Topic: Thoughts on Zcash? - page 57. (Read 123361 times)

You are not comprehending what I wrote in my prior two posts.

It is not the creation of patterns that is relevant, but rather the serendipity of the relevance of the timing of creating patterns. The entire point is that the universe is not deterministic. Thus no form of computation can be any more perfect than any other. What makes us human is what we evolve with the game of chance and that we don't need to have the right answer. We just are, for a little while any ways. The concept of a superior intelligence that is "correct" more often than any other, is futile because it isn't even wrong. There is no "correct". Our universe is game of dice. No intelligence can predict that which is random.

Kurzweil seems to not comprehend basic computer science either. He should know that as the programmability increases, the opportunity for non-determinism does as well. This is what the entire failure of The DAO is about.

The non-determinism of computation even comes into play for example as the distance between computing components increases (again because the speed-of-light must be finite, else nothing can exist). You can recall smooth and I discussing that in the context of Byzantine fault tolerance.

Computation is not a panacea. And computation is also subject to the non-determinism of our universe.

Kurzweil seems to just really be full of shit and trying to sell books. He doesn't understand basic fundamental issues of physics and computer science.

What is creativity but the shifting of matter that already exist into new patterns? The whole universe does this, so why can't a computer? Algorithms have been creating music and drawings, so who gets to say that isn't creative?  Also, you keep overlooking that humans augmented with artificial devices like nanobots are the AI Kurzweil thinks will most likely happen.

As for anonymity's place in the future, we can agree to disagree--time will probably prove us both wrong.

Apologies for losing my couth in the prior post. I am a bit frustrated with people who follow Kurzweil. I ask them to please consider the point I have made about physics.

For A.I. to beat creativity, then perfection must be possible. Else A.I. has to become imperfect just like humans and nature, then it is no longer beating us every time.

It is really simple to understand that Kurzweil is dead wrong.

What else can I say?


Without creativity, then there is no value. What ever can be replicated becomes nearly free. The creativity is where all the value will remain. Our existence is a game of chance. Without the chance, there isn't a game. Poof its gone.


The destruction of the nation-state system is coming via a debt implosion. The destruction of the hierarchical structures of the industrial age, is coming due to technological disruption such as open source and a decentralized DAO concept. Anonymity seems to have nearly nothing to do with it as far as I can see.

Learn physics? What do physics (I mean in the abstract point you were making as it's obvious you need physics to build systems) have to do with machines being creative? Also, what the hell is so organic about our thought, most of our capacity is built on abstract language systems. Also, if a few human jobs remain, that doesn't undermine the net effect I'm talking about, so it's a bit of a strawman. Even if you are right about creativity (I doubt it) that doesn't change the fact that I am talking about artificial intelligence, in the sense of augmented humans too. The whole concept of the singularity is that it is a world that organic humans can't fathom (at least not its technical workings) without the aid of artificial brain augmentation (I don't think you get Kurzweil on this).

As for privacy, let me repeat for the third time: the corporate systems will most likely embrace anonymity while they are disrupting the current system--saying it is the same system to those who run it (state controlled governments) probably won't help them get over their loss. "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme*"--but that doesn't invalidate my point of the corporate system wanting privacy to undermine the current infrastructure (let's not get into semantical nitpicking).

*Mark Twain at his best

(edit: I mentioned this in our pm and just saw it here--you were in fact the one who brought Kurzweil's name up.)

Since you appealed to authority (which is an invalid form of argumentation), then I am compelled to fight his reputation. Kurzweil is a certified idiot.

A.I. mastering the known sciences, has nothing to do with my point about where future creativity is derived from serendipity of chance meeting imperfection. If computation could replace the necessary finiteness of the speed-of-light and the necessary zigzag imperfection fitness annealing of nature, then omniscience is possible, the speed-of-light is infinite, and the past and future collapse into an infinitesimal point of nothingness. And nothing exists any more. Kurzweil is a certified idiot!

You are too much off on this Kurzweil fantasy that has no grounding in physics. For Kurzweil to be correct, the speed-of-light would need to infinite, because his theory distils down to that computation can substitute for serendipity. That he didn't realize this, shows he is a very narrow minded thinker.

Don't repeat that fucking stupid nonsense to me again (because so many people have this misconception of physics and I get tired of repeating myself over and over again...it is like a battle of attrition). It is absurd incomprehension of the basic law of the universe, which the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Even Einstein admitted it was fundamental.


A.I. may compete but it won't replace creativity. But I don't see how that changes my points.


The corporate system is the old political system. The Bilderbergs are just concerned with how to maintain their hegemony and scaling their control to global economies-of-scale instead of national as it had been.

If we do manage to overcome their hegemony with for example a decentralized DAO concept, then we've solved the political problem and thus we don't need super powered anonymity. If we don't overcome their hegemony, then our anonymity can't withstand their hegemonic gaming of the politik.

Why are people assuming I'm talking post-corporate takeover with regard to privacy? I'm talking pre-corporate take over. After that, who knows?

Moved from other topic, be aware I have not read this thread at all yet.


Unfortunately the will of the people is blocked at every turn and those that speak loudly enough to gain traction become labeled as "UN-Patriotic" and "radicals" which is one step from terrorist and are attacked through psy ops until they are powerless. Only the power elite can afford change and they are so comfortable in their position that they have no incentive to do so.

I am thinking that maybe a time equity could be built in to offset a sudden majority possibley?


Although that is a part of the equation the bottom line is control. Even if/though TPTB are corp controlled (it matters not) there is infrastructure and services that are mandatory that continue to increase and the Gov by current law must support those. There are movements to remove that support for the under represented and corporate welfare increased and the 99% are losing that battle as the system is rigged because those that make the laws are beholding to those that put them there. Even the well meaning ones do not see the small changes they make to support their benefactors all add up in the end to devastating effect on the lower classes. This is the reality of the new ruling class you can see it in every day life easily enough. Do a test, in America drive through a affluent neighborhood in a junk car and see how quickly you are pulled over and checked and then do the same in a new car. you will be amazed at the different manner in which the enforcers treat you. Politicians do not have the power to take it from the 1% (mostly corporate) and therefore must find new ways to take it from those that are least able to defend against it. This is why the under classes must have some monetary security, the laws are written so that if you cannot afford a lawyer to protect you then you are guilty by default and are forced to continually forfeit your wealth/assets accordingly. The average person needs a private store of wealth that is hidden. Why do you think every transaction that is made above a certain limit is noted and must be justified and you do not have the right to move amounts the gov has set without them knowing? They assume if you have hard currency then you are guilty of obtaining that by illegal means. Have you not been watching the asset seizing that has been going on of people just driving down the road with a few grand?

I don't agree with those who think A.I. will replace human creativity. I wrote a blog post on that:

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy

Until a computer learns how to become one with nature (i.e. the necessity of imperfection! c.f. my explanation that timespeed-of-light must be finite...), then it can't compete on creativity. And if it becomes one with imperfection, then it has no advantage over the human genome entropy in this regard (and the computer will need to consume resources as well). Sorry Kurzweil is wrong!

The key question to answer is what is the economic motivation of the corporation.

The corporation wants to amass as much power as possible as the oligarchy is a winner-take-all power vacuum. So the corporation wants to do what will maximize its global share of the economic profits. It wants to eliminate competition to maximize profits, but it must also allow degrees-of-freedom else creativity is lost and it will crumble under its own inability to adapt/improve (as Communism does).

The larger the corporation the less adept it is. Thus the larger corporations depend on their ability to use their control over politics and large capital, to swallow all the innovation of the smaller ventures.

So I continue to foresee large corporations pandering to the unproductive majority, for the power to steal from the productive minority. This is the Iron Law of Political Economics.

