Rojava eats up """blockchain""" bullshit

Because Petro is such a success story

America literally made it illegal. Meanwhile senators and government officials in the US have gone out of their way to shill for bitcoin. Really makes you think.

Attached: stop 4039284.png (1920x1080, 1.7M)

...

Most cryptos have centralized.
Blockchain have only proven to be useful for speculation.
All the promise of dapps and supply chains have been duds.

bitcoin is not centralized
shitcoins are for speculation only, they are not taken seriously like bitcoin

Blockchain =/= bitcoin. Bitcoin is a scam, but the idea of a public decentralized record (used as a ledger for coins) is a useful one.

I don't know what Rojava's infrastructure is like for the internet, but if you don't have proper communication networks set up you can't effectively plan the economy. Money was invented mostly to allow empires to have functional economies over larger areas than could be effectively planned from the capital. Money or a money-like solution may be pragmatically necessary for Rojava to function. Moving away from a foreign country's currency is a positive step for them pretty much no matter what they move to. Ideally they wouldn't use money any longer than absolutely necessary. There's nothing stopping you from using the blockchain system for crypto labor vouchers instead of crypto currency.

...

...

They work better that internet ads do atp or they soon will. They can't be blocked.

no one reads them anymore, gramps

The article says they need crypto to bypass sanctions.

This. Crypto is a good fit for Rojava's situation.

The most obvious problems with crypto stem from most people involved being Ayncrap lolbert ideologue goldbuggerers, so they choose dumb, needless features like mining and deflation. Crypto does have truly fundamental flaws, like transaction scaling, but there are ideas for fixing that.

"Crypto" is literally just catchy slang for encryption-based cybernetic economy.

Doing crypto within the country, only allowing democratically managed institutions to mine (meaning you can have a very economical mining algorithm and mine like 100000 rojava coins for very little computational work) and then dispatch it to people? That's something i've openly advocated for here.
Let's say some porky manages to hoard 500 rojava coins, meaning a lot of money. The state can just shrug and decide to set 500 coins as the price of a loaf of bread and just mine more (still with a ridiculously simple algorithm like pi decimals)

kek

That would be fucking pointless. Mining is just an arbitrary way of generating more coins. It was used by bitcoin to reward early adopting and large scale late adopters. It's completely pointless if it's a system being run by the government. You can just vote on the rate that coins are added to the market.

Even using coins in the first place isn't necessary. Crypto is an extremely general concept. The bitcoin model was designed for a very specific purpose, and should not be copied in part or in whole. You could just run a labor voucher system using blockchain. All you have to do is suit the algorithm to that purpose instead of mindlessly copying the brainchild of some Randfags.

Attached: 1334329164853.jpg (366x380, 18K)

There avoiding sanctions, which is pretty smart.

Oh they dont have to be mined.
Tokens arent mined.
The petro token made by maduro isnt mined either.

which is why they are worthless outside of their speculation pump and dumps

Okay, blockchain, whatevs.

There are already numerous altcoins based on proof-of-stake minting systems, completely obsoleting mining.

Maybe they said Bookchin and the journalists just heard it wrong?

yeah, and they're all worthless garbage that saavy traders use to separate gullible fools like you from their money

Except in the case of the Petro they are backed by actual oil and gold.

Like I said earlier, all extant cryptocurrencies I'm aware of are deflationary pump&dump Ponzi schemes, rather than inflationary currencies, because everyone in the scene are flimflammers or ideologues with zero understanding of economics. There's really no good option right now.

I suppose I should also mention stuff like GridCoin, which do use proof-of-work mining, but instead of BitCoin's useless mathematical masturbation, the work in question is useful cloud computing such as BOINC. The only flaw here is if the amount of computation required by blockchains exceeded the legitimate global demand for cloud computing.

You realize mining is the portion of the protocol that verifies the transactions and also votes for the order of transactions in a block?

You realize there are solutions, some of which I have described, to that don't involve a pointless recreation of goldbugs' fetish, right?

A opposed to bitcoin which is a pyramid scheme. What Rojava needs isn't any kind of coin. They just need a way to manage and plan the economy. It doesn't have to be money to do that.

...

If your base your valuta on the Dollar, you may as well slit your own throat.

...

All of which go back to your issue of mining as a problem. PoS is a situation ready to be exploited. First IRL by those with the power of mining to begin with in hardware (those with wealth stay wealthy) and the concept of "Tragedy of the Commons) in proof of stake mining (I'm assuming you already know this hitch). On the purely economic side, PoS makes it computationally expensive over time to regain your position in mining power.

Secondly, YOU STILL HAVE TO VERIFY THE LEDGER SOMEWHERE. Coinbase and a few mining pools have proven that you need strong ledger controls since they were able to mine out six block aheads a few times in btc allowing them the theoretical six block limit to allow double spending. That is why the original recommendation that one should wait until 4-6 blocks have been discovered.

As for gridcoin, there's so many miners embedded in data sets and the algorithms that its gridcoin/boinc is close to being a sham. Talk to the makers of nuccinc.org/, they created it to completely shit all over BOINC.

As a researcher I can just place obfuscated loops to aid in mining other altcoins since the verification process is flimsy.

No? It means each region has its own monetary autonomy and can manually democratically manage exterior exchanges of both monetary value and goods.

In what way? Bitcoin has gone through multiple bull and bear markets, just like any other asset. Some early adopters got rich along the way, but that was pure luck as no one really took it seriously at first.
I don't think you understand the concept of what a pyramid scheme really is.

OP is a fag

My post was responding to the question of mining coins and now you're talking about having central banks. Are you confused or something? As far as having non-conversion between regions, that's not exclusive to currency either. My post was about not needing to use a money system. I don't really care to argue the details of a system I think would be better not implemented.

A pyramid scheme is a system in which the early adopters get a large payout from the pay-in of the late adopters. Bitcoins were initially dirt cheap but once people started speculating and trying (usually failing) to use them as actual currency, the value of the initial coins increased greatly. It's a pyramid scheme that's specifically been obfuscated by having the coins disguise or abstract away the value being put in by the users.
That's not an argument that something isn't a pyramid scheme, because the same thing can be said about any "successful" pyramid scheme.
I dunno you seem to think it's just a pejorative rather than having any technical meaning considering your "rebuttal" describes a pyramid scheme.

because it was seen as a geek hobby and basically funny money. there was no initial promise of wealth and you would have been laughed at for saying so.
contrast that against a legitimate pyramid scheme like bernie maddoff's hedge fund which promised huge returns from the start and was fraudulent from the start.
bitcoin's underlying technology and protocol is not fraudulent. you may think the algorithms for mining are wasteful, but that doesn't make it fraudulent, neither does it make it a ponzi scheme.
apart from the bubble of 2017, most people who buy bitcoin are doing so for its advantages over dealing with fiat (legal or otherwise) or they believe it to be a good store of value.
the speculators are mostly in the shitcoin arena anyway. after they all implode, bitcoin will be the last one standing.
pos based cryptos like ethereum are a bloated, easily hackable joke.
ethereum and its clones are all going away soon anyway.
proof of stake has no future, lad

I guess you're not getting this but the ideological justification doesn't change what functionally happened.
How quickly it yielded returns doesn't really matter. The people who started bitcoin stood to gain the most from it because their initial buy-in was effectively zero once the cost of setting up the system was taken care of. They just got to sit back and wait for a gold rush. The timing is irrelevant.
It doesn't have to be fraudulent to be a pyramid scheme. That's not necessary at all. Pyramid schemes were originally open about how they worked before people started to get the problem with the math.
Yeah, I didn't say this was the reason it's a pyramid scheme. I already explained why. It's because of how the transfer of wealth works. Stop making up strawman shit.

Why are you picking random shit to argue against? I never brought up a consensus method or defended altcoins. Are shitcoinfags necessarily this divorced from reality?

PoW mining fetishism is hardly free of past and potential future exploits itself
Obvious solution: Charge for access to the compute pool. At the market rates for something like Amazon EC2, Microsoft Azure, or Google Compute Engine, mining is already completely unprofitable.

Look at crypto"currency" compared to other economic activities from the perspective of the global economy as a whole, like a black box in a flowchart, what function does it fulfill? Money goes in from large numbers of rubes, and goes out to small numbers of cons, that's it, no investment in productive capital, no inherent practical material application, not even any arbitrary aesthetic value. Its single practical function is to transfer money in a 1:1 ratio from rubes to cons, stealing that money from any legitimate economic activity.
There's an excellent reason FDR banned goldbuggery, hoarding is a disease.

That's a classic pump & dump pyramid scheme, plain and simple.

Attached: ponzi1.jpg (950x775, 72.85K)

is any of this gibberish supposed to be an argument?

no it isn't. flooding the market with a particular form of capital just devalues it.
makes zero sense

ok kid

get a load of this fag

Any capital that isn't invested in something productive is a parasitic drain on the economy. "Capital gluts" are merely the symptom of an underlying unwillingness to offer practical applications for productive forces, such as intentionally allowing infrastructure to decay.

capital doesn't "invest" in anything, something "invests" in capital, brainiac

still not an argument

Yes, I realized that wasn't very well worded as I typed it, but you know what I meant. Perhaps a better way to put it is that liquid capital is either put to use, or made idle.

He needs to read the Debt book.

Shit you're right.

