If everybody in this group deploys 16Ths of mining power, we'd have as much power as the entire network now.
Guys, Do you remember how the rebels got the empire in Star Wars, It's maybe time to resist the segwit2x takeover. We're all speculating about what miners will do, but we don't need that much power to maintain bitcoin. All we need to do is a combination of few factors. Have enough power to maintain at least a 20mn block time, which can be achieved with 50% of the actual hash power. Reject enough 2x transaction by running core 15 nodes. Dump enough 2x so that it will be less profitable to mine 2x than mining bitcoin. Emergent Consensus BU as still 30% signaling while those miners have not moved to BCH. Which probably means that about the same signal 2x but don't have any intention to actually mine it, its just in the encoding now. 15% of miners reject 2x. Which means will have about 40% of actual mining power maintained on bitcoin chain. Now the deal is to plug as much computers as possible until 2x is a thing of the past, even if it is unprofitable. Plug your CPU, your GPU, your old unused computer, the old unused computer of your friends, your ASIC, stop mining alts for a few weeks. If the resistance actually does it, even tiny hashrates multiplied by huge numbers, will make the difference. Based on previous number it would mean only 10% of actual hash to make a difference. Which means only 1,600gh per person on this group. I've reached to deploy 2,460gh as now to do my part. Show the power of democraty, and guys, go to the end of your ideas.
Gulden-founder Rijk Plasman pleads for a 'quality mark' to avoid cryptocrisis.
Translation of http://www.quotenet.nl/Nieuws/Gulden-oprichter-Rijk-Plasman-pleit-voor-een-keurmerk-om-cryptocrisis-te-voorkomen-209486. January 6th 2018 Gulden-founder Rijk Plasman pleads for a ‘quality mark’ to avoid cryptocrisis. By Mark Koster / Quote Cryptocoins are a hype, but some digital coins certainly have potential. We just have to make sure that criminals don’t have to much influence. Now that blood is flowing through the streets of cryptocountry, Rijk Plasman, founder of Gulden, is pleading for regulation. “It’s a casino now.” That the monetary rebel is sitting at a table in a restaurant that is right next to the ABN-headquarters at the ‘Zuidas’ (South Axis) is a coincidence, Plasman says. “I live right around the block”. That his name is Rijk (Rich) and he is the founder of Gulden, the only coin that hasn’t been affected by the cryptocurrency crisis, is what he calls ‘logical’. “There’s not much you can say about it. There are 1500 crypto-coins. You might as well go to the casino.” Rijk Plasman, son of a famous lawyer and named after tv-icon Rijk de Gooijer is drinking black coffee, but has a worldview so bright it almost scares you. The high-school drop-out is the Steve Jobs of Gulden, the digital coin he developed in 2014. He may even be more stubborn that Apple’s turtleneck. “I’m continuing this, because I know it’s going to be fine”. To avoid some misunderstandings, Rijk Plasman is not some scary close-minded anti-Euro activist or a ‘Forum voor Democratie’ supporter with a nostalgic feeling towards the florin, the mothercoin of the ‘Lage Landen’ (Low Lands – Netherlands). The 32 year old founder wants to realize a digital payment system with Gulden to make payments more efficient. It could all be a lot easier and simpler. “Gulden should be able to co-exist next to the Euro. Most people, despite the criticism on low interest, still have faith in their banks. At Gulden we work day and night to improve payments”. It has to be said. Anyone with a computer can buy Guldens. You just install the Gulden software and pay with Ideal to get your Guldens into your account. The Gulden has a certain popularity. The past few days the trend exploded with gains of 600% till a value of €0,29/$0.36 (today the value dropped by 11%). Plasman, who owns a warehouse of Guldens, doesn’t care. “Equity is not important. I want this to grow. Maybe we can not talk about money for a change. That is not the essence”. He only gets involved in improving the technique. Together with the South-African programmer Malcolm MacLeod he is working on a procedure to improve accessability. Gulden wants to become the modern payment method where two people can transfer money to eachother, without the use of a bank or money intermediary, using the blockchain technology. “I’m all about the practical implications. If you can’t do anything with a cryptocurrency, it has no right to exist. I believe in the blockchain technology. This is the new internet. It’s the internet of the internet. But who is going to survive? When internet arose we thought WorldOnline would have world domination, but that company flew too close to the sun. There was a lot of greed in the market”. De crypto-connoisseur sees parallels with the wild starting years of the internet, when venture capitalist-cowboys and greedy hyenas were circling the new technology searching for a quick way to cash out. The IPOs within the crypto universe, the Initial Coin Offering (ICOs) – show signs of overheating