Topic: Who could be trusted to do governance? - page 2. (Read 3434 times)

  i think you really misunderstand what i meant by crypto's greedy bankers. your example is comparing apples with oranges; ie comparing fiat bankers with the premine scam coin pump and dumpers (which are far removed from the new breed of greedy bankers forming in crypto).

Auskipper's point had little to do with what i was referring to by greedy bankers.

I can tell you there was no bug, this was done intentionally, if this was a bug, they should have relaunch the code and the mining process.



I think the main thing is having people who have the interest of the project at heart above their selfish interest. I think this is what makes Bitcoin a success, I have heard some arguement that Satoshi is better at economic than coding that is why he left the project to others and this type of succession has continued. Another thing is the separation of power between developers and the miners, though their interest need to aligned to move the project forward.

Most people in crypto now are in it for money, it is only Satoshi that is in this because he has the vision, but most people will ask what about the 1 million Bitcoin stash but who has any proof that he has been spending it. Today you see developers investing in another projects hedging their profit

I'm very much aware of Penrose's work, and he's right about almost everything.  But this has not much to do with what I'm trying to make you see.  You are confusing the "entropy of the universe" (which is an ill-defined concept) with the entropy of a sub-system in relation to an "observer", which is entirely well-defined, and to which almost all of what is scientifically claimed about entropy, is about.  
This entropy is defined as a function of the possible cases that the observer needs/wants to consider, and hence limited to the sub-system under study.

The (quantum) entanglement you are talking about is in fact exactly the generator of entropy in a system state: it is the fact of limiting one's attention to a sub-system, while this subsystem entangles with the rest of the universe, that changes the quantum state of the subsystem from a pure state into a mixed state, and while the entropy of a pure state (which implies it is also a *known* state) is zero, a mixed state has a (well-defined) entropy.

I don't know how much you're acquainted with this, I can hardly write out a three-year course on quantum physics and statistical physics here, but essentially:

If you have a sub-system A that is a priori isolated from the environment B ("the rest of the universe"), and you happen to know the exact quantum state of A, then the whole universe is in a special product state |a> |b> ; where |a> is the quantum state of A.  The entropy of A as such, with respect to you, is zero, because you know its micro state perfectly, it is |a>.

Once A interacts unavoidably with the rest of the universe, A gets entangled with it, and there's no specific quantum state of A any more.  However, you can still limit your attention to system A.
The quantum state of the whole universe is now a sum of |a1>|b1> + |a2>|b2> + .... |an> |bn> where we have been running over all possible micro states of A: there are n of them.
The quantum description of just system A now reduces to a density operator, which takes on the form:

| a1 > < a1 | () + |a2 > < a2 | () + ... |an > ).

Here, ( ) are positive real numbers, the norms of the quantum states of "the rest of the universe" that are entangled with our system's quantum state ai.  There are only n such states of the universe that MATTER even though there are infinitely more of course, but they are not solicited by the entanglement with our system.

As such, our density operator consists of n quantum states, with statistical weights given by ( ).  In the worst case, these weights are all equal, which means that our density operator corresponds to "total ignorance of the micro state of A".  Usually, we take extra conditions on the interaction with the rest of the universe, like "energy conserving" or "thermal equilibrium".  This changes the values of ( ), and leads to things like micro-canonical ensemble, canonical ensemble and so on.

In the worst case, we don't know which of the n micro states our system is in (due to entanglement with the rest of the universe), and then its entropy is log_2 (n) in bits, or 1/K_b ln(n) in thermodynamic units.

From an information perspective, if a system can be in N possible states, its entropy is (at most) log_2 (N).

Now, let us compare.  A cup of hot water, at 80 centigrade, 100 grams, say, will contain MORE than the entropy increase from freezing to 80 degrees, right ?

Now, the heat delivered to 100 grams of water to go from 0 to 80 centigrade is 418.6 J/K x 80 = 33488 J.
This heat is transferred at a temperature of less than 80 centigrade, so less than 360 K.   As such, the entropy *increase* is at least 93J/K.

Now, this corresponds to a number of states N equal to e^(6.739 10^24), or to a number of bits equal to 9.7 x 10^24.

Note that I didn't even consider the entropy of icy water, which is not zero.

