Topic: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? - page 7. (Read 33250 times)

Yes you linked to and mentioned the szabo blog regarding metcalfe's law, which why I brought it up.  But I brought it forth to show Szabo's use of the word POTENTIAL (which is bolded in my original writing I believe).  Szabo didn't miss this, search for the word "redundancies".  He is not stating the formulated value for a network, he is simply saying that metcalfe's law is extendable.  It makes perfect sense that a reduction in transport cost as a dramatic effect on the value of the network.  But neither metcalfe nor Szabo imply that such efficiency is perfectly transcribable to market cap of a network.  That's not either of their mistake, its others' mistake.

You say fungible money.  What is un-fungible money? Money becomes money only because of our definition which is somewhat related to "the most fungible good".  Otherwise its just barter right?

Yes its a generalization.  The reason I think it is worth something is that you present it without the four color theorem and we weren't able to proof the theorem without computers.  Is a flat plane, and changes to the topology would increase the complexity and possibly outcomes for equilibriums.  As does the addition of money as you say.  

But we can also think earlier for example in a transition from water to land, or that underwater examples of such relationship between entities, wouldn't have gravity so to speak (or near as much of an effect of it), so the equilibriums form in a different way.  

Yet it's conceivable that there is some transition to different orders (ie water to land, land to internet).  In this sense money serves as the lubricant for transition, and natural arises as such.

I had already linked to that Szabo quote before you mentioned it:


Szabo is incorrect. He fails to consider that we live in a relativistic universe. The maximum potential of the network is not the reciprocal of the number of nodes to the fourth power. Szabo is computing the potential as if the maximum is where every node communicates/trades to every other node and the cost of the transport being the limiting resource or cost. But as I showed in my other comment in the blog which I linked you to, that value is meaningless unless it is considered relative to all other opportunities, i.e. opportunity cost is the limiting resource. Value is always relative, not absolute. Szabo is ascribing an absolute cost of communication and assuming that is the dominant opportunity cost from the individualized perspective of every node. But I showed mathematically that rather it can be the grouping compatibilities that can be a limiting opportunity cost that can invert the assumption of greater relative value for the larger network. Networks increase the degrees-of-freedom of the node participants, thus the potential energy. To the extent that transport cost is a significant opportunity cost of the nodes, then Szabo's point applies, but as the cost and latency of communication decreases, there are a proliferation of opportunities which are significantly more valuable than those transport costs. As Lima pointed out, the Inverse Commons was one of those huge value opportunities that was enabled by the Internet. The value from exchanging knowledge in the Inverse Commons over the Internet far exceeds any communication costs. So as you now see, money is not the only agent that can increase degrees-of-freedom in trade and increase surplus production. Communication networks can increase the access degrees-of-freedom for non-fungible knowledge, which becomes fungible collaborative within the Inverse Commons. So thus, we see fungible money becomes only a small component of the value creation, such as to pay for the communication infrastructure costs. This is why fungible money is diminishing in utility in the knowledge age. Fungible money is applicable to increasing the degrees-of-freedom for solving the coordination issues around physical resources. Yes atoms are heavy, but relative to knowledge production value, the atoms are asymptotically (an inexorable trend to) massless. So into the knowledge age we go, and fungible money will diminish in importance and our insatiable quest will shift from power to knowledge.

Note this is second time I caught Szabo with a fundamental error. Szabo does raise interesting historical examples and his anthropological research is sometimes interesting.

@traincarswreck, your four-color theorem theory of tripartite essential resources for human life is the most basic example of the fact that fungible money increases degrees-of-freedom over barter. The increase in efficiency of fungible money w.r.t. barter, increases as the diversity of physical resources (tangible goods) increases. With three bartered resources and no fungible money, one has a 1/3 chance of holding the resource that another may want to trade for, i.e. being bordered on one of the other two colors in your four color theory. The probability fraction decreases and complexity of risk mitigation increases as the diversity of goods to be bartered increases.

Current consensus mechanisms are not totally perfect PoS, PoW, etc but in general any one of them can suffer an attack to control it, the network relies on trusting people with major hashrate or stake holders in the case of PoS, obviously many people will disagree with an action taken by this major group of people; that's why is a 51% consensus not a 99 or 100%.

Agreed a non-manipulable reserve currency such as Bitcoin (at least until it becomes controlled by one entity as my math pointed out is inevitable) would re-enable the soundness and discipline of credit.

Except I agree with @CoinCube's implication that we won't go back to hard reserves and instead are moving forward to something better, as I have been explaining or alluding to. My perspective is that Bitcoin is the antiquated last gasp of desperation by those who love fungible money too much.

I will elaborate in my next post.

Selgin Hayek and Nash refute that claim.

The idea is that with the premise of the monopoly on money creation is broken then the system will self regulate. This point has to be addressed.

We're getting to this yes^  I'm still understanding.
https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-absurdity-of-communism-and-hard-forking-bitcoin-to-coup-core-4486aa9191c8

Szabo also wrote about that (@anonymous there is myself). You may wish to read that linked thread to see if it is applicable to our discussion, especially the most recent comment by Lima. That is Eric S. Raymond's blog.

