Twitter cuts (#43)

(Time-travelers from the future might need to know that it’s responding to this.)

A singularity is crossed there, whether or not it’s widely noticed.

ADDED: Some Bitcoin thoughts from Jim.

January 15, 2016admin 22 Comments »


22 Responses to this entry

  • Hanfeizi Says:

    My Bitcoin tracker dropped like a stone this morning. I have to wonder if this has something to do with it.


    Posted on January 15th, 2016 at 5:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:



    I did tell you and so did others.

    Seriously – 1MB limit?


    SVErshov Reply:

    The price of bitcoin has fallen almost $50 in the last 24 hours, dropping below $400 for the first time this year. The crash coincides with claims from prominent bitcoin developer Mike Hearn that the crypto-currency has failed as an experiment.


    buy low, sale high


    Posted on January 15th, 2016 at 7:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    All are equal when there is consensus.

    Yeah, as if that actually worked.


    Posted on January 15th, 2016 at 7:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • First Bayes Says:

    The failure of the Bitcoin experiment is indicative of the potential failure of anarchic libertarian societies when faced with a well entrenched top-down society (viz China). Moldbug’s patchwork offers a viable economic alternative.


    freihals Reply:

    Confusion of poor implementation with poor modelling can lead one to continue to fix what is broken with more broken instead of fleshing out something qualitatively different.

    Besides, I´m *still* waiting for a Cephalopod to clearly differentiate Neocameralism with full exit from AnCap private law communities. You see, shouting your label loudly for all to hear at the edge of the abyss is likely to get you left out of the lifeboat.


    admin Reply:

    There might not be a difference. Neocameralism is a strategy for the commercialization of government. AnCap private law communities are just modeled, ahistorically, as something that it would be nice to have (which they would be, of course).


    Neo Soliar Reply:

    Ancap features overlapping polycentric law. Something that is militarily impossible. Similar most advocates of ancap are against organizations having a monopoly on force, and the existence of things people would recognize as “states”. Neocameralism is usually advocated by post libertarians as actual application of the parts that make sense without the autistic ideological purity. If you read something like the machinery of freedom vs something like moldbugs introduction to states as for profit property you will note that they leave very different impressions. Most libertarians would be near allergic the plan moldbug for many violations of the ideology. They would probably call it fascist or some nonsense like that. Note that most of us including myself are some form a post libertarian. We became post libertarians by stripping out the moral code, and keeping the natural law.

    admin Reply:

    Excluding overlapping polycentric law, or maintaining a monopoly of force, are both already impossible except as ideals, and will become ever more so — largely for technological reasons. How the exact mixture of (private government) territorial control and commercial security varies between AnCap and NeoCam gets increasingly complicated the more closely it is examined. There are certainly differences in emphasis, and in rhetorical tone, but are there irresolvable differences in principle — even after admitting that a government is a corporation, and formalizing its status as a private business? (I’m not sure.)

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Questions pertaining to the mixture between corporate government and commercial security presuppose a distinction between the two, and that the former can’t be eliminated and replaced by the latter. Is such a distinction inescapable?

    freihals Reply:

    Curiously, the foregone assumption that AnCap would necessarily be polycentric relies on an inadequate understanding of AnarchroCapitalism–see Rothbard not Friedman. If Neocameralism resulted in ‘x’ number of whatevers(you call states) that allowed contractually fulfilled exit to take place then the only difference here is the point you make. What exactly is considered a monopoly of force within any given area of geography? Meaning if you have a world of 10,000 neocameral ‘states’, who cares if they all have one security system if, with full exit, I can leave….
    In any sense, I’m not interested in perfect harmony but what is possible to conform in commonality. The ability to invoke both “austic ideological purity” and practically apply this ideology to first principles( get your hands bloody) is something that makes one superior to ones who cannot. At any rate, can you suggest an ideology that does not have purity priests( hint– With respect to natural law( which as a Hoppean, I do not wholly subscribe to), you can stripe away the moral code, however, that does not mean you have eliminated it.
    I am not interested in a marriage of monsters here only who can *can* build a lifeboat and who *will* get in. There is no doubt that NRx/DE makes damn good strategy and that’s why I’m here—the most important question is: can you get the job done alone?

    ***note to Admin: I attempted to add this comment beneath @Neo Soliar’s reply to me but was unable so I placed it here***

    Different T Reply:

    @ admin

    even after admitting that a government is a corporation, and formalizing its status as a private business?

    The “force monopolist” gets to legally define itself, by definition.

    Definitions are used to delineate referents of the concept from other.

    If it is a “private business,” what can that mean in a context with no public sphere?

    The government can never be just a “private business.” It is always that which makes and enforces law for those who operate within its claims. “Private” delineates only those parties involved in a transaction. “Public” delineates all parties within the relevant space since all are affected by the transaction.

    “Government as private business” is conceptually sloppy.

    Different T Reply:

    To avoid the obfuscation charge…

    AnCap, Dispute resolution orgs, MM’s patchwork, etc. wants desperately for their structures to de-facto prevent poor governance.

    They must invent new concepts and structures to avoid making arguments about qualitative differences in governance under existing structures.

    But these new concepts do not make sense. Precisely because they mix concepts associated with differing existing structures.