So my cup of hot water has already an entropy of 10^25 bits.  No computing system on earth masters a memory capacity (*) of 10^25 bits, not even the whole internet.

(*) I take memory capacity as "state space" proxy.

That is not a rebuttal.

You don't seem to comprehend that you can't just grab an initial condition out-of-your-ass (as if you weren't a product of the continuous living human network and the environment) and declare that your inertial frame's entropy is only dependent only on your perceived macrostates at that instant in time. That is fundamentally incorrect. Sorry. You may not realize it, but your paradigmatic conceptualization implies the assumption of the reversibility of thermodynamic processes, which is of course impossible.

You'd like a top-down model of the universe to be true, but sorry mate, the microstates are just as intertwined also.

Please talk to someone like Roger Penrose or Nicholas Taleb.

I added to my prior post to aid your understanding:


Existence is a very complex, unbounded system. We don't just pop into existence out of nothing with only a finite entropy from our history contributing to our initial conditions. The history of the universe is also unbounded, as is the future. Those who try to compute the start of the universe give me a good laugh. Such computations are only bounded by our (humanity's ability to share a common) partial order of perceptions.

P.S. The entropic force is not a deification:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity#Erik_Verlinde.27s_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_force#Gravity

I resent the slander. Please make cogent arguments if you have any.

@AusKipper refuted your logic.

This is where you are simply wrong concerning the concept of entropy, and where you deify it.
I think that as long as you haven't cleared that up, you will use the concept in a "magical" way and be misled by otherwise correct claims about it, like the second law of thermodynamics.

It is this kind of erroneous handling of the concept that also leads creationists to claim that evolution is not possible because of the second law of thermodynamics, for instance.   This is because they use the notion of entropy outside of its established, well-defined domain, but hope to use results that are only valid from within that well-established domain.

No offence, you are a brilliant guy, but don't fall in the trap of using precise mathematical/physical notions outside of their domain of definition in a hand-waving way, and hope that their rigorous properties from within the well-defined logical system still mean something.

tis nothing to do with political ideology in facts its the lack there of.

The entropy (a measure of possible surprise) of the Internet includes not just the hardware and software but all the biology of the humans interacting on it, which is not just a product of their DNA. There is a lot more water out there interacting with the Internet than in your cup of water.


At the infinite asymptotic limit of all possible trials (or otherwise stated that on a long enough time window in the past and future of the path dependencies of irreversible thermodynamic processes), you will be exposed to all possible surprise due to the microstates (and their Butterfly effect interaction with the environment) unless you can replicate those trials in an isolated system (which you can't in a real world). You implicitly presume that thermodynamics processes are reversible (i.e. able to be isolated to known initial conditions), but they are only reversible in a general relativistic framework, wherein the reversal is a simultaneous occupation of more than one inertial frame (which is impossible due to the quantified speed-of-light). You build artificial, impossible conditions around which you base your analysis, i.e. I am pouring this cup of coffee without any entropy in the initial conditions of the experiment (i.e. a totally isolated system).

You don't live in a vacuum!

And that is the essence of the error you keep repeating and why you still are incorrect about our past discussion about human vs. machine intelligence.


Due to microstates interacting with the environment as you pour, aka the Butterfly Effect, you don't know if the next time you were going to pour a cup of coffee, you instead have an entirely different outcome than had you not poured the coffee (and due to the microstates in some cases, not just due to the macrostate of pouring). That is why it is myopic to say the microstates in the water are irrelevant.


You think seem to think statistical averaging loses microstate information relative to the totality of every possible inertial frame and that is your huge blind spot in our debate on machine intelligence. From the perspective of any particular snapshot of the macrostate, you might conclude that the information was lost, but this would be myopic. No one person is omniscient and has perfect information, but this doesn't mean the information was destroyed as the process of evolving to the dynamic, continuous, living system of microstates that exist at any point in time is irreversible (i.e. not bijective to the past). Meaning that  inertial frames lose their ability to know the totality of the universe (i.e. they become unknowing of the totality so in this sense they've lost access to all information) but the total entropy of all inertial frames hasn't disappeared. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that entropy does not decrease on the whole universe, but can only decrease in some systems as it increases in others.

