Gold, Pot, and Fertilizer, oh my! - page 2.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: NewLiberty on August 21, 2015, 10:50:10 AM

My guess is that you were trying to establish that in a cost-basis theory of market exchange that any amount of one for the other would not be "fair"... or something else?

The net losses of the foremost fellow (of the OP's hypothetical) were less than those of all others (as iterated above); therefore, the jist of the OP's conjecture (see the citation below) is, to a degree, accurate. (Note: to clarify this position, in departing with the capital that "foremost fellow" valued in excess of what he forsook to acquire the capital, his successor [in the hypothetical series of exchanges] suffered more in the way of economic loss than did the "foremost fellow," for his gains matched his losses.)

Quote from: jacknimble on August 18, 2015, 09:24:52 PM

In the end of the story, isn't the only person who benefits the guy who did nothing, got a pot coin, and convinced some sucker to give him a free gram of pot for it?

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

To get to an answer to OP's question about why any of these "backed" alt coins could work, most don't work simply because it is already easier to do this within Bitcoin. For example if someone had some goods coming up for sale or working on a crop or had a vault of gold and needed a sort of futures market for this, or a way to manage warehouse receipts, or in order to smooth our the income stream rather than having it all come at once at harvest time, or to make the gold tradable, that someone could create a counterparty asset which would be redeemable for the goods when they are produced.

There are other ways to do it also.
If sidechains materialize, that may become even more easy.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: username18333 on August 20, 2015, 04:19:46 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on August 20, 2015, 04:14:40 PM

I don't see the difference your distinction makes, (why is this important?).

The electricity is consumed, the sunk cost of the hardware is depreciated over time as it is used, heat is a byproduct.
The water and sunlight is consumed, land is depreciated, new seeds may be produced, fiber is a byproduct.

No matter and energy is created or destroyed, though a modicum is transformed, in each case.

Both cases the means of production are not consumed, both require some amount of entropy/time to pass. The process is similar enough that the distinction is not so meaningful.

Quote from: NewLiberty on August 19, 2015, 01:54:19 PM

The guy with the pot started with a seed and some sun.
The guy with the coin started with a CPU, code and some energy.

If you have extra of either, you might do a trade, but... why not just use a better coin?

The "seed and some sun[light]" (NewLiberty) is "consumed" (NewLiberty); however, the "code" (NewLiberty) never is, and the "CPU" (NewLiberty) but marginally so.

Right, we already agreed on this. The electricity for generating the coin is also "consumed".
Both are exchanging product and not the means of production (they aren't trading hashing farms for... well... hash farms).

We agree that they are distinct things being exchanged with distinct processes to create them, what I am looking for is why this distinction matters to you or anyone?
My guess is that you were trying to establish that in a cost-basis theory of market exchange that any amount of one for the other would not be "fair"... or something else?

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: NewLiberty on August 20, 2015, 04:14:40 PM

I don't see the difference your distinction makes, (why is this important?).

The electricity is consumed, the sunk cost of the hardware is depreciated over time as it is used, heat is a byproduct.
The water and sunlight is consumed, land is depreciated, new seeds may be produced, fiber is a byproduct.

No matter and energy is created or destroyed, though a modicum is transformed, in each case.

Both cases the means of production are not consumed, both require some amount of entropy/time to pass. The process is similar enough that the distinction is not so meaningful.

Quote from: NewLiberty on August 19, 2015, 01:54:19 PM

The guy with the pot started with a seed and some sun.
The guy with the coin started with a CPU, code and some energy.

If you have extra of either, you might do a trade, but... why not just use a better coin?

The "seed and some sun[light]" (NewLiberty) is "consumed" (NewLiberty); however, the "code" (NewLiberty) never is, and the "CPU" (NewLiberty) but marginally so.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: username18333 on August 20, 2015, 03:57:48 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on August 20, 2015, 03:43:32 PM

Right, the sun water earth and seeds were not transferred either.
They're trading the produce, not the means of production.

Additionally, a digital token does not consume "[its] means of production" (NewLiberty) insofar as an organic plant does.

Maybe you can help me understand what you are suggesting? I don't see the difference your distinction makes, (why is this important?).

