Pages:
Author

Topic: The economic model behind Bitcoin is flawed - page 3. (Read 14062 times)

legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1050
Khazad ai-menu!
December 13, 2015, 08:12:03 PM
Counterfeitable money didn't cause population increase and lack of pirates didn't cause global warming.  Seems dead obvious to me there but hey a lot of people like to get on the correlation is always causation bandwagon so what do I know right?

You just think that you understand everything (in respect to this discussion about the wealth of society and the growth of population), but you don't. I remember that I already said this, but since it evidently didn't get through, lol, I repeat it once again that I never said nor implied that fiat did or can contribute directly to the population growth...

But because you lack the ability of thinking in reverse, you can't possibly understand where exactly you fail

Greetings.  Well actually I know far too little about wealth of society, which is kinda why I'm here.  Perhaps expose some of my ignorance and maybe pick up a few new ideas no?   Stranger things have happened.  

But since we got some formalities out of the way maybe this could become a more interesting discussion.  

First thing that should be said is that there is no economic model behind bitcoin.  At least not necessarily.  Just like there is no economic model behind 79 protons.  Or "corn".  They are just things for us to use as we wish, with certain properties.  Properties that are useful for certain uses.  An economic model implies a household; whether one can sustain things like food, shelter, clothing, water, and other things one might need or want to keep up in life.  Economic models are often in flux, as one adds new activities, needs, desires.. and problems arise.  There are necessarily many such models simultaneously overlapping.  Individuals, families, and larger corporations.. all the way up to Gaia herself.  

As to the "societal wealth" thing I can tell you my opinion about it fwiw.  Population size seems really not a good metric at all.  On top of the list for me would be survivability, that is: health of the ecosystem and preparedness for shock.  Biodiversity.  Also involved is education.  How much of your population can play Bach pieces in multiple keys on multiple instruments?  That is wealthy.  How many people really feel the funk?  That is wealthy.  How many George Clinton shows did people get to see this year?  How many nights did they sleep out under the stars?  These things constitute a wealthy society in my mind much more than having 10 kids.  

The ability to pursue happiness.  It's a vague phrase but it was chosen well and can get the point across, that we don't have to agree on exactly what it is but we do agree that people should be able to do it as they see fit, and that their ability to do so could be called wealth.  

The "grand experiment" of dimensionless token sheistery is an anathema to societal wealth.  Infrastructure is decayed.  Resources are depleted.  Educational systems have become frayed and broken.  Corruption and fraud are at the core of everything it touches.  How can one pursue happiness if one is beholden to the counterfeiters to no limit?  The amazing thing is how well people have done despite its perniciousness.            


In other news, I'd love to learn to think in reverse.  Please help.  It's a cryptographers dream. 
    
sr. member
Activity: 518
Merit: 250
December 13, 2015, 05:37:52 PM
I disagree with the topic statement. Bitcoins economic model is no more flawed than gold or silver.
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
December 13, 2015, 05:32:39 PM
Then you have to deal with the fact that people during the last 100 years have become much richer overall, despite all the fiat floating around since then. Otherwise, you will have a hard time proving that "for more than 100 years fiat has been a parasite living off people across the world"...

Since becoming richer and better off is surely not something you would expect from the victim of a parasite

It is certainly off topic but I'm still interested in what you might possibly mean by "people have become much richer".  Perhaps a reference to improvement of infrastructure on global average, e.g. more running water, or technological progress?  Clearly the population has hugely increased

You still have to explain this. Given all your courage you should necessarily be granted the chance to be the first (to fall, wow):



Note the exponential growth after 1950
( btw exponential growth starts way before 1950 )
It starts exactly at this post deisik.
Now you are not only a stupid wikipedia warrior but also a liar.

legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 04:07:21 PM
Counterfeitable money didn't cause population increase and lack of pirates didn't cause global warming.  Seems dead obvious to me there but hey a lot of people like to get on the correlation is always causation bandwagon so what do I know right?

You just think that you understand everything (in respect to this discussion about the wealth of society and the growth of population), but you don't. I remember that I already said this, but since it evidently didn't get through, lol, I repeat it once again that I never said nor implied that fiat did or can contribute directly to the population growth...