You are conflating the perception of information by any finite perspective (i.e. any partial order) with the entropy of the unbounded universe. The perception of a total order can't exist (because it would require an unquantifiable speed-of-light and the past and future would collapse into indistriguishable), but the (Butterfly) effects of the total entropy exist via unbounded space-time.

Communists have never been wrong.

The greedy bankers system we have today concentrates more and more power to the greedy bankers. Ie, because they have money, they can get more money, because they are in charge of the interest rates etc they can affect the economy.

In a cryptocurrency greedy banker scenario as the banker "consumes" his wealth (stake in the crypto currency) he becomes less relevent because as a percentage his share is going down.

eg: I realease a coin and pre-mine 50% of the coins. People start buying the other 50% and put the price up, so I decide i'm going to dump 50% of my holdings, I make some nice alternate currency (ie, USD) and feel very happy, fat and greedy, but, now I only own 25% of the currency. Thats not really how it goes in the current system of greedy bankers, where they get rich, spend it, the print some more and give it to themselves.

Also, provided I am the only one with access to my wallet or something in a de-centralized sytem, if something happens to me (eat too much cake and have a heart attack and die) then thats it, the coin continues without me, no more greedy banker.

If something happens to the current centralized greedy banker the vice greedy banker becomes the cheif greedy banker and it continues.

then please do, if this is your opinion then honestly the development of a 'bitcoin killer' isn't for you.

lost on most the crypto crowd is the entire point behind the development of a true p2p currency. its not about developing another payment system, seriously the world doesn't need a new visa or paypal etc etc etc  

yes bitcoin was essentially premined and one of the many reasons i think its more a distraction then the future of p2p currency. the only good thing todate to come out of cryptocurrency is the idea.

whats the point of being an alternative to the greedy bankers system if we ourselves become the greedy bankers  

The HODLer has an opportunity cost which is not free. The external economy didn't just cease to exist while he was HODLing.

Sitting still in your chair is not free and has a (n opportunity) cost.


This is not quite right or not the complete story. Society needs both savings and consumption. The money supply can growth faster than GDP, but any way the Quantity Theory of Money is not accurate because the value of money is complex and intertwined with confidence and derivatives.

It is quite complex, because even for example we may need that effect you lament to counteract the extreme level of money supply growth in the early distribution phase and also to encourage early adopters to invest in the ecosystem and not just dump their tokens for fiat (for the more liquid unit-of-account and unit-of-exchange).

No.


But Bitcoin didn't have everyone trying to pile in to mine it. It only had Satoshi who was seriously mining it. Because only he knew the masterplan and its importance. So when a developer takes a premine, he is essentially doing the same as Satoshi.

I understand you are making the distinction that anyone could have mined Bitcoin at the start. And with a premine no one could. But I can retort you on that. Anyone at the start of premine could have created their own altcoin instead. And they could fork it and mine it.

Gotcha. 


Wanna bet?


I didn't propose an ICO. Please don't conflate.


But it doesn't logically follow that everyone MUST also work for free ALWAYS.


So make a blockchain by yourself then from scratch. Launch it. Etc..

The amount of work you are doing for that toy hobby doesn't compare.

It is difficult for me the fathom how you can be so myopic.

Incredible value has already been created by the degrees-of-freedom of being able to move funds globally without permission. (I had already mentioned my personal examples to you in another thread, yet you cling your myopic viewpoint, so can see Monero and anonymity as the only feature of interest)

Bitcoin's daily volume is only $0.2 billion compared to $6000 billion for the SWIFT transfer system, i.e. 1/30,000th. Imagine if its volume was 100X higher what the effects would be.

And the final chapter of what blockchains are going to enable has not been written yet. Stay tuned...

(You are such a pessimist. I would not want to live in Europe, it's so gloomy. My Belgian friend says he hates going back there to see all the long frowning faces)

Okay so you've concurred that Byteball's distribution is flawed.


Then you'd be back to giving things (e.g. de-nationalized land in Russia, tokens in our case) away free to people who weren't motivated to invest and work for them. And the dumping of them to whales as a result and thus not a wide distribution. Besides the Bitcoin distribution is tiny as it is.

There is a distinction though.
Take the launch of MAX Coin for example.
It was screamed LOUDLY that it was coming.. and in turn we all piled onto it.
We all had the same advantage to have mining hardware ready to go on launch.
Is it a premine if another guy has more money to buy more mining PC's for the planned launch ?
Saying Bitcoin etc was premined is to me insanity.
I get what your driving at but i am not buying it.