and foolishness. “You are investing in an idea. A lot of coins don’t have a working procedure.” The Gulden does, let’s make that clear, Plasman says. The founder shows some benefits in comparison to a very popular cryptocurrency, the Ripple. Gulden can be bought directly without the need for a cryptocurrency exchange where you first have to buy Bitcoins so you can buy other cryptocurrencies. “Gulden should be easy to buy and easy to sell back to Euro. We shouldn’t pretend that this form of payment is accepted everywhere. People are skeptical.”In the meantime Gulden can be used in dozens of shops. Plasman doesn’t interfere with marketing. “That is up to the community”. The statement that a couple of big Gulden holders are guilty of pump and dump activities to make money of volitile shocks is discarded by Plasman. “How? I’m not selling anything and I can’t see what other people are doing. In this time there is a lot of fake-news about manipulation. Even that the Chinese government is controlling everything”. Today the hype has changed into a dark mood. The blood is flowing through the streets today. The cryptomarket is laying in the gutter with bullet wounds and no one is there to help it. Plasman has seen it before and is sure that the blockchain technology, the tech Bitcoin is based on, will survive. “I do think that there has to be a regulation of some sort to stop the current madness”. Maybe something like a quality mark. That way the government techs should judge the technology”. Isn’t this against the idea of the blockchain, that doesn’t want a centralized business model? “Yes, but you can still judge the technology on its merits. It’s just ones and zeros”. Plasman has already seen the so called white paper – the technical DNA of a coin – being sold for five dollars. “In that case, it’s not worth anything. It’s just air. We have to be against that.” And why should we trust him? He smiles. “I can be very stubborn. I think I’m a know it all. A lot of people i worked with already quit, because i have another vision. But I’m not in charge you know. At Gulden the community decides where we are heading, they can help us with the technology. I just want to do the best I can”.
"What kind of despotism democratic nations have to fear", by Alexis de Tocqueville (1840)
What type of despotism democratic nations have to fear
Democracy in America, Volume II, Part IV, Chapter VI
Alexis de Tocqueville, 1840
Note: I'll let the mods and users of the sub decide if this is relevant. I think it is relevant to the spriit and philosophy of Bitcoin as an "opting out" of democracy as a governance mechanism. This is one of my favorite political texts. The french (original) version is written with such eloquence and clarity that it give me chills every time. You can find the full original achapter. I highlighted my favorite parts "Democratic governments may become violent and even cruel at certain periods of extreme effervescence or of great danger, but these crises will be rare and brief. When I consider the petty passions of our contemporaries, the mildness of their manners, the extent of their education, the purity of their religion, the gentleness of their morality, their regular and industrious habits, and the restraint which they almost all observe in their vices no less than in their virtues, I have no fear that they will meet with tyrants in their rulers, but rather with guardians. I think, then, that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything that ever before existed in the world; our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I seek in vain for an expression that will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it; the old words despotism and tyranny are inappropriate: the thing itself is new, and since I cannot name, I must attempt to define it. I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits. After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people. Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain. By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience. I do not deny, however, that a constitution of this kind appears to me to be infinitely preferable to one which, after having concentrated all the powers of government, should vest them in the hands of an irresponsible person or body of persons. Of all the forms that democratic despotism could assume, the latter would assuredly be the worst. When the sovereign is elective, or narrowly watched by a legislature which is really elective and independent, the oppression that he exercises over individuals is sometimes greater, but it is always less degrading; because every man, when he is oppressed and disarmed, may still imagine that, while he yields obedience, it is to himself he yields it, and that it is to one of his own inclinations that all the rest give way. In like manner, I can understand that when the sovereign represents the nation and is dependent upon the people, the rights and the power of which every citizen is deprived serve not only the head of the state, but the state itself; and that private persons derive some return from the sacrifice of their independence which they have made to the public. To create a representation of the people in every centralized country is, therefore, to diminish the evil that extreme centralization may produce, but not to get rid of it. I admit that, by this means, room is left for the intervention of individuals in the more important affairs; but it is not the less suppressed in the smaller and more privates ones. It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my own part, I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones, if it were possible to be secure of the one without possessing the other. Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their own will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated; whereas that obedience which is exacted on a few important but rare occasions only exhibits servitude at certain intervals and throws the burden of it upon a small number of men. It is in vain to summon a people who have been rendered so dependent on the central power to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity. I add that they will soon become incapable of exercising the great and only privilege which remains to them. The democratic nations that have introduced freedom into their political constitution at the very time when they were augmenting the despotism of their administrative constitution have been led into strange paradoxes. To manage those minor affairs in which good sense is all that is wanted, the people are held to be unequal to the task; but when the government of the country is at stake, the people are invested with immense powers; they are alternately made the play things of their ruler, and his masters, more than kings and less than men. After having exhausted all the different modes of election without finding one to suit their purpose, they are still amazed and still bent on seeking further; as if the evil they notice did not originate in the constitution of the country far more than in that of the electoral body. It is indeed difficult to conceive how men who have entirely given up the habit of self-government should succeed in making a proper choice of those by whom they are to be governed; and no one will ever believe that a liberal, wise, and energetic government can spring from the suffrages of a subservient people. A constitution republican in its head and ultra-monarchical in all its other parts has always appeared to me to be a short-lived monster. The vices of rulers and the ineptitude of the people would speedily bring about its ruin; and the nation, weary of its representatives and of itself, would create freer institutions or soon return to stretch itself at the feet of a single master."
Manifeste de la commission "Création monétaire et Démocratie" [MonnaieDebout]
Commission Création monétaire et Démocratie #MonnaieDebout - #NuitDebout
Une évidence :
La démocratie (c'est-dire le vote ET l’exécution des décisions communes) dépend à 100% de la possession des moyens de l'exercer. Le véritable Souverain, c'est celui qui décide du futur commun, c'est-à-dire celui qui a le pouvoir de financer PAR DE LA MONNAIE NOUVELLE les ressources humaines et physiques qui permettront de réaliser l'avenir. Dans une démocratie, qui est le Souverain ?
Actuellement en France, le Souverain ce n'est pas l'État, ce ne sont pas les citoyens, ce n'est pas le Peuple. En ce moment, le Souverain, ce sont les banques : Chaque matin, chaque banquier choisit à qui il va accorder, ou pas, un crédit nouveau, c'est-à-dire à qui il va donner, ou pas, de la monnaie nouvelle pour réaliser un projet. Les banques décident ainsi chaque jour (évidemment en fonction de leurs intérêts privés) de ce qui va exister ou pas. Les banques décident de notre futur commun. Et on voit le résultat.
Rendre le pouvoir monétaire au Peuple, c'est-à-dire à chaque citoyen-ne
Le pouvoir de la création et de la distribution monétaires est LE pouvoir essentiel qui permet de créer le futur d'une société. C'est d'abord le pouvoir, pour chaque citoyen, de financer sa propre vie, individuellement et inconditionnellement. Et ensuite, c'est le pouvoir, pour chaque citoyen, de créditer ce qui a été décidé en commun, et de refuser de créditer ce qui n'est pas souhaité.
Imaginer, c'est bien, mais réaliser c'est encore mieux. Tant que nous n'aurons pas récupéré le pouvoir de rendre réel notre futur commun, rien ne pourra être juste, et rien ne sera possible.
Les objectifs de la Commission Création monétaire et Démocratie - #MonnaieDebout - #NuitDebout :
Former tous les citoyens qui le désirent à la compréhension des mécanismes monétaires qui font que, actuellement, un minuscule secteur de la société contrôle intégralement le "nerf de la guerre" qu'est la monnaie, alors que la monnaie pourrait devenir, au contraire, le "nerf de la Paix"
Faire de la création monétaire un élément central de réflexion autour d'une future nouvelle constitution
Inviter tous les participants de #NuitDebout à participer à des recherches et à des débats sur les moyens de reprendre notre autonomie économique et de sortir du piège de la dette, en développant toutes les alternatives possibles.