But because you lack the ability of thinking in reverse, you can't possibly understand where exactly you fail
legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 03:54:47 PM
Since we're doing nonsequitur queries heres a few for you too:

It is no more than your opinion. Mine, apparently, differs from yours. I can prove my point if and when I consider it necessary, but ultimately it is irrelevant, since you are not the author of this topic while I am. Thereby it is not up to you to decide what should be discussed here and what not. I hope you will honor this "pecking order"...

Otherwise, you may want to go elsewhere

What procedure would you use to fit a set of data to an exponential curve, in other words determining the best values of A and B such that a dataset P_i(t_i) most closely matched the function P(t) = A*e^(Bt) ?  What criteria would you use to say the fit was "good"?  What criteria would lead you to describe the data as growing faster or slowly than an exponential?

I guess you (since I am not interested in that) should use the least squares method, if you are talking about approximation of some data by an exponential curve, y=Ae^(Bx). And I leave it to you to decide on the other things as well...

Since I'm not interested in them either
legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 03:46:57 PM


I see that you don't have a clue about how fiat (credit) money works. Fiat money is not a commodity, to begin with. It doesn't have nor is it required to have any value of its own...

Only a transactional utility, which is a bonus

Hmm transactional utility without value?   Interesting.   

I meant that money's own value is transactional utility only. Though this is still no more than a beneficial side effect of a particular implementation of the concept of money, a bonus, as I said...

What else did you fail to understand?
legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 03:46:10 PM
And I have to repeat another question which you seem to have decided to deliberately ignore:

The use of internal combustion engines in agriculture especially correlated with rapid growth in the last 100 years

So you agree that the use of machinery allowed to produce more foods and goods by the same hands, right?

Yes, of course.

Thereby you agree that using machinery, or, in a broader sense, technological innovations make people richer and wealthier overall (since they get more output with less or the same amount of effort), right?
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1050
Khazad ai-menu!
December 13, 2015, 03:40:41 PM


I see that you don't have a clue about how fiat (credit) money works. Fiat money is not a commodity, to begin with. It doesn't have nor is it required to have any value of its own...

Only a transactional utility, which is a bonus

Hmm transactional utility without value?   Interesting. 

Hmm, not a commodity, yet I go to the market and buy it just like I do all other commodities.  Interesting.

Tell us more. 
   

 
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1050
Khazad ai-menu!
December 13, 2015, 03:28:31 PM
And I have to repeat another question which you seem to have decided to deliberately ignore:

The use of internal combustion engines in agriculture especially correlated with rapid growth in the last 100 years

So you agree that the use of machinery allowed to produce more foods and goods by the same hands, right?

Yes, of course. 

Since we're doing nonsequitur queries heres a few for you too: 

What procedure would you use to fit a set of data to an exponential curve, in other words determining the best values of A and B such that a dataset P_i(t_i) most closely matched the function P(t) = A*e^(Bt) ?  What criteria would you use to say the fit was "good"?  What criteria would lead you to describe the data as growing faster or slowly than an exponential? 

What fraction of the total bitcoin supply will 1 bitcoin be in 20 years? 

What fraction of the total USD supply will 500 dollars be in 20 years? 

Counterfeitable money didn't cause population increase and lack of pirates didn't cause global warming.  Seems dead obvious to me there but hey a lot of people like to get on the correlation is always causation bandwagon so what do I know right? 

legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
December 13, 2015, 02:57:36 PM
How comes every industry nation has declining population growth?

Get your facts straight, dude


How comes we only see 10 kids per family in 3rd world countries?

Yes, this is the question I want to hear the answer to as well (though the answer is pretty simple)




Checkmate. You just showed you have no clue what you are talking about and are just a google/wikipedia warrior.
I will tell you the reason for a rising population in the US: Immigration.
Since ~1970 the birthrate is just barely around 2.0.ä or less, without immigration the population in the us would be declining.

Lol, you said that every industrial nation has declining population growth, right? This is what you asked. Besides, almost the whole population of the US are immigrants of the European origin, moron

Yes because the US was founded by europeans what a wonder. Lmao

Very nice how you try to slowly change the topic.

We were talking about fiat money as the reason for people to become richer and through that have higher fertility and increase the population.
I showed you that you were plain wrong with your google and wikipedia shit.


