On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 12:23:19 PM PDT, John Newman <j...@synfin.org> wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 07:06:10PM +0000, jim bell wrote: > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 11:37:15 AM PDT, John Newman ><j...@synfin.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 06:04:12PM +0000, jim bell wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 3:55:16 AM PDT, John Newman > ><j...@synfin.org> wrote: > > > > > > On August 15, 2018 2:31:10 AM CDT, grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I was replying to an argument stating, more or less, that there are >> plenty of crypto-millionaires with money to blow, so it doesn't matter >> if - as I suggested - most people don't give enough of a shit to >> particpate in AP. The millionaires can fund it, and AP fixes everything! >> Or something :) I find it hard to believe... > >> So, you are admitting that you really wouldn't know if an AP market was in >> any way "dominated" by any group or another. So, why didn't you say so >> before? Why invent a phony objection that won't work? >And, neither would you know if it wasn't dominated, yeah? It would help if the word "dominated" was defined. What I proposed, AP, would be a system that is available to all, with proper programmed guarantees that the system worked as proposed. Open source, presumably. Bettors would be assured that their bets would only be paid to the winning bettor(s), bettors would be assured that the bets would be paid if the prediction was made correctly. All this requires a lot of software. That amount of programming might well have seemed imposing in 1995, but subsequent software projects (TOR, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Augur) show that this kind of project is doable. "Dominated", I assume, could mean functioning but not by the principles of being available to everyone. If you tried to make a given bet, and were somehow rejected, THAT might constitute the kind of obstruction that would be evidence of "domination". >"Except by the outcome, which has to be inferred. So - if the government didn't collapse, but you started seeing deaths of high-level or up-and-coming corporate executives, and their critical researchers, etc, etc - well, that would be a pretty reliable indicator that things were not going "as planned", I think." No doubt that people will be paying close attention to these events. >> Once you do that, why not agree that only a very tiny percentage of the >> population would be necessary to start an AP system running. A large >> percentage of the population is living on the government's tit: Government >> employees, of course, , and welfare, etc. Military contractors, also. >> This money came from SOMEBODY. Maybe such SOMEBODIES want that system to >> stop, now that they've learned about the AP concept. But there is an >> additional possibility. >Maybe. Or maybe the CIA starts channeling money into AP to get rid of its "enemies", cuz the government is loaded too :P Initially, that might occur! But remember, the function of a properly-implemented AP-type system will attack all heirarchical structures, at least those that involve involuntary factors. (financed by robbed taxes, etc.) Why will we need a "CIA" if people can kill off the upper levels of leadership in other, threatening countries? The CIA itself will recognize that it (and any other public security organizations) will be simply unnecessary when AP has destroyed all governments. Since the early 1980's, America (for just one example) has apparently been run by Executive Order 12333 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333which contains a "Proscription on Assassination". Probably sounded good, then. But killing leaders is by far the most efficient way to stop organized evil activities, and by that I mean primarily action by governments. Why would American government adopt such an order? The answer was, and is, simple, and I explain it in my AP essay: If WE can kill THEIR leaders, THEY can kill OUR leaders, as well. And leaders have more in common with each other than with their own people. OUR leaders were glad to tell THEIR leaders, 'We won't kill you, the leaders, if you won't kill our leaders. Deal???'. That's an agreement that all the world's leaders would gladly agree with. >"I think you make the mistake of assuming that there is a sizable portion of the population that wouldn't simply cringe at the idea of AP, aside of course from the sociopaths that own the majority of the capital, and the governments that enable them. " It doesn't matter if there is (initially) a "sizable portion of the population" which would cringe at AP. Some would initially think of it merely as a "murder market". Even I, for a very brief time in early January, 1995, saw it this way. Maybe it lasted for about a hour. But I quickly recognized that it would go after each government employee, and thus each government, every government, without exception. A well-functioning AP system is simply incompatible with involuntary heirarchical structures, such as governments. I think that once people have had a chance to see that this is a very strong possibility, they will see that essentially all the negatives that governments engender will be eliminated. I point out that governments killed 250 million people in the 20th century. Was that somehow acceptable to people? Is there any other solution to this ongoing problem, than AP? I've never heard of one. And for anybody who doesn't "like" AP, their most obvious response should be to invent another system that fixes the problems of today's world, but somehow avoids AP. If somebody has done that, I haven't heard of it. >Of course, I'm still fascinated to see it play out. The tech isn't there yet, despite all the hyperbole about Augur as AP. It's getting there. I'd hoped it would go much faster. I'm glad to see that of the many articles engendered by this Ethereum/Augur/Forecast Foundation combination, few seem too alarmist and negative. That's a major part of implementing AP: Literally, TEACHING people what AP actually is, and would do. What's been needed is a major public debate. I am confident of the outcome, mostly because I haven't seen any opposing viewpoint that actually can explain how to solve the problems of government without AP. And, the public also needs to be told that it wouldn't be necessary to get "51%" of the population to agree to adopt AP: Even if only a tiny fraction of the population, say 1%, chooses to use it, it will work quite well. The current Forecast Foundation betting system may still have limitations that would prevent their system from working as I anticipated AP would. But I don't necessary view that as an error: Those people have a major task ahead, ideally making the world's public 'comfortable' with an AP-type system. A system which might be styled as a "scarecrow-AP" system would get people talking, even if it doesn't have an immediate prospect of causing assassinations to occur. At some point, I think it will be clear to many people (10% of the population, I'd hope?) that AP would actually do what I proposed it would do. Adoption at that point would be prompt. Even better, at that point I think it will be difficult to find people to take government jobs. Jim Bell
