...
Two more ideas vs. "Economic Totalitarianism" for beginners...
1) I bought BTC from a Lamassu ATM here in NYC (we are on a visit). I waited my turn behind two drug dealers (hey, I do NOT KNOW if they were drug dealers), the machine worked fine, the BTC are off to be mixed and sent on to their ultimate destinations. No apparent cameras, no ID needed, no fingerprints/handprints. Looked pretty anonymous! Machine was in "Sonny's Grocery" at about 757 10th Ave (west side of the avenue) in Manhattan. Stiff 12% or so premium to BTC "spot".
2) I also bought a "semi-collectible" coin. An MS-70 Proof Pt Eagle (slabbed). Certain slabbed bullion coins (as it turns out) have premia WAY over "spot". I am trying to get an idea of how these kinds of coins will fare..., in an economy that is growing or "acceptable", such a coin is worth little in a TEOTWAWKI... But, the very rich collect high-end stuff, I am now thinking about stuff that RICH GUYS will want, even bit-billionaires... High-end art (perhaps in a bubble now though) is also proven as to rising in value, on the average.
Topic: Economic Totalitarianism - page 120. (Read 345758 times)
Armstrong's sources say nationalization of banking (and retirements) is (are) coming.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/30472
Hey technological dunce, servers don't have a Dunbar limit. Even users of P2P don't have to be limited by their Dunbar limit, because P2P is automated (which is probably why Bitcoin is tracking Metcalf's law).
My server for new website is accepting all connection requests to it and doesn't need to ask me first. Duh!
While it is true that Reed's law doesn't apply to all the users on the internet because they don't all connect with each other over the internet (i.e. P2P is not used yet by all users, although I plan to change that!), the article you cited admits that Reed stipulated that his law only applied to groups wherein all the users did interact with each other.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/metcalfes-law-is-wrong
Don't flatter yourself. I was already well aware that you would think that and it is obvious why you would think that. Really I have your thinking all mapped out already. I know why you are wrong. I was going to address that fundamental math in the more abstract essay. Nevertheless the math above is irrefutable.
Start searching now for your mistake instead of assuming incorrectly and egotistically presuming that my thought process was not exhaustive (when have I ever demonstrated myopia?! never!), and see if you can figure it out before I tell you.
The network is free market, self-organizing into a plurarity of top-down managed mesh or bus connected hubs which multifurcate (spoke topology) to the network ends.
I am arguing against a monopoly on (force) top-down management, because it has an entropy approaching 0. Someday you will get this distinction into your hard head.
Flattering your ignorance with platitudes is noise. You'd be wiser to stop interjecting those incorrect barbs and stick to futilely, incorrectly arguing the facts.
In your stubborn ignorance, you are going to miss a huge opportunity to become a $billionaire. You are like the politically correct, mainstream educated fools who told Columbus not to sail because the world is flat.
Your disingenuous behavior is causing me to not ever want to be your friend in future, even after you finally realize I am correct. All the apologies you could make won't erase the memory I will have of how you prefer disingenuous ego (you appear to be so worried about your reputation as if that is your productive value in society whereas I shred my reputation every damn day because my value to society is actual production and pursuit of truth, ego be damned!) over intellectual pursuit of truth. If you were sincere, you would have at least explored the point I make above. It is certainly obvious to someone of your intellect. Or are you really that myopic? Well I have had a few indications that you are that myopic, such as the rash investment decision, etc.. So perhaps this isn't insincerety but rather just a mental handicap? Then I guess I should be empathetic.
Don't flatter yourself. I was already well aware that you would think that and it is obvious why you would think that. Really I have your thinking all mapped out already. I know why you are wrong. I was going to address that fundamental math in the more abstract essay. Nevertheless the math above is irrefutable.
Start searching now for your mistake instead of assuming incorrectly and egotistically presuming that my thought process was not exhaustive (when have I ever demonstrated myopia?! never!), and see if you can figure it out before I tell you.
Your mistake is you are conflating energy and entropy.
It is true that a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is not possible to attain 100% efficiency in a thermal transfer process because we would need an infinite reservoir (heat sink) of absolute 0 temperature internally and an infinite external ambient environment (heat source) of infinite temperature.
What is being considered with the Conservation of Energy in the First Law of Thermodynamics and the transfer of Heat in the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the fact that the matter of the universe is constant. I was going to go more abstractly into what the matter of the universe is, because I have unifying theory on that which I think will be breakthrough. But suffice it to say that the matter of the universe does not increase nor decrease. Btw, my future elucidation will explain why this is required else the universe would need to have a fixed, absolute origin and edge and thus could not exist (would collapse into an infinitesimal point), but that is not elucidation is not necessary for the point we need to discuss now.
Whereas the entropy, i.e. the probabilistic degrees-of-freedom organization of the matter, of the universe is not constant and is always increasing. This is the entropic force and the other forces and macroscopic effects emerge from it, e.g. gravity emerges from the entropic force. See the matter of the universe is uninteresting. It doesn't cause any thing to happen. It is the organization of the matter that defines the various macroscopic effects, such as potential energy, kinetic energy, heat, etc..