Immigration from poor nations to rich nations is the only reason why we have around 0-1% population growth with an average birthrate of 1.5.

Too bad facts and numbers dont lie.


Oh i guess you never read a study about immigration in the us right?
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/
legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 02:42:59 PM
How comes every industry nation has declining population growth?

Get your facts straight, dude


How comes we only see 10 kids per family in 3rd world countries?

Yes, this is the question I want to hear the answer to as well (though the answer is pretty simple)




Checkmate. You just showed you have no clue what you are talking about and are just a google/wikipedia warrior.
I will tell you the reason for a rising population in the US: Immigration.
Since ~1970 the birthrate is just barely around 2.0.ä or less, without immigration the population in the us would be declining.

Lol, you said that every industrial nation has declining population growth, right? This is what you asked exactly, and got an exact answer that this is surely not the case. Besides, the total majority of the US population are immigrants and descendants of European immigrants and African slaves, clown
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
December 13, 2015, 02:38:55 PM
How comes every industry nation has declining population growth?

Get your facts straight, dude


How comes we only see 10 kids per family in 3rd world countries?

Yes, this is the question I want to hear the answer to as well (though the answer is pretty simple)




Checkmate. You just showed you have no clue what you are talking about and are just a google/wikipedia warrior.
I will tell you the reason for a rising population in the US: Immigration.
Since ~1970 the birthrate is just barely around 2.0.ä or less, without immigration the population in the us would be declining.

In every other industry nation without ridic immigration of Mexicans and other South Americans their exist a declining birth rate and population.


Please stop trying to be smart because you are not.
There was a reason i wrote about tiger and dragon states while talking about ridicilous population growth in the 3rd world amid wars, famines etc. and nearly zero economic structres. ( its the opposite of what you are stating btw )
legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 02:26:55 PM
How comes every industry nation has declining population growth?

Get your facts straight, dude



How comes we only see 10 kids per family in 3rd world countries?

Yes, this is the question I want to hear the answer to as well (though the answer is pretty simple)


legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 02:08:38 PM
Yes, every set of data you have in your wikipedia article shows exponential and greater than exponential growth from e.g. year 0 to 1500

I'm curious how are going to fit into an exponential growth two pandemics (6-7th centuries and 14th century) that each killed half of the world population back then and which required two centuries for the humanity to recover from them to its previous numbers? Should I remind you that the exponential function is a monotonically increasing one? I assume that losing half of the world population on a few occasions is enough to make the exponential function inappropriate for an approximation of the human population growth in the given time period...

But you are free to think otherwise, I don't mind
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
December 13, 2015, 02:06:19 PM
No I never wanted to talk about your population growth as it is a complete nonsequitur.  Seriously: this has nothing at all to do with exchange commodities.  What is your point here?

You still didn't answer why we see the surge in the rate of population growth since 1950. Until then I see no sense in explaining what it has to do with the wealth of society ("people have become much richer") and how it is related to a monetary system. If something exists, it exists independently of whether you are aware of it or not...

Besides, I have to quote your post which doesn't quite look like you never wanted to talk about the population growth (and it is not mine):

It is certainly off topic but I'm still interested in what you might possibly mean by "people have become much richer".  Perhaps a reference to improvement of infrastructure on global average, e.g. more running water, or technological progress?  Clearly the population has hugely increased, meaning that individual's fraction of ownership of the whole shebang has gone down.  Of course none of this has anything to do with being robbed blind due to stupidity of accepting counterfeitable dimensionless tokens in exchange for labor but I am still curious what metric you refer to which has increased in 100 years

Just in case, you'd better stop making a clown of yourself

How comes every industry nation has declining population growth?
How comes we only see 10 kids per family in 3rd world countries?

We had several population growth since inception of humanity on planet earth and all of them were based on technological or social breakthroughs. 100.000 years before any1 though of fiat money.
( and yes, it was/is expontential growth )

Just take the tiger and dragon states for perfect examples. ( i.e. china & thailand )

Didnt you even had basic history in school?

legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 01:56:23 PM
No I never wanted to talk about your population growth as it is a complete nonsequitur.  Seriously: this has nothing at all to do with exchange commodities.  What is your point here?

