@r0ach, fungible money is the problem. Collaboration via forced consensus is the solution.
Solving the defect-defect problem is the paramount issue. Gold and silver have nothing to offer.
Hopefully @CoinCube will post my
last private rebuttal to @dinofelis, and I am banned, so do not expect this comment to stay here very long.
Goodbye, I will see you on the Bitnet side if you are smart.
Government is going away. Networks never will go away again. Your conceptualization is all wrong.
The Luddites (those who refuse to accept that technology changes everything) are always the losers.
@r0ach why don’t you go join the Amish? But
they do not use gold and silver.
but it's still there somewhere and they can find it.
The government does not need to find it. They can stop you from selling it in liquid and safe markets. With all cash being electronic, they can shut off all reasonable black markets. Instead you will either bury it in the ground thus destroying all the capital it could have represented (impoverishing your future generations who inherit it), and/or when you do try to trade it at some ridiculously low trade value, you will also expose yourself to becoming a target of kidnapping, house break ins, ambush, and extortion. You simply can not trade gold without some people knowing that you did.
Tinfoil hats think the current gold dealers and trading options will remain or expand. They going to have a nasty reality check. And when totalitarianism and capital controls does abate after some decade(s), then the public is not going to want gold, because civilization will have so far advanced into the digital age. Really the epoch for tangible stores of value is ending. Those who cling to it are Luddite dinosaurs.
Also remember that the government will always steal the lowest hanging fruit first. So of course even though many people will stampede into gold as the governments collapse because it is historically known safe haven, it is the perfect way for the government to destroy the majority who do so. The minority will go into blockchains and will be too difficult and not cost effective for the government to confiscate en masse. Confiscating gold is very easy, just block all the on/off ramps and transport hubs (checkpoints). The majority is always wrong and always the greater fools.
I entirely believe gold is now entering its final days. Digital communication changed everything.
not forced consensus but voluntary consensus that is the solution where ever growing transparency ensures honest participation.
Without a force of consensus there is no convergence and you get defect-defect divergence.
You are referring to it being voluntary whether to participate in the consensus. Well it is also voluntary whether you live and vote in the USA or not, but many people would argue it is not really voluntary to live in the USA due to family obligations and other inertia. And not voting does not mean it is voluntary to disobey laws created by governments who are voted in.
I also think it is a mistake to group the USA and Europe together into "the west"
They both have the socialism and winner-take-all corrupt governance problem that will not resolved in any other way except collapse and disintegration.
Both must splinter into breakaway states in order to avoid a Dark Age.
and similarly to group Japan and China together into "Asia".
At the macro level both are major technological and investment drivers of Asia. Japan is bottoming on its economic collapse at about same time as China is finishing its correction in 2020 and then both will rise together along with S. Korea & Singapore leading Asia to be dominant in the world. India will also play a role. And China is massively investing in Africa as well.
That to me is the dominant theme, although of course there will be other sub-themes such as your Christianity focus as historically tried solution to defect-defect (which works but also leads into ideological decadence like any other mass delusions so, i.e. it makes a very fertile soil for Marxism, socialism, totalitarianism).
Culturally China is undergoing a transformation that will profoundly alter the country and set it on a path to future prosperity whereas Japan appears utterly locked into a medium term spiral of stagnation and decline.
See:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18308732As usual and expected, I think you demonstrate aliasing error confirmation biases because of your infatuation with religion as a solution.
Christianity is one of many phenomenons going on in Asia. It is not the macro dominant theme as far as I can detect.
The dominant theme afaics (and I am here) in Asia is 1800s style capitalism.
Similarly I would argue USA is in the process of slowly decoupling from Europe.
USA and Europe both are gluttons on socialism. The USA is following Europe’s lead. When the USA economy collapses, then you will see how few Americans really have the independent anti-socialism culture of our ancestors. I suspect it is rather small minority.
It is easier for people to claim they are conservative when they are well fattened and have jobs. But when their skills are no longer needed, then we will see their true character when they beg the government to do something. And then fight and steal when hopelessness sets in.
Look at the churches. They are mostly all corrupt. Most all took non-profit status with the IRS and there is a huge corruption issue there.
White people are in a massive defect-defect arrangement stealing as much as they can from each other before the debt machine breaks down.
After that, all hell breaks loose and we will see the true character of people.
Bitcoin shows us what can be achieved when a a small group chooses to voluntarily cohere around and promote an external ideal in a verifiable and transparent manner.