The Second Law tells us that entropy is always created by any thermodynamic process (except for idealized reversible processes which never occur in nature).
Thus the entropy created by the internet which exceeds the potential energy that can be created by the work done of building the physical internet, is an increase in efficiency above 100%. But that > 100% efficiency is not in terms of energy, but rather in terms of entropy. Thus it does not violate the Conservation of Energy.
Measuring efficiency in terms of energy is myopic, because for example I can achieve near to 100% efficiency for transferring energy from reservoir (e.g. battery) to another but that hasn't achieved anything useful.
The useful work as far as nature is concerned are the increases in entropy. Nature's entire holistic motivation is increasing entropy.
Thus the only definition for efficiency which has any consistently, holistic meaning is the ratio of entropy increase.
Thus (entropic) perpetual motions machines do exist! They are called Life a.k.a. nature.
Your subordination of entropy to a 2nd class citizen of physics and nature is abomination and travesty of science and philosophical inquiry.
The only way the State could stop individuals from acquiring and using such technology would be to track everything everyone does. Choke points of yore only (e.g. export restrictions on certain technology) worked before the internet. The cat is already out of the box and the only way to put it back in, is to track everything everyone does. That Orwellian State would mean certain extinction of the human race because centralization of power corrupts absolutely and there will be no way to break out of it until hits 0 (i.e. cancer entirely killed the host).
The logic you expressed appears to me to be certifiably insane because...
All you have provided are the choice between two scenarios which are both human extinction paths.
My gosh. Sociopath much? Why not contemplate a more rosy possibility?
Of course anarchy (a.k.a. the free market) would never end up with the outcome you illogically fear. Because (unlike a perfectly centralized system which has 0 entropy), the entropy of the free market is higher (not 0) and thus it has a higher implied equilibrium state (above 0).
Can't you PERCEIVE (i.e. envision) that the free market will always react by providing self-defense technology? For example, technology to leave planet Earth if necessary, technology to live underground, and remote sensing (this exists already) technology sniff out certain chemical compositions in a certain proximity. Etc, etc, etc.
This perfectly exemplifies why those who lack PERCEPTION and are too much JUDGING, will prefer insane (absurd) low entropy choices.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/30472
Erdogan, they can't take away the internet entirely as you point out. Because there is too much entropy (a.k.a. life) enabled by the network effects. In short, a million people will be brainstorming how to route around the cancer and reestablish their networked contacts. The network is inherently distributed. Unlike the political morass and central banking which is inherently centralizing.
THX 1138, the Knowledge Age is not just about coding logic. It is about any creative activity that can't be automated. The Knowledge Age is about eliminating the repetitive drudgery so humans can focus on what they do best, which is creativity.
The pathway forward is obvious. The decentralized network can't be stopped by the centralized morass. No the Knowledge Age mavericks will not join the centralized morass! Why the hell would we join their failure. The one-world NWO morass will end up annihilating itself and anyone who depends on it.
As for "running out of time", I agree in some aspects (e.g. Bitcoin gaining a lot of mindshare, difficult to replace or overcome), but I also think the worst of what is coming won't kick in until after 2016. We have some time yet, if someone created something that was sufficiently innovative and generated significant market excitement.
THX 1138, the Knowledge Age is not just about coding logic. It is about any creative activity that can't be automated. The Knowledge Age is about eliminating the repetitive drudgery so humans can focus on what they do best, which is creativity.
The pathway forward is obvious. The decentralized network can't be stopped by the centralized morass. No the Knowledge Age mavericks will not join the centralized morass! Why the hell would we join their failure. The one-world NWO morass will end up annihilating itself and anyone who depends on it.
As for "running out of time", I agree in some aspects (e.g. Bitcoin gaining a lot of mindshare, difficult to replace or overcome), but I also think the worst of what is coming won't kick in until after 2016. We have some time yet, if someone created something that was sufficiently innovative and generated significant market excitement.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Physics & math proof internet unstoppable, uncontrollable
Date: Mon, April 27, 2015 10:54 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It didn't take me 2 hours. Once my mind was fresh, it took me 5 minutes to figure out how to refute this.
I was going to come at this more abstractly explaining why matter is conserved so that the universe doesn't have an edge nor collapse to infinitesimal point and then explain that the only degree-of-freedom for a non-static (non-existent) universe is increasing entropy, but let's save that for the future essay where I can tear to shreds CoinCube's popularized notion of entropy as some baseline that order draws from. For the moment I'd rather make my point more comprehensible and concise.
What you are describing is in essence the higher ordered potential energy gathered via the search through aka harvesting of entropy. It is not entropy itself.
Reed's law says the potential increases 2N - N - 1 thus with exponential complexity[1]. Multifurcating networks and multiplexing routers means the energy cost to provide available connection between N nodes only increases with polynomial or subexponential complexity[1]. The virtual IP network is a fully connected mesh topology, but the physical network is hub-and-spoke a.k.a. hybrid star plus bus[2] (this is gained via efficiency).