What you are missing is the fact there was no better way to do it.
And the massive intense super ultra mega world changing revolution of the ICO
..is a step in reverse.

NOT INNOVATION.

The retarded logic is that if a mined coin *can* be exploited by a whale on launch then we must abandon the entire concept of mining a coin at launch all together.
If that does not sound retarded to you guys then i bet you are an ICO supporter  

And lets not forget that Bitcoin was not premined with cash in hand BEFORE the product was released.
The first block reward of value was mined AFTER the coin was launched and the person rewarded was paid so for doing a task.. making the system work / securing the block chain.

I can see some of you really do enjoy the little game of verbal gymnastics  

I already said who can be trusted.. it's obvious.
And it is not the people holding their hand out for something that will come *later.
Some of you are fucked in the head bad enough that you really do not comprehend others will do something for nothing.

I just finished installing Visual Studio and fixed an error on an Android / Windows program posted on XDA.
The dev left long ago when interest and money / donations dried up i guess..
No one is going to be giving me fuck all for my time & effort.. i did it because i felt like it.

This bullshit has turned into a cesspool of greed and entitlement.. aka: the ICO.
If you do not have the means to launch a coin then leave it someone who can.
ICO shitheads will never get 1 single cent from me.
I do not support Crypto-Pan Handling fer ROI'z.
I support Crypto Currency's (not crypto-schemes for profit)
Either you make it and post it or fuck off ..pretty simple.

I am not purchasing *convincing varied levels of idealism tokens for trading LOL

---

EDIT:

By the way i donated a while back Bitcoin to an XDA dev too.. panhandling ?
Nope.. he created it FIRST ..then i paid him Bitcoin.
See how that works guys ?

This has nothing to do with "egalitarianism".   I don't want everybody to "have equal income" or some silliness of that kind.  But if a monetary asset is to be introduced as something new, there is absolutely no reason why it should go into the hands of some more than in the hands of others, because any difference on that level is seigniorage, and gives value "against no economic production" to some over others.

Of course, an initially equal distribution of a monetary asset will not stay that way, but that doesn't matter.  At least, there has not been someone having had seigniorage from it.  Nobody has won anything by such an initial distribution, and that is how it should be.  That you can gain value by trading the asset against economic production, and accumulate wealth that way, is OK: you obtained it by providing value.  But you should not have gotten "value for nothing" which is exactly what seigniorage is about (and what most of crypto speculation is about).

And this is one of the cases where the word "entropy" doesn't have its place, honestly.  We're talking about how a token system that serves to transport value should "start out".  There's no reason why some should have more tokens *against no value* than others.  The only thing that makes sense in a monetary asset is the *transport* of value.  But the *creation of tokens* means that this is a non-equilibrated "transport", which is contradictory to the idea of the system that value only goes in closed circles through the system.  The best way to do this is by an as uniform as possible initial distribution, so that the "value out of thin air" is equal for everybody, and hence doesn't represent, in the end, any value.  From that point on, the tokens can transport value in closed circles.
This has nothing to do with "ignoring outcomes" or "ignoring states" and hence, has nothing to do with "entropy".

Well, I have the impression that you deify the notion of entropy.  For sure it is an important and fascinating concept, and it sneaks into areas of research where one didn't expect it at first sight.  But it isn't a magic word.  Entropy has a very well-defined meaning, and using the word and the notion outside of its well-defined meaning can sometimes be speculative theory, but most of the times, charlatanism.  There's another word like that, "quantum", that is often abused.  It is not always clear in what way the author using that word is simply being casually speculative but has in fact a clear idea in mind, and when he's using the word "magically".   I've seen that you sometimes use the word "entropy" in a context where I cannot link it in a clear way to its definition.  I don't know if, at those moments, you use it with a clear link to its definition, which I fail to understand, or as a "magic word" because you're somehow fascinated by it, without clearly understanding yourself what it could mean in that context, but you "feel in your bones" that it must have something to do with it, but you don't know what.

Entropy is just "lack of knowledge of an event".  The event has a specific state/value/outcome... (will have, had, ...) and you don't know which one it is, but you only know it must be "one of several possibilities".