Btw, what you and I are doing right now is exchanging knowledge (and thereby creating new knowledge) in an Inverse Commons. Neither of us exchanged fungible money.

This is a framework that I suspect will be useful for this dialogue:
http://www.academia.edu/15747776/The_Fundamental_Cause_of_a_Wealthy_Nation_Via_the_Generalization_of_the_Kula_Ring_Conjecture

What is only need is the concept of higher order.  What I would understand to be related to derivatives. We would say, things are chaotic until an equilibrium is reached and pressure builds until it breaks.  If the pressure builds enough and the system is stable enough, the only thing to break it or move beyond it is higher order.

Money is what facilitates the change to higher order, not fiat of course, but a granular movement that can, in some from, move the system to a new equilibrium. But there is no inherent quantum or quanta of money in this sense, yet we can quantize it to understand it.

And this is relevant in regard to the inverse of commons.

"EZ Pass" and Nash killed on the NJ turnpike

 

---

Edit: Thinking more about this. Nash was given a Nobel prize, elevated and given the opportunity to give speeches about Ideal Money. The elite created Bitcoin (not Nash, he couldn't do that all by himself). Nash didn't murder himself on the NJ turnpike.

Nash's flight was somehow made to arrive 5 hours too early, then he had no option but to call cab instead of the limo he normally schedules. The dispatcher gives him a cab with an immigrant who only started driving a cab 2 weeks earlier. And I can't find any statements about interview with the driver as to how he lost control or mechanical investigation of the taxi.


Compare the "firebombed" taxi in dashcam view:



To the taxi which was shown on the news:

Yes that is the "type 2" that Nash refers to:

The very intro/abstract to Ideal Money

Ok in regard to inverse commons is this what you are citing? http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/magic-cauldron/ar01s05.html

The nash stuff you are citing originates with me.

The Sybil attack isn't on hashrate (which of course is impossible). It is a Sybil attack on the determination of how divided is the hashrate. We can see a similar phenomenon with pools. We have no way to know how many entities actually own the hashrate behind the pools. I showed mathematically that the power brokers who aggregate the wealth (showed mathematically that it is winner-take-all) and thus the transactions that can fit in fixed size block, are the miners (whether they have slave miner doing it for them is irrelevant).

The market has no way of determining how concentrated is the wealth in Bitcoin. At the end times, we'll all find out to our detriment.

Nash was trying to fix fungible money. That can't be done. But he was close to discovering what I did, which is that we can achieve asymptotic stable relative value with non-fungible trade. The problem in the past was that barter was inefficient, which Nash described mathematically in that paper I cited upthread. However, with the advent of the Inverse Commons, trade in non-fungible knowledge becomes highly efficient. The 160 IQ genius Eric S. Raymond noted that it is the only positive scaling law of engineering.

While Nash was doing his main work decades ago, the Inverse Commons was only discovered and popularized in the 1990s as "open source". But it has far reaching implications on our future, not just software.

Nash went crazy when he realized how evil fungible money was. He ran away from the USA. Thus he made it one of his life's missions to try to fix it and remove the evil of it. He even said the rational world felt like a jail.

Follow the link in the quote below to learn about Nash's history...


I don't know if Nash was actually the main coder of Bitcoin or if he was even directly involved. But he was surely the source of the idea of ideal money.

Was Nash murdered?

But you can?

The markets can't see a Sybil attack. And the nature of finance is that hidden shit isn't properly valued until it collapses. That was the problem Nash was trying to solve. Lol.

I could explain at a higher abstract level why Nash was foolish (in fact I already did upthread but without math proofs), yet I know you want accept it. So I won't even bother.

The point is markets can't value what they can't see. If you don't know how a Sybil attack is relevant here, then we can't have an interesting discussion.

Of course Im sure you agree the markets wouldn't value such a proposal and so it would have no relevance or power. 

So you must be speaking of some future...

Your question is malformed. I understand the intent of your question is to imply that a system which is controlled by one entity is no longer trustable and thus valueless. But that reasoning doesn't account for the inertia...

If Bitcoin is the ultimate ideal money that the power brokers of our world decide to use for their reserves and thus we collapse the current financial system and replace it with this new "better" one.

Then later (80 years? 309 years later? I dunno how long it takes) when that system has concentrated 51% (or even 100% later) of the wealth into one entity's control (per the math I showed), then the value of the system is no longer relative to anything else. That entity will have enslaved the world, which is ultimate power.

The value is ultimate power. That is what it has always been about for the elite. They don't need money. They use money as a tool for power. Money (even gold) has a declining marginal utility, so the only thing left to pursue is either knowledge or power both of which can be insatiable. The fungible money crowd pursues power. This is why when someone gets too wealthy as measured in fungible money, they typically go insane because they lose normal goals and only have absolute power as unreachable goal (and otherwise meaningless life without challenge if they don't shift to striving for knowledge instead).

The reason FOFOA is incorrect about his claim that gold has a constant marginal utility is because fungible money doesn't have constant marginal utility. For example, one can't buy creativity with money, as my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay explained. This infuriates the elite of fungible money, so they lust for power in the hopes that they can ameliorate the value of knowledge.

Note Bitcoin has a higher marginal utility than gold, because it is a more ideal money. I quoted upthread Nash's explanation of why gold is inferior.