Bitcoin Forum

Economy => Economics => Topic started by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 08:17:26 AM



Title: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 08:17:26 AM
How can we improve upon Bitcoin's highly concentrated coin distribution (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=341594.0)?

Only the top 3% should be power-law concentrated, the rest distributed with diffuse gas random concentrations:

"Exponential and power-law probability distributions of wealth and income in the United Kingdom and the United States" by A. A. Dragulescu and V. M. Yakovenko

We shouldn't give coins away to the lazy who do nothing to earn them, because Risto explained that in Russia the recipients just squandered the gifts.

Ideas thus far:

1. Decentralized CPU-only proof-of-work, but the threat are botnets

2. Centralized premine then distributed with a faucet (https://www.google.com/search?q=Bitcoin+faucet) first-come, first-served until depleted.

3. Centralized premine then distributed to merchants every month or quarter evaluated to be bonafide. So this really requires hiring staff, which should be paid either from premine or a foundation with membership fees.

Hit me with ideas please!

I will keep self-moderation to an absolute minimum but please try to stay on topic and no ego battles.


This is my fundamental insight.

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Understand%20Everything%20Fundamentally.html

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 08:51:15 AM
Watch out for emunie, it may just take the crypto crown.

Any cryptocurrency aiming to have low volatility will have low adoption. It seems the creator doesn't understand economics.

I have also devoted some thinking to the matter. Bitcoin's parameters are the most optimal that I have seen, if the objective is to get the currency off the ground and achieve the highest 'market cap' valuation:

- Initial creation is rather centralized, in opposed to distributed. (Nearly) Same amount of old world resources must be burned to create new currency.
- Most holders by number need to acquire their bitcoins from an exchange, giving them a fiat price.

If the value is measured in fiat price vs in # of transactions.

Short-term vs long-term valuation respectively.

- This leads to a power-law distribution (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316297.0) in bitcoin balances from the beginning. This is the most natural distribution and minimum amount of trades need to be made in the aftermarket to achieve it.

Apparently most natural for an ponzi-bubble investor coin, not for a transaction coin.

- This leads to stiff but predictable supply inelasticity, which leads to high volatility mainly to the upside.

Agreed.

Compare this to the XRP distribution, which completely disregards all economic principles and thus was an utter failure, forever destining XRP to be a trading card game, and discrediting the (otherwise promising) Ripple network in the process.

Is it a strawman to state that the failure of a fractional reserve system predicts the failure of any system of gas diffusion distribution which is capitalistic-- the work done to attain the coin should roughly equal the value of the coin?

I think the answer is no.

It seems to me that the key distinction is that to distribute a coin widely and capitalistically, the economy-of-scale of aggregating a plurality of worker units must be very low.

In other words, the fungibility and divisibility of tasks should be very low and high respectively.

The reason money exists is because it increases the maximum divisibility of labor (https://www.google.com/search?q=No+Money+exists+without+the+majority), because money is fungible but knowledge is not. Otherwise we would barter directly in knowledge.

Large capital can't buy diverse knowledge, the economy-of-scale is low because the divisibility and specialization is high.

This is my fundamental insight.

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Understand%20Everything%20Fundamentally.html

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: Pente on November 22, 2013, 08:56:15 AM
The money that us early adopters are putting into Bitcoin is helping to build the infrastructure. Those who choose to ignore Bitcoin or wait till full adoption, don't deserve the gains that we do. We are doing the work and taking the risks of failure.

I feel that I am finally being rewarded now for my years of studying philosophy, economics, computer science, and mathematics. This knowledge is freely available to everyone in all the major 1st world countries at free libraries. Anyone who acquired an education and took the time to examine Bitcoin would have realized how world changing this techonology was going to be. For that matter they still can do so.

My only regret is that the 3rd world may only get a tiny sliver of the Bitcoin pie. The more I think about it though, the more that I suspect that 3rd world countries may benefit greatly too. Repaying loans will become easier due to high inflation as fiat money dies.

3rd world countries will also benefit greatly from the ease of foreigners spending money locally. Relatives working abroad will be able to send money to relatives much easier.

For the last 100 years, the world has been using currency that loses value over time. We are so use to it that we cannot even imagine a world that uses real money anymore. Bitcoin will change all that and I am excited to be living in this new dawning age of mankind.

The future looks bright.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 09:01:38 AM
You are arguing that Bitcoin is the most efficient distribution of money?

And you are justifying it by saying society owes you something for studying (probably mostly all wrong) theories (if taught in school) instead of producing real goods&services and selling them into the marketplace as I did?

True the large capitalists should also be rewarded but only where we need them, which isn't much as far as I can see. They are perhaps needed on the periphery, investing in 3rd parties companies built around the coin, not in the coin itself much.

And if small capital brought into the coin early, e.g. mining, you should be rewarded but to reward you properly over the long-term, we need to spread some coins out to the world. Do you really need 10000000X gains, when you know damn well that you are never going to collect on that! It is completely unrealistic and insane. To build a good currency, you need to be sane and realistic. 10 or 100x or even 1000x gains is more than sufficient to motivate early adopters.

Hey there are many of you now. You are not rare. I can find 1000s of people to mine a coin. I don't need you, if you will be unrealistic.

Competition will take over now. As far as I can see, a small hangout monopoly ponzi-bubble isn't natural (except as a short-term mania which humans seem to periodically destroy themselves with).

It may be the case that money can't be decentralized. That may very well be true, then we should stop. The government will enslave us even more, given an electronic currency they control. I at least want to try to prove it isn't so. I am motivated to see that the norm is 97% are not power-law distributed. See the OP.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 09:21:58 AM
3. Centralized premine then distributed to merchants every month or quarter evaluated to be bonafide. So this really requires hiring staff, which should be paid either from premine or a foundation with membership fees.

Don't we sort of have that now with Bitcoin but decentralized because you all are always telling merchants to accept Bitcoin, but do you follow up and spend money with them when they do?

How could we better scale this?

P.S. I have have used BTC only for spending to merchants, no investment holdings nor gains. I am the example of the perfect user.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: rpietila on November 22, 2013, 09:50:32 AM
How can we improve upon Bitcoin's highly concentrated coin distribution (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=341594.0)?

Only the top 3% should be power-law concentrated, the rest distributed with diffuse gas random concentrations:

"Exponential and power-law probability distributions of wealth and income in the United Kingdom and the United States" by A. A. Dragulescu and V. M. Yakovenko

Bitcoin will spontaneously be distributed according to the same laws as other forms of wealth, ceteris paribus (ie. "given that the other parameters stay the same"). It takes some time to find the dynamic equilibrium, after which the situation looks static from a statistical point of view (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316297.0).

Quote
We shouldn't give coins away to the lazy who do nothing to earn them, because Risto explained that in Russia the recipients just squandered the gifts.

Value cannot be created by fiat. In a way or another, you have to sacrifice something to attain something valuable. The community that put 1000s of hours into Bitcoin software development, mining and forum in 2009-early 2010 did it in anticipation of a reward. Bitcoin was the most undervalued in its history (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=322058.0) in 6/2010, when it could still be purchased at $0.005 in OTC trade. Only then started they receive a reward for their investment. Mining coins was a useless waste of time and talent if the coins had no value.

In your proposed system, the coins would be distributed so widely that you would not attract the best and the brightest to participate in the beginning. Great expense of time would be invested, to get $20 per year in "free" coin rewards. Such a system attracts peasants, not kings. I have declined much greater offers of "free money" and so do most of my friends, all the time. We don't have the time to pick all free money that is available. I even waited for Bitcoin to prove itself by going up 100x and down -90% before investing.

I can already buy anything I want from peasants with my bitcoins, gold, silver, euros, dollars, and (new!) rmb. You are creating a 3rd world currency with noble aims but I highly doubt that it will ever fly, since it does not have a skeleton, which is required to direct the energy to the wings. Bitcoin has its skeleton (a community, early adopters, power law) firmly in place. Ripple is an example of how not to do it.

By trying to annul power law, you mutilate your creation so that it cannot function.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 10:14:14 AM
Can you present a cogent argument that they haven't been rewarded already for those 1000s of hours many times in excess of any normal return on investment for programmers?

Any way, no one is talking about ending gains for anyone, i.e. not the SocialistCoin. I believe we are talking about distributing some portion of the value more efficiently, so we can compete with the fiat masters who have the power to widely distribute nearly overnight by decree.

Open-source is not very forgiving on misers, it routes around them per Coase's Theorem.

Bitcoin will not spontaneously distribute. You can present no basis for that. The rich do not spend enough for that to happen.

The only way it happens is confiscate and redistribution by the government, which I am telling you is coming either because it goes to $trillions market cap and then government punishes those who cashed out before the crash, or because the government or the market destroys Bitcoin before that and the redistribution is accomplished.

This is what the global debt restructuring will be all about. Another Brenton-Woods.

Your link estimates 25% hold 95% of all BTC, 4% hold 75% of all BTC, and 1% hold 50% of all BTC. And this is only 1/25000 of the global population, so the concentration is astronomically off-the-charts if compared to rest of the masses.

Why do you assume you couldn't attract the best and brightest in my proposal? Can't investors buy the coin on exchange? Can't people still by mining equipment and mine? Did you assume I propose a higher rate of debasement than Bitcoin's currently very high 12.5% per year?

What did I write that proposed to destroy the power-law for the upper 3%? I can't see it.

Did I change my username to RobinHood?


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: Viavictus on November 22, 2013, 10:18:55 AM
How can we improve upon Bitcoin's highly concentrated coin distribution (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=341594.0)?

Only the top 3% should be power-law concentrated, the rest distributed with diffuse gas random concentrations:

"Exponential and power-law probability distributions of wealth and income in the United Kingdom and the United States" by A. A. Dragulescu and V. M. Yakovenko

We shouldn't give coins away to the lazy who do nothing to earn them, because Risto explained that in Russia the recipients just squandered the gifts.

Ideas thus far:

1. Decentralized CPU-only proof-of-work, but the threat are botnets

2. Centralized premine then distributed with a faucet (https://www.google.com/search?q=Bitcoin+faucet) first-come, first-served until depleted.

3. Centralized premine then distributed to merchants every month or quarter evaluated to be bonafide. So this really requires hiring staff, which should be paid either from premine or a foundation with membership fees.

Hit me with ideas please!

I will keep self-moderation to an absolute minimum but please try to stay on topic and no ego battles.

Thoughts:

1. Decentralized CPU only proof of work will still result in what happened to Bitcoin. People with more resources can afford more CPU and so on.

2. Centralized premine presents itself as it is. Centralized. People need to trust this centralized source in that they (in good will) will eventually decentralize the seeds of labour.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: rpietila on November 22, 2013, 10:26:57 AM
Can you present a cogent argument that they haven't been rewarded already for those 1000s of hours many times in excess of any normal return on investment for programmers?

Ever since Mt.Gox started, every early adopter had an actual chance to sell any % of their coins and receive dollars in return. So from that point on, they can be treated as investors, since the early adopter phase (in the strictest sense) was over. Every day that they decided to not sell their early-mined coins, they rejected the other investment/consumption opportunities in favor of holding the coins. This puts them at exactly the same level as me, who never mined or even installed the software.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: farfiman on November 22, 2013, 10:38:50 AM
I don't get why you want "efficient distribution of money" ?  Are we talking distribution of wealth?

Any system you try be it CPU mining , centralized mining and then distribution by an "authority" or any other system you think of is doomed to fail.  Wealth goes to wealth and that's that.  Even if you annul all current wealth in the world and distribute equal amount of your new altcoin to each and every person on the earth within a very short period of time that coin and wealth will move to a top few percent once again.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: Viavictus on November 22, 2013, 10:43:36 AM
I don't get why you want "efficient distribution of money" ?  Are we talking distribution of wealth?

Any system you try be it CPU mining , centralized mining and then distribution by an "authority" or any other system you think of is doomed to fail.  Wealth goes to wealth and that's that.  Even if you annul all current wealth in the world and distribute equal amount of your new altcoin to each and every person on the earth within a very short period of time that coin and wealth will move to a top few percent once again.

I believe OP idea of efficient distribution of money equates to a proper distribution of wealth as well as a good velocity of money being exchanged. It requires widespread usage.

As for bitcoin achieving good distribution of wealth as well as a good medium of exchange, we can already see how it is not going to achieve both


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 11:07:08 AM
Thoughts:

1. Decentralized CPU only proof of work will still result in what happened to Bitcoin. People with more resources can afford more CPU and so on.

2. Centralized premine presents itself as it is. Centralized. People need to trust this centralized source in that they (in good will) will eventually decentralize the seeds of labour.

Regarding #1, I had written the following:

You assume that Bitcoins are actually/ will be mined to be spent.

I can actually prove they will be spent if they were mined with CPU-only instead.

1. Masses will download and mine even when the coins returned are worth much less than the electricity consumed. Because it will be too small to notice on their electric bill.

2. Thus professional miners will be gone.

3. Masses spend because they don't have much. Even if they save it for a while, eventually the value is large enough they spend it. Middle class spend a much higher % of their income on personal needs than rich businessmen investors do.

Well if I try to eliminate botnets by increasing the memory requirement to 16GB, then I am not so sure the above applies because most will need to make a small investment to add memory to their PC, yet I think it does apply much more so than for Bitcoin.

Regarding #2, with every altcoin you are trusting the developer, just as you are trusting the core devs and Bitcoin foundation.

But they can't premine again, so the risk of misuse is declining over time.

The point is to jump-start the distribution and create a market where the rich have to seek out the coins by selling products and building exchange markets, not just doing low-knowledge activity of pressing a button on their computer.

Risto senses that I am attempting to reduce (the value of) speculation and he is somewhat justified, though not entirely of course because liquid markets are always better.

Perhaps he will need to go back to work again and build clearing houses for the little guys. Or he can wait for someone else to do it, then buy in-size later.

Small things grow faster. It is just a fact of nature.

Big capital becomes dumb. It can't do anything for the world any more because it is too large and the maximum divisibility-of-labor is no longer worth the effort of large capital.

That is why society is always at war with large capital.

I'd rather use technology to make the process more efficient than democracy implosions and megadeath, wars, French Revolutions off-with-their-heads, etc..

We are in a new era. Bottom-up knowledge and decentralization; the industrial age, high-fixed-capital investment is over.

We don't need your capital as much any more. We only need our PCs and our brains.

Top-down, large capital will become meaningless. It will die. [redacted]

Society is tired of this shit of capital dominating knowledge.

Is it a strawman to state that the failure of a fractional reserve system predicts the failure of any system of gas diffusion distribution which is capitalistic-- the work done to attain the coin should roughly equal the value of the coin?

I think the answer is no.

It seems to me that the key distinction is that to distribute a coin widely and capitalistically, the economy-of-scale of aggregating a plurality of worker units must be very low.

In other words, the fungibility and divisibility of tasks should be very low and high respectively.

The reason money exists is because it increases the maximum divisibility of labor (https://www.google.com/search?q=No+Money+exists+without+the+majority), because money is fungible but knowledge is not. Otherwise we would barter directly in knowledge.

Large capital can't buy diverse knowledge, the economy-of-scale is low because the divisibility and specialization is high.

This is my fundamental insight.

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Understand%20Everything%20Fundamentally.html

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 11:22:39 AM
Can you present a cogent argument that they haven't been rewarded already for those 1000s of hours many times in excess of any normal return on investment for programmers?

Ever since Mt.Gox started, every early adopter had an actual chance to sell any % of their coins and receive dollars in return. So from that point on, they can be treated as investors, since the early adopter phase (in the strictest sense) was over. Every day that they decided to not sell their early-mined coins, they rejected the other investment/consumption opportunities in favor of holding the coins. This puts them at exactly the same level as me, who never mined or even installed the software.

And that is the day innovation decelerated, when the vested interests of slow, monolithic, top-down capital took control.

And so Coase's theorem will just route around you and sprout up something new.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 11:26:55 AM
I don't get why you want "efficient distribution of money" ?  Are we talking distribution of wealth?

Any system you try be it CPU mining , centralized mining and then distribution by an "authority" or any other system you think of is doomed to fail.  Wealth goes to wealth and that's that.  Even if you annul all current wealth in the world and distribute equal amount of your new altcoin to each and every person on the earth within a very short period of time that coin and wealth will move to a top few percent once again.

If you read my prior two replies, I hope it is becoming clear that I view capital as knowledge. Money is just a claim on future human labor. But unlike menial labor, knowledge work is not fungible. Read the linked papers in my OP to understand why I believe this changes everything.

Money will now be almost entirely useless as a store-of-value and only as an exchange-of-value.

We will store our knowledge in the code.

We will use money only to exchange the value in our code.

The non-code economy will shrink relative to the code-economy.

Everything will change.

The Bitcoin ponzi is the last big bang of capital, as capital is running around like a chicken with head cutoff and can't find a safe haven. Because there is no more safe haven for capital. Capital is dying. A knowledge phoenix will follow.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 11:34:07 AM
2. Centralized premine then distributed with a faucet (https://www.google.com/search?q=Bitcoin+faucet) first-come, first-served until depleted.

I am thinking the faucets are for people in the developing countries. They don't have a computer to mine with, but they have a cell phone. If we can leverage the cell phone somehow to make sure the faucets are not being gamed by the large capitalists, then I would be very happy if we could distribute say 10% of the coins to the developing world, then 90% to mining.

That would create unfathomable network effects.

I think we should distribute them daily or weekly, so the recipients can spend them (or save them) on everyday things. This should or may drive transactions and merchants through the roof and make our coin so much better than Bitcoin.

We can begin the process of destroying Bitcoin and the plans of the elite (large, dumb capital) for their electronic NWO currency outcome.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: rpietila on November 22, 2013, 11:41:20 AM
I am thinking the faucets are for people in the developing countries. They don't have a computer to mine with, but they have a cell phone. If we can leverage the cell phone somehow to make sure the faucets are not being gamed by the large capitalists, then I would be very happy if we could distribute say 10% of the coins to the developing world, then 90% to mining.

That would create unfathomable network effects.

I think we should distribute them daily or weekly, so the recipients can spend them (or save them) on everyday things. This should or may drive transactions and merchants through the roof and make our coin so much better than Bitcoin.

What you need to do is to make them destroy the same value when they gain the coins. Digging holes, taking pictures of them and filling them? Slaying WoW monsters? Turning electricity to heat? Extract minerals from the ground?

This makes it equitable, and the rich will just buy it from the exchanges.

Even waiting in the line will qualify for opportunity cost..

Damn the fart of Keynes is suffocating me...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 12:01:38 PM
Also you can't buy my knowledge with any capital. We know that but it still makes only capital, not knowledge, money.

[snip]

I think the code will be worth orders-of-magnitude more than the money as we move into 3D printing, etc..

So it is what you can design and code that will determine your wealth in the new economy. Your capital will be less useful than it has been.

So generating money as a store-of-value won't be the only goal. Generating code that is most used and downloaded will be.

I could be wrong, but I think all the signs of a huge paradigm-shift are in place.

To expound on this, imagine nothing will be shipped. You download a code, and a 3D printer in your house creates the objects for you.

The code will be almost like money, except it won't be fungible.

Thus your store-of-value will be the code, and you will use money only to exchange the codes between each other.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 12:23:57 PM
I am thinking the faucets are for people in the developing countries. They don't have a computer to mine with, but they have a cell phone. If we can leverage the cell phone somehow to make sure the faucets are not being gamed by the large capitalists, then I would be very happy if we could distribute say 10% of the coins to the developing world, then 90% to mining.

That would create unfathomable network effects.

I think we should distribute them daily or weekly, so the recipients can spend them (or save them) on everyday things. This should or may drive transactions and merchants through the roof and make our coin so much better than Bitcoin.

What you need to do is to make them destroy the same value when they gain the coins. Digging holes, taking pictures of them and filling them? Slaying WoW monsters? Turning electricity to heat? Extract minerals from the ground?

This makes it equitable, and the rich will just buy it from the exchanges.

Even waiting in the line will qualify for opportunity cost..

Damn the fart of Keynes is suffocating me...

How can you mop up 0.001 BTC at the exchanges? I think they are much more like to spend or save them.

You are missing my key point, I make it too small for you. You will buy from the miners instead.

I would love to see you refute this.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 12:49:30 PM
I am thinking the faucets are for people in the developing countries. They don't have a computer to mine with, but they have a cell phone. If we can leverage the cell phone somehow to make sure the faucets are not being gamed by the large capitalists, then I would be very happy if we could distribute say 10% of the coins to the developing world, then 90% to mining.

That would create unfathomable network effects.

I think we should distribute them daily or weekly, so the recipients can spend them (or save them) on everyday things. This should or may drive transactions and merchants through the roof and make our coin so much better than Bitcoin.

What you need to do is to make them destroy the same value when they gain the coins. Digging holes, taking pictures of them and filling them? Slaying WoW monsters? Turning electricity to heat? Extract minerals from the ground?

This makes it equitable, and the rich will just buy it from the exchanges.

Even waiting in the line will qualify for opportunity cost..

Damn the fart of Keynes is suffocating me...

It is mathematically impossible for large capital to always accumulate. Eventually you would own everything and there would be nobody to transact with.

