Updated July 30, 2018
Welcome to the new-old world?
Do you ever feel that some people need a good kick in the brain can? That there are pieces to the cryptocurrency puzzle we are missing?
Herein, I ask some rudimentary questions about bitcoin and the blockchain. It’s kind of a conspiratorial “what if.”
Recently, I came upon a political night-rider imparting an alleged moral foundation. An alleged gem upon the cryptocurrency seashore.
Only, it was a sharp stone.
I had discovered his name before, but until recently, never endeavored to explore the influential nature of his words. Never, do I hope he will be more than a crab upon the shore of true freedom. An insect at the beach.
But just in case…
I think now is a good time to mention him. Before your children say his name. Before you feel ignorant, and just in case he makes a name for himself. Which, he won’t…I hope.
Before all of that, you can say, “Yep, I have heard of him and Karl Marx.”
Do you remember the Jews that the Nazi’s killed? Great, I’m glad that the government schools still teach that. Well, anyway, same idea.
His name is Amir Taaki, but he is not the real issue. It’s his personal software that is questionable — the programming in his brain.
Taaki is a coder of some repute, as well as an anarchist of vague degree. Meaning, as far as I can judge, a person who does not understand that an objective form of government is required to maintain individual freedoms.
Therefore, Taaki is a liability upon the world stage. A regurgitation of the past.
Taaki is involved with bitcoin, having worked on Dark Wallet, a precursor to OpenBazaar and other projects, but that does not concern me as much as one of his potential teachers.
The person or people who have coded him as Taaki. The persons most responsible for removing Taaki’s soul.
Taaki appears to “lack philosophy” as he implied when he was roamed Syria. What does that say about the man?
It says the name of another man, actually. An American hero some might have called him. Others refer to him as a philosophical villain. And those kinds of villains pour fuel on the fires of hatred…
His name is Murray Bookchin. He was mentioned by Taaki, when he (Taaki) was fighting in Syria with the Kurds, against ISIS. Supposedly he had just come to lend support, but not to fight. (Really?) A self-imposed duty then called. He took up arms to help, allegedly.
There is a warning here. Historians already know of its potential significance. It is not about what Lenin did to Russia in this case, but what America (via Bookchin) is doing to Syria.
Invading Syria through what is called Communalism, is what Taaki did. Not communism exactly, but a shade of it, certainly. A cloak over it, more precisely.
Bookchin was an American anarchist, libertarian socialist and political theorist.
Translation? Bookchin was a communalist.
A communalist is a mixed bit of communism and socialism. Your life will be planned. Fairness will be dictated by groups. No free enterprise at all. Live long, but die now.
Bookchin often reflected upon class struggle, was an avowed anti-capitalist, meaning that he pitted gang against gang and was essentially against free and fair trade. What kind of man is that? A man with no guts. A man with a grudge against humanity — all of it.
And Bookchin appears to have influenced Taaki and some factions fighting in Syria…for the greater glory, naturally. But it is not the glory these factions are after, as much as a militaristic socialism.
Anarchism, is of course, gang rule, with no objective laws, where the most ruthless criminal can rule just as easily as a moral king. One cannot conveniently define it, but Bookchin tried.
Taaki is trying too.
Both have failed. So, they must sell their rhetoric now. And lies sell.
The U.S., as of yet, is not ruled by anarchist fiefdoms. We are not yet at the stage of full revolt. Far from it.
We, in the U.S., are not ready to substitute one form of tyranny for a Bookchin Communalistic Paradise. Nor should Syria be led down the Bookchin road.
Bookchin’s revamping of communism is a claxon. The warning. Know that the bells have sounded. Long before Syria, Turkey, Iran and others – fell. The disease is spreading.
And please tell me that Bookchin and Blockchain are unrelated.
Bookchin wanted majority vote, but not majority rule and he tried to explain that one, for years. He also wanted assembly-led enterprises. In other words, no free enterprise at all. Just thugs and gangs giving orders.
