

Those 262,000,000 people stand as a testament to the moral validity and moral imperative of defending yourself and/or other people with violence, and with deadly violence if necessary.

To put that somewhat into perspective, the Nazi murder of Jews represents about 2% of the total number of civilians murdered by government. About 50x more people were murdered that people never talk about.

Ignoring the topic of using violence against the state because violence is detestable, is simply irresponsible. Those that say, “it can’t happen here,” are most likely the ones that most need to discuss the topic. Larken Rose goes over the topic in detail in his video, “It Can’t Happen Here“.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ebudnWlh4

The debate on the topic needs to happen. People need to think about defensive violence against the police and the state.

Nobody is saying, “Run out and kill the first cop you see.” Nobody is saying, “Kill every cop you can.” Nobody want to run around killing people. Well, that’s not really true – it appears that our governments love killing people and really get off on it, but let’s assume we’re talking about sane people – you know – voluntarists and anarchists. 😉

“Legalize Gay Marriage” is the Wrong Question

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Logic, Philosophy, States | Posted on 06-09-2013

Tags: , , ,

V is for VoluntaryI often wonder why people ask such idiotic questions or debate such moronic issues, like legalizing gay marriage.

The state has no business telling you who you can love or who you can marry. (Let’s assume consenting adults here and not go off on the retarded statist tangent. That actually needs to be said for some people… sigh…)

I actually had to get PERMISSION from the government of Canada to marry my wife. Similarly, she needed permission as well. Huh? No. Not joking. Really.

Nobody should ever have to ask the state for permission to love anyone.

Nobody should ever have to ask the state for permission to marry someone.

The state should play no part in the equation at all. It’s perverse and sick when it does.

The maximum role that any state should play is to passively accept information from people who do get married. That is, if you want to tell them, then fine. If not, then they have no business in your love life.

To allow the state to participate in basic human emotions is a gross over-step of any imaginable legitimate role. (Not that the state is legitimate, but let’s just pretend for a moment.) Even entering the debate on “gay marriage” is perverse. It lends credibility to the authority of the state to dictate who can love/marry who, which is surrendering fundamental natural rights that are so much a deep part of being human, that it is essentially surrendering your humanity to the state.

Whether or not anyone believes that it is right or wrong is entirely up to them. If you don’t want a gay marriage, hey… don’t have one. But leave other people alone to live their lives as they see fit. And don’t try to use the state to force people to conform to your whims.

Governments have no business meddling in love.

The question people should be asking is “why do we let government meddle in love?”

Consumers Are Not Job Creators

3

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Business, Money, Philosophy | Posted on 26-08-2013

It’s rather annoying to hear the worst nonsense constantly paraded around like some kind of eternal truth. That “consumers are job creators” is some of that drivel. It only takes a moment to understand why.

I, along with billions of other people, am a consumer. I want a time machine. So do a lot of those other consumers. Where’s my time machine? Here’s my money to create all the jobs in the time machine industry… I’m still waiting…

But that’s an extreme example. Take a simple commodity like fish. There’s a market out there for fish. But it is probably more accurate to say that “hunger” plays a larger role in creating the market for fish than the consumer does. Jobs are created by businesses that supply people with fish. The consumer can certainly choose not to eat fish, but they still need to eat. And if they do stop eating fish, it’s likely that the business that supplies fish to people will shift to supplying them with what they want to eat. But the jobs aren’t created by the consumer – the business is responsible.

To be certain, consumers play a pivotal role in maintaining jobs. If nobody buys a product or service, the business that provides it will soon find itself in deep trouble.

Consumers merely dictate certain demands. (Well, that’s not entirely true, but the topic of manufacturing markets only further illustrates that consumers do not create jobs.) Businesses create jobs and fill those demands.

How some people get this so backwards is entirely a mystery to me.

The Rise of Voluntaryism/Anarchism

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Philosophy, Politics | Posted on 01-06-2013

Tags: ,

I just noticed that the Adam vs. the Man logo now uses the voluntaryist “V”.

He used to espouse strong libertarian ideas, but now seems to be a flat out voluntaryist. Good on him!

 

Christianity and Anarchism/Voluntaryism

2

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Logic, Philosophy, Politics, Religion | Posted on 31-05-2013

Tags: ,

For quite a while I’ve been mulling over how Christianity is anarchistic, and even necessarily so. Then I came across this:

http://anarchast.com/front/2013/5/2/anarchast-ep72-with-paul-rosenberg-christians-are-anarchists.html

When you think about it, it makes sense. Christianity doesn’t force anyone to be a Christian. The entire point is to freely choose. Freewill is paramount. This is pretty much what you get with voluntaryism – choice.