Étudier tous les moyens de relier la création de monnaie nouvelle au Revenu de Base selon le principe suivant : la monnaie est actuellement créée et distribuée de manière centralisée par un organisme précis qui sert ses propres intérêts ; la monnaie pourrait être mise en œuvre à parts égales entre tous les citoyens, de manière auto-régulée et transparente, sans centre émetteur, créant une nouvelle forme de démocratie économique encore jamais vue dans l'histoire des humains.
Bitcoin für Demokratie: Hong Kongs Bürger rüsten mit BTC auf. 13. September 2020 0 Kommentare 7 Reaktionen. Das eigentlich demokratisch organisierte Hongkong durchlebt unsichere und unvorhersehbare Zeiten. Immer stärker versucht die Volksrepublik China die Sonderverwaltungszone Hongkong unter Druck zu setzen und die Kontrolle auszuweiten. Vor allem das neue Sicherheitsgesetz in Hongkong ... Demokratie ist eine Staatsform und Bitcoin ist explizit anti-staatlich, indem es die staatliche Kontrolle über das Geldsystem abschafft. Bitcoin ist also grundlegend anti-demokratisch und das macht Bitcoin so attraktiv! Bitcoin basiert auf freiwilligen, friedlichen Konsensregeln und nicht auf aufgezwungener Demokratie und Mehrheitsherrschaft. Bitcoin ist Freiheit in der Praxis: Regeln, aber ... Sicherheitslücken in der repräsentativen Demokratie. Bitcoin wurde mit einem tiefgreifenden Verständnis für gegensätzliche Kräfte entwickelt. Statt auf naive Art und Weise die guten Absichten bei Anderen zu vermuten, hat Satoshi Nakamoto, Erfinder der Technologie, angenommen, dass einige versuchen werden das Netzwerk zu betrügen und es anzugreifen. Diese Annahme wird von Entwicklern ... Ein neues, besseres Geldsystem auf der Basis von Bitcoin - glaubt man Marc Friedrich, so ist das unsere Zukunft. Der Bestseller-Autor und Vermögensverwalter sagt: Durch die Corona-Krise hat sich ... Das Bitcoin-Netzwerk ist somit alles andere als sicher und demokratisch. Dass die Macher der Kryptowährung derart kläglich an ihren eigenen utopischen Ansprüchen scheitern, hat sowohl technische als auch politische Gründe. Zum einen dominieren das Projekt – obwohl es sich als transparent definiert – einige wenige hochspezialisierte Programmierer sowie eine Handvoll überaus mächtiger ...
BITCOIN : CONSOLIDATION ET RANGE AVANT RUPTURE HAUSSIÈRE ?! analyse bitcoin btc crypto monnaie fr
Bitcoin VERDOPPLUNG oder ENDE?! Über dieses Szenario spricht ja aktuell die ganze Krypto-Szene. Wir machen heute mal eine offen Runde rund um diese Frage. Wurde der Bitcoin nicht genau für diese ... Das Beste an Bitcoin ist, dass es nicht demokratisch ist! Charles Krüger. Loading... Unsubscribe from Charles Krüger? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working... Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe 45.1K ... 1:47 Bitcoin Kurs 3:38 Demokratie und die Blockchain Technologie #ABONNIERE UNS HIER: Investment Punk Academy: https://goo.gl/V9knVm Seminare: https://goo.gl/bdKRpn Facebook Investment Punk: https ... Forum voor Democratie - Channel Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe 81.1K. DjaniBoi - Channel Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe 51.3K. This item has been hidden. Language: English Location: United ... Koersen dalen, Bitcoin daalt. Er is grote onrust over het virus dat rond gaat. Is Corona de oorzaak of een trigger? Is er meer aan de hand? Bitcoin is ontstaan na de financiële crisis in 2008.