The point is even though the blockchain is distributed among numerous parties, it is centralized in the sense that it is publicly accessible all over the globe in one shared data store. In that regard, it's no different than cloud storage. If your data is instead in a single or multiple private hardware data stores, you don't have this issue because it could be anywhere and it's fully under your control. Regardless of what anyone wants to say, the blockchain is not impervious to serious computational power, plus since the government then knows that information is there, they can demand it if need be as well. Third point is that most people have no clue what is important data to keep private as it is, so if it's all in one place, then they will just get used to giving it out on a gradualism basis anyway. All in all, Pillar is just an NWO lie to get you to concentrate all your most private data for them - prepped and ready to be handed out.
(Oh, and by the way, no one is going to stop collecting your data because of Pillar even if it became illegal to do so. Pillar's sales pitch is a total f'n pipe dream. Maybe this is why they don't have any code yet either.)
Point 1: It is actually quite different from cloud storage services such as Dropbox -- a blockchain is copied across all computers running it, so if a bunch go down, it's still extant on those that survive.
Point 2: Of course blockchain technology isn't impervious and yes the government knows it's there, but at this point all they can do at worst is try to tax it, which would lead to a workaround.
Point 3: Not really a point. This isn't really our problem -- it's the individual's responsibility to be diligent with where they put their information.
It seems your whole premise lies on the idea that Pillar is untrustworthy and fundamentally up to no good, but even if that's true it does not mean that blockchain technology is also nefarious.
I fully understand the difference between blockchain and cloud, my point is that it is similar to cloud in that your data is distributed and sitting out somewhere that you can't control - whether among a lot of unknown people or a number of cloud data centers.
It's not about tax, it's about privacy of data in general since data is used to profile and target people. This is the most dangerous application whether the average person realizes it or not.
Oh it is a problem. When enough sheeple finally give up their data, they will start coming after those that resist with an iron fist by labelling them as threats to society. The sheeple will then happily support it since they've already given in and don't want to have any troubles with the government themselves.
I also notice that you didn't answer my last point about the data being collected regardless of a "Pillar-like" solution. It's a joke that this will stop any data collection, Pillar will instead just make it easier to centralize it.
I've never said nor implied that blockchain is inherently nefarious. This is an interpretation solely from you. I suggest you stick to my direct statements without exaggeration. The only point that I am implying is that leaving all your most private data out on a publicly available blockchain (encrypted or not) just because it sounds convenient, is totally asinine. Blockchain technology is designed to be a public ledger not a secure location for storing all your most private data.
This is from the "Key Terms" section of the Pillar Project Grey Paper, p9:
Atomic ownership of private keys means that personal data, currencies, and assets are not held or controlled by any third party. Only you have the keys to this data. If you lose your keys, your data or value is lost (there are several ways to help consumers manage their keys safely).
Accounts involve logging in and creating an account with a company you must trust to back up and safeguard your data, including credit-card info, passwords, etc.. If your account is compromised, you lose your data, identity, or value.
The former is the means that Pillar will use.
If you think about it, all of our data is already stolen and accessible by some powerful and toxic institutions and people. Wouldn't it be nice to at least be able to claim ownership of our personal data and manage it ourselves?
I do see part of your reasoning, really. Projects like Pillar are walking a fine rope by asking for users to trust in a service that manages their entire identity. But for the reason in the paragraph above, I don't see Pillar Project as worse than the current system. For one, the personal data locker software will be designed to work without human intervention other than whoever has access to a wallet's keys.
Oh by the way, Pillar is building a wallet, not a blockchain. This is from p14 of the Grey Paper:
In essence, a wallet is software that holds the private keys to your assets sitting on a blockchain. You transact by “signing” orders. The Pillar wallet will hold keys and let you transact with many blockchains, and it will eventually be the control panel you use to interact with the digital world. Using a wallet, there is no account. You hold the private keys to your cryptocurrency (bitcoin, ether, etc.) and you use cryptocurrencies or digital tokens to “pay as you go,” for the service using micropayments. The service may never know who you are.
If I've translated their vision correctly, personal information and physical assets will soon be represented in various ways (such as tokens) on blockchains, which will allow for very complex transactions and auditing to occur.
You can obviously believe what you want from Pillar, but I've seen plenty to completely distrust them and their ultimate intentions. As much as most people don't want to believe it, there are a lot of modern day Pied Pipers out there that are selling solutions that people deeply want to believe are genuine. They play off people's inherent trust, emotions, and desire for a new direction. The only way that I know to sniff these Pied Pipers out is to read between the lines of what they are telling you. I've done that and I believe it's all just an empty sales pitch for a deeper NWO plan.
There will never be a data storage system that TPTB will not have access to. Just watched vid y'day of real ID and companies access to enable selling of the data, so it would just be giant FB with everything about you on it, and the network will continuously learn all new items, transactions of any kind, and they want this to be global. Vatican supports 'banking access' for the poor, so they will have 'greater access' to global economy. So we have to do it for the poor.