This is why periodically there are debt-writedowns and the millionaires are fleeced by the $trillionaires who control this world. The $trillionaires then make sure they issue debt to the masses so the masses can transact so the $millionaires can rise again.

This is a hamster wheel, and you will not win Risto. They will fleece you.

Society will not tolerate the system you imagine is true, because it can't exist. It doesn't.

So how do we best distribute capital such that the real productivity in the economy is most incentivized?

That is what is really boils down to.

I am not a socialist. I don't believe we can motivate people by giving them something for nothing.

But how do you make a decentralized currency work, so that the knowledge creators can leverage it?

You've got to distribute it widely and create network effects.

Otherwise the $trillionaires will do it. They will issue debt to the masses on our behalf. Then we lose decentralization and they maintain control.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: rpietila on November 22, 2013, 01:32:55 PM
This is a hamster wheel, and you will not win Risto. They will fleece you.

I am doing what feels good to me, you are doing what feels good to you. We are both winning. Every day.

"1984" ends with the notion that you will love big brother after enough brainwash (and torture). So the masses will also feel good. I don't know how to interact with you because you think everyone desires your lifestyle, which honestly is quite extreme, and unsuitable for most.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 01:41:54 PM
This is a hamster wheel, and you will not win Risto. They will fleece you.

I am doing what feels good to me, you are doing what feels good to you. We are both winning. Every day.

"1984" ends with the notion that you will love big brother after enough brainwash (and torture). So the masses will also feel good. I don't know how to interact with you because you think everyone desires your lifestyle, which honestly is quite extreme, and unsuitable for most.

Maybe true. If I am not mistaken, I am thinking that you have no choice because technology has shifted. There is only so much debt the existing system can pile up to prop up the old paradigm.

Yes I think we are headed into a very extreme shift and there will be war or strife. Most will not accept it. Oxford study say 45% of all existing jobs will be replaced by automation.

I can't stop technology, so much better I am aligned with it. I starting aligning myself 36 years ago. I made a choice to bet on the software at age 13. I speculated with my capital meaning my life and my mind and forming my interests and personality.

Am I now supposed to forsake my capital (my life investment in myself) any more than I shouldn't ask you to give me your BTC balance for free.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: blablahblah on November 22, 2013, 02:11:29 PM
Your fundamental premise is flawed.

a) You're equating coin distribution with wealth distribution, and not even bothering to define wealth in real terms.

b) You're looking at the numbers as a static system, not one with flows and velocities.

First prove that large stakeholders who control, say, 5% of the money base, do indeed have 1000 times more usable 'mojo' compared to stakeholders with only 0.005%, and then we can talk.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 02:37:21 PM
Your fundamental premise is flawed.

a) You're equating coin distribution with wealth distribution, and not even bothering to define wealth in real terms.

No I am equating it with transaction distribution (velocity), which is wealth generation (proportional to ~GDP) in the QTM.

b) You're looking at the numbers as a static system, not one with flows and velocities.

How so? I think you are the one is not looking at that.

First prove that large stakeholders who control, say, 5% of the money base, do indeed have 1000 times more usable 'mojo' compared to stakeholders with only 0.005%, and then we can talk.

I don't understand. Appears you are inferring a premise on me that I have not made. Perhaps I think the opposite of what you wrote, if I understand what you might be trying to say. Seems to me the 0.005% have 1000 times more usable 'mojo' than the 5%, because they comprise 1000 times more unique brains.

Read this to understand why I think plethora of unique brains are more valuable than a few very smart brains (when we are outside the 3% in the power-law):

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 03:12:30 PM
Household consumables. Food and drink, bathroom and kitchen items. Light bulbs. Furniture. Clothing has some representation, but nothing like enough variety.

Light bulbs are available at CVS, Kmart, and Lowe's via Gyft.

That is not quite as convenient as paying at the POS.

Yet that is encouraging.

So maybe it is only the concentrated distribution of Bitcoin that is holding us back.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: blablahblah on November 22, 2013, 03:17:18 PM
Your fundamental premise is flawed.

a) You're equating coin distribution with wealth distribution, and not even bothering to define wealth in real terms.

No I am equating it with transaction distribution (velocity), which is wealth generation (proportional to ~GDP) in the QTM.

b) You're looking at the numbers as a static system, not one with flows and velocities.

How so? I think you are the one is not looking at that.

First prove that large stakeholders who control, say, 5% of the money base, do indeed have 1000 times more usable 'mojo' compared to stakeholders with only 0.005%, and then we can talk.

I don't understand. Appears you are inferring a premise on me that I have not made. Perhaps I think the opposite of what you wrote, if I understand what you might be trying to say. Seems to me the 0.005% have 1000 times more usable 'mojo' than the 5%, because they comprise 1000 times more unique brains.

Ahh. I meant in the sense of diminishing returns. E.g.: one person with $1B vs one person with $1M. The first million can really kickstart someone's dream life, whether it's repayment of house or car debts, purchasing lots of items, funding a hobby and/or business, or travelling to exotic places. On average, each subsequent million has a drastically smaller effect on overall "quality of life" than the previous million.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your original complaint about the power law distribution. In a previous thread you basically alleged that a large stakeholder, Joe, would not be able to redeem his bitcoins without crashing the system. That's a closely related issue. If a large batch of bitcoins are dumped on the market because the owner wants to "cash out their wealth", each subsequent bitcoin they sell nets a smaller amount of goods.

If anything, it could be said that political power fills the gap left by the invisible wealth. One could argue that rational actors don't want to harm their own values, so they would only speculate and manipulate the masses in ways that seem beneficial. Whether that's always the case, I don't know.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 04:56:06 PM
I no longer think #2 and #3 will work.

There is no point in distributing the coins to the developing world, because they don't spend on the internet. They don't have credit cards, they buy everything with cash. It wouldn't be feasible to move these masses of people to electronic money at the early stage of the coin. There is way too much that would have to change. We couldn't make a dent in it in short-term.

#1 is the only one that works. Put the mining coins in the hands of the technology people. That is fast moving, they can adopt it very quickly. The capitalists can still mine and so can the individuals. That is an improvement over Bitcoin. And the technology enthusiasts are exactly the market I envision using a decentralized money.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: farfiman on November 22, 2013, 05:12:34 PM
I no longer think #2 and #3 will work.

There is no point in distributing the coins to the developing world, because they don't spend on the internet. They don't have credit cards, they buy everything with cash. It wouldn't be feasible to move these masses of people to electronic money at the early stage of the coin. There is way too much that would have to change. We couldn't make a dent in it in short-term.

#1 is the only one that works. Put the mining coins in the hands of the technology people. That is fast moving, they can adopt it very quickly. The capitalists can still mine and so can the individuals. That is an improvement over Bitcoin. And the technology enthusiasts are exactly the market I envision using a decentralized money.

To me this sounds EXACTLY like a description of the people that have been mining bitcoin.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 05:19:00 PM
I no longer think #2 and #3 will work.

There is no point in distributing the coins to the developing world, because they don't spend on the internet. They don't have credit cards, they buy everything with cash. It wouldn't be feasible to move these masses of people to electronic money at the early stage of the coin. There is way too much that would have to change. We couldn't make a dent in it in short-term.

#1 is the only one that works. Put the mining coins in the hands of the technology people. That is fast moving, they can adopt it very quickly. The capitalists can still mine and so can the individuals. That is an improvement over Bitcoin. And the technology enthusiasts are exactly the market I envision using a decentralized money.

To me this sounds EXACTLY like a description of the people that have been mining bitcoin.

What is your estimate of the ratio of "technology enthusiasts (TE) with Intel Core PC" to "TE with ASICs"? ;)

I can't buy an ASIC where I am.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: farfiman on November 22, 2013, 05:25:56 PM
I no longer think #2 and #3 will work.

There is no point in distributing the coins to the developing world, because they don't spend on the internet. They don't have credit cards, they buy everything with cash. It wouldn't be feasible to move these masses of people to electronic money at the early stage of the coin. There is way too much that would have to change. We couldn't make a dent in it in short-term.

#1 is the only one that works. Put the mining coins in the hands of the technology people. That is fast moving, they can adopt it very quickly. The capitalists can still mine and so can the individuals. That is an improvement over Bitcoin. And the technology enthusiasts are exactly the market I envision using a decentralized money.

To me this sounds EXACTLY like a description of the people that have been mining bitcoin.

What is your estimate of the ratio of "technology enthusiasts (TE) with Intel Core PC" to "TE with ASICs"? ;)

I can't buy an ASIC where I am.

I believe you. But like I stated ( I think in a PM)  - even a new coin that is "CPU only" will stay that way for a short time. You will see development on other hardware that will once again make CPU mining irrelevant.  Human ingenuity and greed will make it happen.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 05:26:41 PM
I no longer think #2 and #3 will work.

There is no point in distributing the coins to the developing world, because they don't spend on the internet. They don't have credit cards, they buy everything with cash. It wouldn't be feasible to move these masses of people to electronic money at the early stage of the coin. There is way too much that would have to change. We couldn't make a dent in it in short-term.

#1 is the only one that works. Put the mining coins in the hands of the technology people. That is fast moving, they can adopt it very quickly. The capitalists can still mine and so can the individuals. That is an improvement over Bitcoin. And the technology enthusiasts are exactly the market I envision using a decentralized money.

To me this sounds EXACTLY like a description of the people that have been mining bitcoin.

What is your estimate of the ratio of "technology enthusiasts (TE) with Intel Core PC" to "TE with ASICs"? ;)

I can't buy an ASIC where I am.

I believe you. But like I stated ( I think in a PM)  - even a new coin that is "CPU only" will stay that way for a short time. You will see development on other hardware that will once again make CPU mining irrelevant.  Human ingenuity and greed will make it happen.

If I say CPU only, then it means I am sure. I know what I am doing. I know exactly why it is CPU only. And you will know too when you see the proof. I know what Percival did not address in his conceptualization.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 22, 2013, 05:35:12 PM
Risto I am deleting your and my personal stories posts. Isn't relevant to the topic. I also redacted two offending words from my post which spawned that exchange between us.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: blablahblah on November 22, 2013, 06:29:21 PM

Read this to understand why I think plethora of unique brains are more valuable than a few very smart brains (when we are outside the 3% in the power-law):

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html

I suggest reading some Roger Penrose and looking into Kurt Gödel, and also catch up on some of the atheism/god discussions in the politics forum while you're at it.