The electricity is consumed, the sunk cost of the hardware is depreciated over time as it is used, heat is a byproduct.
The water and sunlight is consumed, land is depreciated, new seeds may be produced, fiber is a byproduct.

No matter and energy is created or destroyed, though a modicum is transformed, in each case.

Both cases the means of production are not consumed, both require some amount of entropy/time to pass. The process is similar enough that the distinction is not so meaningful.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: NewLiberty on August 20, 2015, 03:43:32 PM

Right, the sun water earth and seeds were not transferred either.
They're trading the produce, not the means of production.

Additionally, a digital token does not consume "[its] means of production" (NewLiberty) insofar as an organic plant does.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: username18333 on August 19, 2015, 09:25:22 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on August 19, 2015, 01:54:19 PM

The guy with the pot started with a seed and some sun.
The guy with the coin started with a CPU, code and some energy.

If you have extra of either, you might do a trade, but... why not just use a better coin?

Within the hypothetical, "jacknimble" transferred the ownership of a "coin" (jacknimble), not the "CPU, code and some energy" (NewLiberty) that facilitated its genesis.

Right, the sun water earth and seeds were not transferred either.
They're trading the produce, not the means of production.

bat26

member

Activity: 64

Merit: 10

It is possible to back a coin with something, unfortunately every single time someone has said they would do it, it has been a scam.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: NewLiberty on August 19, 2015, 01:54:19 PM

The guy with the pot started with a seed and some sun.
The guy with the coin started with a CPU, code and some energy.

If you have extra of either, you might do a trade, but... why not just use a better coin?

Within the hypothetical, "jacknimble" transferred the ownership of a "coin" (jacknimble), not the "CPU, code and some energy" (NewLiberty) that facilitated its genesis.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

The guy with the pot started with a seed and some sun.
The guy with the coin started with a CPU, code and some energy.

If you have extra of either, you might do a trade, but... why not just use a better coin?

canth

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1001

Quote from: jacknimble on August 18, 2015, 09:24:52 PM

So can anyone explain how it is economically feasible for anyone to "back" coins with these products? I don't get it. You create an altcoin out of thin air, then you agree to hand over your pot, your gold, or whatever, to anyone who mines one? What is in it for the person holding the gold or pot? It looks like they just agreed to hand over their valuable real-world assets for free. It just looks like hot-potato to me.

I mine 1 Pot coin. Jim has 1g of pot. He gives me the gram of pot. He takes the Pot coin, hands it to Bill for 1g of pot. Now Jim got his gram of pot back, and Bill is down 1 gram of pot. etc. etc. etc.

In the end of the story, isn't the only person who benefits the guy who did nothing, got a pot coin, and convinced some sucker to give him a free gram of pot for it? Everyone else gains nothing, and the guy at the end of the line last one holding the coin is the loser. wtf?

PS. what happened to the "Hayek" coin backed by gold anyway?

There is little point in tying a token (digital asset, coin, etc) to a physical good, unless it is backed by a real world contract with a known reputable entity. You're not buying decentralization - you're buying the reputation of the backer. The benefit here is that the tokens are transferable with relative ease, which doesn't mean jack if you can't redeem them for the underlying asset.

jacknimble

newbie

Activity: 6

Merit: 0

So can anyone explain how it is economically feasible for anyone to "back" coins with these products? I don't get it. You create an altcoin out of thin air, then you agree to hand over your pot, your gold, or whatever, to anyone who mines one? What is in it for the person holding the gold or pot? It looks like they just agreed to hand over their valuable real-world assets for free. It just looks like hot-potato to me.

I mine 1 Pot coin. Jim has 1g of pot. He gives me the gram of pot. He takes the Pot coin, hands it to Bill for 1g of pot. Now Jim got his gram of pot back, and Bill is down 1 gram of pot. etc. etc. etc.

In the end of the story, isn't the only person who benefits the guy who did nothing, got a pot coin, and convinced some sucker to give him a free gram of pot for it? Everyone else gains nothing, and the guy at the end of the line last one holding the coin is the loser. wtf?

PS. what happened to the "Hayek" coin backed by gold anyway?

Topic: Gold, Pot, and Fertilizer, oh my! - page 2. (Read 2738 times)