You still didn't answer why we see the surge in the rate of population growth since 1950. Until then I see no sense in explaining what it has to do with the wealth of society ("people have become much richer") and how it is related to a monetary system. If something exists, it exists independently of whether you are aware of it or not...

Besides, I have to quote your post which doesn't quite look like you never wanted to talk about the population growth (and it is not mine):

It is certainly off topic but I'm still interested in what you might possibly mean by "people have become much richer".  Perhaps a reference to improvement of infrastructure on global average, e.g. more running water, or technological progress?  Clearly the population has hugely increased, meaning that individual's fraction of ownership of the whole shebang has gone down.  Of course none of this has anything to do with being robbed blind due to stupidity of accepting counterfeitable dimensionless tokens in exchange for labor but I am still curious what metric you refer to which has increased in 100 years

Just in case, you'd better stop making a clown of yourself
legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 01:42:36 PM
Your claim that "if the number of goods increases we have to create more exchange commodities" is laughable.  When apple makes more iphones do they issues more shares of Apple thus robbing all shareholders?  Are you afraid that prices will go down when there is a supply glut?  Guess what, that is called price discovery in a marketplace and is important in a functioning economy.  Issuing new dimensionless exchange commodities thus thwarting market forces and robbing existing holders is always and without fail unmitigated disaster.

I see that you don't have a clue about how fiat (credit) money works. Fiat money is not a commodity, to begin with. It doesn't have nor is it required to have any value of its own...

Only a transactional utility, which is a bonus
legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 01:31:48 PM
And I have to repeat another question which you seem to have decided to deliberately ignore:

The use of internal combustion engines in agriculture especially correlated with rapid growth in the last 100 years

So you agree that the use of machinery allowed to produce more foods and goods by the same hands, right?
legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 01:21:20 PM

It all depends. As I have explained it earlier, the ultimate idea of money is to provide a handy and universal tool for measuring the value of goods against each other. If the number of goods produced in the economy increases, then you have to create more money so that to keep the reference point of the scale the same (which you set when you bootstrap the money). Conversely, if the number of goods decreases, you have to destroy some fraction of money. The fiat money (namely, the credit money) fulfills this function automatically through a positive feedback loop...

That is, increased production triggers creation of new money (so-called endogenous money), and vice versa

LOLK!  As you explained earlier, fiat money ELIMINATES any reference point of the scale.  "Dimensionless" you called it.  Production of tokens is not tied to any physical unit or good, therefore every token is unverifiable as is the total supply

I'm afraid that you don't understand what you are talking about. And don't have a faintest idea what I talk about either. The reference point is not about dimension, it is about the baseline where you start counting at, and usually it is at 0. But in the case of fiat you are free to set it arbitrarily as you see most convenient, so that the prices for the majority of goods wouldn't be in either millions or millionths...

You can think of it as the least denomination of a currency with which you can still buy something (say, a matchbox)

legendary
Activity: 3514
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 12:58:54 PM

You'll find that human population growth has been FASTER than exponential from roughly the year 0 onward

Are you kidding or what? The human population was roughly constant most of its history (and most here means 99.999...% of the time of its existence), even dramatically declining in the case of some natural disasters like worldwide pandemics (say, the Plague of Justinian of the 6th century), up to a point of the so-called bottleneck. Do you (fail to) see the flat line from year 1050 till 1500 in the chart that I posted earlier? Is this what you call exponential, lol?

Quote
In 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change. This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age

The rate of the population growth that started in the second half of the 20th century is unprecedented and has no match in the entire human history

Still wanna talk about the exponential growth from year 0?



That plot appears to have been made from the "Hyde 2007" data in your link, though also mostly agrees with "McEvedy & Jones" from your link.

I would like you to show the correct plot made at full range of the variable (that is, time), starting at least 100,000 years ago (the estimated age of humanity, or, rather, its lower bound) and the Y-axis at 1 (Mitochondrial Eve), that is, not 1 million (as is in this plot) but just 1 (first human). I'm afraid the resulting plot will have nothing to do with the exponential function (y=a^x), just a wild, irrelevant approximation. Only if you put the origin at around year 1800 you will get something similar to it, in form and essence...

You distort facts so that they suit your ends
Pages:
Jump to: