Earn cash for your content on Honest Cash

Honest Cash - social network that pays creators based on Bitcoin Cash (BCH)

Honest is a social network where you can earn Bitcoin Cash (BCH) if you create value. Our mission is to improve the quality of content on the internet and to get people paid for doing what they love.

You earn Bitcoin Cash when your content is upvoted on Honest Cash.

You can earn Bitcoin Cash by voting on good content early.

Your opinion is important, regardless what position do you represent. You can make your content uncensorable on Honest Cash so it can never be censored or removed.

Personally, I’m just as big on mesh networks and environmental sustainability as I am on p2p trade networks. The green energy advocate and the cryptocurrency user seem worlds apart. Yet both communities need to be talking about NANO. But why should a green-energy advocate care about a cryptocurrency, and how energy efficient is it, really? To answer that, we need to first look at where Bitcoin failed, and where NANO is fixing the problem. Bitcoin had potential. With its original lack of centralization, low transaction fees, and fast transaction speed combined with relative anonymity in purchasing, Bitcoin could have been the cryptocurrency to demolish the central banking system once and for all, and transform currency and our entire market structure into a free market system. But it didn’t. In fact, where fees were originally less than a cent, even a $40 transaction can now have the equivalent of a $4 fee attached. Where there was a lack of central authority and general equality, there are now bitcoin whales and banks. Where there were near-instant transaction speeds, there are now sometimes days of waiting for trade confirmation. And while all this is happening, Bitcoin is so energy-inefficient that it 950 KWH (kilowatt-hours) per transaction. To most people, that’s just a number. So for comparison, the average American household consumes 867 KWH per month. Enter NANO. NANO does not have the same problem of centralization as Bitcoin does, or even a regular blockchain-based cryptocurrency, because NANO uses a system called the block-lattice. With the block-lattice, every person has their own blockchain. It’s very similar, in that respect, to mutual credit - a term the left-libertarians may recognize. In fact, it’s extremely similar, because it practically only exists between the sender and the receiver. (There is an actual mutual credit cryptocurrency, which I will do a post about later.) So how do they avoid someone lying about how much NANO they have? Like regular blockchain money, NANO does have a puzzle that the computer has to solve in order to validate. However, it’s been set up to be both energy-efficient for your computer and made extremely hard and time-consuming for someone to try to spam or hack the network. Here’s a video explaining it a little better, also with closed captions. So how energy-efficient is NANO, and why do I call it a green crypto? NANO, unlike bitcoin, only consumes 0.000032 KWH per transaction. An LED light-bulb, comparitively takes an hour to consume 0.005 KWH. Essentially, you would need to be making about 150 NANO transactions an hour to consume the same energy. And because all the coins that are in NANO are still there, and will not be added to, it will never get less energy-efficient. And right now, that makes NANO over 8,467,023 times more efficient than Bitcoin, which surprisingly is still more energy efficient than the Federal Reserve. The whole network is so energy-efficient that it can work off one wind turbine, and the NANO community is working to buy a small 14 square kilometer forest so that they have a negative carbon footprint rather than just a neutral one. It’s not perfect, sure, but it’s great news in working towards a sustainable future.
Agorism is, as according to its founder, Samuel Edward Konkin III, a left-market anarchist philosophy, the pursuit of a stateless society in which "[a]ll relations between people are voluntary exchanges - a free market. No one will injure another or trespass in any way." It does not matter to the agorist what the government thinks of their voluntary exchanges, or their mutual aid, or their gift economy. If they wish for a free society, they must make it now, in the bones of the old. Yet, agorism is certainly different from other concepts of a "free market". Many claims to such a market society envision something that looks not too different from what we currently live in. Konkin, on the other hand, envisioned something revolutionary. One of the major differences that Konkin wrote about early on to clearly differentiate his revolutionary left-market anarchism and Murray Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalism was the agorist belief in a decentralized, non-hierarchical society led by self-employed worker-entrepreneurs – a freed market devoid of theft, of coercion, and thus by association, the phantasm of wage labor. To justify this claim, I must clarify what I am meaning by wage labor. Agorist theory proposes that our current marketplace’s hierarchy isn’t the result of freedom at all, but of the state-capitalists’ stronghold and monopoly on property through private property titles granted by the state. These titles often have absolutely no relation to labor added, voluntary trade, occupancy, or use of the claimed property. Only the state’s existence holds them up. Due to their manipulation of the state for their own benefit, they have stifled the worker’s ability to provide for themselves in a state-approved manner. To make up for this, the capitalist gives the workers back only a small portion of their labor – a wage. They take the rest, minus cost, as profit. But this need not be the case. As stated by Benjamin Tucker in State Socialism and Anarchism, “labor should be put in possession of its own.” Though I am not one to claim agorism as a form of socialism, I do not think it would be incorrect to say that agorists have always recognized the laborer’s natural claim to the product of their own labor, just the same as Benjamin Tucker has recognized. How am I to claim the natural ownership of ones product of their own labor? My meaning of natural ownership, here, is that a claim that requires an original act of force to challenge it. For example, the maker of a shovel, a cup of coffee, or a shoe, can keep it without any act of force. This same maker could potentially sell it voluntarily and keep the return without any force required. Only until the state forces a tax be paid on it or a so-called boss removes it from their possession, sells it, and gives them only a portion of the return back, is any force added. Even if they were to voluntarily enter into an employer-employee contract without a state, the employer could not make them to give up the product of their labor without force. As such, the laborer naturally owns both their labor and its product. If you do not believe me, try selling something you make at work on the street for two dollars in cash as soon as you’re finished making it. Afterwards, do not give that revenue up to your boss or register it in taxes. The results may shock you. What the producer would do with the product afterwards, whether to trade it, to keep it, or to gift it to another, is entirely up to them. As agorists believe in a natural, spontaneously-operating society, one could easily, and correctly, conclude that agorists believe in a market society that does not operate on profit but on each individual having complete ownership the product of their labor. Whatever their return from their labor and the resulting product happens to be is simply considered a return, or revenue. This is not to say that agorists are necessarily against one getting a return larger than they had originally produced. I have yet to see a market anarchist get upset at a farmer for taking a fully-grown plant from the ground when they had only put a seed into the dirt. It would be strange to be upset at nature for being natural. Whatever returns the producer acquires from their labor and its product must be natural – that is to say, acquired without theft or coercion, and agreed upon by all parties involved. I personally find it unlikely that someone would trade a car for a seed packet, but so long as both parties actually understood the labor value of both items, it might happen. It would still not be considered profit. So, is agorism against wage labor? Wages rely on coercion, and agorism seeks a marketplace without it. Wages cannot exist without theft, and agorism is against theft in the current and future free market. It is the pursuit of a voluntary marketplace that defines agorism even more than its praxis in counter-economics. As such, I can come to no other conclusion that the consistent agorist must be against the wage system at least as it exists.
Since 2016, it appears the world is realigning politically. Nationalism is on the rise across the West, and creeping authoritarianism is eroding democracy. Populism is afflicting much of the Western world and this is coming from both the left and the right. Failings of government in Latin America are heralding problems across the continent is producing misery in many countries. In the Middle East ...
Joe Rogan for me. Plain and simple. https://youtu.be/BJMjGLcdtOA This ripped open the gaping Bitcoin Rabbit Hole. Then Andreas Antonopolous pushed me down it. And noteworthy that the College of William & Mary's Students For Liberty chapter lubed me up for the underlying ideology. Wbu?...
There is a lot of weird theories floating around #cryptotwitter about Proof of Work (PoW) consensus and the justification for attacking minority chains. The whole BCH/BSV chain split has shined a spotlight on a few of the shortcomings of PoW consensus, and rather than acknowledge the shortcomings, zealots are using the contradictions to justify digital violence against minority groups. The ‘Probl...
Currently, in many places, when someone poses “an immediate danger” to their-self, police and in turn psychiatrists can detain them for treatment. This is despite not having broken any laws. If someone’s life is so miserable and weary of life that they want to end it, should not they be allowed to? Should not they be allowed to do this in as peaceful a way possible? It seems they should be offered...
I remember when the term “compassionate conservative” was introduced, or at least when it was introduced to me, maybe 15 to 20 years ago. In retrospect it seems what was really meant was “mildly compassionate conservatives” or “sort of compassionate conservatives”. What is being presented in this short piece is theory and opinion, and potentially subject to change and refinement. Perhaps it is j...