Topic: Bitcoins Lost - page 9. (Read 21516 times)

Math?  That is Business 101

Let me ask; does the Math fit the People or the People fit the Math ?

On another matter you sound versed in high order math. I have been working on a formula compression algorithm in ternary logic where the resulting answer from a given formula is a large number resulting in 1's and 0's.  But the logic handles 3 states +0- for the calculations.

The concept is to reduce extremely large numbers to a basic formula of  x^y^z with each having 256 possibilities. And with encoding the meta data for a file and looping at each stage and keeping track of the loops and metadata while encoding such into the original binary file: to end up with a extremely small file <1000 Kb that represents the variables to be put into a Universal Formula that when decompress represents the original file.

I have achieved a 98% compression on a 1 MB randomly generated file. Most of the remaining 2% is metadata for the program.  Scaling is the issue, if versed in complexity theory (which is what most people quote to prove a flaw in the logic) I state that because the resulting answer will "Always" be consist of 1's and 0's that theory does not apply.

I need to prove the algorithm with large files, the down side is on decompression the file must expand to 8-10 times its original size.
Thats fine with relatively small files but in order to add to the Complexity Theory, I need to prove extremely large numbers. That is where thine problem lie.

Any thoughts?   

The cool thing so far, is a 1 Gb file can be compress to the 1Mb or less. The bandwidth savings will be a fortune for lots of people. Not to mention say good bye to file sharing. My ultimate goal is to be able to print out a single sheet with the variable and meta data that can be physically entered into a program to be decompressed to the original file. 

Track That !!! 

I was just trying to point out the absolute minimum amount is 0.00000001 not 0.01

If you are part of a mining group, you can better understand the fractional.  The problem comes in because any amount is called the same.

100 x 1 Cent =  $1 Dollar

100 x 0.01 BitCoin = 1 BitCoin 

There exist nothing less the 1¢ in our currency so it is the foundation from which we work. The same exists in every other currency.

The foundation of the BitCoin is not 0.01 but 0.00000001  That is the starting point. Jeez if people forget that, i want all the fractional money left over everywhere. I could start a new Wall Street. 

So lets start the Naming of the amounts.

0.00000001 =  1 pence or maybe a bit
0.00000010 =  1 fallow or whatever

0.10000000 = 1 byte    0.20000000 is 2 bytes   

and the all important 1.00000000  will equal the BitCoin

but until that is done, 0.00000001 will be the BitCoin unless no one wants them, then I will take them.

The mathematics on this is pretty simple to measure from a perspective of game theory.  If you have information and power symmetries all exchanges will tend toward mutual benefit.  As information or power asymmetries are introduced, the exchanger who is "upstream" of the asymmetry will tend to end up as the "more equal" partner, all other things being equal.

Information and power asymmetries are easy to measure and not even the most naive economist would pretend modern market scenarios are free of them, except as a simplifying assumption to perform large-scale simulation.  If you're familiar with game theory sitting down and modeling your "best guess" on many real-world situations might surprise you.

Given that we live in a real world where information and power asymmetries do exist, the natural conclusion is that without an intentional decision on the part of the "more equal" person many exchanges will not be mutually beneficial.  This can be hard to fit into human psychology, which is fair, and to be expected.  Many people don't seem to realise that a lot of "good people" on the upside of slavery, absent a careful re-examination, would have by default thought that things were as they should be.  Basic human psychology.  Food for thought.

Pretty much the only remaining route if the above paragraph is uncomfortable is to convert the asymmetries themselves into a "right" to profit by virtue of being smarter/stronger/etc.  I have a pretty massive IQ, and I find that difficult to stomach since I am very well aware that did not choose to be who or where I am, and my life has been pretty damn easy.

At the end of the day, no outside force is going to make the "more equal" behave one way or another.  But if they want to face their own consciences there's really no avoiding that they have to be the ones working to keep exchanges mutually beneficial.

I'd give him a little more credit than that.  If the answers to these questions were as obvious as many people seem to think, there would be a lot more unanimity on these issues.


Categorical assertions like this seem pretty ridiculous given the extensive data available to us.  For example, in my comparatively wealthy country children are disproportionately poor compared to the general population, and minority children even more so.  If everyone "chose" to be poor such segments would be affected with equal probability, or possibly even less considering the fact that most societies invest heavily in their children.  Clearly other factors are at play.


sincerely,
eMansipater

No. That’s excactly why they are divisible. And this does NOT mean inflation, as the Bitcoins I hold will be divisible into as many parts as there are for everyone.

Seriously, I don’t see your problem.

Ok,

I can see how people misconceive the concept. But lets look at it logically.

Lets just take the U.S. population not the world.

There are 300 Million people. Let assume BitCoin becomes a whopping success....

  How in the world can you support the economy on 21 Million BitCoins.  You Can't 

But the Genius behind it is the increase in value is built into the BitCoin. It is divisible because of the 8 places to the right of the decimal.

So lets take an example; lets assume there are currently 21 Million in existence.

21,000,000.00000000 would be the proper representation.

But the 21 Million are controlled by only 100 Million people but there is increasing demand, but you literally can't produce more. How do you meet demand. Just like this. Watch:

21,000,000.00000000 -> 210,000,000.0000000  The people that have 21 Million still have 21 Million but now there is another 189 Million to supply for the increased demand.  Basic example but you should get the idea.


Did you actually think 21 Million BitCoin could run an economy? There are over 800 Billion Physical Dollars in circulation just for our economy, and that doesn't include the electronic dollars that get sent everywhere.