There are greater and more powerful ideals then that of sound money.
And it is not religion or any other such "solution" which operates by delusion and mind programming.
Decentralization technologies are what I am pursuing. I had my time to experiment with the religion delusion. Been there, done that.
EDIT: And CoinCube, I am not against the wisdom in the Bible on personal choice basis. What I am against is using ideological mind control as a weapon of mass destruction as the side-effect of employing as ephemeral defection prevention paradigm. I see you expecting that Christianity will sweep over China and cause a glorious transformation. But to me this is the sort of ideological conquest expectation that causes religion to be so dangerous. This morphs later into ideological conquest via other means such as socialism when the religion is unable to achieve absolute conquest (because the underlying motivation/desire/delusion for ideological perfection). I am so tired of snotty white people trying to "teach" others right and wrong, etc, when they can't even manage their own households. To all religion folk, keep it to yourselves on a personal (or even family clan or local community) basis as Jesus instructed in Matthew 6:5. Then we know your intentions are not overreaching. If I want to spread blockchain consensus, it is because it is an objective rational paradigm which has nothing to do with any particular ideology being forced on anyone. Only the consensus of ordering is forced by the blockchain. The blockchain is agnostic to what sorts of arrangements humans decide to encode on it.
EDIT#2: Of course, I want to help the world become one where diversity and maximum divison-of-labor can prosper. So that the world can become more interesting. That is congruent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as well, which is the trend to maximum uncertainty. Defection is only a problem when we require group coherence, e.g. for reproduction for example. But as we increase the degrees-of-freedom, we need less absolute total ordering of coherence. The paradigms are changing. We may not even need our bodies to reproduce when we become digital. When we think about how we relate to each other, are we able to truly accept and appreciate our differences? Jesus was I think very far along in terms of that. I think the scripture someone quoted for me Luke 9:51-62 he is saying that all these worldly things do not need to get in the way of aligning our heart with the basic principles of goodness in the Bible, i.e. do not covet, do not steal, do not idol, do not be selfish, basically respect the maximum diversity and support it within the limitations of the world in which we live in. But that world is changing. The degrees-of-freedom are probably increasing. I do not understand all of this yet. I need to think about this when I am well rested. I enjoy this philosophical stuff, but right now is not the right time for me to really dig deep on it. I think this is why I do not like organized religion. It stomps on diversity. I think I should have emphasized that blockchains may be trying to increase diversity of coordination more than they are increasing control against defection. They are increasing degrees-of-freedom and reducing the amount of total ordering consensus we require in order to interop in civilization. Instead of this monolith of governance+legal tender, we can flatten the structure to just a total ordering and let the diversity of partial orders proliferate within that less confining structure. I will have more to say about this when I am well.
EDIT#3:
The universal strategy is that by supporting cooperation and the increase of the diversity of competition, we enrich our own experiences and increase our species fitness. This is why we reach out to our fellow man who is in need, because we appreciate that without each other then our existence is irrelevant.
But I do not conflate that with a need to top-down control all the outcomes or the need to have one strategy for everything. My goal is to reduce Coasian costs to enable better fitness.
Just because we have diversity does not mean our only strategy is to defect and destroy each other. When we realize that our own success hinges on the group success, then we are incentivized to support the group and not support those who defect in the sense of valuing mankind overall even though there can be a diversity of activities which are not all universal. The universal strategy only needs to cover the broad theme of valuing each other but does not have to dictate only one way of organization when in fact those different competitive strategies are not preventing any other group from attempting their own strategy. As long as there are no Coasian costs preventing the strategies from co-existing, then there is no conflict which requires one strategy necessarily defeat the other one.
With technological improvement to remove the Coasian costs then defectors can do much less damage thus we do not need to top-down control them. This removes that failure mode of a winner-take-all power vacuum.
Without a force of consensus there is no convergence and you get defect-defect divergence.
The "force of consensus" = Schelling point = gold and silver, of which there are only two, not 700 different cryptocurrencies with horrible distribution of which there will never be convergence on anything. Cryptocurrency not only has no Schelling point, it has a...REVERSE Schelling point because you're incentivized to break off from bitcoin, buy a bunch of lower priced coins, then try to pump it higher (like Sidhujag). Nature, "god", whoever, created a very small amount of noble metals so it's not really possible to do this with real money.