    Posted on January 15th, 2016 at 8:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    O/T but …important.

    Here’s something to think about: The Syrian Govt has looked after the families of the men who went out to fight against Assad. Protected, fed and so on.

    The wisdom of this: they’re returning by the thousands to fight for Assad.

    I’m not taking a side – I’m pointing out the wisdom of restraint.


    Posted on January 15th, 2016 at 8:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    I would rather be defeated by and surrender to a foe who’s family I safeguarded than the opposite.


    Posted on January 15th, 2016 at 8:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Twitter cuts (#43) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on January 15th, 2016 at 9:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • AugustusPugin Says:

    From my brief perusal of this issue it appears that Hearn was perhaps being overly dramatic. XT has failed (but also tried to do a bunch of other riskier controversial shit that was rejected) but that the other proposed fork, BitcoinClassic, that raises the block limit to 2/3Mb is actually gaining traction to bypass the intransigent Core devs. Chinese hashing power is still a concern but the miners are being asked to relocate their nodes to Tokyo in order to get past the Great Firewall which will give magnitudes better response times (mainland China speeds were averaging only around 30/40kbps which is a joke). There are still a billion ways for Bitcoin to die but this current crisis looks like a non-issue from a technical standpoint and is rooted in boring human infighting drama that nobody will care about five years from now.

    The main problem seems to be how to bootstrap and scale the network beyond the people who have temporarily cornered parts of its infrastructure to avoid it becoming forever their personal toys; lack of competition breeds stagnancy and nobody wants to rush into a frontier controlled by someone else. Frankly, crises like this are good, you’re not going to build a stable anything without life or death stress tests.


    SVErshov Reply:

    ‘Hearn was perhaps being overly dramatic’ ,

    or just been paid to orchestrates that dump. many things indicating that current dump was planned. it started on weekend, as most dumps. while fresh fiat can be loaded in exchange accounts on Tuesday only, when rate will be up already. no cheap coins for everybody. 24h trade volume of btc in China near 3,5 mln btc, fiat was ready and loaded in advance. Dump started from Chines exchange HUOBI and pulled rates down everywhere.

    agree, there is no technical issue for this drama. Also speed is not a problem for chinies miners, because mining pool hosted in China, and because current Stratum protocol between miner and pool takes very little trafic. Once, I got no other option and run 22 miners via Stratum proxy on Samsung galaxy 2 running EDGE for one week 24h non stop.


    ryan Reply:

    Very surprised there has yet to be discussion on XS about the massive Cathedral orchestration of bitcoins latest ‘failure’.

    This was clearly coordinated- a single developer’s opinion was amplified without questioning by The New York Times, Forbes, Bloomberg, the Financial Times etc.

    Here is R3, the private blockchain consortium of all the major banks, at the fucking Brookings Institute describing to their docile audience that there will be a NYT piece out shortly describing bitcoin as a failed experiment, before the article had came out.

    Speaking in the video is Charlie Cooper, Managing Director at R3CEV LLC.

    Previous posts were:

    Chief Operating Officer U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission August 2005 – November 2007 (2 years 4 months)
    United States Department of Defense Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense United States Department of Defense February 2004 – August 2005 (1 year 7 months)

    Nice that Charlie was able to bask in the glory days of Rumsfeld and then moved on to oversee commodity futures. Left at a great time too.

    Oh, I forgot to mention that Mike Hearn now works for R3.

    No private bank wants a blockchain they can’t control. That’s why they don’t want bitcoin in its current form.

    If Tim Cook resigned, wrote a blog post saying that Apple is now a failed company, sold all his shares and did interviews with all major news about it, Apple stock would plummet.

    The goal here was to do as much damage to bitcoin as possible.

    Sorry for the conspiracy, as Mike Hearn has told us, it is clearly a waste of time.

    “I didn’t mention this in my post because R3 is not a Bitcoin company, or even a cryptocurrency company, and there is no “BankCoin” or “R3Coin”. So this is really nothing to do with them and conspiracy theories are just a waste of time when there are more serious issues to consider.”


    ryan Reply:

    double post not intended, would edit in if possible. In any case this stuff is important:

    Hearn has a previously taken the stance of anti-fungibility in crypto and marking coins for tracking.

    If fungible sovereign property is a keystone concept for anarcho-realism Hearn should be understood as a sincere force against any sort of neocameralism or conception of political power formalized as fungible property.

    -Mike Hearn’s US government involvement:

    Posted on January 16th, 2016 at 6:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • SyndicatedNews Says:

    Mike Hearn in his exit speech said… “R3 is not a bitcoin company, or even a cryptocurrency company, and there is no ‘BankCoin’ or ‘R3Coin…” Not true Mike, there most certainly is a Bankcoin and you’ve always known it…


    Posted on January 28th, 2016 at 9:47 am Reply | Quote
  • SyndicatedNews Says:

    Mike Hearn in his exit speech said… “R3 is not a bitcoin company, or even a cryptocurrency company, and there is no ‘BankCoin’ or ‘R3Coin…” Not true Mike, there is a Bankcoin and you’ve always known it…


    Posted on January 28th, 2016 at 12:37 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment