Ever tried to google "asymptotically approaching" ?
Topic: Why I think the 21Million hard limit will never be reached - deflationary spiral - page 2. (Read 5943 times)
May 11, 2012, 10:43:08 AM
May 11, 2012, 10:40:28 AM
and BTC value doubles at the same time,
That's a damn big IF.
May 11, 2012, 09:52:39 AM
Very good observation by OP, if we could continously add decimal places after each block reward drop, and BTC value doubles at the same time, then the amount of BTC value added each year will be constant
At the same time, it means that the existing BTC holders will get their holding value doubled at each block reward drop, which gives them even more incentive to hold BTC as an electronic medium of saving, and when they accumulated enough amount of BTC and go for retire, then they will get ever-increasing value of saving to spend
For example, if I'm holding 1000 BTC as my saving (worth 1million dollar in future), and every four years I spent half of them, then my consumption power will keep the same all the time
Then very natually, many pension fund will consider their investment in BTC, because the scarcity of this medium will make sure the value will be ever increasing, at least better than some government bonds, 100% return in 4 years are not bad
No matter what, BTC has the potential to bring some craziness, but first it has to gain more acceptance and understanding
At the same time, it means that the existing BTC holders will get their holding value doubled at each block reward drop, which gives them even more incentive to hold BTC as an electronic medium of saving, and when they accumulated enough amount of BTC and go for retire, then they will get ever-increasing value of saving to spend
For example, if I'm holding 1000 BTC as my saving (worth 1million dollar in future), and every four years I spent half of them, then my consumption power will keep the same all the time
Then very natually, many pension fund will consider their investment in BTC, because the scarcity of this medium will make sure the value will be ever increasing, at least better than some government bonds, 100% return in 4 years are not bad
No matter what, BTC has the potential to bring some craziness, but first it has to gain more acceptance and understanding
May 11, 2012, 06:42:51 AM
I cannot appreciate the implications. The reason why is that "smarter" is not clear. Does this mean better at doing fast mulitplication? Machines are already smarter. Holding memory? Computing hashes? Already smarter.
And what is this so-called progress? Desertification? Toxification? Squandering of resources? Or just the spread of mental illness?
And what is this so-called progress? Desertification? Toxification? Squandering of resources? Or just the spread of mental illness?
This is not to agree or disagree with either side in this argument, but I believe that the "smarter" part is important because of this reasoning (and "smarter" is used to mean "more capable of designing artificial intelligences):
If humans of intelligence level X, manage to design an AI of intelligence level "X+1", then the machine of intelligence level "X+1" would have been able to design itself (since it is smarter than the humans that did design it). By implication then, it would be able to design an intelligence of level "X+2", etc, etc.
Personally I find the logic of a technological singularity lacking; I don't really see that the implication is true: who says that "X" intelligence is always capable of designing "X+1" intelligence AIs? Perhaps it gets exponentially harder to make smarter and smarter designs, in which case there would be no rush to "infinite" intelligence, but instead a rush to "maximum intelligence". What's more, what if humanity is already "maximum intelligence"? The assumption that we can design an intelligence cleverer than us is just that: an assumption.
You're only thinking in one dimension. For example, we could be mass producing cheap human equivalent AIs, which communicate with each other through networks. They could, in turn, produce who-knows-what.
If there is a maximum intelligence, then the singularity is impossible. This is a tautology.
@mucus
"Technological Progress Grows Exponentially and Reaches Infinity in Finite Time". This is a contradiction. The exponential curve reaches y=infinity @ x=infinity. So the referenced page fails to define exponential growth.
You can't have "infinite progress in finite time". I agree that this is impossible.
Lets define the singularity as "technology growth reaches the rate of x2 per day.". Do you think that this is impossible?
May 11, 2012, 04:54:15 AM
I don't think there is anything in the bitcoin protocol that states on exactly 21Million bitcoin will ever be made. No just that the block reward will keep half'ing. So if bitcoins value goes up and more decimal places are and keep getting added as the value of bitcoin goes up then the block reward can keep getting paid. Even if the block reward gets really small as long as the value of bitcoin keeps rising and more decimal places are added then a valuable block reward can keep being paid. At some point in the future the amount of newly created bitcoins entering the market will be similar to the amount of gold entering the gold market. As where we are at now with such a high block reward is like a gold-rush.