Conservation of Energy thus makes your statement impossible. ▮Q.E.D.
That slam dunks also my point about the general definition of efficiency.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_theory#Important_complexity_classes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_complexity#Sub-exponential_time
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_topology
P.S. this is why the internet has radically changed the economics of the universe and is ushering in the Knowledge Age. The powers-that-be can not shut off this entropic force. Impossible. Nature will route around them. Raise your fist Knowledge age people, we win. No chance we fail.
Subject: Physics & math proof internet unstoppable, uncontrollable
Date: Mon, April 27, 2015 10:54 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It didn't take me 2 hours. Once my mind was fresh, it took me 5 minutes to figure out how to refute this.
I was going to come at this more abstractly explaining why matter is conserved so that the universe doesn't have an edge nor collapse to infinitesimal point and then explain that the only degree-of-freedom for a non-static (non-existent) universe is increasing entropy, but let's save that for the future essay where I can tear to shreds CoinCube's popularized notion of entropy as some baseline that order draws from. For the moment I'd rather make my point more comprehensible and concise.
The meeting of the minds synergizes and much more complex possibilities spawn (new information content is spawned serendipitous that couldn't be predicted a priori by the prior information content and that is a key difference between "random" generators regurgitating information content from the environment).
What you are describing is in essence the higher ordered potential energy gathered via the search through aka harvesting of entropy. It is not entropy itself.
Reed's law says the potential increases 2N - N - 1 thus with exponential complexity[1]. Multifurcating networks and multiplexing routers means the energy cost to provide available connection between N nodes only increases with polynomial or subexponential complexity[1]. The virtual IP network is a fully connected mesh topology, but the physical network is hub-and-spoke a.k.a. hybrid star plus bus[2] (this is gained via efficiency).
Conservation of Energy thus makes your statement impossible. ▮Q.E.D.
That slam dunks also my point about the general definition of efficiency.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_theory#Important_complexity_classes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_complexity#Sub-exponential_time
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_topology
P.S. this is why the internet has radically changed the economics of the universe and is ushering in the Knowledge Age. The powers-that-be can not shut off this entropic force. Impossible. Nature will route around them. Raise your fist Knowledge age people, we win. No chance we fail.
This so called law is obviously and intuitively wrong. It fails to acknowledge limits on the number of inbound and outbound connections a member in a group-forming network can manage. The actual maximum-value structure is much sparser than Reed's guesstimate would suggest.
Hey technological dunce, servers don't have a Dunbar limit. Even users of P2P don't have to be limited by their Dunbar limit, because P2P is automated (which is probably why Bitcoin is tracking Metcalf's law).
My server for new website is accepting all connection requests to it and doesn't need to ask me first. Duh!
While it is true that Reed's law doesn't apply to all the users on the internet because they don't all connect with each other over the internet (i.e. P2P is not used yet by all users, although I plan to change that!), the article you cited admits that Reed stipulated that his law only applied to groups wherein all the users did interact with each other.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/metcalfes-law-is-wrong
Although you won't admit it you are essentially trying to prove the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. You have no chance of success. If you insist on trying you need to make the argument using the math of thermodynamics not business school guesswork.
Don't flatter yourself. I was already well aware that you would think that and it is obvious why you would think that. Really I have your thinking all mapped out already. I know why you are wrong. I was going to address that fundamental math in the more abstract essay. Nevertheless the math above is irrefutable.
Start searching now for your mistake instead of assuming incorrectly and egotistically presuming that my thought process was not exhaustive (when have I ever demonstrated myopia?! never!), and see if you can figure it out before I tell you.
You were correct before when you agreed with me that some top down constraints are needed to ensure convergence. You should return to your prior and correct insight.
The network is free market, self-organizing into a plurarity of top-down managed mesh or bus connected hubs which multifurcate (spoke topology) to the network ends.
I am arguing against a monopoly on (force) top-down management, because it has an entropy approaching 0. Someday you will get this distinction into your hard head.
AnonyMint I can tell you only spent 5 minutes on this.
It is clear you do not have the time currently to do this topic justice. I am content to leave the matter in dispute. Let's return to it later when you can give it more attention.
It is clear you do not have the time currently to do this topic justice. I am content to leave the matter in dispute. Let's return to it later when you can give it more attention.
Flattering your ignorance with platitudes is noise. You'd be wiser to stop interjecting those incorrect barbs and stick to futilely, incorrectly arguing the facts.
In your stubborn ignorance, you are going to miss a huge opportunity to become a $billionaire. You are like the politically correct, mainstream educated fools who told Columbus not to sail because the world is flat.
Your disingenuous behavior is causing me to not ever want to be your friend in future, even after you finally realize I am correct. All the apologies you could make won't erase the memory I will have of how you prefer disingenuous ego (you appear to be so worried about your reputation as if that is your productive value in society whereas I shred my reputation every damn day because my value to society is actual production and pursuit of truth, ego be damned!) over intellectual pursuit of truth. If you were sincere, you would have at least explored the point I make above. It is certainly obvious to someone of your intellect. Or are you really that myopic? Well I have had a few indications that you are that myopic, such as the rash investment decision, etc.. So perhaps this isn't insincerety but rather just a mental handicap? Then I guess I should be empathetic.
