Steemit…..rising from the ashes

……of the bombed out house of the failed Anarcho-Capitalist social experiment.

It amazes me how you can have smart devs create something great, only to watch it collapse around themselves by basing the whole project around some whacko Neo-Libertarian political ideology. Anyway, anyone still arguing for, or wondering how such a system might play out in reality found out the hard way. It was a system ruled by the rich elite 1% with no social safety net for the vulnerable “minnows” and working class (bloggers), reliant on the philanthropy of the rich – Capitalism on steroids.
We now see an exponential rise in value of Steem as the anarcho-capitalist in chief leaves the building, based primarily on the belief that a different, more sensible system will be introduced to attract the mainstream I believe – which is what it’s all about isn’t it?
This is what happens when you let the few rule the many illegitimately, when devs impose daft ideologies. It shows what can happen when the ruling 1% is out of tune with the larger populace. The same can be said I think for those that cling to power using out dated centralised, non accountable governance structures which run contrary to the current zeitgeist and the 1 thing that most crypto enthusiasts rail against.
Perhaps there’s a lesson to be learned from all of this?


Is that what BitShares was… meh. Way too much marketing and hype - typical of the fail that altcoins bring. Stan still makes like his son is god?.. I for one am steering well clear of all that.

Also… I wonder you are on the wrong forum for spamming about Steem.

Hi good to hear from you again chap. I think all of these convos you have are interesting. I do hope everyone tries to walk that mile in each others shoes though, tough on both sides. Here are some (as usual) random thoughts.

At the start of maidsafe folk used to ask me about this kind of thing, can true democracy work, unhindered, unedited and unmoderated networks. I replied, yea of course, in fact if the world voted on everything and they did vote to press the button and end it, then that’s also cool. I used that as an extreme argument for a world of independent minds, a great world.

However, I think as communities grow, like this one and several in the crypto space (I hate that term), but specifically where money is involved then I am not so sure how “independent” those minds are, I even see sports folks getting hate mail from people who betten on them to win and they lost. That part is a bit worrying.

I am so glad this community see the profits/opportunities of being early supporters , but mostly see the bigger picture of a better world, beyond us and our families and friends. It’s not so focussed on it’s only cash/market/profit etc. we have here a utility to deliver and that utility can make a difference should we get it right.

Then as you say dev controlled economies and networks do not work IMHO, in SAFE we are trying to make sure we stick to platform creation and let many of the decisions be taken by app devs, who promote “ways to work” but ultimately the population decides which one they choose… I hear all the economic expert developers who force a way of working and find that strange and kinda condescending. I prefer to stick with Engineering, build the tools, let people take them where they wish.

Then maidsafe itself. we had an almost zero management structure, but it nearly killed me, as somebody had to keep bringing in the wages, do accounts, do marketing, meet partners and try and promote the ideals of the business to a larger community. it was too much and most folk will sit back and let you, I even had some Engineers when told, David is stressed to hell, say that I deserved it as it was my company (even though I had given all my shares away). Then we introduced a little bit of structure and that was difficult to. We are now much more structured and have meetings where decisions are taken and on occasion forced onto teams to get the next thing done. We work much more efficiently now, that meant for me a part of the dream was bust (for now) and loose groups do not always work, even though I still try where I can to have that everyone is equal. It was a good lesson, perhaps not now, but I don’t give up on it.

So it’s a journey for sure, I have a vision of a world of independent minds, but there are barriers, people need a basic life that is secure, others need to loose the greed of the only thing they want is “more” and “enough” does not exist. I am still trying to work much of it out and doing so by watching a lot from the sidelines.

I do see projects that seem to start with good intent, then see cash opportunities and they break apart. It’s a shame, but I think the issue is vision, I do not care how we get privacy security and freedom for all the worlds people, or who does it, but it’s core to my every day. I think that is lost in some projects, I am not sure, but it seems pivots and that kinda thing that people love is Ok, but to pivot from your stated vision is an insult to everyone. If there is no core vision I argue there is no product/company or project. A bit of good tech is a part of a solution, like play dough, you need to know what you want to build and for what purpose and why you believe it helps humanity. That’s hard and sticking with it is hard, many people will screw with you, scream at you and try to stop you, but grit and determination are Ok if your vision is one people want to see fulfilled.

Anyway, just some thoughts, none of them complete, but typically straight from my head out the keyboard, unfettered :slight_smile:


Well firstly, I was looking for the “other projects” tab, which has disappeared since I was last here.
Secondly, I was.hardly recommending buying it or advertising for it.
Thirdly, even if I was, then perhaps I took my cue from the forum moderator @fergish who recently broke into his podcast about Safe related things to personally run an advertisement for Bitshares. Now that’s what I call advertising spam…lol

As always… and great to hear your stream of consciousness to pick the bones out of again. I find it immensely reassuring to hear your thoughts in this way…its obvious its from the heart and I think perhaps you may recognise something similar - however I phrase things…lol
Its brilliant to hear from you again after all this time and I can really empathise with your position. I’ve got it easy really, just doing my thing, saying what I feel needs saying, I wouldn’t like the stress of being in your shoes tbh - not my cup of tea at all…lol.
Anyway, all the best mate and I wish you and the team all the luck in the world with your project - keep on keeping on!
PS- after all this time I forgot how to do smiley faces again…hence all the lolling again…lol


Having picked some of the bones from your stream of consciousness, I thought I’d reply in kind…[quote=“dirvine, post:3, topic:12866”]
I replied, yea of course, in fact if the world voted on everything and they did vote to press the button and end it, then that’s also cool. I used that as an extreme argument for a world of independent minds, a great world.
I think this would be some form of unfettered direct democracy, an unhindered majority rule type thing that could lead to a tyranny of the majority. This is tempered in modern Liberal democracies by having agreed basic Human Rights, agreed conventions, lines not to be crossed so to speak and representative, rather than direct democracy… ( as an aside, this is why I don’t believe the recent referendum to leave the EU should be acted upon – we do not have direct democracy).
I get your aim to be politically neutral, but think that this may be easier said than done. I think that this is where we may differ slightly in our views – though maybe not thinking about it. I would say that having NO ideological basis is to all intents and purposes the same thing as having a Libertarian, free market ideology – something I believe should be avoided or at least tempered somehow. What I mean is having some form of safety net for the weak/vulnerable (I believe you insert the Foundation here) and provide for infra-structure (I believe you insert the 5% maintenance award here)……so essentially you’ve got it covered right and we both appear to agree on the basic idea of some “community pot”? I think this may work in the short term, but perhaps there may be issues with the Foundation model further down the road. I’ll try to explain why I think this;
Firstly, there is a reason why we have arrived at the modern Liberal Democracy idea and why it is popularly seen as the most equitable model….mostly. However, there are a number of common complaints about it – hence the movement to de-centralise Govt power and make governance more transparent. The other main complaint involves how and where the “community pot” is spent (the tax system).
Now, if you replace the word “Govt” with “Foundation” you’ll probably see where I’m going with this.
If the Govt did not itself decide where the pot is spent and instead de-centralised the decision making to the populace, then the model can be improved and a number of issues/complaints disappear. One way of doing this would be to give a “menu” of where each individual can allocate his tax ie defence, education, care services etc and then this gives the Govt its allocation/budget for each area with the consensus of the population.
If you transpose this basic thinking to the Safe Network, then the eventual goal would be to transform the Foundation into a charitable DAO. I find I am essentially in alignment with your thinking and already recognise there may be some road blocks to this goal, however I believe it may be an idea worth thinking further about.


I agree with much of this. We have some things that currently help, like the foundation etc. It is clear to me and you (I think) this will not last the long term.

One thing I do hope for and think may work is some form of mini communities, less than 100-150 folk teams/companies etc. The Dunbar number thing. Then it’s about common sets of rules, such as the unidroit system or similar. Same with accounting. This is the thing I have been looking at, small teams working in ways that suits them, but never big enough to bully others.

