Thanks for the link to dan's post - I hadn't seen that one before. It is unfortunate to see ned's bickering response below although no doubt some of his points are valid too. It would really help everyone if we remembered that we are dealing with very challenging issues and there are a lot of emotions around - so it is to be expected that disagreements will arise, but working back to balance also means between individuals too.
With regards the issue of the buying witness slots - If you are in one of the banking families and controllers of the fiat currencies then you have basically an unlimited amount of money, so there is no real risk associated with losing it. If you lose $15 million, so what? If you lose 15 billion? So what?
I actually heard a quote from Brock Pierce that alleges that he himself said he wasn't bothered about donating a billion dollars of his own money to some aspect of EOS that will be used to form a society (I don't know if that is true or not). My point is just that to those who want to control mass consciousness, 15 million or even 150 million is a small price to pay if it achieves part of that objective. Money is absolutely not a high priority for them in that sense, but control IS (including control of money).
I still don't really know what dan is delivering with Eos to meet his objectives. The challenge is that what can seem like an empowering feature from one perspective, can also turn out to be an enslaving feature from another perspective. I'm not sure he is going to be able to navigate all the twists and turns to produce a truly perfect system, but yes - I am certainly excited to find out what he produces!
Thank you! I really enjoyed reading your comment.
The banking house would be better off buying mining rigs. That's one of the reasons why I think Bitcoin will remain the driving force of cryptocurrency for a long time to come. People in EOS and other POS or DPOS cryptocurrency will always look to diversify in a cryptocurrency that has a better distribution and Bitcoin has the better distribution than EOS, ETH, LTC, XRP, NEO, BCH or any other crypto for that matter.
The banking houses or the world most powerful warlord were the person who had the most resources to create Bitcoin and if any of those "warlords" created Bitcoin they had to decide what was the risk of not releasing it and what would happen if someone else discovered it and releases it. For these reasons and many others I tend to think Bitcoin was created by some shadow government even though there's is no way to prove this, it is still something that can't be discarded and need to be taken into account.
I also tend to think there is only one organization controlling all countries or at least influencing them directly to a large extent. Yes all of them. Again, there's no way to prove this but no matter what people say it is still something that can't be disproved.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You are welcome!
There is nothing stopping the banking families buying mining rigs AND controlling DPOS type social nets. It's cheaper for them to create more fiat currency out of nothing than it is for them to buy and run mining rigs.
I think you already know about Carroll Quigley, but his work is perhaps the best documentary evidence of 'the network' that undermines and controls most if not all 'significant' nations. I think these things can be proven according to some levels of proof - in theory it is only necessary to prove that methods exist to overpower and control even the most honest human using remote influencing technology, torture and blackmail.. From there it is relatively simple to show how these methods can be used to control nations remotely. Sad, but true.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you very much for this and I very much agree.
I do know Carrol Quigley. I'll use the term network to refer to "them". That's the right way to refer to them. Most of the Bitcoin that will ever be emitted has already been emitted. Whether or not the network created Bitcoin they were there very early, most probably in the first year and as you mentioned they can always gain access to whatever they want with the threat of torture and subversion.
No matter what, fiat was going to 0. It was designed this way.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I really don't know what the intended plan for fiat was/is - it just looks like an insane confidence trick that relies on unconsciousness among the people for it to continue. Figuring out where it was intended to go it a bit like trying to figure out where Dogecoin is going.. lol
By the way, I am about to start campaigning for witness votes again (once I finish moving my website to a new server in the next 24 hours).. I just happened to check your votes as I was talking with you and can see you are voting for someone who is no longer a witness - @imacryptorick
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you for letting me know. I'll consider you.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You are welcome, thanks! I am currently reminding others with large amounts of SP who are not up to date with their votes to switch too.. but generally I get ignored! I actually just asked Dan if he would switch or just cancel all his witness votes if he intends to leave Steem totally.. aaahh politics!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit