Topic: Conservation Law (Read 258 times)

This is wrong, researchers use scientific method. Your sense can deceive you.

---

The mentioned law works on a closed system, while earth constantly bombarded with energy outside the system, i.e., the sun.

Plants absorb energy, bearing fruits and eaten by herbivores... and food chain continues. That's why living things able to grow and prosper here on earth.

Humans utilize the "free and unlimited" energy for productive activities and trade. Therefore, some say that the economy is always growing.

That's a good explanation of things, and it showcases the difference in the science and how laws can't apply to everything. Merited!

It would be impossible to implement in a decentralized system, there are simply way too many factors that you need to think about and apply for the law of conservation to work in this instance, this with the quantity of random forks that happen every week, means that you can't apply the law of conservation to this particular instance.

Discussing conservation of mass and conservation law discussing physics which is a branch of natural science, while discussing about money is discussing economics which is a branch of social science.
Natural Sciences can be learned & observed with the five senses. While social science is more complex because humans as their subjects have different characteristics.

Not everyone can make money, especially fiat money, as an exchange for fiat money payments must be generally accepted, easy to store and carry, durable, recognized and guaranteed by the government, the value is stable and not easily falsified.

Meanwhile, when discussing bitcoin and cryptocurrency which is likened to the law of eternity, in my opinion is not the right thing because of different disciplines. If the amount of bitcoin is considered mass, the reaction refers to demand and supply, but this decentralized bitcoin system is different from the law of eternity that applies to closed systems.

This is quite hard to implement especially in a decentralized and uncontrolled environment such as cryptocurrency or Bitcoin. Fork is there as a possibility right from the very beginning. If it was not, then it would not have happened. But since it is there, it will surely happen especially if there is a huge disagreement among the developers and core team of Bitcoin. But I would be supporting a Conservation Law even in cryptocurrency if ever it can be implemented. Those who would like to create a fork out of the original network would have to create a separate project altogether rather than just fork it lazily from the existing brand.

You can't really apply laws to random things, but I do see you point here.

During the first Bitcoin cash fork, most people speculated that during the fork, one bcash and one Bitcoin would roughly equal the price of a single Bitcoin pre fork, but this obviously didn't happen.

This is a good example, there is the law of conservation applied in economics.

This is the law of conservation of energy and it says that everything in this world is interconnected, nothing can arise from anywhere, nor can it disappear anywhere, under certain conditions, the substance goes into energy and vice versa.
In economics, this can be applied to goods and money. Money goes into goods and vice versa. Also, the goods can be exchanged for another product, which is called barter, and money can be exchanged for other money. Cryptocurrency refers more to money than to goods, since it itself does not have consumer value.

I agree, that's a good way to look at it. When I made the original comment I was thinking about not only time but also tangible resources that must be used in order to support someone that is working a creative or R&D endeavor. That's the cost of IP. Food, education, lost opportunities, failed attempts, etc. So what to someone seems to be a creation out of thin air with no resources used actually has a whole world of quantifiable costs behind it.

True, except you need to consider that many that would be on that new fork are now NOT on the original fork. So in a practical sense it does have the effect of dilution, just not as clearly as printing dollars. And we can also assume some folks would be on both forks, further minimizing the dilution effect.

There is a huge difference between creating money out of thin air (what the central banks are doing) and a hard fork on another coin. Just to give an example when there is new money printed by the central banks there is nothing backing it, nobody asked for it in general public, and it does affect everyone that has the same currency, they are not printing dollar 2.0 they are printing dollars that you already have but more of it so your dollar worth less.

When you hard fork it is requested by some people who supported the fork, it is backed by the miners (or stakers) and it doesn't affect the bitcoin people, bitcoin cash only affects bitcoin cash holders, it can worth zero or a trillion and it wouldn't change anything in bitcoin itself.

I'm glad you did because thanks to you, I realised something crucial for the discussion.
It is in fact all about TIME. We uniformly value our time in life, feels so short and uncertain.
That's why we where forced to invent money, because we can't give time as rewards, life time that is.
If something so fleeting and unrealistic as time is here in abundance, yet has extreme value for us, it's replacement will have similar characteristics. Ergo money of thin air - economy with conservation law will be a faulty ideology.

heh, I was just ribbin' ya, I understood your point, as a musician though I couldn't let that example go by without comment

Well yes but ever heard of natural talents? Besides it's not like time is so hardcore, down to earth idea, right?
Another abstract concept that we sometimes describe as "special" dimension and sometimes we disregard it completely, so go figure.
You can't argue we are able to make stuff that has value, out of things that are dirt cheap, literally. Picking on words much?
 

… decades of practice and dedication to learning. What's your time worth? You did say "masterfully".

I think it's mostly because we are able to create value out of thin air. Singing for example.
Masterfully sang song definitely is worth something, not much resource was used to create such commodity due to the fact of abstract concepts like, musical harmony, beauty, positive emotional reactions etc. Thus similar mechanism must be used to express the value desired ergo money out of thin air. It's an abstract based on mutual agreement otherwise it would be hard to value anything.    

Also if you print more money, you don't generate new wealth. All that you do is make every dollar bill worth a little less. There's not really a conservation law for economies because wealth generation generally increases over time as inefficiency is reduced and new technology means more can be produced. This is how new wealth is generated, not by the printing of more money. You need something to underpin that money.

Whatever, the current system is f**ked up and is set so that the ultra-rich benefit whilst everyone else stagnates. This is why we need bitcoin and a decentralised system. Fiat is too easy for governments to manipulate.

Exactly. We aren't talking about one system but multiple systems that can interchange by sharing goods.

If we add water to a container it will eventually overflow, and it's the same in economics but you can keep adding when another person keeps sucking it out through a tube and another warms up the container from the bottom to boil the water and make it evaporate. This is how economy works you don't have a single closed system unless in extreme cases like isolated villages in the jungle or something.

Also, fiat money is unlike energy and matter. It doesn't have physical properties and its value is agreed upon. You can't discuss upon the weight of 1 kg of steel or 1 W of power, but you can discuss whether something is worth 1 paper bill or two.

If there's a lot of money and everyone has it, it will be senseless or useless since people can buy anything instantly. So conservation law is essential for us to value money more than anything. But people are greedy and money control us humans. We will not stop creating money from nowhere because we want to own anything.

But if we want to conserve money for the economy then people should work or look forward on the economic conservation law.

With the caveat that even in physics it only applies to a closed system which our economic system most definitely is not.

I doubt this apply to our fraudulent economy that is heavily manipulated to enrich the very few and enslave others. This law you quoted is one of the laws of Thermodynamics. Our supply, distribution and demand are not balance.

I am not an economist and I sometimes find the study of economics to be boring as many of the concepts many are still believing did falter in real life especially when we talk about complicated ecosystems where many laws (sometimes opposing each other) are applied or at play. I also do not agree with the Zero Sum Economy concept all because the bottomline in that is a win-loss equation can be okay when in fact we can have a win-win formula where both sides of the transactions can be receiving and adding real value. In real life, when an employee is receiving his salary it does not mean that the employer has lost any value at all because both sides are actually receiving something of value in return for something contributed.

In the past, money was mostly equated with gold or maybe even silver which means that money got the value that it is carrying but as time goes on greed entered into the picture and so the value backing money in circulation became diluted which eventually lead us to the current fiat money we are using...and many of these are not backed by anything but by the promises of the government.

With the coming of cryptocurrency, there are those who see a good opportunity to create value out of nothing and we saw this with many forks and of course introduction of different versions of Bitcoin. Can we say that they are created out of thin air? I think only time can tell with that as adoption can be a big factor that can also be putting value into something meaning that we can ascribe value into something we feel has many use-cases and a bright future ahead.