Although you won't admit it you are essentially trying to prove the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. You have no chance of success. If you insist on trying you need to make the argument using the math of thermodynamics not business school guesswork.
Don't flatter yourself. I was already well aware that you would think that and it is obvious why you would think that. Really I have your thinking all mapped out already. I know why you are wrong. I was going to address that fundamental math in the more abstract essay. Nevertheless the math above is irrefutable.
Start searching now for your mistake instead of assuming incorrectly and egotistically presuming that my thought process was not exhaustive (when have I ever demonstrated myopia?! never!), and see if you can figure it out before I tell you.
Your mistake is you are conflating energy and entropy.
It is true that a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is not possible to attain 100% efficiency in a thermal transfer process because we would need an infinite reservoir (heat sink) of absolute 0 temperature internally and an infinite external ambient environment (heat source) of infinite temperature.
What is being considered with the Conservation of Energy in the First Law of Thermodynamics and the transfer of Heat in the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the fact that the matter of the universe is constant. I was going to go more abstractly into what the matter of the universe is, because I have unifying theory on that which I think will be breakthrough. But suffice it to say that the matter of the universe does not increase nor decrease. Btw, my future elucidation will explain why this is required else the universe would need to have a fixed, absolute origin and edge and thus could not exist (would collapse into an infinitesimal point), but that is not elucidation is not necessary for the point we need to discuss now.
Whereas the entropy, i.e. the probabilistic degrees-of-freedom organization of the matter, of the universe is not constant and is always increasing. This is the entropic force and the other forces and macroscopic effects emerge from it, e.g. gravity emerges from the entropic force. See the matter of the universe is uninteresting. It doesn't cause any thing to happen. It is the organization of the matter that defines the various macroscopic effects, such as potential energy, kinetic energy, heat, etc..
The Second Law tells us that entropy is always created by any thermodynamic process (except for idealized reversible processes which never occur in nature).
Thus the entropy created by the internet which exceeds the potential energy that can be created by the work done of building the physical internet, is an increase in efficiency above 100%. But that > 100% efficiency is not in terms of energy, but rather in terms of entropy. Thus it does not violate the Conservation of Energy.
Measuring efficiency in terms of energy is myopic, because for example I can achieve near to 100% efficiency for transferring energy from reservoir (e.g. battery) to another but that hasn't achieved anything useful.
The useful work as far as nature is concerned are the increases in entropy. Nature's entire holistic motivation is increasing entropy.
Thus the only definition for efficiency which has any consistently, holistic meaning is the ratio of entropy increase.
Thus (entropic) perpetual motions machines do exist! They are called Life a.k.a. nature.
Think of the thyroid gland.
First scientists said it was a trivial side organ.
Then it was sort of important.
Now almost every biochemical process can be traced back to some influence from the thyroid and related organs.
The body is stunningly complex, and even most general practitioners are only scratching the surface.First scientists said it was a trivial side organ.
Then it was sort of important.
Now almost every biochemical process can be traced back to some influence from the thyroid and related organs.
Your subordination of entropy to a 2nd class citizen of physics and nature is abomination and travesty of science and philosophical inquiry.
In line with your asteroid example above unrestrained anarchy can lead to megadeath in other ways. As we proceed into the knowledge age the resources required to develop and deploy nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks will continue to decline. At some point it may be possible for a single individual to possess the destructive potential our nation states have today. Human nature requires us to develop and enforce significant controls around such technology. Terrorism is a currently a bogeyman used to further state control. That may not always be the case.
The only way the State could stop individuals from acquiring and using such technology would be to track everything everyone does. Choke points of yore only (e.g. export restrictions on certain technology) worked before the internet. The cat is already out of the box and the only way to put it back in, is to track everything everyone does. That Orwellian State would mean certain extinction of the human race because centralization of power corrupts absolutely and there will be no way to break out of it until hits 0 (i.e. cancer entirely killed the host).
The logic you expressed appears to me to be certifiably insane because...
All you have provided are the choice between two scenarios which are both human extinction paths.
My gosh. Sociopath much? Why not contemplate a more rosy possibility?
Of course anarchy (a.k.a. the free market) would never end up with the outcome you illogically fear. Because (unlike a perfectly centralized system which has 0 entropy), the entropy of the free market is higher (not 0) and thus it has a higher implied equilibrium state (above 0).
Can't you PERCEIVE (i.e. envision) that the free market will always react by providing self-defense technology? For example, technology to leave planet Earth if necessary, technology to live underground, and remote sensing (this exists already) technology sniff out certain chemical compositions in a certain proximity. Etc, etc, etc.
This perfectly exemplifies why those who lack PERCEPTION and are too much JUDGING, will prefer insane (absurd) low entropy choices.
http://blog.mpettis.com/2015/02/when-do-we-decide-that-europe-must-restructure-much-of-its-debt/#comment-123414
Quote from: myself
Suvy I wrote CoolPage in 1998 from Nipa Hut in a squalor community in Mindanao. I was infested with weekly bouts of Giardia, had a karaoke blasting in my ear 16 x 7, I'd turn my head and my underwear and spoon would be gone. I reached the low of eating only rice because I had run out of funds and none of my boomer relatives would[n't] loan me even $100 because they wanted to punish me for my decision to go international and rustic.
Sorry there is internet access in most of of the world now. There are some 3 billion at least on the internet by most estimates. Up from a 100 million back when I launched CoolPage. And to think I had a million users and thus 1% of the internet, all coming from a Nipa Hut in squalor.
Sorry you are not making any sense. You need to travel outside the USA more to lose your myopia.
Sorry there is internet access in most of of the world now. There are some 3 billion at least on the internet by most estimates. Up from a 100 million back when I launched CoolPage. And to think I had a million users and thus 1% of the internet, all coming from a Nipa Hut in squalor.
Sorry you are not making any sense. You need to travel outside the USA more to lose your myopia.
Quote from: myself
Suvy, when I first explored Manila in 1991 (just after Mt. Pinatubo erupted), I noticed all these smoky, smoldering shantytowns, e.g. tiny abodes in along river banks constructed of scrap materials, and I was wondering where all these sharped dressed professionals strolling by were living. Someone informed me they live in those cardboard shacks with only crawl space. If you saw them at the office you would have never known.
It was quite an eye opener and attitude adjustment for a 26 year old westerner.
It was quite an eye opener and attitude adjustment for a 26 year old westerner.
Money has no value if at least a super minority doesn't also use it as money.
I seldom need to correct you, but that one is actually a fallacy.
Commodities are thought to be selected as money because they were useful in trade and consequently people started to hoard them to match their present and future spending needs. While that might be possible, there is another mechanism that is even more valid.
The buyer of last resort. Any single entity with enough economic or coercive power can make anything money by making markets for it. The modern day examples are true not only with the various fiats, which are held together by the debt and tax payments, but also in voluntary interaction.
This is very true, and most underestimated in "theories about money". Even gold and silver were not "free market products" as preferred intermediate goods, but were essentially driven by the mechanism of "buyer of last resort", by issuing coins to soldiers on one hand, and requiring taxes to be paid in coins, on the other hand. On one hand, the demand of goods and services by coins (from soldiers) and the use of it with the knowledge to pay one's taxes with it on the other hand made it quickly into money.
Let's discuss the distribution of coins.
The most optimal distribution in my understanding (see my hundreds of posts on the issue for the development process of the understanding) occurs naturally if the market is as well as possible unfettered by friction. The greatest visible source of friction are taxes and regulations, but they can't hinder the achievement of the natural distribution in the long run, just make it slower to achieve.
In practice the more important sources of "friction" (I am using the word figuratively to couple it with the previous) are 1) ignorance and 2) length of the thought process before investing. These two issues do not alter the optimal state, but are important for the growth of the tree.
As we know, the tree looks quite much a tree no matter in which stage of growth it is. The same can be observed in the distribution of cryptocurrencies regardless of their phase in lifecycle. They always have the roots, the stump, the trunk, branches and leaves. The premine or other dysfunctional start can make the tree very maimed in the beginning, but if it lives on, it will attain the functionality (the things are consequences one of another; if no functional distribution is achieved, it dies). The taxes and regulations make this process slower. But what are needed for the tree to grow, are the two numbered things.
1) You can only invest in what you know exists.
2) The typical length from awareness to committing money (in case all the factors are favorable) averages 24 months.
The optimal distribution is a circular definition and refers to the dynamic equilibrium where each market participant holds exactly the number of coins that satisfies his utility function. This tends to form a distribution where the largest owners own coins approximately in the power law ratio (if largest stash is 1, the next largest is approx. 1/2, third 1/3, 1000th 1/1000 etc. until about 3% of the total owners own half of it. The 97% own the other half and their proportions are governed by other functions, based on demographics and conditions. Whether debt is possible, also affects the distribution.
It is important not only to reach the distribution, but reach it in a way that the ones on top of the ability rank are also the ones on top of the pyramid. The combined "dev gets premine" & "early adopters get the coins cheaper" & "coins can be bought with existing money" approach is very popular in coins, and leads to this result better than the alternative approaches tested so far.
Its main problems come in the later stage with the hoped mass adoption. No coin yet has a viable scheme to expand the money supply fairly in connection with the extent of mass adoption. I am no tech guy and don't know how difficult it is to code in a P2P software. I am on the opinion that everyone so far has just tried to copy Bitcoin's early success with a declining yearly inflation, perceived to lead to exponentially growing coin value which becomes the mechanism to drive the adoption. I have written brilliant pieces in favor of this approach, but it does not mean it is necessarily copiable (if it was, by reductio ad absurdum, we would have a million blockchains and everyone would become rich - what we observe instead, is that even Bitcoin is struggling).