In this reasoning you're implying that the value of bitcoin will, in average, double at each 4 years, so that the block reward inflation keeps having the same value.
That sounds too much optimistic to me.
May 11, 2012, 04:15:27 AM
I cannot appreciate the implications. The reason why is that "smarter" is not clear. Does this mean better at doing fast mulitplication? Machines are already smarter. Holding memory? Computing hashes? Already smarter.
And what is this so-called progress? Desertification? Toxification? Squandering of resources? Or just the spread of mental illness?
And what is this so-called progress? Desertification? Toxification? Squandering of resources? Or just the spread of mental illness?
This is not to agree or disagree with either side in this argument, but I believe that the "smarter" part is important because of this reasoning (and "smarter" is used to mean "more capable of designing artificial intelligences):
If humans of intelligence level X, manage to design an AI of intelligence level "X+1", then the machine of intelligence level "X+1" would have been able to design itself (since it is smarter than the humans that did design it). By implication then, it would be able to design an intelligence of level "X+2", etc, etc.
Personally I find the logic of a technological singularity lacking; I don't really see that the implication is true: who says that "X" intelligence is always capable of designing "X+1" intelligence AIs? Perhaps it gets exponentially harder to make smarter and smarter designs, in which case there would be no rush to "infinite" intelligence, but instead a rush to "maximum intelligence". What's more, what if humanity is already "maximum intelligence"? The assumption that we can design an intelligence cleverer than us is just that: an assumption.
May 11, 2012, 03:01:39 AM
As far as I'm concerned, the the only necessary element is production of AI machines at or greater than the level of humans. Once we can cheaply produce machines that are smarter than ourselves, or at least augment humans to be much smarter, technology will explode and I don't see any limit.
The singularity states that infinite progress will be reached within a finite amount of time.
While I agree that the potential for progress is infinite, I see the above statement as impossible.
If you lookup the term I mentioned above (The Omega Point) there is but one possibility this can happen.
But this is metaphysics, not science.
The technological singularity does NOT state "infinite progress". You made a nice mess of that straw man though while dodging the actual question. Do you think we will not soon produce machines that are smarter than humans? Can you not appreciate the implications of this?
I cannot appreciate the implications. The reason why is that "smarter" is not clear. Does this mean better at doing fast mulitplication? Machines are already smarter. Holding memory? Computing hashes? Already smarter.
And what is this so-called progress? Desertification? Toxification? Squandering of resources? Or just the spread of mental illness?
May 10, 2012, 10:33:36 PM
it does mean infinite progress in a finite amount of time.
The theory states that literally, the term is not by me.
sauce: http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2003/Singularity-Bell1may03.htm
The Technological Singularity is to Cybernetics what the Perpetuum Mobile is to Physics.
The theory states that literally, the term is not by me.
sauce: http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2003/Singularity-Bell1may03.htm
The Technological Singularity is to Cybernetics what the Perpetuum Mobile is to Physics.
May 10, 2012, 05:14:46 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the the only necessary element is production of AI machines at or greater than the level of humans. Once we can cheaply produce machines that are smarter than ourselves, or at least augment humans to be much smarter, technology will explode and I don't see any limit.
The singularity states that infinite progress will be reached within a finite amount of time.
While I agree that the potential for progress is infinite, I see the above statement as impossible.
If you lookup the term I mentioned above (The Omega Point) there is but one possibility this can happen.
But this is metaphysics, not science.
The technological singularity does NOT state "infinite progress". You made a nice mess of that straw man though while dodging the actual question. Do you think we will not soon produce machines that are smarter than humans? Can you not appreciate the implications of this?
May 08, 2012, 05:03:03 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the the only necessary element is production of AI machines at or greater than the level of humans. Once we can cheaply produce machines that are smarter than ourselves, or at least augment humans to be much smarter, technology will explode and I don't see any limit.
The singularity states that infinite progress will be reached within a finite amount of time.
While I agree that the potential for progress is infinite, I see the above statement as impossible.