Your mistake is that for corporations to view their fees as sufficient, there must be a level playing field between corporations (i.e. their fees not raided). But there is not. Thus a collective will be required to decide what is fair, and of course the large corporations will game that politik. So the large corporations (i.e. the government by any other name) will not allow the smaller corporations to collect fees anonymously. Realize the individual will become a company. Companies will become much smaller and more adept. We are  moving to a do-it-yourself open source world, e.g. 3D printing.

If we solve the political problem, then we don't need anonymity any way. In an open source world, who cares who knows who my customers are. And the world is moving away from being ashamed when your grandmother knows one has some bizarre fetish. Your grandmother probably will have one too.

I think the world will view privacy as a pita. And focus more on creativity and maximizing production. Basic level privacy yes. Anonymity from the collective, I think is a pita.

We are moving towards a boon, and yes,  that boon will be built on machinic labor, rather than human labor. I doubt we will actually produce much, if anything, ourselves--as even music and art can be produced by programs--my guess is we will busy ourselves with video game-like jobs within VR culture or produce blogs about our kids and dogs, and create art and other hobby/busy work to give ourselves the satisfaction of feeling productive--my guess is a lot of people will just sit on their asses.  Corporations will likely spread further from the planet collecting resources that, when compared to our present state, will seem infinite. Though, I guess atomic printers essentially do just that without us needing to leave the planet. Think of us moving from a tribal state to a parasite state--where our existence is subsidized by machinic labor capacity. I'm sure some (maybe all that survive) will cross the bounds into cryberhumanity, but then you will a world no one 100% human can comprehend, and certainly not one living before it happens. My guess is that we will have multiple systems competing with each other until a dominate form takes shape (much as today)--But I'm betting on the corporate model pre-singularity, efficiency trumps tradition.

I'll believe it when I Z it
LOL

What do we do with all the people who don't have a job? Harvest them for body parts in an efficient corporate world?

Costs go closer to zero (at least for tangible goods), so it is nearly free to give them basic needs, but still there needs to be a transfer of wealth from the productive to the non-productive in order to pay for it, no matter how epsilon it is.

Would corporations offer a signup program for indigent to exempt them from fees and thus the productive can pay for the indigent without needing to provide their identity?

What is the economic advantage for the corporation? Hmmm.

I don't know if it would amount to that or not, as marginal costs are trending towards zero and it's in the best interest for companies to move that way rather than glean a few extra sheckles by pissing off their user base --think of a world where you can buy a shirt (or print one) that doesn't need to be washed and changes colors and patterns on demand, a world where you don't need a car as you can make car appointments with automated uber-like systems and your job is likely in a digital capacity, so you really don't have many places to go and you can take a vr vacation without the threat of kidnappings, zika, or just a crumby locale that you got locked into--in that world the costs are so minimal that, unless your country is engaging in taxing for a living income--which will likely rise before it crumbles under the weight of its absurdity, then you can expect companies to manage by streamlining operations and lowering costs, rather than increasing pricing and remaining top-heavy. Until you imagine a world where humans can be replaced by quantum computers and traditional jobs replaced by virtual endeavors, you can't imagine a future without traditional governments and taxation schemes. The real question is what the future military looks like--will it be old style war machines that are costly and spend much of their time collecting dust, half-breed systems of corporate mercenary mechanization, OR control systems that use economic policy to set an ever widening global, and post-planetary, border system?

Continuing a discussion from another thread:


Politics of regressive taxation.

Another cool site from you, bookmarked.. I think I will be mining this, we will see if it will be profitable or not..

Is there an op page?

What algorithm?

Pow/pos ups iou or cod...more info!

Tokens/coins?

Explorer?

...you know, the core shit for the people with money and can mobilize the network effect in the crypto ecosystem.

Its educational to look back at comments...

Problem is that there is no value in copy-paste coins other than a pump and dump.

As someone with a pretty solid background in zero knowledge systems I can't help but agree. Solid team, and solid plan.

Seems to moved to September already instead of the earlier mentioned July, see:

https://github.com/zcash/zcash/milestones

Under "1.0 Launch".