What has happened to my thinking over the time I've dedicated to the matter, I have become less purist and less dogmatic. When designing the economic engine for Crypto Kingdom, I conceived CKG, which is a 100% premined, 100% non-crypto. The distribution has mainly happened via direct sales against monetary value, and to a lesser degree via grants and donations. It has always had a 2-way market, which has severely limited the effectiveness (and thus the scope) of donations. If I donated too much to a person whose utility function would consequently go out-of-balance, he would feel inconvenient and balance it by selling to the market. The existence of a market is therefore a more important tenet than the exact mechanism of the early distribution.
From now on, the CKG money supply will expand in proportion to the time spent on playing the game. This will be a very equitable way of getting the new CKG to the hands of the people in small increments, and will in my hopes be the missing link for the wider distribution, which in the case of cryptocoins has typically been tried with faucets but with little success. The reason why I hope this will be a much better method is that the playing is a prerequisite for getting the value, so there is the equivalent amount of commitment to the value received. Theoretically, this trumps industrial mining, which is a commercial activity with little connection between profitability and commitment.
The key points in achieving success for a cryptocoin (or in CKG's case, even a non-cryptocoin) are thus:
1) Getting people to know of it.
2) Having the value proposition that makes them interested in getting in, which also typically takes 24 months if they need to divert their existing money to buy it. The coin needs to offer something interesting, or unique, or be fair. The more of these are present, the better.
3) Having the markets that make it possible for the coins to settle in hands who value them the most, and provide the means to cash out to other assets which are needed for cash flow needs.
What I don't regard to be key points, despite popular thinking:
1) Wallet software or ease of making transactions
2) Ways to spend the coin directly on goods and services
3) Trying to reach people who are not ready for it, forcing value down on their throat.
As outlined in the previous post, my stance is that the coin needs to be valuable and worthy of being a portfolio asset. To achieve this, it needs to have only minimum transactional utility. The stage of mass adoption and mass utility (50,000,000+ users worldwide) will be driven by direct usability, but we will never get there unless the coin first has intrinsic value and the buyers of last resort.
I saw something interesting(They're basically unknowingly describing Cryptonote/Monero in the speech:
http://www.ny.frb.org/newsevents/speeches/2015/mca150508.html
A speech from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York discussing the pitfalls of eliminating cash, which is an idea that's becoming more and more popular among economists (because they want to force negative interest rates). From the speech:
It already exists.
A speech from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York discussing the pitfalls of eliminating cash, which is an idea that's becoming more and more popular among economists (because they want to force negative interest rates). From the speech:
Quote
Until there are equally secure electronic means of providing that anonymity, eliminating currency is not warranted.
It already exists.
I am willing to send the small amounts of BTC I hold your way if it would get the ball rolling, larger investors may join in after they see results?
your ideas are sensible to me, others may be too lazy to research your writings/ideas, hence they want a white paper.
your ideas are sensible to me, others may be too lazy to research your writings/ideas, hence they want a white paper.
I will happily invest if there is a Bitcoin or CryptoNote level whitepaper that can be vetted first by scholars worldwide. Do not need a single line of code released (unless the whitepaper needs some illustrations) that can be copy/pasted. Even ethereum has a good whitepaper (not that I support that project because of IPO/ICO).
First of all, I made a public promise a long time ago (and reiterated several times I would) never to associate myself with nor promote an altcoin. I am going to keep that promise. If ever I work on something, my identity will not be explicitly on it. Thus indeed the whitepapers and designs have to be compelling on their own merit.
Vetting is important. Development happens in stages. Right now anything I might do is in the angel funding stage (and several months from launch at least), and not only would it slow me down too much to eloquently publish every detail in my head, it would also aid my competitors, and bog me down in (e.g. venture capital) process. Involving process and venture funding would enslave the coin to the powers-that-be. I would eat rice and salt to survive while coding rather than enslave my effort. But I probably destroyed my health in the past by being such a masochist and I will turn 50 years old in June (oh my a half century!), so hopefully I will receive necessary cash cushion so I can take better care of myself. I also have family obligations which consume a significant amount of cash every month (it is not only me and they live in the USA!). Recently I upgraded from my $80 a month "chicken cot" to a $350 a month fully furnished 4 bedroom house with inverter type aircons, hot shower, proper glass windows, and the point is living at or near Western standard. This has really boosted my performance. Angel investors get more coins than ICO investors for the same quantity of dollars invested, because they take on more risk and incomplete information (but they get the benefits of knowing who is the developer and they get to monitor progress monthly).
Let's discuss the distribution of coins.
Proof-of-work (PoW) mining can distribute coins in free market driven process, but this has the tradeoff of excluding those who don't have the hardware and the technical acumen, while sends much of the capital down the drain to electricity and it rewards those who can rent botnets or devise optimizations to the PoW hash algorithm. Thus PoW is not an entirely fair process of distribution unless perhaps there are mitigating preparations undertaken (see my CPU hash algorithm point below).
