Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[TheNewSaint]

Yes, http://www.labourcoin.com is hysterically funny. It fails in so many directions at once: economics, information technology, conspiracy mongering. The flowcharts alone are worth the price of admission. As well as fun topics like "alloidial earth", "copyright and patent usury", and "education assurance bonds." The whole website reads someone tried to pair up random pages from getoutofdebtfree.com and a Microsoft Certified Professional training book.

This may deserve its own thread.

[TheNewSaint]

Let's take a look at LabourCoin's Zero Balance Flow Chart:

http://www.labourcoin.com/labour-coin/z ... low-chart/



First of all, this isn't how flowcharts work. You do not create separate boxes containing values, with a shared line between them, pointing to a question. Everything must flow directly from one box to the next, with decision points based on Yes/No or otherwise finite choices.

This is not pedantry. If I logically follow the flowchart, it immediately fails. If the answer to the first question is "Yes", it directs me back to "what is the combined total of all Labour coins" but not "What is the combined total of all Advanced labour coins?" I would thus get a new value for Labour Coins, but Advanced Labour Coins would not be updated, keeping the old value. Then, when I compare them again, they will inevitably be different, and send me down a path of looking for a discrepancy that probably doesn't exist. To improve this, he could make the path: zero balance maintained -> retrieve updated total of Labour Coins and Advanced Labour Coins -> are they the same?

But this is a very poor approach to begin with, because up-to-the-nanosecond balances can't be maintained. Database transactions don't always fire at the same time, or at the same speed. It is therefore common for two sides of a transaction to post at different times. The "zero balance" goal would be much better managed by looking for imbalances in transactions, not accounts. And certainly not by looking for imbalances in the total sum of all accounts.

Moving on: any discrepancy of account is immediately declared fraud. The system then looks for discrepancies by checking the full account history for every labour coin held in every account, starting from account number 1, 2, 3, then counting up. This is gobsmackingly dumb. Such a query would take so long to run that further discrepancies would develop before you even found the first one. A much better approach would be to check transactions since the last known balance point, to try and find the one causing the problem.

If this search doesn't find an imbalanced account, it then asks "has each account in the system been checked?" Buddy, if you're checking all accounts starting at 1 in numerical order and not finding all of them, you have a serious design problem. Even more ridiculously, if this fails, it will just go through all the accounts again, creating an endless loop.

Now let's go down the path where it finds one account with a problem: "Accounts are frozen, account holders banned from any trading, all direct sureties frozen and informed of fraud, pending investigation." Seems awfully punitive over an transaction error that was probably the fault of your stupid-ass system. (Deep down, I think people like this hate money, and want to punish anyone who has some.)

The next step is: "With the fraudulent coins removed, does the account has a positive labour coin account?" But what if the account is erroneously short? You have no mechanism for that, brainiac. If there's an overage, you "place the labour coins into the fiat trading pool." If there's a shortage, I guess they're just SOL. This would cause money to leak out of the system, which will have to be explained by a better economist than myself. That economist can also tackle the rest of the flowchart, which is a zany system of surety bonds, negotiations, trustworthiness ratings, forced donations, and so forth. I just wanted to focus on the IT aspects of it.

[Chaos]

the only thing correct about that is the use of the words 'zero balance'.

[littleFred]

Labour-coin has a thread running on the TPUC forum. The promoter is theoldenegiss who says, "its an enormous undertaking at a glance". That's a huge understatement.

He also said, in December 2015:

... we are in the process of purchasing the land from where everything will be online and open sourced and the initial start up will begin, ...

[notorial dissent]

I will say one thing for them, making it open source will make it ever so easy for the hackers to hack it, like hand them the entire blueprint, instructions, and super password, little things.....(snork) On the other hand they will have to get it "coded" first, and I see that as the first insurmountable step of a whole mountains worth of steps.

[Hercule Parrot]

He doesn't even need programmers, but mere coders. Architects, designers, analysts, testers, integrators, implementers, project managers? Nope, just a few coders....

One important gap remains - he also needs to find some people who will exchange houses for Labour Coin credit. And that's not going to happen unless LCs develop a tradeable value. And that's not going to happen if LCs are given away freely. I might accept bitcoin for my house, because I know I can spend it or convert it to grubby old banknotes, but what can I buy with a notional balance of Elsie's? This self-absorbed bell-end has given no thought to fungibility.

[notorial dissent]

What I am still trying to fathom is how this "magic currency" is going to have value, other than because this yoik says it does. So far I have seen nothing to show that particular magic or necessary step.

Whether this bozoid wants to acknowledge it or not, there HAS to be some intersection between his magic beans and the real stuff he is denying has value in order for it to function.

[TheNewSaint]

He doesn't even need programmers, but mere coders. Architects, designers, analysts, testers, integrators, implementers, project managers? Nope, just a few coders.

I suspect he wants "coders" because anyone with an actual IT title would just laugh at this project. I suspect many have already.

[notorial dissent]

Actually, any coder worth the name would laugh at him as well once they saw what he was going on about. The problem is that he going to have to come up with some code from somewhere for the coders to code, since they certainly aren't going to come up with it. Although I suspect that anyone as totally clueless as this yoik seems to be, wouldn't know the difference, anymore than his prospective customers will know that he is full of it.

[Chaos]

What I am still trying to fathom is how this "magic currency" is going to have value, other than because this yoik says it does.

the same way the OneCoin scammers do.....because they also say it does.

[TheNewSaint]

What I am still trying to fathom is how this "magic currency" is going to have value, other than because this yoik says it does. So far I have seen nothing to show that particular magic or necessary step.

Surety bonds!

http://www.labourcoin.com/trust/labour-coin/

It's basically a reverse pyramid scheme. You get four people to agree to cover your debts, and they get four each, and so on, creating a network of people who can be called on to cover for any defaulting member. No, seriously:

If for example someone is found culpable through arbitration of their peers and relief is established of 1,200 labour coins.

If the culpable party is only able to provide 200 L.C, the short fall goes to their 4 bondsmen, who each should pay 250 L.C, Jane has no ability to pay, so the remaining 3 must provide 333 L.C each.

OK, LabourCoin, I'm going to stop you right there. So if 4 people are held liable for 1000 units, and one can't pay, the other 3 "bondsmen" have to pay an additional 83 units each to cover the deadbeat? That's not fair. These 4 people agreed to cover the original debtor, not necessarily each other. I would think the three would each pay their 250, and the deadbeat's 250 would be split among whoever agreed to cover that person's debts. (Unless your bond implicitly bonds you to people one or more degrees of separation away. Which no one would ever do, because they would have no idea who they're agreeing to stick up for. Sheesh, haven't you ever used LinkedIn?)

Only Fred can pay the full amount; John must ask his surety, Nigel and Tracy, to divide the burden so each pay 111 L.C; Nigel cannot pay that amount and asks his surety bondsmen, William and Evelyn so each of them provide 37 L.C; Ray only has 50 L.C and asks his surety Tony, but Tony cannot provide that amount and asks his bondsmen, David, Mary, Stanley and Chris so each of them provide 56.6 L.C.

No, here's what would happen: Someone is found culpable for 1200 Labour Coins. The culpable party would tell you and your fake money kangaroo court to get stuffed. The debt would be divided among 4 people at 300 LC apiece, who would tell you the same. This process would continue until pieces of the debt started circling back to people who've already refused to pay it. The slogan on your currency should be Non reprehendo cum adepto adhæsit. Or maybe interminatis ansa.

This settles the debt; however the soul actually liable for the debt must labour over time to repay all the L.C provided from each bondsman, paying those outside of the direct surety first.