If you lookup the term I mentioned above (The Omega Point) there is but one possibility this can happen.
But this is metaphysics, not science.
May 08, 2012, 04:43:40 PM
Yes but I think people have said that the processing and storage needs of the blockchain will be able to keep increasing due to Moore's Law. Although I don't think Moore's Law can continue as it is and will inflex (excuse my terminology) during the Technological Singularity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity) predicted sometime after 2030-2040.
This has been predicted numerous times and revised. It's not gonna happen and is more of a pseudoscientifc joke to anyone involved in natural sciences or cybernetics. If you wanna have a entertaining read look up The Omega Point, aka The Singularity.
The idea originates in the transhumanist movement, a circle jerk of wanna-be elitists who couldn't make it in academia.
For what reason do you believing the singularity won't happen? We are already developing rapidly in the field of nanotechnology, AI, 3D printing, genetics, neuroscience ...
As far as I'm concerned, the the only necessary element is production of AI machines at or greater than the level of humans. Once we can cheaply produce machines that are smarter than ourselves, or at least augment humans to be much smarter, technology will explode and I don't see any limit.
May 08, 2012, 03:41:51 PM
Having an idea and using it as a world view are two different things.
The people who make predictions on a time period where that should occur have no academic relevance.
OP has been thoroughly answered above, don't pussy out of it now.
The people who make predictions on a time period where that should occur have no academic relevance.
OP has been thoroughly answered above, don't pussy out of it now.
"Pussy out" of what trying to prove I'm right and your wrong? Or should I just bow down to your genius
idk
here you go knock yourself out:
http://humanityplus.org/
I've bookmarked it but on the Pilsner at the moment and not into heavy reading. Thanks.
May 08, 2012, 03:40:13 PM
Having an idea and using it as a world view are two different things.
The people who make predictions on a time period where that should occur have no academic relevance.
OP has been thoroughly answered above, don't pussy out of it now.
The people who make predictions on a time period where that should occur have no academic relevance.
OP has been thoroughly answered above, don't pussy out of it now.
"Pussy out" of what trying to prove I'm right and your wrong? Or should I just bow down to your genius
idk
here you go knock yourself out:
http://humanityplus.org/
May 08, 2012, 03:37:36 PM
Having an idea and using it as a world view are two different things.
The people who make predictions on a time period where that should occur have no academic relevance.
OP has been thoroughly answered above, don't pussy out of it now.
The people who make predictions on a time period where that should occur have no academic relevance.
OP has been thoroughly answered above, don't pussy out of it now.
"Pussy out" of what trying to prove I'm right and your wrong? Or should I just bow down to your genius
May 08, 2012, 03:34:58 PM
Having an idea and using it as a world view are two different things.
The people who make predictions on a time period where that should occur have no academic relevance.
OP has been thoroughly answered above, don't pussy out of it now.
The people who make predictions on a time period where that should occur have no academic relevance.
OP has been thoroughly answered above, don't pussy out of it now.
May 08, 2012, 03:11:46 PM
Yes I see after infinite amount of time it will only get closer and closer to 21million. The main point of the OP is the block reward never ending even after a block reward of only 1 satoshi and bitcoin value ever increasing. Therefore no hyper-deflation.
Edit: As a valuable amount of new bitcoins/satoshis always entering the market.
Edit: As a valuable amount of new bitcoins/satoshis always entering the market.
Only if there were an infinite number of bits available for storage. When the block reward is 1 satoshi; then after 210000 blocks, that 1 will be shifted right and the reward will become zero.
Perhaps by then the developers will allocate more bits, but it's still not infinite.
All that being said: I completely agree, this still doesn't equal deflation or inflation. There will be, near as makes no difference, a fixed number of bitcoins in the economy. If the economy becomes more productive, then (unlike now) that productivity increase will be reflected in lower prices, as everybody's supplier will be able to supply more for less.
Yes but I think people have said that the processing and storage needs of the blockchain will be able to keep increasing due to Moore's Law. Although I don't think Moore's Law can continue as it is and will inflex (excuse my terminology) during the Technological Singularity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity) predicted sometime after 2030-2040.