Quote
2nd Law of Thermo

All such irrational and unjustified fears are inconsistent with the trend of maximization of entropy guaranteed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics which governs our universe. Such fears include erroneous Malthusian apocalyptic predictions of overpopulation, man-made (anthropogenic) global warming, peak energy, and other resource scarcity delusions of the masses. Entropy is the level of independent possibilities, i.e. diversity. During the 1800s, the Luddites thought technology and mass production would replace all human work, because they couldn't foresee the new independent possibilities of knowledge work that employ us now.

It can be argued that the universe, within which the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies, is just a subset within our whole existence. Reasonable arguments can be put forward that we can operate beyond the rules of our physical reality, and that's what gives rise to things like free will and creativity.

Re: Algorithms=/=Entropy
Quote
However, the speed of the computing hardware and the sophistication of the software has no relevance because creativity can't be expressed in an algorithm. Every possible model of the brain will lack the fundamental cause of human creativity— every human brain is unique. Thus each of billions of brains is able to contemplate possibilities and scenarios differently enough so that it is more likely at least one brain will contemplate some unique idea that fits each set of possibilities at each point in time.

His reasoning for "a cause of creativity" is illogical and does not follow from his otherwise sensible intuition that an algorithm surely doesn't cause it.

For a start, the word creativity is self-explanatory: it refers to an act of creation. Nothing comes before creativity in order to somehow cause it, because then that would be the real creative source instead. He could argue that creativity is not real, just an illusion. However, that would just reaffirm what I said earlier: we act upon and alter our illusion of reality, and thus we operate outside of it.

His theorising further down is interesting, but still relies on the same causal premise.

For example, we could think of DNA like an extremely advanced, organic von Neumann universal constructor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor). A Turing-complete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness) state machine that operates within the physical laws of its substrate: various chemical interactions and so on. It replicates, evolves, has error correction for self-repair. Then we skip a few steps and say that complex organisms evolved from this DNA and formed brains.

Then we make a big (MOAFU) assumption: brains and networks of brains seem creative and extremely complex, therefore it must be all that complexity and variation that causes creativity. No, it's a bit like that Russian joke where the world seems upside down. Stuff doesn't cause creativity. Creativity causes stuff. I would suggest that maybe it's an ongoing process of creativity that allows complexity to arise in the first place. It may seem ridiculous, but I would also speculate that creative choices might occur at all levels in nature, resulting in what appears, in hindsight, to be the second law of thermodynamics.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 22, 2013, 08:47:28 PM
It is mathematically impossible for large capital to always accumulate. Eventually you would own everything and there would be nobody to transact with.

This is why periodically there are debt-writedowns and the millionaires are fleeced by the $trillionaires who control this world. The $trillionaires then make sure they issue debt to the masses so the masses can transact so the $millionaires can rise again.

If what you say is true, are those $trillionaires doing this for fun? What is the final goal, keeping the masses on the leash? :o


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 22, 2013, 08:57:44 PM
Ahh. I meant in the sense of diminishing returns. E.g.: one person with $1B vs one person with $1M. The first million can really kickstart someone's dream life, whether it's repayment of house or car debts, purchasing lots of items, funding a hobby and/or business, or travelling to exotic places. On average, each subsequent million has a drastically smaller effect on overall "quality of life" than the previous million

It is called the law of diminishing marginal utility that you refer to. Diminishing returns are about the decrease in the output of a production process... 8)

Sorry for nitpicking...   ;)


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: blablahblah on November 22, 2013, 09:14:58 PM
It is called the law of diminishing marginal utility that you refer to. Diminishing returns are about the decrease in the output of a production process... 8)

Sorry for nitpicking...   ;)

I stand corrected ;)


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 23, 2013, 12:13:59 AM

Read this to understand why I think plethora of unique brains are more valuable than a few very smart brains (when we are outside the 3% in the power-law):

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html

I suggest reading some Roger Penrose and looking into Kurt Gödel, and also catch up on some of the atheism/god discussions in the politics forum while you're at it.

Quote
2nd Law of Thermo

All such irrational and unjustified fears are inconsistent with the trend of maximization of entropy guaranteed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics which governs our universe. Such fears include erroneous Malthusian apocalyptic predictions of overpopulation, man-made (anthropogenic) global warming, peak energy, and other resource scarcity delusions of the masses. Entropy is the level of independent possibilities, i.e. diversity. During the 1800s, the Luddites thought technology and mass production would replace all human work, because they couldn't foresee the new independent possibilities of knowledge work that employ us now.

It can be argued that the universe, within which the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies, is just a subset within our whole existence. Reasonable arguments can be put forward that we can operate beyond the rules of our physical reality, and that's what gives rise to things like free will and creativity.

Re: Algorithms=/=Entropy
Quote
However, the speed of the computing hardware and the sophistication of the software has no relevance because creativity can't be expressed in an algorithm. Every possible model of the brain will lack the fundamental cause of human creativity— every human brain is unique. Thus each of billions of brains is able to contemplate possibilities and scenarios differently enough so that it is more likely at least one brain will contemplate some unique idea that fits each set of possibilities at each point in time.

His reasoning for "a cause of creativity" is illogical and does not follow from his otherwise sensible intuition that an algorithm surely doesn't cause it.

For a start, the word creativity is self-explanatory: it refers to an act of creation. Nothing comes before creativity in order to somehow cause it, because then that would be the real creative source instead. He could argue that creativity is not real, just an illusion. However, that would just reaffirm what I said earlier: we act upon and alter our illusion of reality, and thus we operate outside of it.

His theorising further down is interesting, but still relies on the same causal premise.

For example, we could think of DNA like an extremely advanced, organic von Neumann universal constructor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor). A Turing-complete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness) state machine that operates within the physical laws of its substrate: various chemical interactions and so on. It replicates, evolves, has error correction for self-repair. Then we skip a few steps and say that complex organisms evolved from this DNA and formed brains.

Then we make a big (MOAFU) assumption: brains and networks of brains seem creative and extremely complex, therefore it must be all that complexity and variation that causes creativity. No, it's a bit like that Russian joke where the world seems upside down. Stuff doesn't cause creativity. Creativity causes stuff. I would suggest that maybe it's an ongoing process of creativity that allows complexity to arise in the first place. It may seem ridiculous, but I would also speculate that creative choices might occur at all levels in nature, resulting in what appears, in hindsight, to be the second law of thermodynamics.

The math of the entropy applies even to phenomena which are not tangible, e.g. Shannon Entropy for information.

Cite for me anything written by Penrose or Gödel which disagrees. I actually incorporated Gödel's completeness theorem into my analysis.

I already figured out what constitutes all dimensions of the universe (http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum). I am ahead of them now. It may be over your head.

You appear to have missed the point of the Information Is Alive! article. Specifically that diversity emerges from granularity, which is clear from any application of entropy to any domain, whether it be thermodynamics, biology, gravity, inertia, or intangible information. Creativity is merely the congruence with diversity in dynamic time, i.e. matching the dynamic configurations of the system as opportunities for fitness of each unique mind.

I believe this is congruent with where the Bible states, "go forth and multiply".


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 23, 2013, 12:18:48 AM
It is mathematically impossible for large capital to always accumulate. Eventually you would own everything and there would be nobody to transact with.

This is why periodically there are debt-writedowns and the millionaires are fleeced by the $trillionaires who control this world. The $trillionaires then make sure they issue debt to the masses so the masses can transact so the $millionaires can rise again.

If what you say is true, are those $trillionaires doing this for fun? What is the final goal, keeping the masses on the leash? :o


Prevent their capital from being redistributed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

They can do this because of the power vacuum given by Some Iron Laws of Political Economics (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984).

I am trying to find a technological means of eliminating that power vacuum.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 23, 2013, 12:24:27 AM
How can we improve upon Bitcoin's highly concentrated coin distribution (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=341594.0)?

Tax and spend, baby!</sarcasm>

Exactly that is how it is done now. And the $trillionaires fight against the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The $millionaires are just pawns which are regularly sacrificed to the cycle.

What's wrong with a highly concentrated coin distribution?

It violates the trend of the universe towards maximum entropy.

In other words, it is less prosperous and efficient. It retards the creativity of the human mind.

Thus it appears to me that it is incompatible with the fledgling Knowledge Age and appears to me to be only an effect of the Industrial Age, which I assert is dying.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: Tirapon on November 23, 2013, 01:03:25 AM
Stuff doesn't cause creativity. Creativity causes stuff. I would suggest that maybe it's an ongoing process of creativity that allows complexity to arise in the first place. It may seem ridiculous, but I would also speculate that creative choices might occur at all levels in nature, resulting in what appears, in hindsight, to be the second law of thermodynamics.

Would you say this ties in nicely with the implications of certain interpretations of quantum physics, which suggest that the physical world is a result of conscious observation and not the other way around?


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 23, 2013, 01:04:35 AM
Stuff doesn't cause creativity. Creativity causes stuff. I would suggest that maybe it's an ongoing process of creativity that allows complexity to arise in the first place. It may seem ridiculous, but I would also speculate that creative choices might occur at all levels in nature, resulting in what appears, in hindsight, to be the second law of thermodynamics.

Would you say this ties in nicely with the implications of certain interpretations of quantum physics, which suggest that the physical world is a result of conscious observation and not the other way around?

I explain this empirically, not just a pile of mumbo-jumbo talk:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: thezerg on November 23, 2013, 02:36:07 AM
I think in #1 I'm hearing you state that you think you have an algorithm that is CPU-only.  I think you are probably well aware of the principle of specialization so I am having a hard time imagining an algorithm that can be run on a CPU that cannot be specialized to an FPGA or ASIC -- or in the worst case, simply a custom circuit board with 32 physical 100-core tilera CPUs and the minimum required RAM and accessories.  Or a custom circuit-board with 1Tbyte of RAM and just one CPU if you are going that way.

Secondly:  You don't mention whether you want a better static (initial) distribution or a trying to create a permanent distribution curve... of course the second is much harder because the typical distribution tends to a exponential or a normal curve.  Which are you trying?

Third: I can think of two ways to create a system that results in an initial distribution that is more widely dispersed.  But honestly I don't feel like sharing b/c I think you suffer tremendously from "not-invented-here" syndrome and also as many others have stated are managing to alienate most people you interact with on this forum. 


tl;dr; I'd recommend that you post your algorithm and let us tear it to shreds to save yourself a lot of work.  Although, the last person I helped offered a 10BTC bounty, something you might consider -- but smaller due to BTC price appreciation.

tl;dr#2; First, see yourself.

Best!  ;)



Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: Impaler on November 23, 2013, 03:38:43 AM
Freicoin plans to use a combination of three distribution systems

Traditional mining for 20% of initial distribution and the ongoing recycling of demurrage their after, mining rewards started at 255 per block and decline smoothly each block to 100 at the end of a 3 year period.