I fully agree, but trying to explain this to people is almost impossible because no one wants to hear it. Instead you've got lots of sheeple now screaming "hooray" for a crypto-based centralization of your data, even though if that was done elsewhere, they wouldn't like it at all. It's bonkers.
Yes I do, but thanks so much for asking..
The point is even though the blockchain is distributed among numerous parties, it is centralized in the sense that it is publicly accessible all over the globe in one shared data store. In that regard, it's no different than cloud storage. If your data is instead in a single or multiple private hardware data stores, you don't have this issue because it could be anywhere and it's fully under your control. Regardless of what anyone wants to say, the blockchain is not impervious to serious computational power, plus since the government then knows that information is there, they can demand it if need be as well. Third point is that most people have no clue what is important data to keep private as it is, so if it's all in one place, then they will just get used to giving it out on a gradualism basis anyway. All in all, Pillar is just an NWO lie to get you to concentrate all your most private data for them - prepped and ready to be handed out.
(Oh, and by the way, no one is going to stop collecting your data because of Pillar even if it became illegal to do so. Pillar's sales pitch is a total f'n pipe dream. Maybe this is why they don't have any code yet either.)
-Creating this post as a placeholder. Ack, now I can't back out of responding -
Point 1: It is actually quite different from cloud storage services such as Dropbox -- a blockchain is copied across all computers running it, so if a bunch go down, it's still extant on those that survive.
Point 2: Of course blockchain technology isn't impervious and yes the government knows it's there, but at this point all they can do at worst is try to tax it, which would lead to a workaround.
Point 3: Not really a point. This isn't really our problem -- it's the individual's responsibility to be diligent with where they put their information.
It seems your whole premise lies on the idea that Pillar is untrustworthy and fundamentally up to no good, but even if that's true it does not mean that blockchain technology is also nefarious.
I'll unpack this more in a bit.
For future reference:
https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/08/07/on-public-and-private-blockchains/
I fully understand the difference between blockchain and cloud, my point is that it is similar to cloud in that your data is distributed and sitting out somewhere that you can't control - whether among a lot of unknown people or a number of cloud data centers.
It's not about tax, it's about privacy of data in general since data is used to profile and target people. This is the most dangerous application whether the average person realizes it or not.
Oh it is a problem. When enough sheeple finally give up their data, they will start coming after those that resist with an iron fist by labelling them as threats to society. The sheeple will then happily support it since they've already given in and don't want to have any troubles with the government themselves.
I also notice that you didn't answer my last point about the data being collected regardless of a "Pillar-like" solution. It's a joke that this will stop any data collection, Pillar will instead just make it easier to centralize it.
I've never said nor implied that blockchain is inherently nefarious. This is an interpretation solely from you. I suggest you stick to my direct statements without exaggeration. The only point that I am implying is that leaving all your most private data out on a publicly available blockchain (encrypted or not) just because it sounds convenient, is totally asinine. Blockchain technology is designed to be a public ledger not a secure location for storing all your most private data.
Sheeple confirmed.
This is from the "Key Terms" section of the Pillar Project Grey Paper, p9:
The former is the means that Pillar will use.
If you think about it, all of our data is already stolen and accessible by some powerful and toxic institutions and people. Wouldn't it be nice to at least be able to claim ownership of our personal data and manage it ourselves?
I do see part of your reasoning, really. Projects like Pillar are walking a fine rope by asking for users to trust in a service that manages their entire identity. But for the reason in the paragraph above, I don't see Pillar Project as worse than the current system. For one, the personal data locker software will be designed to work without human intervention other than whoever has access to a wallet's keys.
Oh by the way, Pillar is building a wallet, not a blockchain. This is from p14 of the Grey Paper:
If I've translated their vision correctly, personal information and physical assets will soon be represented in various ways (such as tokens) on blockchains, which will allow for very complex transactions and auditing to occur.
The Pillar Grey Paper can be found here.
You can obviously believe what you want from Pillar, but I've seen plenty to completely distrust them and their ultimate intentions. As much as most people don't want to believe it, there are a lot of modern day Pied Pipers out there that are selling solutions that people deeply want to believe are genuine. They play off people's inherent trust, emotions, and desire for a new direction. The only way that I know to sniff these Pied Pipers out is to read between the lines of what they are telling you. I've done that and I believe it's all just an empty sales pitch for a deeper NWO plan.
There will never be a data storage system that TPTB will not have access to. Just watched vid y'day of real ID and companies access to enable selling of the data, so it would just be giant FB with everything about you on it, and the network will continuously learn all new items, transactions of any kind, and they want this to be global. Vatican supports 'banking access' for the poor, so they will have 'greater access' to global economy. So we have to do it for the poor.
I fully agree, but trying to explain this to people is almost impossible because no one wants to hear it. Instead you've got lots of sheeple now screaming "hooray" for a crypto-based centralization of your data, even though if that was done elsewhere, they wouldn't like it at all. It's bonkers.