This has been predicted numerous times and revised. It's not gonna happen and is more of a pseudoscientifc joke to anyone involved in natural sciences or cybernetics.
If you wanna have a entertaining read look up The Omega Point, aka The Singularity.
The idea originates in the transhumanist movement, a circle jerk of wanna-be elitists who couldn't make it in academia.
Alan Turing who invented the modern computer was no failed academic and was probably the first person to come up with the idea. Anyway I don't want to get too off-topic talking just about the Technological Singularity.
May 08, 2012, 03:01:56 PM
Yes I see after infinite amount of time it will only get closer and closer to 21million. The main point of the OP is the block reward never ending even after a block reward of only 1 satoshi and bitcoin value ever increasing. Therefore no hyper-deflation.
Edit: As a valuable amount of new bitcoins/satoshis always entering the market.
Edit: As a valuable amount of new bitcoins/satoshis always entering the market.
Only if there were an infinite number of bits available for storage. When the block reward is 1 satoshi; then after 210000 blocks, that 1 will be shifted right and the reward will become zero.
Perhaps by then the developers will allocate more bits, but it's still not infinite.
All that being said: I completely agree, this still doesn't equal deflation or inflation. There will be, near as makes no difference, a fixed number of bitcoins in the economy. If the economy becomes more productive, then (unlike now) that productivity increase will be reflected in lower prices, as everybody's supplier will be able to supply more for less.
Yes but I think people have said that the processing and storage needs of the blockchain will be able to keep increasing due to Moore's Law. Although I don't think Moore's Law can continue as it is and will inflex (excuse my terminology) during the Technological Singularity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity) predicted sometime after 2030-2040.
This has been predicted numerous times and revised. It's not gonna happen and is more of a pseudoscientifc joke to anyone involved in natural sciences or cybernetics.
If you wanna have a entertaining read look up The Omega Point, aka The Singularity.
The idea originates in the transhumanist movement, a circle jerk of wanna-be elitists who couldn't make it in academia.
May 08, 2012, 02:54:07 PM
Yes I see after infinite amount of time it will only get closer and closer to 21million. The main point of the OP is the block reward never ending even after a block reward of only 1 satoshi and bitcoin value ever increasing. Therefore no hyper-deflation.
Edit: As a valuable amount of new bitcoins/satoshis always entering the market.
Edit: As a valuable amount of new bitcoins/satoshis always entering the market.
Only if there were an infinite number of bits available for storage. When the block reward is 1 satoshi; then after 210000 blocks, that 1 will be shifted right and the reward will become zero.
Perhaps by then the developers will allocate more bits, but it's still not infinite.
All that being said: I completely agree, this still doesn't equal deflation or inflation. There will be, near as makes no difference, a fixed number of bitcoins in the economy. If the economy becomes more productive, then (unlike now) that productivity increase will be reflected in lower prices, as everybody's supplier will be able to supply more for less.
Yes but I think people have said that the processing and storage needs of the blockchain will be able to keep increasing due to Moore's Law. Although I don't think Moore's Law can continue as it is and will inflex (excuse my terminology[tho could be correct long time since I did any maths]) during the Technological Singularity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity) predicted sometime after 2030-2040.
May 08, 2012, 02:49:02 PM
Yes I see after infinite amount of time it will only get closer and closer to 21million. The main point of the OP is the block reward never ending even after a block reward of only 1 satoshi and bitcoin value ever increasing. Therefore no hyper-deflation.
Edit: As a valuable amount of new bitcoins/satoshis always entering the market.
Edit: As a valuable amount of new bitcoins/satoshis always entering the market.
Only if there were an infinite number of bits available for storage. When the block reward is 1 satoshi; then after 210000 blocks, that 1 will be shifted right and the reward will become zero.
Perhaps by then the developers will allocate more bits, but it's still not infinite.
All that being said: I completely agree, this still doesn't equal deflation or inflation. There will be, near as makes no difference, a fixed number of bitcoins in the economy. If the economy becomes more productive, then (unlike now) that productivity increase will be reflected in lower prices, as everybody's supplier will be able to supply more for less.
Jump to: