non decentralised nature of bitcoin?

Bitcoins with blockchains – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_chain_%28database%29 – are supposed to be decentralised technologies.

However, I wonder how decentralised the technology actually is..

In terms of having potentially equal nodes throughout its network: would node X with a big computer and ability to process more than others be an equal?

More importantly, in my view is the question of the network protocol’s own centrality within like minded networks. This perhaps is a question of conceptual decentralisation – however, it seems interesting because if the network Is the ce3ntre of a decentralised nodes with it, then we essentially get a state like model that is in fact an algorithm.
In sense, is it not a substitution of human exchange protocols with algorithmical protocols which form, in and of themselves, a centralised object?

Am using the state analogy here because in the bitcoin oriented environments, focus is indeed upon how to replace state linked operations with blockchain technology. There are some who envision a sort of stateless anarchy that is happily controlled by an algorithm.

Am not suggesting there is something inherently “wrong” with a controlling algorithm. Sure it has its drawbacks like other operators have theirs, however this might belong to a different discussion.
Here I’d like to point only that the singularity of having a state, or an algorithmic protocol, or any other centralised controlling or defining element – makes the decentralisation limited within itself. Hence considering this technology on a universal scale, ie implementable for all circumstances and for all – seems perhaps out of step.

net nutrality demonstrates the non nutrality and illetimacy of money?

numerical exchange? or is it just a corrupt island – a where there is a sequence of covering practices between seeming intent (just people with concerns), driving intent (pay people to play as if they are concerned – ie no discussion possible because what they say they want is not what they really want or give a shit about), and entities that pay while knowing that the very fact they have to pay, undermines their argument while raising its visibility, yet that very visibility is that of a bubble because the means undermine it.. Like bought love.. Check this out..?

when there are flags, there is a weak & frightened entity holding it

attempting to intimidate as a way of masking its own fragility?

Noticed the images from eastern Ukraine of the people attempting to re-kickstart a soviet republic, Donetsk as Donetsk People’s Republic..

Check stuff like:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26919928
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/19/ukraine-donetsk-pro-russia-militants
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10775058/Ukraine-crisis-Inside-the-barricades-of-Donetsk-Peoples-Republic.html
http://euromaidanpr.com/2014/04/07/updates-on-the-situation-in-eastern-ukraine-from-unian/
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/04/ukraine-crisis-separatists-donetsk-people-republic-20144177535478448.html
http://rt.com/news/donetsk-republic-protestukraine-841/

Is it not that one common visual prop is the use of flags and a set of communal recognised colour pattern?

Given the fragility of the entities involved, it seems also that these illustrate how the amount of flags is a sort of indication how a regime, an entity, feels and senses its own reality.. The more prominent the symbols are – perhaps the weaker their supporters actually are, or fear to become..

discussion about uk military reveals the gulf between the rulers

and the ruled?
Noticed top story in today’s guardian, an assertion by a US militant, Robert Gates, that british military “risks” being underspent. The guardian’s excused reason to put this blurb on top of its website is, I suppose, the element of risk, rather than, for example: at long last.. (..am saying that because it could say something like a heading that celebrates the military cuts, rather than being alarmist emphasising a “risk”)

In that slight emphasis usage, the guardian indeed shows itself being part of the ruling classes in british society today. And judging by the recent domain name change, and added geographies, (from co dot uk to dot com, and added US and AU) the guardian has an ambition to be part of a wider than merely blighty’s rulling classes..

Refreshingly, the readers, the ruled are, by enlarge, very happy indeed about the news. Despite some the said efforts, do not buy into the risk perception, but realise military cuts are indeed very very welcome and long long long over due?

radio free europe or a road to a freely available

dictatorship of capital?

Bumped into radio free europe – radio liberty (rferl), which perhaps I should have noticed some time ago.. Their “mission statement” seems slightly interesting because they link democracy, free and uncensored information, with “free markets”. (I suppose the reference is free market capitalism style, rather than. for example, an exchange platform where people might be free to evolve free ways of exchanging. ie ways that might introduce less oppression..)

Am struck by how anachronistic the idea of free market and democracy sounds like… Despite the chinese style free market capitalism that gathers financial power as we speak, in spite of russian capitalistic authoritarianism, in fact, looking at the list of countries’ rferl rightly suggests oppression is rife links to places with usa style regimes, and the recent nsa leaks – to claim an inherent link between democracy and capitalism’s free market – does it stand?

Here’s another example..
It might be that uk mortgage repayments will have to rise – because a few rich people can afford to heat up the market.. ie the general population will pay for
a few people’s financial powers. Would we have voted for that?
Has there been a debate on the outcome of rich people’s fuelled ecoboom?
Can people, freely – ie without fear nor worry for negative responses – bring the wheel of housing boom back..? (..or if they tried to even imagine that, they’d be told of un imaginable negative repercussions..?)

art at times of alternatives and urgent crisis?

Alternative & crisis is a week long events in response to current capitalistic crisis – I think some economies are not in any crisis. This will be followed by an exhibition curated by Oliver Ressler & Gregory Sholette that, according to the English blurb: “…today artists normally avoid to work on the question of the
crisis and capitalism in the world, this exhibition makes an
exception. It shows international artists of all generations that
confront problems of representation of capital, crisis and
resistance. Their works are driven by the urgent need to respond
to the crisis we are witnessing.”

I have not seen the exhibition, so response is re texts about it.
Are they saying that all these mainly direct and fairly “art oriented” efforts do not exist in relation to the “crisis”?
If indeed the capitalist crisis is of short term speculative acts that discount the possibility of futures, the future of our current unknowns and the pretence of knowing it while having a celebrated carelessness to promote and fetishise the Now/present/today – then why the utilitarian/useful-value-based approach with a sort of advert like focus on Urgency of action, that in my mind echoes precisely the acts of culture we want to overcome?

Am really asking these questions – not being sarcastic at all. While I am very sure that capitalism and its associated imaginations and culture takes us exactly to areas of brutality, power, death, over-distraction, inhumane relationships, total exploitation, anti-equalitisation, anti-democratisation and other authoritarian and fascistic processes – it seems to me that an approach that imagines people as binaries of un/useful mechanical devices, eg Thomas the tank engine Is good because its Useful, is exactly how to illustrate wanting to get a certain result while doing, and imagining exactly the opposite..

Hopefully, am exaggerating, or even better, a bit wrong..

valve’s version of un-managed workers in a capitalist game?

Valve, by bbc hacks, is doing some bossless working time with the idea that people will produce more and better without a manager to boss them about.

Workers owning, running and thriving in running workplaces runs deep in time, and in my pov can be traced to pre-roman slave liberation movements.

In this Valve’s iteration of the practice, I find it interesting that the company and its capitalistic structure stays in tact. – The For profit & exploitation structure and practices, for selling stuff to maximise profits & for exploiting products, users and workers for that profit aim..

Is this another example of capitalism nicks socialist/anarchist/communist practices for its own money – numerical exchange – gain?
The case of Monopoly comes to mind here, where the game was slightly – with no understatement – rehashed from a socialist game that highlighted the plague of ownership..)

anti democratic discrimination in the name of democracy?

Where are Jews discriminated against, openly and with a cahooting state power?
Frankelinstine. (otherwise known as israel/palestine)
Where in Frankelinstine Jews are discriminated against in such a manner?
In the area zelot/fanatical/zionist/religious/secular-traditional israeli-jews seem to want to keep most – Jerusalem.
Where in Jerusalem such discriminatory activities take place?
In exactly the space that such big-other-heads gets filled with bog psychogeo beliefs from – where they want to imagine the temple was near to.

The notions above might be very disputable, however, I think the fact that a group of Jews is not being permitted to practice their beliefs freely, is not disputed.. I speculate that if in London, Bradford, Brazilia, Cairo, or else where, Jews – or any kind of religious people – where treated to abuse and denial of their right to practice their beliefs peacefully and without physically harming anyone – there would have been a huge out-cry.. (eg, the outcries that followed attempts to legislate for humane animal killing and outlawing circumcision practices in recent years..)

Another case.. Why would a group of people, in various states and cultures, in the vast majority of contemporary human societies – be denied a right afforded to other group, just because of sexual orientation? Indeed, I think it might be fair to question the democratic credentials of states, societies and cultures that allow such denials to be practised – because they are sexually discriminatory.

The link?
I think that both struggles, that of the Jewish women preying rights and of gay marriage rights – are sort of contemporary poor left overs of forgotten emancipatory freedom movements. The two struggles, unlike movements that questioned social, religious, cultural, political and economical orders, and attempted to energies processes for ever increasing equality and empowerment FOR ALL – the struggles of gay marriage and women praying rights is to accept the order already existing, to accept the culture of religious prayer/marriage – and simply asking to be accepted within it.
Both struggles – which I think should not be denied the rights they demand – are, imho, fail to question and produce a critique that energises democratic processes for all.
For example, the religious women do not struggle for greater emancipation of other religious groups, indeed any other group or individuals – to go around and practice stuff peacefully. That is not their agenda. They seem to demand a right to prey in a certain place, but not the right, for example, other jewish groupings to be accepted in the state that defines itself as jewish. Nor do they seem to wish affording the rights they demand, for free people, or muslims within the israeli state control, to roam and not be denied access into certain areas. (eg, certain areas in jerusalem are dangerous for free women to go into because they’ll get beaten up, or that muslims could go to the beach and not be made to feel un-wanted or in some sort of violent danger..
The gay rights people, like the religious women in jerusalem, do not struggle to question stuff. For example, if marriage is not afforded for gays, why not scrap it? Why not question the religious content? The contemporary relevance of the practice? Why not attempt to invent a democratic answer to democratic questions of marriage?
What about humans that want to marry animals, or in-animate objects, maybe, if marriage is something that should be afforded for all one2one living together arrangements of entities not from same family to begin with, then it should indeed be for all kinds of 121 unions?
In that sense, that these struggles are not for social change but of acceptance within the given order, and that these will be afforded for these limited groups – not others – it seems for me that we are witnessing struggles that are in and of themselves, discriminatory and anti-democratic.

Struggles for emancipation by various groups, like feminism, or indeed the afro-american struggles, and indeed that of jews, were/are not just for these specific groups. They are using these specific issues to shed wider lights and questions over social and cultural practices and processes. They are used to question economic and social structures – eg pay equality. They question voting rights – eg the suffrage was not just for women – but for ALL. Universal, unconditional suffrage.
Even when MLK had a little dream, it was for people of ALL skin colours..

Fair phone fun, future or fairness flop?

Noticed today the Fair Phone which supposed to be made of my mobile device wet-dreams.. I have a basic repulsive sense every-time I need to use my phone, because the 1st thing in my head is the question – How many people died for this to be an object of possibility? How many were spear-raped in Congo for this device to operate? Is this their blood am about to touch..?

So seemingly, a fair phone, might be the kind of stuff I should get?

How? Can I afford the price? Circa £300??!! No way.. Is that fair? Is the price fair on me?
A bit like “fair trade”.. Might be nice ideas in the sense of not screwing the farmers – though it gets slightly more murky – however, at the point of exchange with me, I can not afford being fair.. The “fairness” seems within the capitalistic ideology of money is the bottom-line, an ideology with suspected fairness itself.. (because if money is bottom line, and we work putting same efforts, for example, then why should you get more? Also, with bottom-line money, the currency’s mathematics get their own life..)

Anyhow.. That was a bit of diversion..