ICO/IPOs can also distribute coins in free market driven process, sends the capital to the developers instead of to electricity and hardware (purchases, leasing, theft). ICO appears to be superior in every way, except that it can't widely distribute coins in a decentralized process. And it might be illegal in some jurisdictions unless the proper filings have been made with the authorities, e.g. the SEC in the USA. Can you thus understand why any such developer MUST be anonymous?
My complaint against Ethereum's (and Skycoin's) ICO was they were selling vaporware. I think any ICO should only happen when the coin is finished and either launched or to be launched the instant the ICO completes.
My goal with PoW has always been a CPU hash algorithm that can compete with ASICs (because there is a small ASIC built into every modern CPU) and to encourage every household to mine on their PC during CPU idle cycles, because the household miner does not count his electricity cost. I believe I already achieved this hash algorithm in 2014 (after discarding my 2013 attempt, which was similar to Monero's hash algorithm and preceded my awareness of Bytecoin and Cryptonote). This can actually make the coin unprofitable to mine for mining farms. Mining farms are probably receiving loans from the banksters because the banksters wish to centralize mining. I have a multi-pronged design in mind to defeat them.
Your reactions are most welcome. I will read.
P.S. I would like links on the actual or summary of the pertinent SEC regulations if any one has them?
i'll invest too, i'm poor as shit but I see no other alternative.
Knowledge investing is the only way to go in terms of any excess capital that you can't deploy in your knowledge work/business.
Passive investing is dying (or diminishing). Armstrong argues that you can buy US stocks (and gold and other private assets, including perhaps corporate bonds) on this coming pullback (capitulation) low as we approach October 2015 (2015.75) launch of the sovereign debt crisis. The bond markets (at least in Europe) are moving to the short-end of the yield curve in a final bubble peak hooray for European bonds before the BIG BANG into a mad stampede out of European bonds into the US dollar, US stocks, and private assets. This is why I am saying the gold and BTC will make their final and lower lows this year.
I agree with Armstrong and the one counter-point I make is that investing in US stocks (and for example CoinCube's upthread idea of leveraging US bonds, then later Asian bonds) is that your investment gains are within the official system and I believe the masses are heading into a NWO system that will parasite on (expropriate) all wealth. Thus I have advocated investing some of your monetary capital in anonymous private assets to hedge (diversify) against this dire outcome (should it come to fruition).
One anonymous asset is gold, but I raised an objection based on the theory that gold can't be assuredly anonymously traded in the future.
Thus I have my goals set on anonymous crypto-currency and an anonymous internet. My comments on Monero:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11351385
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11328686
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11375837
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11317124
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11317826
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11326319
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11326463
i'll invest too, i'm poor as shit but I see no other alternative.
I will happily invest if there is a Bitcoin or CryptoNote level whitepaper that can be vetted first by scholars worldwide. Do not need a single line of code released (unless the whitepaper needs some illustrations) that can be copy/pasted. Even ethereum has a good whitepaper (not that I support that project because of IPO/ICO).
Money has no value if at least a super minority doesn't also use it as money.
I seldom need to correct you, but that one is actually a fallacy.
Commodities are thought to be selected as money because they were useful in trade and consequently people started to hoard them to match their present and future spending needs. While that might be possible, there is another mechanism that is even more valid.
The buyer of last resort. Any single entity with enough economic or coercive power can make anything money by making markets for it. The modern day examples are true not only with the various fiats, which are held together by the debt and tax payments, but also in voluntary interaction. My game Crypto Kingdom has plenty of assets that are pseudo-monetary, and some of them have (rumor only) started to be used IRL transactions as well.
Also Monero has worldwide only a few thousands of users, but among my friends, it has become as accepted as Bitcoin (or cash), simply due to the perception that it retains convertibility at market rates (which of course is a nonstatement - it either does, or becomes completely worthless, a phenomenon that only arises in the market, requiring everyone to perceive it worthless, contradicting the premise).
Only a very interesting post like this can bring me back now to the forum.
What I wrote is correct and not a fallacy, yet I think we are still in agreement once we define some terms...
My quoted statement is congruent with your market observations and statement. Monero is a store-of-value for a super minority of that demographic that does not need more than say $100,000 a day in liquidity (what is the daily market float currently?), have a speculative interest in (especially anonymous) crypto, and who only want to exchange Monero for BTC (or fiat) and not for diverse goods & services. However, as I first pointed out in 2013, crypto offers a unique paradigm shift because goods & services provided in exchange for BTC can (in theory) be purchased with Monero by a seamless exchange to BTC in the purchasing process. However this exchange process risks destroying some quality of the anonymity that is one of Monero's main features. Money is also a unit-of-exchange and unit-of-account, thus no volatility in liquidity nor price (respectively). Afaik, Monero remains primarily a store-of-value asset with volatile liquidity and price (not a unit-of-exchange nor a unit-of-account). But see below...
I'll switch to dash if theres no cash
You seem to forget that money has no value if at least a super minority doesn't also use it as money.