The human nature thing keeps creeping in, but I think we are evolving as a species and getting better. There is so much seems obvious, but then human nature does on occasion mean folk wan to follow the maximum output for minimum effort and many times it means let others work while we benefit.

The other huge issue is minority protection as well. I think we must do this, but am frankly of the belief that this is perhaps unnatural as in nature the strong wins, however too strong then extinction happens as well, or society collapse like the Romans, Greeks etc. I suspect politics becomes the few seeking the power above all else as they have so much they cannot see the problems the real people have and it all comes tumbling down as it must.

So there are many problematic issues and it seems some law is needed and maybe more, but I am curious to see what works. I think the sea-steading projects have some chance for great experimentation.


Hmmm…I see, I’m not familiar with the Dunbar No or Unidroit system, but I’m getting that rather than having one overarching Safenet Dao with common principles, smaller groups with individual principles/goals would be established? I’m just wondering how this would be financed equitably. Off the top of my head, this would only seem to aid those that can aid themselves to an extent. My concern would be for the incapable I suppose - though I’m not sure i’ve grasped the concept properly.[quote=“dirvine, post:7, topic:12866”]
and many times it means let others work while we benefit.

But this would only apply to the capable but lazy wouldn’t it?[quote=“dirvine, post:7, topic:12866”]
The other huge issue is minority protection as well
Yes this is important…[quote=“dirvine, post:7, topic:12866”]
I think we must do this, but am frankly of the belief that this is perhaps unnatural as in nature the strong wins,

Hmmm…this does not seem straightforward to me. I would say that firstly this is predicated on having the guiding principle that Natural -= good and unnatural = bad; this would be an “absolutist” type moral philosophy.
I also think that “survival of the fittest” does not necessarily mean that the strong overcome the weak - it’s about being most suited to the environment. There are also many instances of altruism, caring for the weak and symbiotic behaviour etc in nature. Also, who’s to say what’s natural or not - can it not be argued that it is perfectly natural .that we have evolved to become civilised - its how we get along and survive in our environment? I’d argue that a community pot to care for the weak is both natural and civilised. “Social Darwinism” does not work - look what it led to with Hitler. Absolutist stances are often misguided I think, however good the intention.
These are also political ideas, which demonstrates just how difficult it is to be politically neutral - impossible in fact I’;d maintain.[quote=“dirvine, post:7, topic:12866”]
I suspect politics becomes the few seeking the power above all else as they have so much they cannot see the problems the real people have and it all comes tumbling down as it must.

Yes, this has been the history so far with the inevitable centralising of power structures. We are in a new era of de-centralising power and preventing this historical centralisation. and you are at the forefront here perfectly positioned to create a fairer society and write the next period of history. Let’s get the politics right and thrash out all these ideas. As I say, I don’t think we can be politically neutral, every implementation, whatever it is will have political connotations.
Personally, I’d take plenty of inspiration from nature, as you have, but not make it an absolutist position. [quote=“dirvine, post:7, topic:12866”]
So there are many problematic issues and it seems some law is needed and maybe more,

I think this is where it gets tricky, but some basic Human Rights type principles (which most civilised countries do manage to agree upon) would be enough. This could be a general constitution type thing as a base layer then just layer individual communities laws on top if that’s the direction we take.


Yes we agree I think. There is for sure many cases of protecting the weak or less capable, in fact many species seem to do this. It’s difficult to reason completely with, but it seems the human condition when it’s at equilibrium (not starving or desperate) is a caring one. I think many examples exist in nature, not exactly Darwinism as I think that is the tip of the iceberg of our understanding of nature, speciation and evolution. .

Although if a minority for instance was warmongering, should they be protected? (I know, bad example) I suppose the common laws would prevent this perhaps, but then we may need defence forces and on it goes. Not simple.

However different thinking should be encouraged and protected, like socialism verses capitalism etc. It would just be good to not have things forced on others.

One day over many beers I will start to understand even a fraction of a % of this though, it’s complex and too many people try and simplify and look at single angles to the problem(I know you don’t).


Agree with this post @Al_Kafir, and welcome back BTW :slight_smile:.

Seems to me that humans have a problem with scaling that originated in ego and cultural evolution (which are also responsible for our exceptional abilities and achievements). Our bodies, emotions and faculties all evolved and are tuned to small scale (hence the Dunbar number), and at larger scale give rise to dysfunctional behaviours and effects. From adding harmful sugar to almost everything because we crave it, and because it makes profits for those that produce sell food, to individuals persuing vast wealth while half the planet has next to nothing. Very dysfunctional and inefficient.

I’m skeptical that we can design a superior system in the conventional fashion, and wonder if it is realising that, and evolving new ways to create and design that offers us the next step (Bohm dialogue being an example of a new way of groups creating something new, as opposed to traditional models: individual ‘genius’ or directed heirarchies).

I’m also skeptical that it will be humans. Seems likely to me that we will inadvertently create the next step, not by organising society better, but creating AI that we are unable to control and direct. At which point we may or may not continue, but either way are not the controller of our destiny (if we ever were - by which I am not alluding to any deity, or directing force of evolution etc, but just to the notion of control being false).


Of course and I dislike the term “Darwinism” as it is often used in substitute to the more complex Theory of Evolution in order to diminish it by the religious. I only use it in its social context - because I don’t know how else to phrase it…lol[quote=“dirvine, post:9, topic:12866”]
Although if a minority for instance was warmongering, should they be protected?

No, minority groups should only be protected from being discriminated against or abused.[quote=“dirvine, post:9, topic:12866”]
suppose the common laws would prevent this perhaps

Yes…[quote=“dirvine, post:9, topic:12866”]
but then we may need defence forces and on it goes. Not simple.

No it’s not, but just going back to the de-centralising of the tax system idea and extend it world wide. All it would take is for fewer and fewer people in every country to tick the “defence” box. When you combine this with blockchain type trasparency of govt decisions which would remove secrets and reduce paranoia and fear of the other - then its not insurmountable.[quote=“dirvine, post:9, topic:12866”]
However different thinking should be encouraged and protected, like socialism verses capitalism etc

I’d say that both Socialism and Capitalism are failed ideologies - yes it is fine to believe in these things, but in the same way that it is fine to believe in Christianity or Islam. As long as you are not discriminated against or abused for these beliefs, then all is well. It does not mean that othere have to live under a theocratic regime.[quote=“dirvine, post:9, topic:12866”]
It would just be good to not have things forced on others.

Yes it would be good, but not always possible. We have to find ways to live together using as little force as possible - again I think this is an admirable goal, but not totally possible. Going back to nature you are forced from your mother’s womb aren’t you? (lol…maybe stretching my point a little) I’d take a more stoic view on this, whatever causes the least harm to the fewest people or creates the greatest happiness to the most people kind of thing - tempered by the basic human rights.[quote=“dirvine, post:9, topic:12866”]
it’s complex and too many people try and simplify and look at single angles to the problem(I know you don’t).
Yes, many people try to either push for their own political beliefs or only look at one part of the jigsaw or don’t follow their arguments through to their logical conclusion, only as far as the “Shangri-La” point they try to convince you of.
I honestly think that with these new technologies all of this does actually become a lot simpler…and thanks for that.


Thank you kind Sir…I wasn’t really intending to come back tbh as I’d taken my ball in. However as David has clearly begged me on his hands and knees to stay (in his roundabout way…lol) I’ll prob stay now until ejected again…
I also agree with the first part of your post, but can’t comment on Bohm dialogue as know nothing about it and not really formed an opinion on the AI thing yet. When you say “the notion of control being false”, do you mean in regard to AI or free will? Cheers
Btw, how do you do smiley faces again?.
I see we seemed to have veered off the topic of Steemit a tad again…lol


I sincerely hope we continue using AI / technology, in more and more intimate ways as we have been so far, leading to closer and closer merge with our machines,

Rather than it totally doing away with us and taking our place. Your indifference / hopelessness to this Mr Mark, has always scared me when I think about the future!