In terms of FairPhone.. Perhaps I should not be too harsh.. (despite the fact their price is harsh with me..) This is a beginning and I should not pre-judge their intent.. Perhaps they will be looking into ways of Democratising, even anarchasing, the device, to make this a beginning of a process rather than a product of a process at an end..
I think these kind of movements, like fair phone, should definitely be encouraged – hell as long as you are not thinking of google/apple/MS as a sort of stuff to emulate, perhaps you should be congratulated – however, I think it is also Fair to say that their CURRENT dealings are well within the capitalistic paradigms, and if they seek fairness, I think these are the borders they need to cross.. Having more distrust of the democratic power of the market, might be a place to begin with.. (Despite the fact that after all these years of anti animal testing, we have increasing numbers of animals being tested, might be a clue as to the effectiveness of similar trajectories..?)

legits and legalities?

Just noticed http://arty.li/ZxY regarding the anti-gay drive in the democracy of Russia. IDK re correctness of actual incidents rise-up after the anti-gay laws came about. However, I can perceive that such laws do provide a sense of self righteousness for some people to attack gay people. (..or other groups singled out by a law..)
This is a challenge to the stuff I was thinking past few years regarding legitimacy’s requerement for laws. ie that X has to be 1st legit/illegit for laws to pass + if laws do not correspond to social legitimacies, they either take time to be enacted – or none at all.. (equal pay a case in point..?)

monetary truth and the power of numerical lies?

Seems like the so called state of israel (otherwise known as Frankelinstine) has a problem, people just do not understand the jewish bit of events version. Hence, the state has an “explanation” unit (used to be ministry) known as “hasbara” – hebrew for explanation.
However, the propagandas, errr, explanation efforts might come from people who don’t understand today’s networking ways.. So the state decided to ask its students to prostitute their social networking for the benefit of the state’s prefered story lines.
If the story lines the state wanted to go “out there” were self evident, then perhaps people will not need any encouragement, chersion, or pimping. However, since the israeli state jewish section knows without coercive efforts truths it might not like could surface, they want to do a deal with some of its more patriotic students, go online and pimp israel jewish section, and in return, the state will help pay the university fees!

egypt and the beginning of our democratic endings?

The coup against the tyrannical/power-hungry/naive – take your pick – rule of un-elected + elected majority of religious heads in egypt has turned into a full blown bloodbath. The army shoots demonstrators, blames demonstrators, and casts fog as to what on earth is going on, and how come over 500 people get in the way of sniper bullets without noticing it.

Where are the voices of democrats now?
Where are the voices of democracies now?

The silent voices about egypt open the space for people like erdogan – who very recently didn’t hesitate to have a go at people in turkey – to posture as a friendly person concerned by civilian deaths and killing.
The meek voices that call for “calm” deprive the future moralistic ground of saying “stop!!” when the killers are not west’s bestest of friends..
The continuous tacit support for egypt’s new rulers might also pave a way for claiming democratic ways are not so very pan human. Here we have a group of murdered religious psychopaths that I, and possibly many other democratic minded people, utterly disagree with. However, is this disagreement more important than their right to live?
Is this disagreement more important than the ability to continue the dialogue around it?
We do not normally have much dialogue with dead people, and grieving communities, people who share a sense of responsibility for others who died for their cause, find it even harder to converse because of the possibility that friends died for a mistaken cause..

If we can not argue energetically for democratic processes in every human society, perhaps indeed democratic processes are not as important as we might have thought..
Do we have others?
If our democratic processes are not as important as we thought. If such processes that helped bring a culture of ever greater emancipation and equality among various social elements, if such processes that helped sorting issues among ourselves via words rather than sticks, are not relevant any more – what is there as a replacement?
I think that if we stop arguing for the pan-human – perhaps even pan-entity – bases of democratic processes, then we’ll slowly realise these processes and the culture that come with them, will shrink at home.. A bit like Kafka’s observation that 1st they go for the migrants, then the “jews”, and so, until it is You. Or a bit like the way we can witness how drones have been used upon “enemies” and are slowly being introduced in police domestic activities – I think that democratic processes erode 1st in our links with the “outside”.. Just like such links can feed greater energies when democratic processes are indeed pressed ahead with..