A type of social dictatorship, but not quite of the communist model, is what Bookchin wanted. It is often referred to as a “communalist” type of organization. Community led — scratch that — community ordered, comrade. Bend over, prepare.
Taaki to Syria’s rescue…?
Listening to Murray Bookchin’s dead words, as some are want to do, is like listening to the drumbeat for decentralization. Is that another name for communalism?
…not for the blockchains, but for humans. The only difference being that humans are not “blockchained” together in the first place. We are not part of some giant cloned ledger.
That is what the blockchain does, however. It links everyone’s personal information — financial, smart contracts etc. — to the common ledger. I most cases, a very public ledger. I’m sure guys like Taaki think that is justified, in the name of “Communalism.”
A communal ledger. Now that’s curious, don’t you think?
There is no comparison between the technology of bitcoin and individuals or is there?
Anarchy, as espoused by the Bookchin-ites, is not decentralization as some might ask you to believe. It is disorganization. It is decentralization of organization. Divide and conquer. Disintegration. A rapid breakdown of morally based laws (we can argue about that) in favor of range of the moment substitution. Pragmatism v. reason. Honesty v. “get it done.” The strongest gang wins control of the Anarchy and the Communalist Paradise.
And here is the social mirror some are suggesting we hold up to the blockchain ledger. If bitcoin or better yet, if some private cryptocurrency ledger can organize an accounting method, where everyone’s currency is safe and secure, why can’t humans be like blockchain ledgers? Hold the power to self-manage? Anarchy?
A type of self-organized dialectic? Communalism?
Dear readers, we are not Blockchain Clones. We are individual people, all with different abilities and desires. Our intellectual savings differ. Our ability to mine knowledge, to produce information, to educate — are all different.
We are not “cryptographic clones.”
We were never social “smart contracts.”
We are different. Each and everyone.
Blockchains are virtual machines, but their philosophy, their root directory, their code, was created by humans with a plan. It is that plan we must question.
The ideas of cryptocurrency decentralization are not transferable to the human context. Blockchains are not anarchistic Bookchin Communalistic representations of social structures, but orderly algorithms without emotions or desires. Without morality.
Blockchains are arbitrary and are robotic rules of math, editable by humans; and controlled by a few humans. Or if they are democratized, they are a dictatorship of the majority. Such power in the hands of a few is the very act of “centralization.” So long as that power is answerable to objective law, it might be fine.
We own the process of blockchains. Not the opposite. But the blockchains are mindless beasts, if not controlled. If not edited and forked and re-coded in some objective way. And there are those out there who say the blockchain beast is a benevolent one and should be left alone. (Ethereum Classic for one.)
But, if we transfer the decentralization aspect of blockchains to society, we become numbers on the social ledger. And some few “developers” will control the technology of the social blockchain. A small core group.
Hence, the idea — the false flag — that blockchains are decentralized only refers to the nature of the ledger. In fact, the technology is highly centralized.
To gift humanity with the ability to transact, without the necessity of an intermediary? Without humanity? A digital promissory note to ensure that contractual transactions are completed? That is the promise, right?
Where is the human watchdog?
Answer? Blank out.
Who is watching the developers? All of us?
Can we influence their process? Maybe.
If they refuse to give us what we want? We can use Litecoin, right? Same issues.
We can try some of that dark net stuff — Monero. Same problems.
But where are we then? Back to yet another secretly centralized blockchain. A programmed ledger we can clone and use. We only hope the developers stay on the job. Hope they don’t act in a way that will destroy the value of our chosen coin.
This being the case, to engender trust, the math of cryptocurrency should be provable, verifiable, and secure. It should be objective and not subject to the whims of cryptocurrency developers. To Bookchin’s dead ideas, now carried by Taaki.
This is a tall order. It requires human cooperation. It requires auditors. It needs checks and balances. Some type of transparency. And it needs privacy. I should not be able to pry into your information, without your permission, unless you are a thief.
The people who control the math should have watchdogs at their heels. Inspectors, not beholden to the math-makers, should have limited viewing access to the code. If something is amiss, they should report it to the public or be jailed for complicity.
It is called the “human element.” Imperfect, for sure. But why it is required?
Obvious, is it not? Some humans steal. Some are criminals.
And, what does absolute “monetary” power do to humans? What does any kind of communal power do? It corrupts them.
Bitcoin can be audited. Anyone can access the code and audit the system. Anyone can trace any transaction, which, unfortunately, is unfavorable to human privacy. The other problem is, as I have mentioned, bitcoin is centrally controlled by a handful of developers.
Machines are oblivious. Algorithms have no feelings. They are not concerned about where you buy your booze, that you have a health problem or if you like romance fiction — with photos.
Maybe the auditors of bitcoin cannot read a name, find a home address without a court order, in some cases, but much can be inferred from the transaction records of bitcoin and clan. Much privacy is lost. You are a number, not a human.
Could this have been the noob “selling point?” We are all one? Your money is mine, sayeth the dev? Bitcoin or Nirvana? Decentralization at all costs? Developers are our new rulers?
To ensure confidentiality, bitcoins are sometimes transferred via mixers to stop the auditors in their tracks. But there are other problems. Cost, for one.
Suffice it to say, bitcoin coders are still working on Dandelion and other projects. They, allegedly, want to secure transactions — to obfuscate IP addresses and so on. And there are arguments about the process as well.
Why hide? As if to place money in your wallet, is hiding.
Imagine a world where each person you pass on the street, you must open your wallet and let them count your cash. Next, you must show them your bank account number and hope he/she is not a thief or a taxman etc.
Welcome to the common ledger of the people. All of our money in one big pot.
Privacy and Terrorism
Privacy is a difficult maneuver in the cryptocurrency realm. Many projects exist. Dash, Monero, CloakCoin, NavCoin, Aeon, and even ZCash. Some have died. Some still fight the good fight.
The idea of privacy is to obfuscate the transactions in such a way as to keep everything as private as possible. To keep your wallet closed.
The first problem then becomes one of trust. How do we trust a cryptocurrency that cannot be audited in certain ways?
Shall we watch the “old guard?” The bankers?
Profit from their “transition.” Why not?
Profit as JP Morgan Chase adopts Zcash software or sells bitcoin.
Then drop them like a boulder. (Why not? They do it to us.)
Let’s consider a real-world comparison. I mean, even if privacy based blockchains fail in the wild, it does not mean that governments won’t take up the mantle of public (transparent) bitcoin.
Before that happens, the Investment Houses will make hay with it.
Cash is an anathema, to highly centralized governments. They hate it.
If I go to the store and use cash to buy a soda, the clerk takes my money, gives me my change and I walk away with my drink. There’s no record of me personally buying that soda, in most cases. My cash was private. I stored it in my wallet, walked into a strange store, they didn’t care to know the address and I exited with a cool drink.
…unless there are microchips in my bills and I’m being tracked. So, old cash is best.
If I’m a bad guy, I can use my old cash to buy a Russian Suitcase Nuke, but it’s risky. Complicated. I can do a dead drop, place my cash in a bag and hope the suitcase is left at an agreed upon location.
As a terrorist, I could exchange old cash for plastic explosives in Syria, say near the Iranian border, but I should probably have a bunch of soldiers with big Kalashnikov rifles to protect me.
If I’m a cocaine dealer, I can stand on a curb, risk being arrested or robbed and shot at any second, and accumulate old cash.
How can criminals magnify cash (currency) using a private cryptocurrency?
They can use nearly instant international crypto-payments — until they are stopped. Monero is dangerous and great at the same time.