Also differentiate assets from money, primary by the liquidity (and slowing declining marginal utility[1]). Money is highly liquid while assets have variable (over class and time domains) liquidity.
Money is not a communist concept and does not require a majority or even a superminority. I also thought so previously but everything around me seems to prove it wrong. The short history of CK has opened up the understanding that the monetary future of the Knowledge Age might be more fragmented than the dominant theory. As TPTB have declared war on money the same way as they have declared war on drugs, money needs to go underground the same way as drugs have gone. Both are very essential to the individual so there will always be people who put their survival first and the government's wishes second.
I have made the following point in my writings in 2015. It is a crucial point and I suspect that many readers did not pay attention.
In the Industrial Age, the hedging carrying cost[1] of an asset that is not your unit-of-account was deleterious[2] because of the fixed ROI usury economy that the high proportion of fixed capital investment required. Whereas in the Knowledge Age (as you have recognized and summarized in your recent upthread post) the ROI is driven by active (knowledge) investing and the hedging carrying cost is just another fixed cost that is irrelevant to the ROI from innovation (and usury winner-take-all, passive investing can't get any ROI at all, i.e. OROBTC's complaints). Thus the Knowledge Age can probably prioritize other qualities for money than unit-of-account. And as I pointed out above, instant digital convertibility mitigates the unit-of-exchange dominance problem, but doesn't entirely solve it especially if I am correct that Bitcoin is a Digital Kill Switch.
So yes I agree with your conclusion (yet retain reservations as noted), but for different and more specific, generative essence reasons.
I hope my post has helped you gain generative essence clarity.
[1] I mean hedging against your unit-of-account, the volatility of your asset which is not your unit-of-account.
[2] In the winner-take-all paradigm of usury accumulation (i.e. too big to fail, the larger never allowed to fail and shrink), any fraction of reduction in fixed interest ROI is intolerable due to effects of compounding.
I also think that, unfortunately, the mass will be too dumb to realize what's going on and will get trapped inside the cool, cashless society with centralized, state funded crypto, while a Bitcoin resistance survives as a parallel decentralized system of freedom. Hopefully all it does is putting Bitcoin up there and what ends up going global is BTC and now Fiatcoin.
Bitcoin ≅ Fiatcoin; or more accurately Bitcoin ∈ Fiatcoin; or most precisely P(Bitcoin ∩ Fiatcoin) > 0.5
See my recent posts.
Also, by the actual picture we also think that the changes made have to be sensed as some clear effects.
Who constitutes your “we”? (Note: “Loose lips sink ships.”)
Everyone that thinks that development banks and mutual credit have a point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_bank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIR_Bank
http://www.sardex.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_exchange_trading_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-based_currency
Money has no value if at least a super minority doesn't also use it as money.
I seldom need to correct you, but that one is actually a fallacy.
Commodities are thought to be selected as money because they were useful in trade and consequently people started to hoard them to match their present and future spending needs. While that might be possible, there is another mechanism that is even more valid.
The buyer of last resort. Any single entity with enough economic or coercive power can make anything money by making markets for it. The modern day examples are true not only with the various fiats, which are held together by the debt and tax payments, but also in voluntary interaction. My game Crypto Kingdom has plenty of assets that are pseudo-monetary, and some of them have (rumor only) started to be used IRL transactions as well.
Also Monero has worldwide only a few thousands of users, but among my friends, it has become as accepted as Bitcoin (or cash), simply due to the perception that it retains convertibility at market rates (which of course is a nonstatement - it either does, or becomes completely worthless, a phenomenon that only arises in the market, requiring everyone to perceive it worthless, contradicting the premise).
Money is not a communist concept and does not require a majority or even a superminority. I also thought so previously but everything around me seems to prove it wrong. The short history of CK has opened up the understanding that the monetary future of the Knowledge Age might be more fragmented than the dominant theory. As TPTB have declared war on money the same way as they have declared war on drugs, money needs to go underground the same way as drugs have gone. Both are very essential to the individual so there will always be people who put their survival first and the government's wishes second.
I also think that, unfortunately, the mass will be too dumb to realize what's going on and will get trapped inside the cool, cashless society with centralized, state funded crypto, while a Bitcoin resistance survives as a parallel decentralized system of freedom. Hopefully all it does is putting Bitcoin up there and what ends up going global is BTC and now Fiatcoin.
Thanks mikelitoris (is that a portmanteau of clitoris?)
To everyone, I think I've written all I needed to write. Thanks for reading and apologies if haven't managed my couth optimally. Good luck to everyone and hope to see you all on the other side of this chasm.
To everyone, I think I've written all I needed to write. Thanks for reading and apologies if haven't managed my couth optimally. Good luck to everyone and hope to see you all on the other side of this chasm.
You all can't fathom a world where the collective can't reform and it literally euthanizes its citizens.
Your fundamental error lies in your use of future tense: past tense is more appropriate, for the proverbial “battle” is not merely “in the bag” but “already won.”
Jump to: