Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake

October 15th, 2017

The left, in its enthusiastic rush to ever greater holiness, has forgotten that its rules are only for the little people.

Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  But Harvey Weinstein is my enemy, even though he is being devoured by my enemies.

The Khmer Rouge started out as a bunch of very smart western educated intellectuals. Who proceeded to torture each other to death. They wound up with cadre that could not read numbers.  Observe the obvious collapse in intelligence and competence among our elite.  You could not trust the scientists building to ITER to build a chicken coop unsupervised.  Recollect Obama’s struggles to get the Obamacare website up. Remember the inanity and stupidity that was revealed in the Challenger inquiry, and ITER is a long way downhill from the Challenger.

But we should no more buy in to this doctrine of the innate purity of women, than we should buy in to the allegations of CIA, fascist, and capitalist influence in the Khmer Rouge.

It is great that Harvey Weinstein is getting the shaft, but these women are not victims. They are whores.

Harvey Weinstein is guilty of hitting on hot chicks while old and fat.  And worst of all, hitting on them incompetently.   If he had lost some weight, or been better at it, he would have been fine.  The reason this is all coming to light now is that he has been getting older and fatter.

You need to apply the Mike Pence rules in the workplace:  If you are with female coworker, leave the door open, because if you close the door, it is like watching television with a large economy size bag of potato crisps beside you.

Sex is pre rational and pre verbal.  If you are alone with a pretty woman, no one is going to open the door, and there is a horizontal surface, you will, perhaps unconsciously and unintentionally, emit certain stimuli, and likely she will react to these stimuli with certain other stimuli, quite likely without conscious awareness of doing so, and you will, perhaps unconsciously, react …

And pretty soon you are both horizontal on the floor.

But since she probably did not intend any of that to happen, under the current rules, she gets to call it rape. The mating dance has the form of pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender. So if she subsequently decides she was raped, it is always plausible, at least to her.

Its like having a bag of potato crisps beside you while watching television, except that she gets to claim that the potato chips forced her.

Which, in a sense, they did.  She did not want to have sex with you, and she did not want to finish an entire economy sized bag of potato crisps.  While she and you were watching television you heard her say eleven times that she did not want any more potato crisps.  And while she and you were fucking she said

Stop!

loudly and clearly several times, but you were too distracted to keep count.

By enforcing anti sex rules selectively upon the elite, we make the elite unattractive, with the result that women want to mate dysgenically.

We need to enforce anti sex rules selectively upon the non elite.

Obviously it should be illegal and subject to the death penalty for a man and a woman to get together behind closed doors, when that woman belongs to another man, so in a sense this is a move in the correct direction, but the trouble is we are only restraining the sexual behavior of affluent white males, not of dope dealers, criminals, and blacks, so criminals and blacks get all the pussy, and get to look, and act, way more manly than the guy in the corner office.

The concept of consent requires verbal and verbalizing consciousness.   And sex predates verbal and verbalizing consciousness by a very long time. The part of your mind that decides to have sex is far older and more powerful than the part of your mind that is capable of making up a narrative about what you are doing and why.

We can meaningfully apply the concept of consent to marriage, where a woman consents to move from one household and the authority of one male, to another household and another male, but trying to apply it to sex winds up with the absurdity that each thrust needs a legal notary.

If the door is closed, and the woman does not swiftly make an exit, sex is likely to ensue, and she consented to the likelihood that it would ensue. If a man and a woman are together in private in a secure place for a reasonable length of time, there is good chance that they are going to have sex regardless of what they theoretically intend. If a woman consents to be alone with a man in private, she knows full well that sex may well ensue. If you cannot really expect to leave the large economy sized bag of potato crisps half full, regardless of your intentions, you cannot really expect to refrain from having sex, regardless of your intentions.

The reason Harvey Weinstein is now getting in trouble is that he is fat and has been getting fatter.  If he had lost weight and lifted iron, he could have hit them over the head with a brick and gotten away with it.

The trouble with the way the left is enforcing restraints on male sexuality is that it means that Jeremy Meeks gets all the pussy. We need to enforce a no-getting-together-behind-closed-doors rule starting with Jeremy Meeks, rather than starting with Harvey Weinstein and Mike Pence. Our testosterone is falling, and we are getting stupid. But that the left is getting stupid is a very good thing.