<!NotE!> I do think that our democratic processes are all too minimal and lacking many elements that we should do for, perhaps, better evolving them. However, just because the element is organic and evolving, does not mean the element/entity has to be killed off..

an american fascism?

if microsoft and state cahooted to spy, this could form the classic definition of fascism as a capitalistic ideology where the state – as in china – lives for its corporations, and the corporative powers help the state to continue.
These kind of affairs are not of nations, but states. In a sense, this marks perhaps an official ending – or unravelling – of the nation state, and regressing to a neo-feudal states. Is it not that like in feudal parliaments, where the lords will gather together to resolve matters that affected their relationships, so this contemporary version is using its lords – corporate masters/ceos – to weild powers that are vetted by the capitalistic lords?

flow github in browser pulling commits

Just had a quick look at https://github.com/blog/1557-github-flow-in-the-browser – the actual webpage, not the tool. The language they use, the terms are in a very different english to the one I kind of have a better clue about. This is a sort of githublingo, I suppose. So to get into the tool, I’d have to get better lingo clues – which I haven’t got the time nor incling for @ the mo.
However howeva,
It did occur to me that there is a faint memory in my mind of github beginning. I recall feeling more aquiented with the lingo then.. So, I suppose that if just might be the very specific terms have evolved with the tool..? Am intrigued as to how that process came about.. It seems emergent, but was it? Is it?
For example, if you want – or need – to use a certain tool, and some headploncker decided to call every button “Pushkin”, is it not sort of arbitrary that you’d use “pushkin” when chatting to community members about buttons in that tool?
Perhaps I am mistaking emergent with democratic/free emerging process? Or even worst, between emergent processes that are top-down/one2many/may2one as long as they evolve rather than specifically designed – and democratic processes? Confusing stuff? Me??!!
Is evolution democratic?

egypt, democracy, priciples, religions, rule and commas

Since the army + “the people” coup ouster of Morsi last week, I didn’t feel how to question the unfolding of recent egypt based events. Today, with the blatant shootings of people – “Muslim brothers” rather than “the people” this time – by the same army, perhaps an old question of principles kicks into my mind?
When are the times – if there any – to support certain basic principles?
Throughout the last year, when the muslim brotherhood was in full power over the egyptian state – or seemed so – shooting/killing the occasional anti-government demonstrator deemed fine in their religious minds.
Throughout the past 12 months, when Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood overlords wanted to, they arrested political rivals, shut and censored media outlets and intimidated political opponents as well as people of other faiths..
During the past 12 months, the Muslim Brothers ruling egypt have forced through a constitution that instead of being for the whole, was intended – perhaps – for the majority if not the few. (hence the need to force the constitution..)
Throughout its career as a political party/entity, the muslim brotherhood – as well as other political religious organisations – show disregard or misunderstanding as to the plural and evolving nature of democracy. They seem to think democratic processes are there to support islam/any-other-faith in political power, once it has been voted in. (This is precisely how #capitalists view #democracy in the “west”, hence justifing the economic discrimination and socio-cultural segregation of dissidents. However here am trying to focus on non-numerical-exchange-based faiths. Yup, I think money requires faith as well, but its not a godly one, its much more immaterial imho.. Perhaps needs more elaboration one day..)
However, coming back to muslim brothers etc, despite – or in spite – of their failings, I think that people who do consider democracy to be for all people, and its secular way – free thinking and freedom evolving – to continuously learn how to question and evolve emancipation and equality for all, is this not the time to call for the Help of our political opponents?

If an overtly uber authoritarian party members were in a similar situation – say the nazies – would I have asked the same question? Should they not be stopped from attempting to abuse democratic processes? Use these processes when they like, dump and kill them when they don’t like?
Perhaps this proposes an even more radical and interesting question.. Maybe we, free thinking secular etc people are in a comma with the way we imagine democracy? Perhaps the democratic processes should be imagined and thought of better so that we’d feel able to extend Help and assistance to anyone who is being killed/murdered without having to feel anxious re them later on being able to hack democracy for authoritarian aims?