Zcash is a security nightmare, but freedom and security have been at odds for a long time. A balance most difficult to find. Betwixt and between centralization and personal security. The desire to be free and desire to be safe. Power and irrelevance. Privacy and publicity.
Cash can’t fly, but banks can — even unwittingly — assist with international criminal remittances. But why pay the bank fees and risk investigations by Interpol? Use crypto, right?
Hidden internet markets exist where Zcash, Bytecoin or Monero can be used to purchase stolen credit card numbers with no risk to the seller. This is a real problem. Try to buy a list of stolen identities with bitcoin or cash. Much more complicated.
The response to private crypto has been to increase regulation. They (governments) want their pound of flesh (tax revenue) but they state its to stop terrorism etc. Okay, sure.
To state that private or “mixed” cryptocurrencies do not or cannot assist criminals by asserting that cash is king, is not giving the “international picture.”
Sure, private crypto is a double edged sword. It gives the power to individuals, but it also magnifies the powers of groups — and criminals.
How can anyone deny that? Sure, you can rationalize it away but that’s all.
Is this a kind of battle tactic? And should we worry?
The decentralization of the network is, in this sense, misleading. It is simply a method of financial attack. It’s called overwhelming force, by swarming.
The use of a decentralized force against an opponent, in a manner that emphasizes mobility, communication, unit autonomy and coordination and/or synchronization – from Wikipedia.
Create an army of like ledgers, cloned nodes and depend upon the ignorant masses to keep the fires burning – keep updating their ledgers — and destroy themselves. Why?
Alas, however, this is a hushed and feeble war.
Do you see it? It’s one ledger, with a cloned horde that can attack day and night anywhere there is a piece of tech, an internet connection and voltage. But who controls the tech-gear, internet and the electricity?
And in real war, real change and the armaments are diverse. The attack vectors erratic. The volume of force, unknown, until it is too late. Currency is one vector, but it is a main one?
Time to rouse from the daydream, crypto-noobs. For now, crypto is dependent upon the old substructure. That is where it rests. That is where it should gather its trust and strength, but not from its misplaced revolution.
It is not Bookchin’s communalism or Taaki’s crutch.
This is not the anarchist core. Blockchain is not anarchy. It is not order from decentralization. It is the clone army. Hit the command center — the developers (core team) — and it folds like a cheap suit.
The crypto clones will become weak — unless someone creates another cloning machine — feeds them “updates” — debugs them regularly.
And this dreamed of moment of truth is crucial. It can be subverted. Others can subsume its power to encapsulate the population(s). We must have watchers in place. No Taaki’s should subvert the message, without a fight. Without argument.
I have no desire to be a part of a crypto-horde and, await the day when this old-fashioned ledger technology is jettisoned in favor of an atomic cryptocurrency, without one. To me, that would be the Holy Grail. A true cryptocurrency. The evolution. (An idea not so well received by the Murray Bookchins of the world.)
Individualism is not reliance upon yourself. It is voluntary cooperation with others. It is the very essence of freedom.
Blockchains — if transposed to governing — is slavery.
What did Bookchin want? What does Taaki, and admitted drifter and squatter, want?
But I’m just a voice in the wilderness, far from the Murray Bookchins, communists, socialists, Leninists, Trotskyists and Communalists of yester-death. Many sounded the alarm before me — about Murray Bookchin and Occupy Wall Street.
Until then, the blockchain-clones are the best thing going in finance, if only because they usurp the power of central banks in some small way.
And if the “old guard” finance houses have judged Zcash or any crypto as great tech, we can profit from their interest, me thinks.
And it concerns me that more and more big guns are coming out of the closet to “protest” the bubble of bitcoin. (Not Bytecoin or Monero.)
Recently their has been talk of a conspiracy to lower prices, that the big dogs (Investment Houses) may come in and eat the “lions share.”
What else do these big guns know? Do they have insider information or do they want to quash cryptocurrency altogether via regulation?
Are there other Bookchin/Taaki conspiracies afoot?