That... really doesn't sound right. I don't think you can say that 0.01 bitcoin is one bitcoin. Because to say 0.01 bitcoin is one bitcoin is the same as saying that 0.01 bitcoin is 1 bitcoin. That doesn't hold, logically.

0.01 != 1

Any time I see the number 0.01, I don't think "one." I think "zero point zero one," or "one hundredth."

Just to back me up, here's a quote from the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin) on bitcoins:


A Google search also shows that most people agree with the terminology. It's 21 million, not 21 quadrillion.

Wow, this discussion's gotten rather heated!


No no, he said work or die, not be employed or die. Though I guess he did imply the latter, didn't he? But really, usually there's nothing to stop a person from becoming their own employer or from banding together with other workers to make a living. Sure, it'll take a lot of work, and sure, you might have to work at something you don't really care about, but at least nobody's employing you, right?

Um... actually, poverty is a choice. And it's not the only one. We can always become our own employers. If you desire emancipation from a regular paycheck, then learn a skill people will pay you for directly, or make something you can sell. Software is the best thing to sell, since you only have to make it once and can then sell it many times. (Bill Gates was smart about that one.)

And hiring people? How's that exploitative? If you pay fair wages, or if you give what you can give at the very least, then I can't find fault. The cooperation of a group to bring in greater wealth is still cooperation, even if the leader is somewhat autocratic.

Anyway, sorry about the dissertation! I get carried away sometimes, once I start typing.

There is at least one case when this argument is valid - when you're talking about state capitalism (rather than free market capitalism). In state capitalism, the capitalists pay the politicians for favors, which they redeem to tilt the labor market more in their favor. Minimum wage laws, licensing regulations, tax except employer health care... all of these things sound good, but put up barriers to entry to the market. This means that the "exploited" employee must remain exploited, because it costs too much to start a competing business.

Yes yes the old 'work for me for pennies or don't and starve'. Not a valid argument - someone else will come along who needs labor and offer a better deal, the hypothetical worker can start his own business, or do contract work if there is enough demand.

No, I think the misconception is what is the base BitCoin.  

In USD the base the foundation is the penny 1¢.  

The misconception is the the base BitCoin is 0.01, it is not; the base BitCoin is 0.00000001  

So technically your 0.01 BitCoin is actually 1 Million BitCoin's  

Now take 0.00000001 and divide that into 21 Million.  That is how many BitCoins there will be.

People are already trading in the fractional amounts that get left over.

The starting point is the 0.01

Supply and demand determines what one can trade for with that which he produces. If one gets traded on the market, he is livestock. Workers deserve better than the likes of livestock. If you negotiate for anything less than the value of that which you produce and the decision making power over it, you have been coerced into such an arrangement, are ignorant or delusional, or deliberately giving your labor and self-determination away for far less than you deserve.

Why do you think that voluntary contracts always signify a lack of coercion or exploitation? I can easily think of examples where they do not.

To those who think adding decimal places is adding coins - it's not. There is still the same amount of things, we can just break it down more.

And FatherMcGruder - If you can't see the flaw in your argument, I can't show you. You think that a voluntary contract is exploitation. I think that's silly, because it's voluntary. We're spinning our wheels here.

Okay, I realize I'm probably being pedantic, but you realize that 20,999,999.9~ rounded up to 21,000,000 is 21 million, not 21 quadrillion, right? 1 quadrillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000. 21 quadrillion would be 21,000,000,000,000,000. Just thought I should make that clear.


Yeah, absolutely. Keeping the bitcoins locked at a finite amount is analogous to having a gold standard. And it would ruin the whole p2p, decentralized aspect of our currency to have a central issuing authority.

What you're actually worth is based on supply and demand, what you can negotiate, and no more.

That's a bit naive - if you were starving to death, I think you would work in my sweatshop for a piece of bread, water and a cell.

If I were a decent person, I would pay you what your work was actually worth, regardless of the fact that you have no choice but to work for with me.

Even if you desire such a relationship, you don't have a choice other than poverty, and that's not really a choice. You can become an employer, if you're lucky enough to control the means to do so or, more likely, you submit to an exploitive loan. In that case, you will have become a pimp, a monger, an exploiter yourself. At least you can dull the misery of that role by coddling yourself with petty luxuries.

Show me the flaw then.

I want to sell my services doing X for a certain amount of money (or more!) Y. If I can get Y for X, then it is not a coercive deal as I WANT THIS TO HAPPEN, and, presumably the other party does as well.

FatherMcGruder, your arguments make no sense.

Today's workers obviously enjoy more comfort than slaves historically have, at least in the US. My point isn't to compare living conditions or the types of coercion that slaves and workers endure. Rather, that they both participate in coercive relationships and we should not tolerate either.

The coercion that a slave is subject to (whips, beatings, torture) is entirely different than the coercion that employer-employee financial exchanges supposedly entail (the need to work the sort of job you want in order to afford the standard of living you want). The difference is drastic enough to make the comparison ludicrous.

Or, they simply aren't aware of the situation. They could even be convinced that they live under the best possible conditions. Slaveholders work hard to convince their slaves, and themselves, of such false realities. For example, they basked in the notion that slavery was their burden, that they toiled to save the poor Negros. Rebellious slaves were just ungrateful. Now we have wage slavery.

Via flight, revolt, or purchasing their freedom, couldn't slaves voluntarily chose to emancipate themselves? Slavery is a condition in which you have limited choices due to coercion, just like how the worker finds himself under capitalism.