@Al_Kafir for smilies type a semicolon to get the menu. My “control” comment is philosophical, so to go much further off topic [trigger warning :wink: ] … As egos, we believe we exist as separate entities and are in control of many things, yet we can learn that much of this control is illusion (for example that we act according to unconscious processes, that after the fact, are assumed to be decisions made by us). Both delving into our psychology and neuroscience provide evidence for this, which happens to coincide with certain spiritual teachings, though the latter elaborate these ideas further. The latter is backed up by my experience, in personal exploration of self enquiry (of “who am I?”) which have been consistent with teachings about this (from Sri Ramana Maharshi). Not seeking debate on this, but elaborating just to answer where I’m coming from!

@whiteoutmashups Will, I’m sorry my thoughts scare you, but don’t give my views too much respect :wink: and allow yourself to be comforted that predicting the future is notoriously difficult, even for me :laughing:. I’m quietly pleased that my son, about your age, is not disheartened by my thoughts (we have regular in depth debates about technology and the world). He’s much more optimistic than me (as David is), and I think that’s healthy and quite likely will be proven right. I have always seen the negative in things, and so I speak with that “accent”.

I’m not just indifferent BTW, but when I’m talking about that issue I tend to take an evolutionary perspective - which is indifferent - while I’m also very concerned about this on a personal and interpersonal level. Which is why I don’t give in, and why I’m here. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Yeah, always seemed a bit contradictory

Thanks for the balanced viewpoint and explanation :slight_smile: glad we’re all here trying our best

1 Like

Thanks for the smiley tip, much appreciated…;
; ; :smile:…yay…it was a colon

We’re off front page, so should be OK - who’s gonna mess with the Modfather anyways…lol[quote=“happybeing, post:14, topic:12866”]
(for example that we act according to unconscious processes, that after the fact, are assumed to be decisions made by us)

Yes, I agree with this, but not for philosophical reasons, but biological ones. [quote=“happybeing, post:14, topic:12866”]
Both delving into our psychology and neuroscience provide evidence for this,

Yes, I’d be coming from the Neuro-science angle.[quote=“happybeing, post:14, topic:12866”]
which happens to coincide with certain spiritual teachings,

…and we’re off! :smile: Correlation does not imply causation. PS, My intention is to argue with you in a friendly manner, please don’t take anything personal - not suggesting you will either…just that you know what I’m like!

anecdotal and I’d repeat the correlation/causation thing. The issue here is that as this relies on personal experience, rather than scientific enquiry or reasoned argument, a reasoned argument cannot be made to convince me. You would just be relaying personal experience to me - do you get what I mean?
Furthermore, where does the "Spiritual teacher get their information from? It’s not like neuro-science existed historically, again it can only be a chain of anecdotal personal experience. To me, it would be no different than stating that modern science verifies everything Jesus said, therefore I’m a Christian. One thing has nothing to say about the other thing, causally or scientifically. You are in the realm of Belief systems.[quote=“happybeing, post:14, topic:12866”]
in personal exploration of self enquiry (of “who am I?”)

I’m seeing some apparent contradiction here that maybe you can set me straight on. If you are stating on the one hand that Free will is an illusion created by the “ego” (sense of self) , then shouldn’t you really be asking “What am I” as opposed to “Who am I?”. I mean why investigate the ego if it is illusory and how do you even go about doing this and why? Given that you also can’t investigate the Id, as by definition it is sub-conscious, (so you are not consciously aware of it), I’m not grasping what exactly you are investigating or how you are going about it or even for what purpose?.

Do you remember refusing to tell me where you got all this spiritual stuff from, then admonishing me for suggesting it must be some guru type figure. You said I couldn’t possibly know that…maybe I’m a guru? Seriously though, would you care to tell me the differece between a “Sage” and a “Guru” as I’m ignorant here.[quote=“happybeing, post:14, topic:12866”]
Not seeking debate on this

Too late I’m afraid…: :smile:
The problem is that if anybody on this forum posts about religions, gurus, spirituality, pseudo-science or the super-natural , then I see it as my duty to respond to it. I see it as proselytizing,( whether intended or not) and basically giving a free advertisement…I can’t have that I’m afraid.
You do however have the free will to not respond/debate any further. :smile:


Speaking about “related projects,” I have a bitcoin question and couldn’t get an answer on reddit:

If BTC switches to BTC Unlimited (bigger blocks), then will my BTC that I own right now become worthless? Is it a totally different coin? Or just a new version of BTC?

confused / tiny bit worried about my current (small) BTC holdings and what all these discussions actually mean

1 Like

You are not alone with being confused.

Think of the MASSIVE outcry if everyones current BTC became worthless. That option will not occur.

if Unlimited did not recognise previous amounts of BTC then it would be slow on uptake and people would shun it simply because they have balances of BTC

As others have said if Unlimited just do a hard fork then they will become a alt-coin and BTC will continue.


@Al_Kafir still don’t really want to debate this so I’m sorry for if I don’t answering every question you asked.

I’m not religious and not proselytising IMO (because to me that would mean telling someone what’s true, or what to do), I’m sharing what I think are relevant ideas and what I have based them on, because I think you value that. You challenge some of that, which is fine, but I’m not going to argue with you to justify my approach or what I’ve drawn from it, because with respect, from past discussions - how many we’ve had! :slight_smile: I think it is pointless.

To give more context, I’m an explorer of all sorts of things, and mentioning the different basis I had for regarding control as illusory, I included self enquiry because I’ve found it important to test all ideas myself rather than to just accept what I’m told. I can’t test everything, obviously, but will use my mind to test the credibility of scientific, spiritual, political etc ideas and beliefs, and where it is possible do more direct experiments myself, if it interests me I’ll do that too, or seek corroboration etc.

Self enquiry is like turning to approach an open doorway that was always there but you hadn’t noticed. The question “who am I?” is I think designed to helps find the doorway and to evoke a curiosity about it (so “what am I?” might also be suitable) but it isn’t a question in the sense you understanding it.

One isn’t looking for an answer in terms of words, but to quiet the mind so you can focus attention on your own nature, on your self (as opposed to the ideas you can think of, or the feelings you can experience etc). It is a way of engaging with your self in order to discover your own nature, like a kind of meditation, but the words are not a mantra in the way of other meditation techniques.

I don’t expect to be able to explain this to your satisfaction, I think it is too hard to explain to someone who isn’t at the same time exploring it, and it is the exploring that will be more important than the explanation in gaining understanding. I found Maharshi’s words confusing and sometimes contradictory - I had so many questions I would have wanted to ask him - until I began to make some progress with my exploring directly, and from there on I find his words of less and less important, other than to remind me to connect with myself and how. He would respond to the person who asked a question relative to what they could hear, a skill I don’t have. Sometimes giving an explanation, but for someone who was ready to explore his response was to guide them back to self enquiry by answering with something like “who is asking?” and “who is saying ‘me’?”. I’m getting drawn into mind again do I want to bring this to a close!

I don’t recall the detail of our conversation about a guru, but I don’t regard Maharshi as my guru, though I’ve certainly leaned a lot from his words. He didn’t regard himself as a guru, but others regarded him as their guru, and gave him the labels that now identify him. I think people asked him questions and he answered.

My understanding of the guru student relationship is different to what I do, and to how I think how he behaved. By all means use the label to summarise, as shorthand, but not to transfer meaning from another context, or to label me with things I haven’t said. I’ve read the words of many people over the years, and done lots of different things (scientific, physical, therapeutic, mental, spiritual). Maharshi is just one of those, and the one I mention because of his relevance to what I was trying to explain. I often mention him in this kind of context, because of all the things I’ve read and explored about the self, his is the most direct and simple to explore, and the one I’m settled into for now (but not to the exclusion of other things).

[I think it would be good for @moderators to separate out our off topic posts, and I hope we can draw a line here.]

1 Like