You are only focused on the scarcity of the fungible money supply but that it not the main use case of blockchains nor
the important future direction of civilization. Blockchains are about maximizing degrees-of-freedom of transparent coordination while providing an objective means to bypass and filter out parasitic Coasian costs. It does not matter if we have 700 different blockchains as long as everyone can find the coordination they need on one of them.
However, society does tend to rally around a standard. The problem up to this point is that none of the blockchains have gotten all the technological and marketing details honed well enough to take the standard bearer tag. Bitcoin had first mover status and the widest liquidity for the monetary token, but it can not scale
on chain (ever no matter what happens bcz linear block size increases do not solve exponential scaling and unlimited block size does not have consensus!) and it can not fulfill the more salient use cases of blockchains. Ethereum and others still have not gotten the details worked out. All blockchain consensus algorithms thus far are winner-take-all power vacuums, i.e. that have a long-term failure mode analogous to democracy, governance, and politics. Why do think I am working on Bitnet. Once a blockchain attains standard usage for example replacing all the centralized databased on the Internet, the other 700 altcoins will wither away. And then one monetary token will win. It is difficult to predict how Bitcoin will evolve in this scenario. So many factors at this point are in competition and we do not know how all this is going to play out exactly. I for example am still
moving frustratingly too slow because of the antibiotics make me delirious and can't keep my eyes open for more than few hours a day (but at most only about 45 more days of these fucking meds and I may just quit early because my liver seems to be at limit of the toxicity it can tolerate although this risks a higher chance of return of the TB). So much in flux right now so I can not give you a more definitive rebuttal at this time. Just stay tuned and do not think that no one sees the opportunity. Of course the majority of the ecosystem will continue to just focus on taking speculator money with the easiest half-assed bullshit copycoin designs. More masternode PIVX, Decred, etc nonsense. But there are some who are determined to do something and who have declined very gracious, lucrative offers to cash out to speculators (ask @sidhujag).
IMO, you are misjudging the ecosystem far too early as if you had said P2P file transfer will always fail because Napster failed.
Bitcoin is important at least because it enables this ecosystem that will very likely eventually spawn the government killing, fiat killing, precious metals killing solutions. Whether it ends up being Bitcoin or not is not really relevant as Bitcoin will appreciate in either scenario. Bitcoin will at least remain the on/off ramp between fiat and any crypto currency for the time being. And any transition away from that will have an adequate period of development to be obvious to all those who are paying attention. Maybe Bitcoin will somehow figure out how to do everything off chain, but do note that I already explained that Side chains are fundamentally insecure and can not be fixed. And I explained that off chain transactions are fundamentally centralized thus moving away from the entire use case purpose of blockchains. The links to these detailed expositions are in my archives and are cited in my whitepaper.
Yea, you can try and drop the blockchain to lower redundancy and increase scalability like Fuserleer is doing with Emunie, but then it becomes even less sound money (or scale via partial order instead of total order and blackswan the system to death).
The majority has an incentive to reject any invalidate state, because otherwise the entire blockchain becomes a farce. Defection becomes impossible over the long-term and the blockchain is self-healing. I think it is possible to attain this without PoW and without PoS.
So it is just a matter of having a deterministic rule and paradigm for recovering against exceptions, but the devil is in the details of this because most such designs would get stuck in a defect-defect divergence scenario, e.g. if the network splits then PoW splits into two chains which if sustained for too long can possibly never be re-merged due to the vested interests in the double-spends and block rewards that would need to orphaned. But this is because the miners are vested. Now if you change who is vested and the majority of those who are vested are not complicit in double-spending, then the recovery and deterministic rule is dominant. This is the sort of revolutionary design work I am doing. Again the further details are even more interesting.
Then everyone has an incentive to provide this redundancy. This is one of key design decisions in Bitnet which enables unlimited scaling. The details though are IMO even more interesting.
I have not yet seen eMunie’s (renamed to RadixDLT) consensus algorithm specification but that he is planning a pegged currency indicates to me guaranteed failure. When analyzing USDT, I researched all the pegged designs (e.g. Bitshares, etc) worked out the theory of pegged currencies and realized they can never be viable over the long-term, no matter how you design them (I forgot where I wrote down that analysis). I notice the Scrypto JavaScript based language for apps, so I wonder if they are trying to copy my
Lucid PL ideas. Any way, no problem. I wish someone else would
fix the JavaScript ecosystem so I do not have to, but I do not think anyone else will or can any time soon, so thus I must do it.