Role models

October 10th, 2017

When Han Solo hits on princess Leia in “The Empire Strikes Back”, he does it right. She shit tests him to hell and back, and he plows on. Similarly, in “Gone with the wind” Rhett Butler proposes to Scarlett O’Hara, she rejects him, and he forcibly kisses her.

When I look at old movies, the hero always does it right. When I watch newer movies, the hero never does it right. It seems forced, artificial, and gratingly unnatural. Looks like robots carrying out a script to move the plot along. In real life, would never work, the hero would never score dealing with a woman in the way that men deal with women in modern movies.

And modern men just do not score approaching women in real life. In modern movies, action girl saves the lad in distress, and then for no apparent reason starts to like him. So it is like, “how do you meet a girl except you wait for action girl to rescue you?”

Boy meets girl remains a major plot thread, but boy and girl just never get romantic in a natural normal manner. I don’t mind if boy meets girl because of time travel, elves, space ships, dragons, and space aliens. For that I can suspend disbelief. But I just cannot suspend disbelief when they get romantic without going through the normal mating dance. In the Lord of the Rings movie, Arwen goes in for a kiss with Aragorn. The dialog explains that they already have a sexual relationship. The film maker has to depict them as already somehow having a long established off screen romance, because he is just not allowed to depict a man and a women getting together in the way that men and women actually do.  He just cannot depict Aragorn going in for a kiss with an as yet unkissed Arwen.

Trump still not in power.

October 9th, 2017

I hoped and expected that Trump would be in power by now, and observed that this would feel like a coup, and would require measures that resemble a coup.

CNN complains “Trump goes rogue” and complains that Trump is fighting for control of the presidency.

Now he is fighting for control of the presidency?

During the weekend, he issued a demand to end the great replacement, which has continued during his presidency.

Giving effect to these demands would require open political conflict with the Republican party, and open armed conflict with the permanent government.

If he yields, he will be a one term president, and the Republicans, to their immense relief, will be voted out in 2018 and 2020, giving them excuses for not implementing the policy that they run on in elections.

On his performance since the election, and the precedent of every president since Roosevelt, he will yield.

But he is Trump.

To win, he has to bring the White House into line, and then get heavily involved in a bunch of primary fights to remove Republican Party cucks in 2017.  Which so far he has not been doing.  He has been trying to make a deal with the establishment, a deal consistent with him remaining sufficiently faithful to his base to win re-election, and the establishment just is not having any.

Events so far have been consistent with the Moldbuggian view that elections and all that are as relevant as Queen Elizabeth going in a stagecoach to open the British Parliament.  The Permanent Government runs the country day to day, Harvard sets policy, and the American Law Institute, a wholly owned subsidiary of Harvard, legislates.

Indeed CNN implicitly endorsed the Moldbuggian view, by complaining that the country has two foreign policies, one set by the State Department and the Defense Department, and Trump’s policy – with the clear implication that Trump should butt out and stick to robotically signing State Department policy.

The trouble with CNN’s solution, however, is that the State Department and the Defense Department do not have one foreign policy, but a hundred, with the result that their foreign proxies are always shooting at each other, and from time to time shooting at US troops and diplomats.  Without a president in charge, they are institutionally incapable of acting as one.  The Cathedral has not solved the institutional and organizational problem of acting as one without delegating all power through a single chief executive officer.  They are not agreement capable.

And, not being agreement capable, they are incapable of making a deal with Trump.

Trump is a deal maker.  But now he is in a situation where deals are just not possible.  He has to fight and possibly be utterly defeated, or fail to fight and quite certainly be utterly defeated, fail to fight and be a lame duck for his entire single term, and then ignominiously lose the election in a landslide.

His attempts to cut a deal have alienated his base, and show absolutely no sign of producing a deal.  He is dealing with a group of people institutionally incapable of making a deal.  The accusation that Trump is intransigent is pure projection.  Social Justice Warriors always project. Trump is alarmingly ready to compromise, but can find no one to compromise with.   Winning will require measures that have been unthinkable – yet Tony Abbot and Duterte were willing to deploy such measures.  I thought, therefore, Trump would be willing to deploy such measures.  So far, however, he has yielded.  Trump is a deal maker.  He is going to have to be a general.  He is going to have to seize the power of the presidency, or be a one term president as he takes the blame for Harvard’s policy of electing a new people.

How to do cryptocurrency right

October 8th, 2017

Proof of work tends to be inherently slow, has inherently high transaction costs, and the miner’s interests are not identical with those holding currency as a store of value and those using currency as a medium of exchange.

Proof of stake is nontrival to get right. It is a form of the infamously difficult to understand (and infamously difficult to program correctly) Paxos protocol. The Paxos protocol has the great advantage over the proof of work in that after an unpredictable and possibly large time, it announces a definite result, whereas with the bitcoin proof of work protocol, no result is ever final, it just becomes exponentially probable.

Ignore the carping that proof of stake is inherently flawed. Any implementation of proof of stake that is easy to understand is likely inherently flawed, that being the infamous nature of Paxos.

Bitcoin was genuinely decentralized from the beginning, and over time became more centralized. Big exchanges and a small number of big miners are on the path to inadvertently turning it into another branch of the oppressive and corrupt government fiat money system.

The new altcoin offering are for the most part not genuinely decentralized. They have a plan for becoming genuinely decentralized some time in the future, but the will and ability to carry the plan through has not been demonstrated.

Assume that, instead of everyone being a peer, we have few dozen or so peers, the peers distributed among several nuclear armed jurisdictions, and each peer has a hundred million or so clients, and each peer stores the entire blockchain forever.

OK, we are talking rather large peers. A terabyte of storage, a hundred dollars worth, will keep one of them going for a week. Say two terabytes for redundancy. I don’t think cost of storage is going to be a significant problem.

Scaling, however, is the hard problem. Making enormous amounts of storage actually useful and effective is the problem. The amount of storage per client is absolutely insignificant. The amount of bandwidth per client is absolutely insignificant. Having a useful connection between enormous numbers of clients and enormous amounts of storage via enormous amounts of bandwidth is the hard part.

Prompt response is another problem. It inherently takes time, and potentially large and unpredictable time, to reach consensus on the blockchain.

We can, however, have fast trust base responses followed by consensus: Since the peers are pretty big, you can trust a peer for your payment during the short time it takes for consensus to settle.

The way this would work is that every client is hosted by a peer. If his host should crash, or turn evil, he can move to another peer, though during the move he will not be able to make fast transactions. When he makes a payment, the peer hosting him testifies that this is not a double spend, and the payment is instantly flagged to the recipient as cleared – but it does not get flagged as settled, and the recipient cannot spend the payment, until it gets incorporated into the blockchain consensus, about twenty minutes later. Since the peers are big and long lived, you can trust them with your money for half an hour or so, and if you don’t want to trust them,, or you don’t trust some of them, you just wait for the transaction to be incorporated into the consensus.

A bad time to invest in Bitcoin

October 8th, 2017

Back in 2013 I urged people to invest in Bitcoin.

Yesterday someone asked my cleaning lady to invest in Bitcoin.

Now if someone had asked her to accept payment in Bitcoin, or send payment in Bitcoin, then this would be compelling evidence that one should invest in Bitcoin.

But when cleaning ladies are asked to invest in Bitcoin, not a good investment.

When Bitcoin began, everyone was a miner, and everyone was a peer, everyone stored the entire blockchain. Which was great, but did not scale. And now people are struggling with half assed ideas about how to get it to scale.  Bitcoin can no longer deliver on its original promises, has not figured out what new promises to make, and many of the new promises are unworkable, or are scams, or are likely to turn into scams.

In defense of Hugh Hefner

October 2nd, 2017

Why is Hugh a pevert for having sex with numerous fertile age women at the age of ninety? Here is a toast to 20 milligrams of tada and 12.5 milligrams of caber.

It is stupid and counterproductive to blame men for sexual revolution, and particularly stupid and particularly counterproductive to blame alpha males for the sexual revolution.

Blaming Hugh Hefner for the sexual revolution is stupid. Blame Queen Caroline. Hugh Hefner was just watching the decline from poolside.

The problem is not that Hugh Hefner had sex with lots of women, the problem is that women want to have sex with alpha males. The problem is that women want to party till their youth and beauty runs out.  Rather than contrasting the sexuality promoted by Hugh Hefner with one hundred roses monogamy that only existed up to the early nineteenth century, we need to contrast it with today’s sexuality.

Starting with Queen Caroline, and following up with Florence Nightingale, the problem always has been women out of control.

She wants 2.3 more years of sex with other men before she settles for you.   They don’t want to waste a day more of their youth and fertility on their husbands than absolutely necessary

Monogamy and chastity are an agreement between males for equitable sharing of pussy, which deal was imposed on women with a stick, and the stick needs to re-applied from time to time.

“Hypergamy” means that women prefer to fuck Hugh Hefner. Since we have suppressed all the Hugh Hefners, , since today’s elite is unmanly and emasculated, it now means they prefer to fuck Jeremy Meeks.

We were better off when they were fucking Lord Byron and Hugh Hefner, than with them fucking Jeremy Meeks.

Suppress the Hugh Hefners of the world, and you will find your ten year old daughter is fucking a forty year old motorbike gang leader and ice dealer.

The problem is not Playboy magazine. The problem is that Queen Caroline did not receive a whipping.

In Victorian times they said that the problem was aristocratic wealthy male military officers. Make the army plebeian, it will solve the problem.

Then in Hugh Hefner’s time, they said the problem was wealthy and cultured businessmen, make business politically correct, it will solve the problem. What are they now saying about Jeremy Meeks?

We are targeting affluent high IQ males to make them terrified of women, thus “A rape on Campus” and “sexual harassment”. The man who did twenty years in prison for torture, rape, murder, and cannibalism gets a free pass.

This whole business started out as an attack on King and Aristocracy. Women are wonderful, it is just aristocrats and military officers forcing them to behave badly. Free and empower women, raise their self esteem, make the military plebeian, and they will behave well.

Have they been behaving well?

We observe women doing bad things with powerful men.  We conclude that powerful men are using their power to make women behave badly.  So we take power away from men and give it to women.  “Sexual harassment” law makes eunuchs of wealthy men.  The reason that lawyerettes have sex with criminal lowlives is that the judges and senior partners they associate with are terrified of them, and are therefore unattractive.

Are women now behaving better?  Is it better that lawyerettes have sex with judges, or sex with criminals?

Well, actually, it is better if they get married, cook meals, and have babies.  We now have profoundly dysgenic fertility, as cooking and babies is only for women too stupid to become cat lady PhDs.  A woman has all her life to get an education and career, but only a short time to get married and have children.

I don’t behave badly because I am a bad person.  I behave badly because in this environment, that is what it takes to get my dick wet.  I don’t like defect/defect equilibrium at all.

We cannot get out of defect/defect and into cooperate/cooperate by calling on only one side in the war of the sexes to cooperate. In fact we cannot get out of defect/defect merely by calling on people.  To end the war will take some enforcement, which enforcement was abandoned with Queen Caroline.

What women want

September 28th, 2017

This is not turning into a pua blog. I studied pua long before there was such a word, or such a community, but what I have learned is not easy to express verbally, and anyway other people are one hell of a lot better at it than I am.

The main thing I have learned is that women are incompetent and wicked at making sexual and romantic choices, and should never have been emancipated.

Also the concept of “consent” is not easily mapped onto the real life sexual and romantic behavior of women, and therefore should not be given legal or moral weight. Short of a full marriage ceremony where vows are made before God and man under parental guidance, it is really difficult to say whether a woman consented or not, and makes little practical difference.

Sometimes I watch chick flicks either for social reasons, or to learn the nature of women. The evidence provided by such movies is useful, because I don’t want to discuss my private life, and if I do discuss my private life my commenters are going to say “but those women are no good skanks. Most girls who go to nice universities don’t behave like that”. The movies on the other hand obviously target the norm, the typical female. They have been focus tested as to what gets their audience panties wet.

So:

The anime romance, “Yona of the Dawn”: (which inspired this post) Love interest number one murders Yona’s father. This gives her the total hots. Love interest number one is about to murder her also. Her response is disturbingly erotic, and seriously lacking inclination towards self preservation. Her father’s dead body is lying around during this scene, but she pays it almost no attention. Love interest number two rescues her. You might suppose that this terminates the romance with love interest number one, but you would be wrong. She has a knack for unrescuing herself.

Now you know why female voters vote to import Mohammedans.

“Mike and Dave need Wedding Dates”. Alpha males with massive preselection fall so in love that they turn into beta bucks friendzoned chumps, and the female protagonist fucks someone else.

“The Wedding Date” Mr Beta bucks is so in love he marries the woman who cuckolded him and who shows every indication that she intends to continue to cuckold him.

I am not cherry picking the worst movies. These are just the last three, except for another that was pretty similar. Disloyalty, infidelity, desire for murderers, self destructiveness, desire for violent evil men, and sexual desire overriding duty to kin, friends, and lovers.

One hundred roses monogamy comes from coercively restraining women from bad behavior, which comes from understanding that women are prone to bad behavior. Without external coercion, we tend to get stuck in defect/defect equilibrium.

The Victorian strategy of persuading women to behave well by ascribing good behavior to women bit the Victorians on the ass badly.

Losing in Afghanistan

September 27th, 2017

To the immense disappointment of his base, and indeed the immense disappoint of the vast majority of American voters left and right, Trump, breaking his election promises, decided to continue war in Afghanistan, while making the war slightly less infested by lawyers, transexuals, and women’s rights activists.

Well, delawyering the war will certainly help, but lawyers are not the core of the problem.

To put the Afghan war in perspective: In 1983 Reagan invaded Grenada, won the war in about the same time as our initial victory in Afghanistan, purged the permanent government very thoroughly, including numerous “non governmental aid organizations”, installed a new government at bayonet point, and left one month after invading. The new right wing government promptly held an election, which produced a very similar right wing government, and since then there has been no trouble in Grenada, and all elections since then have produced similarly Reaganite results, even though all elections before the invasion produced radical left wing results.

Reagan put his foot down for one month, and the place remains quietly Reaganite forever, without an American soldier in sight.

The Afghan war, on the other hand, has been running for sixteen years, and the Afghan government, despite being supposedly democratically elected, is so corrupt and bitterly unpopular that it would collapse overnight without constant violent American support. And this simply shows no sign of changing. Even if we fight a lot more effectively, thanks to delawyering the war, there is still a power vacuum in Afghanistan waiting for the Taliban.

The problem in Afghanistan is not winning the war. We won the war overnight immediately after invading. The problem is, what do you do with victory?

The problem is not that the US army in Afghanistan is infested with State Department agents making marines wear high heeled shoes. The problem is that the government in Afghanistan is infested with State Department agents making schoolgirls put a condom on a banana, who are trying in an ineffectual limp wristed fashion to impose the American state religion in an environment where a hostile and armed opposing religion has deep roots. Further, every Afghan who matters can see that victory for the State Department religion would mean that he probably will not get his dick wet. Communism in Grenada had no roots except the permanent government and the quasi statal NGOs. Purge the permanent government and the NGOs, problem solved. Mohammedanism in Afghanistan has considerably deeper roots.

You need to bring a gun to a gun fight, and a religion to a holy war. The State Department has brought a religion to a holy war, but the problem is that their religion stinks.

How do you win in Afghanistan?

You install a King whose religious practices and official state religion are acceptable to the vast majority of his subjects, which is to say, totally unacceptable to the State Department. You install a conservative Mohammedan King, one who does not think that Mohammedanism, rightly understood, is progressivism. You install a King with a striking resemblance to Dost Mohammad Khan.

The cause of these wars is that the State Department is violating the peace of Westphalia, by imposing our state religion on the entire world.

Cryptocurrency

September 25th, 2017

Our financial system is corrupt and oppressive. Cryptocurrencies represent an opportunity to route around that system, and make lots of money doing so.

Cryptocurrency is real, and presents the opportunity to make enormous amounts of money. Also, cryptocurrency scams are real, and present the opportunity to lose enormous amounts of money. Like the dot-com bubble in the 90s, you can add the concept of blockchain to just about anything and have a ‘business’ worth millions, no matter how idiotic the original idea. The vast majority of initial coin offerings are investments in businesses that are not providing anyone with any value, have no real customers and no obvious prospect of ever having any real customers.

The successful altcoin will be genuinely decentralized, as bitcoin was designed to be, originally was, and to some extent still is. Most of the altcoins, possibly all of them except the Bitcoins and Ethereum, are furtively centralized.

It will use, or at least offer the option, of Zooko type wallet names, as Bitcoin and Ethereum do.

It will be scalable to enormous numbers of transactions with low transaction costs, as Steemit and Ripple are, but Bitcoin and Ethereum are not.

It will support sidechains, and exchanges will be sidechained.

It will be a blogging and tweeting platform, as Steemit is, and will be a decentralized blogging and tweeting platform, as Steemit is not.

Every website reporting on the altcoin boom and the initial coin offering boom has an incentive to not look too closely at the claimed numbers. Looks to me that only Bitcoin and Steemit.com have substantial numbers of real users making real arms length transactions. Maybe Ethereum and Ripple also. The rest are unlikely to have any significant number of real, arms length, users. The white papers don’t tell you the qualifications of the people running the operation, or what they are going to do, what milestones they hope to reach.

The crypto coin business is full of scammers, and there is no social pressure against scammers, no one wants to look too closely, because a close look would depress the market. There is no real business plan, no very specific or detailed idea of how the coin offering service is going to be of value, how it is going to get from where it is now, to where it is going to usefully be. It is very hard to find out how many real users a crypto currency has, and how much stuff is available denominated in that crypto currency.

Most of the alt currencies are just me-too copies of bitcoin, not adding any substantial value, and/or they cannot scale, and they are deceptive about how centralized and how vulnerable to state attack they are. Nearly all of them are furtively centralized, as Bitcoin never was. They all claim to be decentralized, but when you read the white paper, as with Waves, or observe actual practice, as with Steemit, they are usually completely centralized, and thus completely vulnerable to state pressure, and quite likely state seizure as an unregulated financial product, thus offer no real advantage over conventional financial products. When you buy an initial coin offering, you are usually buying shares, usually non voting shares, in a business with no assets and no income and no clear plan to get where they will have assets and income, as in the dot com boom.

The numbers show that Bitcoin is number one, ethereum number two, ripple number four, and steemit.com number eighteen, but my wild assed guess is that Bitcoin is number one, steemit number two, ethereum number three. I have absolutely no idea where ripple stands. No one is providing data that would enable us to estimate real, arms length users.

Bitcoin exchanges are banks, and banks naturally become fractional reserve institutions. Bitcoin exchanges are furtively and secretly investing customer deposits, without reporting the resulting term transformation.

Genuinely free market banks, and bitcoin exchanges are genuinely free market banks, have a financial incentive to engage in term transformation – borrow short, lend long. Which is great for everyone until a rainy day comes, rains on everyone, and everyone withdraws their deposits all at the same time, and suddenly all those long term loans cannot be liquidated except at a loss, whereupon the banks exchanges turn to the state, and so begin the transition from a backed currency to a state currency, ceasing to be free market banks.

The trouble with fractional reserve is that free market banks, banks trading in a backed, rather than state, currency, tend to deny, understate and misrepresent the term transformation risk, making them slowly, and often unintentionally, drift into becoming scams. If the reserve fraction is visible to customers, then we could rely on caveat emptor. Right now, however, every bitcoin exchange is drifting into becoming a scam.

We need, and we could easily have but do not have, a system where the amount of bitcoins owed to customers by an exchange is knowable and provable, and the amount of bitcoins owned by an exchange is knowable and provable, so that the reserve fraction is visible, whereupon the exchange would have to provide information about the extent and nature of its term transformation, or else would likely lose customers, or at least would lose large, long term customers. This would involve the decentralized cryptocurrency making each exchange a sidechain operating a centralized cryptocurrency backed by the decentralized cryptocurrency. Which would also help mightily with scaling.

Bitcoin and ethereum is truly decentralized, in that it is a protocol that any entity can use, and that in practice lots of entities do use. If the government grabs some hosts, or some hosts do bad things, they can just be ignored, and the system continues elsewhere. They also use Zooko type identities, which in practice means your wallet name looks like line noise. This is outstandingly user hostile, and a reason so many people use exchanges, but it provides the core of resistance to state power.

Unfortunately, Bitcoin and Ethereum face scaling limits. Maybe ethereum will fix its scaling limits. Bitcoin does not seem to be fixing them. This makes Bitcoin and Ethereum transactions inherently expensive, which is likely to prevent them from replacing the corrupt and oppressive US government controlled financial system.

Steemit.com has a far superior design which does not result in scaling limits – although we have yet to see how its witness election system will perform at scale – as the system scales, money holders have less incentive to vote, less incentive to vote responsibly, and voting will inherently cost more.

Steemit.com is also highly centralized. The altcoin that will win will be the one needs to be scalable all the way to Visa and Mastercard levels, and needs to be visibly decentralized, visibly resistant to state seizure, and needs to have a mechanism that makes the fractional reserves of exchanges visible to exchange users.

Bitcoin was genuinely decentralized from the beginning, and over time became more centralized. Big exchanges and a small number of big miners are on the path to inadvertently turning it into another branch of the oppressive and corrupt government fiat money system.

The new altcoin offering are for the most part not genuinely decentralized. They have a plan for becoming genuinely decentralized some time in the future, but the will and ability to carry the plan through has not been demonstrated.

I like the steemit design. The witness system is scalable, the witness election system has problems which may be fixable, or may be inherent.

But I have a suspicion that investing in steemit is only going to profit whoever owns steemit.com, not the owners of steemit currency.

According to Steemit documentation, it looks like a well designed cryptocurrency that deserves to replace Bitcoin, because it is more scalable, more user friendly, and more immediately usable.

Well, that is what it looks like. Except its front end is the steemit.com website, and any one website can easily be seized by the feds. If actually decentralized, it should be a bunch of websites using a common crypto currency and a common identity system,

Remember usenet: A common protocol, and an internal name system. The particular host through which you accessed it did not matter all that much, because all hosts had to behave much the same. Steemit should be something like usenet with money, and it is not.

The way usenet worked, anyone (meaning anyone’s computer and his client program) could join as a client by having an agreement with a host, and anyone (meaning anyone’s powerful and well connected computer system) could join as a host by having an agreement with a few existing members.

A successful altcoin needs to be a blogging platform like Steemit, but it also needs to be a federation, like Usenet or Mastodon. Many of the blogs will be offering goods or services for cryptocurrency.

Then one could be more sure that success of the federation currency would benefit owners of the currency, rather than owners of a single central website.

Needs to be Mastodon with the ability to support a blog like post, and like Steemit, and unlike Mastodon, to send and receive money. Steemit.com is wordpress.com with the ability to send and receive money.

Bitcoin has a decentralized name system, rooted in Zooko style names that are not human intelligible. Its resistance to state power comes partly from the fact that there are several miners and anyone can be a miner, and partly from its decentralized name system.

Steemit has a communication and blogging system. But if I hold steemit currency, steemit.com connects that to my phone number, which the government connects to my true name. All that handy dandy data that the government would like all in one place that you can serve a warrant on or mount a raid on. Or just sell for profit.

Need a decentralized communication, identity, name, and blogging system, unlike Steemit.com’s centralized communication and blogging system, and a name system that is resistant to government intervention and control, like Bitcoin’s name system. Thus the blogs offering goods and services for crypto currency will be resistant to regulation or seizure by the state. When a ruler meddles as much as our state does, he gives dangerously great power to those dangerously close to him. The regulatory state inevitably drifts into anarcho tyranny, or, like Venezuela, into violent and chaotic anarchy.

But we also want human readable names. How can we square Zooko’s triangle? (As Aaron Schwarz famously asked, and then infamously gave a very stupid answer.) I will give my answer as to how a crypto currency can square Zooko’s triangle in a following post. (The answer being, much as namecoin does it.)

Chicks dig jerks

September 21st, 2017

This is not going to turn into a game blog. Other men are much better at game than I am. I know, because I have seen them in action. On the other hand, I am not just an average f#@#!g chump. I clearly score more than the average f#@#!g chump, and fat and in my sixties I still score more than the average f#@#!g chump, though back when I was very fat, not so much.