Which soul is that? The one who didn't pay the initial 1200? Jane, who didn't pay the second 250? John, who didn't pay 222 of the 333 he owed (83 of which was also part of Jane's 250)? Nigel, who didn't pay 74 of his 111? I can't even follow it after that, but your 1200 LC judgment has created at least 1746 LC worth of debt. This is the opposite of how money is supposed to work. You claim your currency is inflation-proof, but here it is happening before our eyes, at a rate of almost 50% per arbitration ruling.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that only the original debtor has to pay the 1200. What incentive does anyone have to cover anyone else's debt? If it comes to me, I can just refuse to pay it, and suffer no repercussions.

Then there's the small problem of repaying labour. Even the noblest, most LC-devoted human beings have this condition called "dying", which can make unpaid labor balances difficult to collect. And how do I repay labor to someone 3 or 4 steps away from me in the chain? Does LabourCoin expect me to drive 800 miles to tend to Evelyn's petunias for an hour and a half?

And then, without a shred of irony, he goes into this shit:

As I have no knowledge of who “You” and or “(Name on birth certificate)” and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION THIS COURT HAS ADDRESSED ME AS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK; by WHAT AUTHORITY is the COURT ADDRESSING me as such?

1000 words about trust and support and community and agreements, and immediately launches into the ask-my-strawman act.

[Hercule Parrot]

And then, without a shred of irony, he goes into this shit:

As I have no knowledge of who “You” and or “(Name on birth certificate)” and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION THIS COURT HAS ADDRESSED ME AS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK; by WHAT AUTHORITY is the COURT ADDRESSING me as such?

1000 words about trust and support and community and agreements, and immediately launches into the ask-my-strawman act.

What a muppet. He claims that the value of an Elsie will be underwritten by the liability of 'bondsmen' as guarantors for any member's debts. Then he explains that this liability will not be enforceable in the real world.

[exiledscouser]

Well I dunno about you lot but with the demise of Weary Bank it seems perfectly clear to me, the natural successor, a breath of fresh air, freedom from 'da man', where do I sign?

I'll just browse the T's n C's, check to see everything is tickety-boo.

Oh crikey - noooooooooo - I'm excluded!

To reduce the risk of fraud at the outset, certain people are excluded from the bond, psychopaths, bankers, State workers, landlords, any from the group identified as Ashkenazi, Zionists, free masons, Israeli citizens, convicted confidence men, fraudsters and thieves, etc. For the prevention of the use of labour-coins for unsavoury practices, pedophiles, murderers, rapists, and State sovereigns and their families are also excluded from the bond.

As I am at least one of these seemingly unprotected characteristics I'm rejected forever - Drat!

I wonder how their account opening KYC & due diligence operates, how they would know an applicant was one of the unchosen? I mean it's a bit harsh plonking state sovereigns and all of their families in with the disenfranchised landlords, rapists and pedophiles.

That's Al Murray (The Pub Landlord) Stephen Fry (convicted fraudster) and Baron David Ward (State Sovereign) out too so I'm feeling in better company.

I mean, imagine the conversation;

Labour Coin: "Are you now - or have you ever been - a member of the Queen's family?"

Me: "Well I suppose I could be -

I know how to tie a Windsor Knot,
I love a good curry at the Royal Bengal after a few pints down at the Crown and Secptre",
I'm partial to the occasional Viscount biscuit
I once owned an Austin Princess (worst car - ever)
I once saw Freddie Mercury and the Kaiser Chiefs in concert
I occasionally get Royalties from the odd article in the press".

What total bollocks.

Money no more

With the death of fiat the labour-coin system would be freed from fiat constraint, a constraint imposed by fiat lovers, without this constraint the labour-coin could be traded and advanced with increased trade, and free all from the economic slavery of the Ashkenazi usury systems imposed globally.

All well and good, very noble.

Hang on, what's that I spy immediately after this pronouncement?



Bastards - soliciting - FIAT money immediately after its grandiose rejection and imminent death!

Reminds me of Peter Smith and his disdainful rejection of yet desire for as much grubby state cash as he could collect from his PO Box.

That's what this is all about at the end of the day, its just another scam.

[TheNewSaint]

What a muppet. He claims that the value of an Elsie will be underwritten by the liability of 'bondsmen' as guarantors for any member's debts. Then he explains that this liability will not be enforceable in the real world.

I like #2:

As the constructed SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE) has been deposited into the COURT, WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I, as the SOLE BENEFICIARY of the TRUST have any SURETY in this matter?

"As there is a surety, what evidence is there that I have a surety?" What the hell is this supposed to mean?

[Arthur Rubin]

To reduce the risk of fraud at the outset, certain people are excluded from the bond, psychopaths, bankers, State workers, landlords, any from the group identified as Ashkenazi, Zionists, free masons, Israeli citizens, convicted confidence men, fraudsters and thieves, etc. For the prevention of the use of labour-coins for unsavoury practices, pedophiles, murderers, rapists, and State sovereigns and their families are also excluded from the bond.

As I am at least one of these seemingly unprotected characteristics I'm rejected forever - Drat!

I wonder how their account opening KYC & due diligence operates, how they would know an applicant was one of the unchosen?

What's a "free mason". I know what a "Freemason" is, but even those who realize capitalization is unimportant know that spaces may make a significant difference.

[TheNewSaint]

I want to look at this bit again:

[the debt of 1000 LC] goes to their 4 bondsmen, who each should pay 250 L.C, Jane has no ability to pay, so the remaining 3 must provide 333 L.C each.

This is a prisoner's dilemma. If I'm one of the four schlubs sharing the responsibility for 1000 LC, I could have to pay 250, 333, 500, or 1000, depending on the simultaneous choices others make. Bear in mind, the other three could be people I wasn't willing to bond for. We all agreed to bond the original debtor, not necessarily each other.

And from an IT perspective, it's utterly unworkable. How can the "coder" build a payment screen without knowing how much the user has to pay? Does LabourCoin expect its users to check a box saying "I agree to pay" without knowing how much that will be, an amount that could vary by 400%? Alternatively, if the user pays their assumed share of 250, does the system request the remainder in a later transaction? And what triggers that? How does the coder know if the other parties are refusing to pay, or just not gotten around to it yet? There could be a payment deadline, but it would have to apply equally to all four parties. If I haven't paid yet, others still have time to do so, which affects my payment amount. The system can never know how much each person should pay.

The system, as described here, transfers responsibility to the wrong people. If I don't pay, that amount should pass to those who agreed to cover for me, not those who agreed to cover for the person one step higher in the scheme. It's also being double-counted, as explained above.

[NYGman]

In their world, it makes sense. In reality, if no one agrees to pay, and why should they, wont the debt just revert back to you?

[ArthurWankspittle]

What's a "free mason".

A person who shapes stone for no recompense? (I know, I know, pay the bailiff 100 Quatloos on the way out.)

[TheNewSaint]

In their world, it makes sense. In reality, if no one agrees to pay, and why should they, wont the debt just revert back to you?

I don't think this guy has field-tested anything outside his own head. On that TPUC thread, some of the others were making germane comments about possible flaws in this scheme. He dismissed them all, saying everything will be perfect because open source surety bonds block chain blah blah blah. After 2-3 pages, people stopped responding.

Reminds me of the people that walk into my brother's machining shop. Once a week or so, he gets some clown with some invention he thinks will change the world and make a zillion dollars. Oftentimes, they're just drawings on notebook paper. My brother takes one look at the thing, and tells him it's not going to work because of Engineering 101 reasons X, Y, and Z. Rather than accepting the free counsel of someone with 20 years high-end experience, these people will inevitably claim he doesn't see the genius of it, or otherwise wander off angry. Such is the nature of hopeless dreamers.

[notorial dissent]

What I'm still not wrapping my head around is WHY would I, or anyone, want to take on the possible debt of four other people, particularly if they are all deadbeats.