Here's an entire book of arguments.

no

There isn’t anything inherently bad about crypto, a few fundamental problems aside. It’s just specific cryptocurrencies that are garbage. The garbage cryptos are, of course, the ones libertarians like most.

Part of the opposition is really an opposition to the idea that crypto currency is or will be revolutionary. It won’t be, obviously. It’ll just be a another niche financial tool for people to access if and when they have need for it, like hiding transactions or communications from authoriatarian regimes or other institutions, or purchasing outlawed goods relatively safely.

It could be revolutionary, done right. Essentially, cash but electronic.

Imagine if all the stupid bullshit that happened during the 1900s, checks, credit cards, phone payments, bills, filed income tax, etc., all of it was just rolled back into nonexistence, because people decided to dismantle the centralized system. No more records attaching your true identity to every single trivial little action in your life, no way to build the botnet.

If you think that’s gibberish then you’re evidently braindead, or masking the fact you’re the one without an argument.

Most cash is already electronic.

So this guy who got into bitcoin early now wants to use Bitcoin, perhaps the least practical of all the cryptos currently, as the first step of this transformation. That is dumb, right?

maybe find a new attack vector besides your overused ad hom approach

Cash (M0) only exists at present in physical form, it is decentralized and anonymous, beyond its (rarely tracked) serial number. Electronic currency (MB) and various types of credit (M1 and up) work in a completely different way, as they must have centralized double-entry accounts to track every transaction in order to function.

It could be better than the current system I suppose, especially with regards to international trade.

There are people who think most concerns about decentralization are kinda memey BS. If all sorts of information about the economy are going to be public information in an economy with centralized data processing and means of production and resources being allocated according to a plan, there won't be a point to having any sort of e-money scheme for transactions between different factories.

Also, the particular type of crypto currency that is common at the moment burns an insane amount of energy. It's remarkable how unclear the description of this type of technology is when listening to its evangelists. Here is how I would describe it: It's a database that everybody can write to, nothing can be deleted, it can be run by people who don't trust each other, and running it on a big scale eats electricity like an entire city. For comparison, a database of the same scale maintained by a trusted party doesn't eat more electricity than a normal household. I think it's a phony technical "solution" to social issues and that working on building and maintaining a modicum of trust among ourselves is the way.

You must be new here. The distinction is that with money, one can obtain consumer items, means of production, hire people. Money-like means that there are restrictions. What is usually meant by labor vouchers is accounts for individuals who can only use them for their own consumption.

Something like that would be my proposal, basically going with the median value of the votes.

What that poster means is that for something to function like a pyramid scheme, it's not necessary to assume that people starting it have that intention. The intention-free description is just that people who get in early tend to be the ones who benefit and those joining later tend to lose, and that the gains of the winners come from those who get in late.

Does this meme commune have oil or other strategic value?
Then frankly, they will. Especially if that meme commune has no other friends.

This is presumably the same alt-right taaki who is friends with Cody "but what if the child consents" Wilson
social-ecology.org/wp/2018/01/the-new-reactionaries-amir-taaki-alt-right-entryism-and-rojava-solidarity/

Attached: AmirDugin3.png (480x498, 61.02K)

so…money, with artificial restrictions

yeah, he had no argument and neither do you. all you did was define what a pyramid scheme is, which i already know.
what you both failed to do is demonstrate how bitcoin is a pyramid scheme

It makes a goofy kind of sense that political meme philosophers are picking up nazbol, the ultimate in meme politics.

Labor vouchers (also called labor notes) got their definition well over 100 years ago. The meaning of that term can be found scattered in the remarks made in the Capital books and Critique of the Gotha Program. It's also how Paul Cockshott uses the term. It has been established on both Zig Forums and on this board what the term means. The definition was given to you ITT. Calling these restrictions "artificial" doesn't mean anything and it's how a lolbert would argue. What matters is whether the difference between money as it is ordinarily understood and this concept is significant; and if it is, it merits using a different term.

It is the credo of classical and Marxist economics that market prices are rarely equal to, but usually strongly influenced by, production cost, and that market prices tend to be governed by aggregate costs. In the design of Bitcoin and its clones, the cost of creating early coins is minimal. Creating coins later burns more energy. If the market price tends toward the aggregate cost, that means early players in coin creation get more than their production cost and those joining late get less than that, so how can late coin creators possibly recover their costs? They can't, unless the system expands. They are under pressure to shill for the system and suck more people into it, because those last to join before the crash will be the biggest suckers and they don't want to be that group. Typical pyramid scheme.

nice CIA opinion, lib

Wrong flag, ancap.

There is something about being a leader of a big group, like maybe you just have way too much shit on your plate and you can't processing everything, but they ALL fall for bitcoin BS. Unless there is someone standing by them basically swearing that crypto is a fake solution, everyone in charge will fall for it lol. It's weird.

It's just a big scam dude. It's specifically made for you to get a scam run on you.

You can only use your passport for your own trips. Is that "artificial", or is a consequence of passports' very nature?

Bitcoin has "crashed" multiple times in its history, as has every other financial asset that's traded in a free market. Is Amazon stock a pyramid scheme too? According to your definitions, it is.

Amazon stock has practical value, in that it gives you voting rights for Amazon's board and/or access to dividends. Bitcoin's sole economic characteristic is the transfer of money in a 1:1 ratio from late to early buyers, contributing precisely nothing whatsoever to the productive economy.

Amazon stock doesn't pay dividends, moron and no one buys the stock because they want voting rights. You're really grasping at straws.
Moving the goalposts on bitcoin too, I see.

You also totally ignore the fact that most early adopters of bitcoin cashed out long ago during previous bull runs.

Oh for fucks sake, bitcoin is destroying the planet and they are buying this shit? This is inexcusable!!!

Socialists are against capitalism. Especially wen it's destroying the planet.

...

They are not anarchists and they don't claim to be anarchists either.

Attached: ocalan anarchism.jpg (494x707, 88.03K)

Not one argument ITT proves bitcoin is actually a pyramid scheme.

As previously mentioned, most early bitcoiners cashed out long ago, a lot of private keys were lost, which also increases value of the remaining supply and speculation does add volatility which, as everyone can see, leads in both directions meaning you can and will lose money in a bear market. A classic pyramid scheme only increases in value until the final collapse. Bitcoin goes through normal boom and bust cycles just like any other commodity.
And yes, bitcoin is actually used as a product and that will only increase in the future.
Anyone who does even a trivial amount of research on the topic will realize that it's not meant to be a path to riches and people speculate at their own risk, no different than gambling in Las Vegas. People bet on horse races, sports events and political elections in Las Vegas, but that doesn't make them pyramid schemes. Try to get a grasp of the basic concept of what a pyramid scheme is before spouting off nonsense.
People love buying, owning, trading and using bitcoin and that will not change in the future.
bitcoinmarketjournal.com/how-many-people-use-bitcoin/

For what? What is it good for apart from criminal activity? Is it even good for that anymore? The Bitcoin kiosks now ask for ID.

And the "bitcoin wastes muh electricity" argument is equally lame. Market forces mean that miners will literally moving their equipment to the sources with the cheapest supply of energy, which means renewable sources like hydro, wind and solar.
Minining is a function of verifying on-chain transactions, so because of the lightning network, eventually, the vast majority of transactions will occur off-chain which means less on-chain transactions and less mining.
And when you compare the amount of electricity bitcoin uses compared to the overwhelming amount of electricity being used to transact, verify and facilitate commercial, consumer, markets, and banking transactions with credit cards, bank transactions, market trading, etc. there is no comparison and yet no one complains because the economy depends on it entirely. Also, those sources of electricity are overwhelmingly from non-renewable resources.

And least work your neurons up to a sweat before posting lame "arguments." It's just lazy and intellectually dishonest.
Do you really want to compare the amount of criminality that gets transacted via bitcoin vs fiat? Is there any reasonable comparison between the two? No, there is not.
Bitcoin kiosks are just one source of acquiring bitcoin. You can find other people who own bitcoin and buy it directly with no government oversight at all. As more people own bitcoin, this will only get easier and more common.

Taaki isn't alt-right.

Money is a universal fungible debt token issued by a state that circulates in a market. Artifice is anything created by man. Everything about money is artificial, and there are manifold ways to manage value other than with money. If it doesn't circulate it's not money. If it expires it's not money. If it's created at the time labor is performed as a measurement of that labor, it's not money. If it's destroyed upon use it's not money. All of these things make labor vouchers not money, but any one of them alone would do.

I know Apo is a bit of a big brain but this sounds like a misquote.

Again, use it for what? If it is a use-value, then what the fuck is its use? What can it do that fiat currency can't do better?

I'll just leave this here.

It's not meant to be used as a replacement for fiat, idiot. Using it as such would be foolish for the foreseeable future because of its appreciate potential…what idiots like you point to as "proof" that it's a ponzi scheme. Bitcoin's main use is as a store of value, at least until widespread adoption stabilizes price volatility and makes it more attractive as a transactional digital currency, i.e. using it to buy your coffee, using the lightning network, off chain.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain

MUST READ FIRST

Like gold. Why not use gold?

So, nothing right now, but in the future you assume that people will use it exactly how currency is used now. Useless.

06b7d47b6006d9b085d7763fa04913c8fd92d15d

The fact that there are ideological connections between bitcoin and the far-right does not apply to the context of Rojava.