I know a man half my age who was a male model and is a lot richer than I am. Girls stop and turn their heads when he walks through the mall. If he stands still, cute girls appear from nowhere and start conversations with him. But then nothing happens. Money and looks gets your foot in the door, but it does not get you laid. His problem is that he is far too nice.

Now a lot of readers of this blog seem to believe that nice, upper class girls, the girls that come from intact families, go to good universities and have supportive upper class fathers are not like that. Being a nice guy will, they think, get you a nice girl.

Bullshit.

The girl who started fucking at nine years old, jumped aboard more cocks than merry go round rides, mostly the cocks of criminals, and is still unmarried at thirty five because she is incapable of bonding with any man, is the girl who whose doting intact family spent a shitload of money getting her a good law degree from a good university. And this is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts. It is precisely the girl with the good family and a loving father who is disinclined to have sex with the nice guy. Nice guys have a way better shot with girls whose fathers have died or abandoned them. I have tried nice, and I have tried being an asshole, and nice gets mostly gold diggers and a few fatherless girls.

If you want a nice girl, be the bad man. The only society where nice guys get the girl is the society where the patriarch does not allow any non related males near his daughter except the man he has already decided will marry her. (And in such a society she will agree to marry him, because she wants to climb aboard the first plausibly high status cock that she meets, and her Dad treats him as high status and forces her to treat him as high status.) Ballroom dancing is pretty much a ritual to make the males look high status to the girls, so back in the day the system was a girl had a dance card filled out by her father, and was compelled to dance with everyone on the dance card, and be polite and respectful to him, and forbidden to dance with anyone not on the dance card.

But in a society where you can meet chicks without asking their dad to put you on their ballroom dance card, you need to treat chicks like dirt. And you especially need to treat them like trash if you want chicks from intact families who don’t have a number larger than your own.

One of my commenters told me that if I was dating much younger women, I was dating gold diggers. Yes, I have dated gold diggers, lots of gold diggers. But the trouble with gold diggers is that they want the gold, they don’t want to lay me. If I want to lay women, I get far better luck not giving them any gold, at least not until they have been having sex with me for a while without any indication of fidelity or financial support. I would be happy to date gold diggers if I got laid that way, but I don’t get laid that way – OK, I did get laid by one gold digger, but it was part of a plot to commit paternity fraud. Beta provider game just does not work. I know, because I have tried it extensively. You need a little bit of beta provider game, but it has to be part of asshole game, and you don’t turn on the beta provider game until after asshole game has succeeded. The chick needs to think that by laying you, serving you, and obeying you, then she reveals the soft nice guy inside your harsh exterior. Early niceness will lose the chick. Similarly, when you catch a fish, got to give it a hard jerk to set the hook. You let it run only after it is well and truly hooked. There comes a time in the relationship when you need to give her some beta provider game, or else you will lose her. But if you give her beta provider game too soon, too easily, or too much, you will also lose her, to someone who is a much bigger asshole than you are.

If you want a society where men act well, you need a society where men that act well get laid. Thus for civilization, must have patriarchy, and that patriarchy will be very forcefully resisted by women howling for their demon lover, and has to be very forcefully imposed on those women.

How forcefully? Well, England before 1810 or so was fairly successful at keeping women in line, and frequently deployed methods that would make the Taliban blush, methods that horrified the Victorians. We need to copy eighteenth century England, eighteenth century Virginia, and early nineteenth century Australia. The Old Testament gave women a legal status similar to that of modern day pets, and eighteenth century England was only marginally more progressive than Old Testament Israel. And to the extent that it was marginally more progressive than old Testament Israel, I would argue that this was a big mistake that led to the disaster we now suffer.

Giving women legal status similar to that of pets would have two effects: It would reward civilized behavior, and it would raise fertility to Timor Leste levels. Now some of my commenters are worried about white fertility. If whites were reproducing at Timor Leste levels, pretty soon we would need to conquer inferior races, take their land, and restrain them from reproducing. Oh the horror. Which reasoning seems scarcely different from the proposition that Europeans should restrain their reproduction so that we can benevolently rescue four billion African refugees over the next forty years.