Entropy is hence a relationship between the entity that can take on the event, and the entity that "ignores".  What is entropy for me, is maybe not entropy for you (and in that case, YOUR entropy for me is at least as big as the entropy I have about the system - which is the essence of the second law).

Now, what can we ignore ?  Almost anything, which is exactly why this notion is so all-pervading.  "physical entropy" is our ignorance of the exact micro state of a physical system, that still satisfies a given "macro state".

If I have a cup of hot water, I know its macro state: it is "hot water".  However, I don't know where what water molecule is, exactly, on a microscopic scale.  This ignorance is the entropy that how water has.  Note that it is dependent on what I consider as micro state.  I also don't know the nuclear state of hot water, but usually I don't care, so I don't take this into account in its physical entropy.  When I have to do nuclear stuff with water, suddenly water has much more entropy, than when I will be doing chemistry with it.   The heat that I can get out of water by using nuclear fusion is not accounted for by the usual values of entropy one gives to hot water, because most of the time, we don't consider that kind of outcomes.

In the same way as I can ignore physical micro states, I can ignore other things, like memory states of a computer, the actual state of a finite-state machine.  Take a whole network as a big finite state machine, then my ignorance of the exact state of this network can be measured in entropy units.
I can ignore "complex outcomes", like throwing a dice.  I know that if you throw a dice (or if you threw one yesterday, but didn't tell me the outcome), that it must be one of 6 outcomes, but I don't know which one.  Entropy.

In very much most cases, the entropy of the ignorance of a physical state is MUCH, MUCH larger than anything "computer-related".  There's more entropy in my hot cup of water than in the whole internet.

But, and this is important, we now come to the complementary notion: information.  Information is what sets off entropy (and is hence the same kind of quantity).  I need to receive information in order to diminish my entropy about something.  If you tell me that the dice thrown gave a 4, then my entropy about that dice is now entirely lifted, by an equal amount of information I received.

But information has another aspect.  It has the aspect of "what I care about".  Information has also to do with what one calls "macro states".  If I have hot water, the physical entropy of that is huge, but I don't care.  I only need the macro state to make coffee.  So my "entropy about the macro state" is essentially 0, because I KNOW the macro state.  I don't need the micro state if I want to make coffee.

So the fact that when I pour a cup of hot water over my instant coffee, and that I'm "Handling huge amounts of entropy", doesn't matter for what I'm doing.

I've seen you fall into this trap several times, like with the "entropy of the network with latencies calculating the digits of Pi".  I don't care, because the macro state I'm only interested in, is the value of the digits of pi, and the "microstates of the network" don't matter.  They are the equivalent of the hot cup of water, and its microstates.  I don't have to know them to make coffee.


Chaotic irreversibility is nothing else but the amplification of a specific micro state to a macro state.  The ignorance of the micro state then results in the ignorance of the macro state.
There are usually two opposing dynamics: one is chaotic dynamics which "brings micro states to the macro level", and the other is "statistical averaging" over large populations, which turns "individual macro states" into "system micro states".

The first one makes that one can "lose information", the second makes that "this information doesn't really matter".

If I use hot water, and I pour it to make coffee, I not only have the physical entropy of the hot water, I also have the chaotic dynamics of the turbulence in the water flow.  And all of this doesn't, in the end, matter, and I end up having a cup of coffee.

However, in as much as the turbulence is too turbulent, say, I can burn myself, I have to go to the hospital, and this implies a change in my life path that was difficult to foresee.  However, on the level of humanity, on average, 0.001% of people making coffee burn themselves, so this becomes again a kind of macro state.

So one cannot just be "amazed at the amount of entropy in a system".  There's more entropy in your cup of hot water than there is in the whole internet.  It doesn't always matter.

I have only casually looked at it, but it seems that byteball is not really a FORK of bitcoin at a certain block height, but rather organizes "rounds" where you can obtain coins if you participate.  As such, you are obtaining the same "inside knowledge" unfairness as a ninja mine.  You simply "have to know and be there at the right time".
A genuine fork would allow people to use their (former) bitcoin address signatures *automatically* and at any time to create their byteball coins ; in fact, their coins would be considered existing on the byteball system, in the same way that ETC coins were considered existing on the ETC chain when people had ETH coins before the fork.