Foundation funds are the other 80% of initial money, two methods are being developed that keep the foundation members from exerting undue influence on the process.  First the traditional faucet distribution method using a Captcha, unlike BTC these will not be mere token give aways but a way for potentially millions to access coins on a roughly per-capita basis.  Second a method of charitable contribution matching in which charities and kick-starter type funds that receive donations of BTC or FRC though a tabulating website will see thouse coins match up to a monthly cap.

While I stand behind these means as a reasonable best effort that can be made with given technology I am genuinly interested in seeing any technological solution that could improve on this.  Unlike Mint I see no reason that coins should not be given out to everyone on Earth in near equal amounts, arguing that some people will waste them is immaterial nothing could ever be distributed to a wide audiance if everyone had to be a saint. 

Further more we should not see the distribution of CASH as having a significant effect on social wealth distributions (either to heighten them or flatten them), the vast majority of wealth is in real assets, land, real estate, factories, cars, etc etc.  The amount of Cash the world actually needs to do it's commerce in SHOULD be tiny, it is only when we have this kind of deflationary hyper-gold with exceedingly low velocity that cash becomes large in comparison to the rest of our wealth, but it is an illusion, the cash will crash in value if it ever comes into circulation.  This is how we have the absurdity of Billion dollar 'market caps' holding up commerce of only a few tens of thousands of dollars a year.  Only in a system where all the money circulates consistently will prices be stabilized because their will be no lurking cash ready to pounce on the market.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 23, 2013, 03:40:01 AM
What you really want to look at is the PROFIT of mining.  High profitability mining most certainly causes a price increase and it evidently so because the two largest most sustained run-ups in BTC price have both come about immediately following the introduction of newer generation of mining technology (GPU, ASIC).

The mechanism of price increase is as follows.  Miners new hardware turns a huge profit compared to old equipment that could only just cover electrical costs, miners do not need to sell many or sometimes any coins to cover newly reduced costs.  Profitability generates media hype, hype brings in buyers and starts price increase.  Miners hoard most coin production and cause a shortage in the market, price bubble goes exponential as coin liquidity dries up.

Thank you for that insight!


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 23, 2013, 03:43:34 AM
While I stand behind these means as a reasonable best effort that can be made with given technology I am genuinly interested in seeing any technological solution that could improve on this.  Unlike Mint I see no reason that coins should not be given out to everyone on Earth in near equal amounts, arguing that some people will waste them is immaterial nothing could ever be distributed to a wide audiance if everyone had to be a saint.  

Simply because those in the developing world can't yet transact in crypto-coin, thus this will be useless for them at this time.

But I won't discourage you from trying, perhaps you can build a critical mass this way. But in the developing world you are fighting against inertia of lack of infrastructure and educational level.

Further more we should not see the distribution of CASH as having a significant effect on social wealth distributions (either to heighten them or flatten them), the vast majority of wealth is in real assets, land, real estate, factories, cars, etc etc.  The amount of Cash the world actually needs to do it's commerce in SHOULD be tiny, it is only when we have this kind of deflationary hyper-gold with exceedingly low velocity that cash becomes large in comparison to the rest of our wealth, but it is an illusion, the cash will crash in value if it ever comes into circulation.  This is how we have the absurdity of Billion dollar 'market caps' holding up commerce of only a few tens of thousands of dollars a year.  Only in a system where all the money circulates consistently will prices be stabilized because their will be no lurking cash ready to pounce on the market.

;)


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: CoinCube on November 23, 2013, 07:13:44 AM
It does not have to be CPU based. If the coin was rolled out simultaneously with
Some type of ASIC heater who's primary role was to generate heat in winter it would discourage
centralization. Cost of large mines would be prohibitive as they would have no use for the heat.
Small homes would mine as a way to get subsidized heating.

Huge logistical and cost issues with this approach. It would probably never be as distributed as a true CPU only
coin but might be a fallback option if CPU only cannot be achieved


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 23, 2013, 09:49:41 AM
If what you say is true, are those $trillionaires doing this for fun? What is the final goal, keeping the masses on the leash? :o

Prevent their capital from being redistributed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

How come? I know what the second law of thermodynamics is about (the entropy of an isolated system never decreases), but why is it applicable here (please don't say it's applicable to anything)? :o


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: rpietila on November 23, 2013, 10:26:00 AM
Sorry, but after stepping aside for a moment, this discussion increasingly resembles that of the idealist-socialist-collectivist altcoins, see Devcoin for example. There is currently no opportunity window for such a coin, despite my earlier belief that there was.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: blablahblah on November 23, 2013, 01:15:46 PM
Quote
Read this to understand why I think plethora of unique brains are more valuable than a few very smart brains (when we are outside the 3% in the power-law):

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html

The math of the entropy applies even to phenomena which are not tangible, e.g. Shannon Entropy for information.

Cite for me anything written by Penrose or Gödel which disagrees. I actually incorporated Gödel's completeness theorem into my analysis.

Gödel's theorems are a kind of critique of the language of mathematics:

Quote from: wikipedia
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

Therefore, any mathematically described "theory of everything" is going to face the above problem with the underlying maths. Try explaining the "hard problem of consciousness", or belief, or the 'delusion' of free will, or qualia, or just the mere existence of any observer... using the empirically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism) observed laws of entropy. Circular reasoning.

Quote
Creativity is merely the congruence with diversity in dynamic time, i.e. matching the dynamic configurations of the system as opportunities for fitness of each unique mind.
No, that's an empirical interpretation of what creativity appears like, in hindsight no less.


You're still not giving any material to suggest that objective value judgements on the creativity of different brains is even plausible.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: Sindelar1938 on November 24, 2013, 08:13:25 AM
Remember wealth creation comes before its redistribution

Governments tend to forget or ignore this


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 25, 2013, 12:54:55 AM
Sorry, but after stepping aside for a moment, this discussion increasingly resembles that of the idealist-socialist-collectivist altcoins, see Devcoin for example. There is currently no opportunity window for such a coin, despite my earlier belief that there was.

I knew Devcoin would fail and I had a very specific reason for thinking that.

Well I am quite pleased that the failure of competition-to-date has contributed to what I believe to be the dumbness (myopia, lack of economy-of-scale in and thus to justify the continued study of small things) of large capital.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 25, 2013, 12:56:52 AM
What's wrong with a highly concentrated coin distribution?

It violates the trend of the universe towards maximum entropy.

I think the universe will solve that problem itself.

Actually that is quite astute. Coase's Theorem teaches us that nature eventually will route around roadblocks to the progression of maximum entropy (2nd law of thermo).


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 25, 2013, 01:02:49 AM
Quote
Read this to understand why I think plethora of unique brains are more valuable than a few very smart brains (when we are outside the 3% in the power-law):

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html

The math of the entropy applies even to phenomena which are not tangible, e.g. Shannon Entropy for information.

Cite for me anything written by Penrose or Gödel which disagrees. I actually incorporated Gödel's completeness theorem into my analysis.

Gödel's theorems are a kind of critique of the language of mathematics:

Quote from: wikipedia
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

Therefore, any mathematically described "theory of everything" is going to face the above problem with the underlying maths. Try explaining the "hard problem of consciousness", or belief, or the 'delusion' of free will, or qualia, or just the mere existence of any observer... using the empirically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism) observed laws of entropy. Circular reasoning.

Incompleteness is explained by my conceptualization of matter as a continuum. Try reading it. Here is the link again:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum

I have already alluded to the explanation of all those phenomena. I guess I will need to write a treatise to expound for those who can't/won't extrapolate from the generative essence I have presented.

Quote
Creativity is merely the congruence with diversity in dynamic time, i.e. matching the dynamic configurations of the system as opportunities for fitness of each unique mind.
No, that's an empirical interpretation of what creativity appears like, in hindsight no less.


You're still not giving any material to suggest that objective value judgements on the creativity of different brains is even plausible.

It is my belief that you are missing the salient point. Nothing is absolute, dynamic inertia (gravity) is all relative. Objectivity is just a side-effect (aliasing error) of limited sampling (limited perception, nothing is omniscient).

OMG, the dopamine spikes from the get-rich-quick-fever are running so high that the new religion is finding information in aliasing error[1].
Nice catch, but I carefully picked the image from dozens to not refer to aliasing error.

Generally speaking only if the alignment of the overlapping circles is not randomly chosen.

See the fundamental point of the Shannon-Nyquist theorem (and yes I had to argue with the Wikipedia editors to get this language in their summary) is that a signal can not be both band-limited and time-limited (e.g. if time-limited you have infinite frequencies at the start and stop points).

In short, we can't know what is random and what is not. We can only base our expectations of those fixed points which are only fixed relative to the world we perceive (shared amongst those who share the common perception). I get deeper into the math in my blog article about what the universe really is made of:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html

So therefor you make your assumptions then you place your bets on those assumptions holding for the duration of your bets.

You won't be able to rule out serendipity ever. Long-tail distributions lurk, which is the point of Taleb's Antifragility taken with the inertia of concentration of mass.

Cheers :) Nice to talk with someone who can (I assume) understand what I wrote above.

@gcinc

I enjoyed your analysis. Group behavior is definately measurable.  Applied to financial instruments esp.  Speculation on potential adoption can obv render the spec line inflated for the time, until adoption ensues...find rptiela's work interesting, and slippery slope's log model convincing.

Obv it's a gamble, obv it's risky, and obv it's about making money, so what...that's how markets work and innovations come to life.

Indeed, serendipity for example an altcoin comes along which allows you to exit BTC without it being a ponzi scheme, by gradually sucking value out while increasing distribution to the masses.

But in this case it isn't random relative to our shared perception, because I just told you what will happen ;)

That is unless it disappears from your consciousness, which is quite likely I presume because you are not privy to everything I can see at the moment.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: blablahblah on November 25, 2013, 12:05:02 PM
Incompleteness is explained by my conceptualization of matter as a continuum. Try reading it. Here is the link again:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum

Quote
Also Gödel's incompleteness theorems which state that no theory of computation can be both complete and consistent, as there will always exist another truth which can't be proven by the existing theory.
Yes, and I'm trying to explain that this applies to your theory as well. Yet you seem to think that your particular theory is all encompassing -- internally consistent and complete.

I can tell you off-hand that a theory that basically says the universe is "a multi-dimensional holographic 'doughnut' made of vibrating tines and lots of standing waves", still doesn't explain any of these things:
illusions
consciousness/ego/self
qualia
and of course creativity. Oh wait, those last 3 are all just illusions. Explain illusions then.

Quote
I have already alluded to the explanation of all those phenomena. I guess I will need to write a treatise to expound for those who can't/won't extrapolate from the generative essence I have presented.
You'll burn yourself out. Why not do something useful?


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: wachtwoord on November 25, 2013, 12:10:39 PM
Can you present a cogent argument that they haven't been rewarded already for those 1000s of hours many times in excess of any normal return on investment for programmers?

Ever since Mt.Gox started, every early adopter had an actual chance to sell any % of their coins and receive dollars in return. So from that point on, they can be treated as investors, since the early adopter phase (in the strictest sense) was over. Every day that they decided to not sell their early-mined coins, they rejected the other investment/consumption opportunities in favor of holding the coins. This puts them at exactly the same level as me, who never mined or even installed the software.

Or much easier. The market continues to reward them. As long as this is the case they haven't been fully rewarded. (Remember that the market consists of people voluntarily exchanging fiat money for Bitcoins).

They'll have been fully rewarded when they have access to all the value they have helped to create. This is still a long way off.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: rpietila on November 25, 2013, 12:21:35 PM
Or much easier. The market continues to reward them. As long as this is the case they haven't been fully rewarded. (Remember that the market consists of people voluntarily exchanging fiat money for Bitcoins).

They'll have been fully rewarded when they have access to all the value they have helped to create. This is still a long way off.

That proves that in essence, Bitcoin is not a technology. Its market cap was <$100,000 when Gox was opened and the "technology-phase" ended. All the subsequent gains have been possible because of the collective action of all the market participants.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 12:34:29 AM
Incompleteness is explained by my conceptualization of matter as a continuum. Try reading it. Here is the link again:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum

Quote
Also Gödel's incompleteness theorems which state that no theory of computation can be both complete and consistent, as there will always exist another truth which can't be proven by the existing theory.
Yes, and I'm trying to explain that this applies to your theory as well. Yet you seem to think that your particular theory is all encompassing -- internally consistent and complete.

I can tell you off-hand that a theory that basically says the universe is "a multi-dimensional holographic 'doughnut' made of vibrating tines and lots of standing waves", still doesn't explain any of these things:
illusions
consciousness/ego/self
qualia
and of course creativity. Oh wait, those last 3 are all just illusions. Explain illusions then.

You haven't understood what I've presented. My theory explains why and is congruent with that no theory that requires a countable logic can be universally consistent. You failed to remember that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to countable (i.e. empirical) axioms.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 12:39:20 AM
Can you present a cogent argument that they haven't been rewarded already for those 1000s of hours many times in excess of any normal return on investment for programmers?

Ever since Mt.Gox started, every early adopter had an actual chance to sell any % of their coins and receive dollars in return. So from that point on, they can be treated as investors, since the early adopter phase (in the strictest sense) was over. Every day that they decided to not sell their early-mined coins, they rejected the other investment/consumption opportunities in favor of holding the coins. This puts them at exactly the same level as me, who never mined or even installed the software.

Or much easier. The market continues to reward them. As long as this is the case they haven't been fully rewarded. (Remember that the market consists of people voluntarily exchanging fiat money for Bitcoins).

They'll have been fully rewarded when they have access to all the value they have helped to create. This is still a long way off.

That proves that in essence, Bitcoin is not a technology. Its market cap was <$100,000 when Gox was opened and the "technology-phase" ended. All the subsequent gains have been possible because of the collective action of all the market participants.

All correct, except "value" is meaningless until you cash out (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=341594.0). I see signs that in my opinion the the window for large capital to cash out is rapidly closing (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345091.msg3714577#msg3714577).


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 01:28:51 AM
All correct, except "value" is meaningless until you cash out (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=341594.0). I see signs that in my opinion the the window for large capital to cash out is rapidly closing (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345091.msg3714577#msg3714577).

Bullshit. With cashing out you mean converting to fiat. That's retarded and I'll never do that. So you're saying I hold no value? LOL ;D

Argument by slander is not an argument. To support your slander, you would need to include at least one logical reason.

I can only assume that you think Bitcoin will become a currency and thus that its value will never permanently precipitously decline, thus you think the valuation is the number of coins you hold relative to the proportion of the transactions (currency) market share that Bitcoin will ultimately garnish.

My retort to that is that your fantasy is impossible (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345091.msg3714577#msg3714577).

There is no way for me to argue with a Bitard, because it is analogous to arguing about religion. The fantasy can't be falsified in the present. We have to actually wait a while before we can point at you and say "I warned you fool". At least the fantasy isn't forever unfalsifiable as is the case with religion and the afterlife.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: npl on November 26, 2013, 09:06:23 AM
To distribute money more efficiently all you need to do is ensure that 'mining' (the process itself, not its results) has a net positive effect (involves expenditure on renewable goods and services) instead of a net negative one (energy waste). It's simple as that.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: wachtwoord on November 26, 2013, 09:44:05 AM
All correct, except "value" is meaningless until you cash out (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=341594.0). I see signs that in my opinion the the window for large capital to cash out is rapidly closing (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345091.msg3714577#msg3714577).

Bullshit. With cashing out you mean converting to fiat. That's retarded and I'll never do that. So you're saying I hold no value? LOL ;D

Argument by slander is not an argument. To support your slander, you would need to include at least one logical reason.

I wasn't arguing, merely mocking. When you start a normal argument I'll respond in kind :)


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 11:50:07 AM
However, some of your own criticisms have been weak, re: "it's a ponzi because people can't cash out large amounts". You should understand that the largest stake holders can only ever "cash out" by doing private swap deals that don't move the market. The bigger the 'ponzi', the bigger the vested interest at the top to keep the value high and stable.

Actually I agree. My wild (not sure of course) speculation is their plan all along has been to collude with the government and will be rewarded for doing so. That doesn't mean the price will be spared a return towards 0. You need to think this out more deeply. The serious players know damn well they won't have anything lasting if they don't play ball with the governments.

Since the top stake holders have a strong incentive to act honestly, decentralisation is only needed during the initial adoption phase.

Destroying decentralization is not honest, it is selling out. And it is exactly what I expect them to do. A ponzi failure could possibly be a cover for making the transition to government control. It may be disguised as "proof-of-stake".

Similarly, in the beginning, the 'cost' of inflating the supply and promoting equal opportunities for participants (proof-of-work, open source code and generic PC hardware) is very important because it appeals to egalitarian ideals.

Exactly. Marketing. Deception.

Later, when the ownership structure has significantly evolved due to competition and mergers, at some point it becomes unnecessary and inefficient to 'allow' new competitors to mine blocks. The ongoing process of centralisation either wasn't thought of initially, or the story was that it's a bad idea. Alternatively, they couldn't predict how quickly the system would evolve from widely distributed CPU mining through to ASIC farms in a few strong hands. So Bitcoin seems to be accidentally stumbling towards a structure with a central issuer, but with vestigial proof-of-work that adds a tonne of dead weight.

Satoshi predicted all the outcome we have now. Read his early writings at the cryptography discussion group.

Fee collection, network costs, ddos attacks. Practical concerns with high volume transactions were probably not considered very seriously in the beginning. Say that the transaction queue is getting 100k hits every second, and most of those are bogus. So a spam prevention scheme is deployed whereby a proof-of-work puzzle has to be solved before a request will be accepted into the queue. This effectively creates a separate payment scheme to pay small deposits before placing the real bid for moving large amounts of money. See how the structure becomes multi-tiered? Map it out. Or... Don't map it out. Do you really believe that 2 heads are better than 1? Then leave some parts of the development up to an organic process of trial and error, just like Bitcoin is doing.

There are multiple possible designs. I am hoping open source wins over the alternative presented above.

Provide a convincing cover story. You know that story about a fixed supply of 21 million coins? That fearful creator who disappeared? The highly convoluted decentralised and trust-free structure, the Bitcoin Rube Goldberg machine, because centralisation is evil? It's a stroke of genius from a marketing point of view (assuming it wasn't all a hilarious cosmic accident).
Whatever alternative you promote, like:
--demurrage or perpetual inflation
--some element of centrally planned spending that covers more than just network maintenance.
--smarter inflation that dis-empowers speculators,
or some balanced combination, you'll probably find that at best you'll get a lukewarm reception (think: polite clapping) from a small number of pragmatic, reasonable people who stumble upon your idea. But you won't gain traction unless you rally some religious fervour to give your cause a kick-start and also give it protective padding against growth pains. You really need to figure this out.

Not every altcoin has to strive for instant recognition and a ponzi-bubble.

I see someone wrote that the altcoins have been rising faster in value past few days than Bitcoin. Didn't verify.

But of course, that hypothetical altcoin will have an ace up its sleeve, otherwise it won't be the one. You don't need to explain marketing to me, I had 1% of the internet in 2001. What slowed me down was losing 95% vision in an eye end of 1999 and being in surgeries and face down in bed for 1.5 years. The momentum carried forward on its own until 2001 when friendster was released.

Friendster started the friend-of-friend feature and peaked at millions of users. Myspace and facebook copied.

But I don't know why everyone assumes it will be me to create that altcoin. I am also writing to inspire others to compete to do so. You don't know whom I have shared my algorithms and ideas with.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: rpietila on November 26, 2013, 11:56:22 AM
Familiarize yourself with my concept of "rake" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345065.0), which is the % that you sell after each doubling in price.

Even if your average rake is as low as 10%, it means that an early adopter with a cost base of $0.005/BTC, has only 16% of his stash left when the price hits $1,000. With a 20% rake he has a mere 2% remaining.

Each doubling in price requires new money to push price up. On average, about 25% new money has been needed, compared to the market cap increase. This corresponds to a weighted average rake of about 17% among current market participants.

If we extrapolate the 17% rake to the price going from $1k to $1M, only 16% of the bitcoins will in the end belong to the same people. The paper wallets that are regarded sacrosanct at present, will be opened in stages if/when the price rises higher than the owners expect.

What is the thread is actually moot, and the market mechanism is well able to take care of the distribution of the circulating medium?  :o


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 12:04:03 PM
Risto for that to work we need to have redistribution to the 0.1 - 10 BTC range of accounts. Whereas I suspect the weighted average buying in now is more in the range of 10 - 100 BTC.

It becomes progressively less efficient when trying to redistribute to smaller holdings via the market mechanism. So this is another reason the bubble peaks. You have even mentioned that exchanges can't scale even at current larger size holdings entering (assuming my assumption is correct).

At 1 BTC each and perfectly uniform distribution that would only be 21 million users. That is 1 out of every 50 people in the developed world, not including China. But it is impossible to get perfect distribution and considering how concentrated it is now, figure more likely is a maximum of 1 million will own 1 BTC or more. That would only 1 out of every 1000 people in the developed world. That won't fly as a currency.

I just can't see a math that rates market redistribution to currency scale as very likely.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: rpietila on November 26, 2013, 12:10:08 PM
I am in the process of calculating this. But currently, and based on the experiences of having already gone up 5.5 orders of magnitude and less to go, I think that there will be no early adopter problem. Also I think I will have to take the average 17% rake into account when discounting all the 2010 (AHA), 2011 (KnightMB) and 2012 large holders.

Let's face it, according to math and blockchain, only 2 million coins (16%) belong to the original owners. There is no problem in Bitcoin regarding this issue. Anonymity and blocksize are issues, but not the topic of this thread.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 12:10:37 PM
wachtwoord, I deleted your post (the only post I deleted in this thread) then I realized you were implying that purchases of smaller BTC holdings will increase as price rises, because the same size dollar position will constitute a smaller quantity of BTC. That is a valid point.

However you need to factor in that they too will be bringing in large dollar positions, thus still not buying for spending rather for investment.

Arguing that the smartest early adopters are able to sell out by fooling the middle adopters into buy & hold, isn't an argument that we've got a currency.

I very much believe Bitcoin is going to be morphed into a currency, just that it will be done through an initial ponzi failure and taken over by the governments to protect the "consumer interest" from future market failures.

You are supporting that the number of people harmed could be much greater. I have allowed to 2016 and $100,000 price as a possibility.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 12:21:13 PM
In summary, the most efficient distribution of a currency is legal tender by government decree.

Mises counters that and says a currency only arises spontaneously from something that was already widely used for barter (then I assume the government co-opts it).

If I could visualize how Bitcoin can make the largest wealth transfer in the history of mankind, while also having signs of becoming a currency, while also transitioning distribution, while also being immune to government takeover, then I would be more optimistic. I just see too many failure modes for that to be a reality.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: rpietila on November 26, 2013, 12:24:33 PM
In summary, the most efficient distribution of a currency is legal tender by government decree.

I suppose you are too tired to think reasonably. Just wait, I will be able to present the concise model of bitcoin balance evolution (so far and from now on) in a few days.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: wachtwoord on November 26, 2013, 12:28:55 PM
wachtwoord, I deleted your post (the only post I deleted in this thread) then I realized you were implying that purchases of smaller BTC holdings will increase as price rises, because the same size dollar position will constitute a smaller quantity of BTC. That is a valid point.

However you need to factor in that they too will be bringing in large dollar positions, thus still not buying for spending rather for investment.

Arguing that the smartest early adopters are able to sell out by fooling the middle adopters into buy & hold, isn't an argument that we've got a currency.

I very much believe Bitcoin is going to be morphed into a currency, just that it will be done through an initial ponzi failure and taken over by the governments to protect the "consumer interest" from future market failures.

You are supporting that the number of people harmed could be much greater. I have allowed to 2016 and $100,000 price as a possibility.

That was indeed my point :)

I cannot follow the rest of your argumentation. I do not advocate "cashing out" because you mean buying fiat with your Bitcoins. Why would you choose to hold such a lousy form value preservation for anything but a very short time? I also don't understand how anyone can see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme to have ever existed.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: farfiman on November 26, 2013, 12:34:36 PM
..snip

I cannot follow the rest of your argumentation. I do not advocate "cashing out" because you mean buying fiat with your Bitcoins. Why would you choose to hold such a lousy form value preservation for anything but a very short time? I also don't understand how anyone can see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme to have ever existed.

Because that specific ponzi is decades long it's hard to grasp by most people. Anyone I try to explain this to is dumbfounded by the thought and totally in shock when it starts to sink in.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 12:34:47 PM
I am in the process of calculating this. But currently, and based on the experiences of having already gone up 5.5 orders of magnitude and less to go, I think that there will be no early adopter problem. Also I think I will have to take the average 17% rake into account when discounting all the 2010 (AHA), 2011 (KnightMB) and 2012 large holders.

Let's face it, according to math and blockchain, only 2 million coins (16%) belong to the original owners. There is no problem in Bitcoin regarding this issue. Anonymity and blocksize are issues, but not the topic of this thread.

The assumption here is that there is no concept of overvaluation, unlike a stock which has an intrinsic value.

This is a fundamentally flawed assumption because relative value matters.

You assume that a bicycle is willing to challenge a 747 in a head-on collision.

You can't transfer the entire wealth of the planet from the current middle class to a 1 million technology enthusiasts, and expect them to be satisfied with 0 gains. They too will only play along if they think the wealth transfer works in their favor too.

There is a tipping point, where more people can't enter and still be on the favorable side of the ledger.

Thus the only way you get redistribution that will be acceptable to the majority, is via government. The only way to do that is let the Ponzi collapse, then come in and apply "justice" to protect the "public good".

The government loves anti-capitalistic (i.e. centralized control over) redistribution and so do the majority, especially when it is marketed well.

If readers are not aware of my point, potential energy = degrees-of-freedom, then I would have to review all my writings for them again. I do grow weary.

Edit: Oak trees don't grow to the moon. Nature is not a one-way street, it is wave-like due to relativity (inertia). We have to consider the viability of a paradigm shift which requires the middle class (the largest inertia) to join, but where they can't join without destroying themselves.

Can we conceive of a way that resistance inertia declines as adoption increases? With positive technology takeovers that is always the case.

This is why I say Bitcoin has the wrong design. It is fighting against itself.

Rather if we diluted the value as we increase adoption, we offer a pathway for the middle class to enter for spending, not for investment. If the masses can mine 0.001 coins by downloading a client, they are a spender, not an investor.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 12:36:15 PM
..snip

I cannot follow the rest of your argumentation. I do not advocate "cashing out" because you mean buying fiat with your Bitcoins. Why would you choose to hold such a lousy form value preservation for anything but a very short time? I also don't understand how anyone can see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme to have ever existed.

Because that specific ponzi is decades long it's hard to grasp by most people. Anyone I try to explain this to is dumbfounded by the thought and totally in shock when it starts to sink in.

Yes but that weakens your argument.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: farfiman on November 26, 2013, 12:38:50 PM
..snip

I cannot follow the rest of your argumentation. I do not advocate "cashing out" because you mean buying fiat with your Bitcoins. Why would you choose to hold such a lousy form value preservation for anything but a very short time? I also don't understand how anyone can see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme to have ever existed.

Because that specific ponzi is decades long it's hard to grasp by most people. Anyone I try to explain this to is dumbfounded by the thought and totally in shock when it starts to sink in.

Yes but that weakens your argument.

To emphasize-  Debt based fiat system.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 12:50:01 PM
Can we conceive of a way that inertia declines as adoption increases? With positive technology takeovers that is always the case.

This is why I say Bitcoin has the wrong design. It is fighting against itself.

Rather if we diluted the value as we increase adoption, we offer a pathway for the middle class to enter for spending, not for investment. If we people can mine 0.001 coins by downloading a client, they are a spender, not an investor.

So it ain't hard to guess what the "ace-up-the-sleeve" is. I have stated it many times already.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: npl on November 26, 2013, 01:04:05 PM
To distribute money more efficiently all you need to do is ensure that 'mining' (the process itself, not its results) has a net positive effect (involves expenditure on renewable goods and services) instead of a net negative one (energy waste). It's simple as that.

(quoting myself here...)

OK it's not quite as simple as that, because you have to factor in time horizons and the early adoption phase, in which coin production costs are marginal (thus not allowing for efficient distribution). With BTC the design was such that a great deal of coins were produced during the early phase for a very low cost (the first 1,000,000 BTC were mined for a cost of what it would take to mine less than 1 BTC today, roughly speaking).

More efficient distribution would thus require (aside from finding a way to make mining a net positive process) a shorter early adoption phase in which production costs are trivial, so that we could arrive at the point where mining produces tangible positive effects more quickly. However, the early adoption phase should still last long enough and be lucrative enough for the coin to gain popularity.  


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 01:11:31 PM
I cannot follow the rest of your argumentation. I do not advocate "cashing out" because you mean buying fiat with your Bitcoins. Why would you choose to hold such a lousy form value preservation for anything but a very short time? I also don't understand how anyone can see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme to have ever existed.

I beg to differ. As long as a fiat currency can be used for buying goods and services, it is not a Ponzi scheme. What makes a Ponzi scheme different from a bubble lies in the fact that its value token (certificate, share, whatever) can't be used for anything but investing in itself, directly or by some intermediary (to make it less evident). In a bubble an underlying asset can be either used directly (e.g. real estate), or for other purposes not related to investing. The latter holds true for Bitcoin (that's why it's not a Ponzi scheme either) and in this aspect it's not widely different from other fiats...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: farfiman on November 26, 2013, 02:23:38 PM
I cannot follow the rest of your argumentation. I do not advocate "cashing out" because you mean buying fiat with your Bitcoins. Why would you choose to hold such a lousy form value preservation for anything but a very short time? I also don't understand how anyone can see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme to have ever existed.

I beg to differ. As long as a fiat currency can be used for buying goods and services, it is not a Ponzi scheme. What makes a Ponzi scheme different from a bubble lies in the fact that its value token (certificate, share, whatever) can't be used for anything but investing in itself, directly or by some intermediary (to make it less evident). In a bubble an underlying asset can be either used directly (e.g. real estate), or for other purposes not related to investing. The latter holds true for Bitcoin (that's why it's not a Ponzi scheme either) and in this aspect it's not widely different from other fiats...

A debt based fiat system IS a ponzi. New debt has to be created continually or it all collapses. We just happen to live in an age where the end is in sight.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 03:02:08 PM
I cannot follow the rest of your argumentation. I do not advocate "cashing out" because you mean buying fiat with your Bitcoins. Why would you choose to hold such a lousy form value preservation for anything but a very short time? I also don't understand how anyone can see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme to have ever existed.

I beg to differ. As long as a fiat currency can be used for buying goods and services, it is not a Ponzi scheme. What makes a Ponzi scheme different from a bubble lies in the fact that its value token (certificate, share, whatever) can't be used for anything but investing in itself, directly or by some intermediary (to make it less evident). In a bubble an underlying asset can be either used directly (e.g. real estate), or for other purposes not related to investing. The latter holds true for Bitcoin (that's why it's not a Ponzi scheme either) and in this aspect it's not widely different from other fiats...

A debt based fiat system IS a ponzi. New debt has to be created continually or it all collapses. We just happen to live in an age where the end is in sight.

Nope. In a housing bubble an incessant inflow of new buyers is required to enter the market lest the bubble should burst, but this doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme. New debt being created continually makes a debt bubble. The debt bubble popping may actually cause an economic collapse, but the possibility of it doesn't make a debt based fiat system a Ponzi either. You're just using the wrong term here...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 03:13:36 PM
I cannot follow the rest of your argumentation. I do not advocate "cashing out" because you mean buying fiat with your Bitcoins. Why would you choose to hold such a lousy form value preservation for anything but a very short time? I also don't understand how anyone can see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme to have ever existed.

I beg to differ. As long as a fiat currency can be used for buying goods and services, it is not a Ponzi scheme. What makes a Ponzi scheme different from a bubble lies in the fact that its value token (certificate, share, whatever) can't be used for anything but investing in itself, directly or by some intermediary (to make it less evident). In a bubble an underlying asset can be either used directly (e.g. real estate), or for other purposes not related to investing. The latter holds true for Bitcoin (that's why it's not a Ponzi scheme either) and in this aspect it's not widely different from other fiats...

A debt based fiat system IS a ponzi. New debt has to be created continually or it all collapses. We just happen to live in an age where the end is in sight.

Nope. In a housing bubble new buyers are required to continually enter the market and buy new homes lest the bubble should burst, but this doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme. New debt being created continually makes it a debt bubble. The debt bubble popping may actually cause an economic collapse, but the possibility of it doesn't make a debt based fiat system a Ponzi either. You're just using the wrong term here...

I had taken this position recently, but I said "yes" upthread because I was remembering the notion (is it true?) that all fiat currencies have returned to their intrinsic value of 0 on long enough time scales.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: farfiman on November 26, 2013, 03:14:24 PM


Nope. In a housing bubble new buyers are required to continually enter the market and buy new homes lest the bubble should burst, but this doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme. What you refer to as a Ponzi scheme is correctly called a debt bubble. The debt bubble popping may actually cause an economic collapse but the possibility of it doesn't make a debt based fiat system a Ponzi either. You're just using the wrong term here...

Maybe the term is inaccurate but not sure.  What happens if no new debt is created and even is paid back?
In a ponzi if people start pulling out and nothing new flows in... same thing.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 03:35:58 PM
Maybe the term is inaccurate but not sure.  What happens if no new debt is created and even is paid back?
In a ponzi if people start pulling out and nothing new flows in... same thing.

When a real estate bubble pops prices are falling but they don't drop to zero (as in a Ponzi) because real estate has utility beside mere speculation and it can be used according to its intended purpose, i.e. for living. In the case of a fiat currency its utility consists in the goods and services which you can exchange for it. So if a debt bubble pops you will see the currency purchasing power diminish in proportion with its commodity content just like the real estate loses its value after burst down to its real non-speculative demand. Bubble popping strips the asset price of its speculative part

Whereas in a Ponzi scheme no real component in the underlying "asset" is present...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 03:41:53 PM
Maybe the term is inaccurate but not sure.  What happens if no new debt is created and even is paid back?
In a ponzi if people start pulling out and nothing new flows in... same thing.

When a real estate bubble pops prices are falling but they don't drop to zero (as in a Ponzi) because real estate has utility beside mere speculation and it can be used according to its intended purpose, i.e. for living. In the case of a fiat currency its utility consists in the goods and services which you can exchange for it. So if a debt bubble pops you will see the currency purchasing power diminish in proportion with its commodity content just like the real estate loses its value after burst down to its real demand. Bubble popping strips the asset price of its speculative part

Whereas in a Ponzi scheme no real component in the underlying "asset" is present...

Correct unless all the confidence in the currency is lost, the government can't sell bonds, and the value of the currency plummets to its intrinsic value of 0, e.g. Wiemar (Communist) Germany, Zimbabwe. The intrinsic value of fiat relies on society maintaining confidence in its government and financial system. Hyperinflation only occurs in thoroughly, abjectly broken societies where the only remaining power of the government is to print money and that is why we will not see hyperinflation of the US dollar (nor equivalently Bitcoin entirely replacing the dollar with a runaway market price, singularity). Rather what governments do during end game debt crises where the society still functions and trusts the government, is "debt is future taxation", i.e. the government hunts down all wealth in a deflationary spiral. The currency GAINS value relative to other peripheral currencies (watch all emerging market currencies other than Yuan implode 2016+ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=222998.msg3733094#msg3733094)), yet production implodes and purchasing power falls for everyone. Strange brew of inflationary, deflation. This is the most dangerous outcome and can precipitate a Dark Age.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: farfiman on November 26, 2013, 04:09:04 PM
Maybe the term is inaccurate but not sure.  What happens if no new debt is created and even is paid back?
In a ponzi if people start pulling out and nothing new flows in... same thing.

When a real estate bubble pops prices are falling but they don't drop to zero (as in a Ponzi) because real estate has utility beside mere speculation and it can be used according to its intended purpose, i.e. for living. In the case of a fiat currency its utility consists in the goods and services which you can exchange for it. So if a debt bubble pops you will see the currency purchasing power diminish in proportion with its commodity content just like the real estate loses its value after burst down to its real non-speculative demand. Bubble popping strips the asset price of its speculative part

Whereas in a Ponzi scheme no real component in the underlying "asset" is present...

True- after a housing bubble bursts you still have the houses. Most stocks the same.
The fiat debt though isn't really an asset. It's value is based on that the government will back it- forcefully if it has to.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 04:18:17 PM
True- after a housing bubble bursts you still have the houses. Most stocks the same.
The fiat debt though isn't really an asset. It's value is based on that the government will back it- forcefully if it has to.

Yes, you still have the houses which are now less expensive. The same holds true for a debt currency, you still have the currency which has depreciated. And as long as you can pay taxes with it would retain some "intrinsic value" (as AnonyMint would incorrectly say), so it can still be considered as an "asset"...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 04:22:13 PM
Correct unless the all confidence in the currency is lost, the government can't sell bonds, and the value of the currency plummets to its intrinsic value of 0, e.g. Wiemar (Communist) Germany, Zimbabwe

TLDR. As I said before as long as government accepts taxes paid in the currency it will retain some value above zero...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 04:27:19 PM
To distribute money more efficiently all you need to do is ensure that 'mining' (the process itself, not its results) has a net positive effect (involves expenditure on renewable goods and services) instead of a net negative one (energy waste). It's simple as that.

(quoting myself here...)

OK it's not quite as simple as that, because you have to factor in time horizons and the early adoption phase, in which coin production costs are marginal (thus not allowing for efficient distribution). With BTC the design was such that a great deal of coins were produced during the early phase for a very low cost (the first 1,000,000 BTC were mined for a cost of what it would take to mine less than 1 BTC today, roughly speaking).

More efficient distribution would thus require (aside from finding a way to make mining a net positive process) a shorter early adoption phase in which production costs are trivial, so that we could arrive at the point where mining produces tangible positive effects more quickly. However, the early adoption phase should still last long enough and be lucrative enough for the coin to gain popularity.  

Efficiency in the context of this thread is the rate (relative to the maximum possible rate) of adoption of the currency as a currency and not as an investment asset. Very few people in normal times (before sovereign debt crisis safe haven demand) considered holding dollars long-term (in your mattress, i.e paying no interest) as an investment. A hallmark feature of a currency is you rarely concern yourself with its exchange value.

I am asserting that the challenge is to design an upstart crypto-currency which has enough near-term investment appeal to drive excitement and investment adoption, while simultaneously driving synergistic adoption for spending which eventually subsumes the investment gains.

Some here are challenging my assertion.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 04:31:08 PM
True- after a housing bubble bursts you still have the houses. Most stocks the same.
The fiat debt though isn't really an asset. It's value is based on that the government will back it- forcefully if it has to.

Yes, you still have the houses which are now less expensive. The same holds true for a debt currency, you still have the currency which has depreciated. And as long as you can pay taxes with it would retain some "intrinsic value" (as AnonyMint would incorrectly say), so it can be considered as an "asset"...

I said its intrinsic value is 0, the value only exists because of the confidence the people have in the government retaining control and yes the ability to tax.

Do you argue that the intrinsic value of fiat is not 0? Confidence is not a quality you can depend on independently of all things, rather dependent, ephemeral one even if on long time scales.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 04:35:51 PM
I said its intrinsic value is 0, the value only exists because of the confidence the people have in the government retaining control and yes the ability to tax.

Do you argue that the intrinsic value of fiat is not 0?

There is no such notion as "intrinsic value" in economics (there is some in finance but it has very specific scope of usage and surely it is not what you meant by it). I would prefer that you use correct well-established terms...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 04:40:14 PM
I said its intrinsic value is 0, the value only exists because of the confidence the people have in the government retaining control and yes the ability to tax.

Do you argue that the intrinsic value of fiat is not 0?

There is no such notion as "intrinsic value" in economics (there is some in finance but it has very specific scope of usage and surely it is not what you meant by it). I would prefer that you use correct well-established terms...

Eat humble pie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 04:46:52 PM
Correct unless the all confidence in the currency is lost, the government can't sell bonds, and the value of the currency plummets to its intrinsic value of 0, e.g. Wiemar (Communist) Germany, Zimbabwe

TLDR. As I said before as long as government accepts taxes paid in the currency it will retain some value above zero...

Incorrect. The government can't enforce taxes if the people and the bond investors are running from the currency, because the government can't pay the police, tax collectors, etc.. The government hyperinflates attempting to do so.

In short, fiat hinges on confidence. This is why the government will always squash any competition which would threaten confidence.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 04:51:30 PM
Eat humble pie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value

"This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed"

There were many economic theories throughout history of human thought. The prevailing theory and most researched one in economics nowadays is the subjective theory of value where the notion of "intrinsic value" has no meaning...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: farfiman on November 26, 2013, 04:52:12 PM
Correct unless the all confidence in the currency is lost, the government can't sell bonds, and the value of the currency plummets to its intrinsic value of 0, e.g. Wiemar (Communist) Germany, Zimbabwe

TLDR. As I said before as long as government accepts taxes paid in the currency it will retain some value above zero...

Incorrect. The government can't enforce taxes if the people and the bond investors are running from the currency, because the government can't pay the police, tax collectors, etc.. The government hyperinflates attempting to do so.

In short, fiat hinges on confidence. This is why the government will always squash any competition which would threaten confidence.

On these 2 points  at least I agree with AnonyMint.  Will they want to squash it? Will they be able to?  Will they find a way to use it or live with it?  Nobody has that answer.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: RodeoX on November 26, 2013, 04:57:23 PM
The idea of bitcoin distribution is not to hand them out as broadly as possible. It is a system to reward people who run their computers to help secure and operate the network. It is not a free lunch program. Miners do work and are paid for it.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 04:59:46 PM
Incorrect. The government can't enforce taxes if the people and the bond investors are running from the currency, because the government can't pay the police, tax collectors, etc.. The government hyperinflates attempting to do so.

I didn't quite get what you meant by "the government hyperinflates attempting to do so". To do what?


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 05:00:45 PM
In short, fiat hinges on confidence. This is why the government will always squash any competition which would threaten confidence.

I never claimed anything to the contrary...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 05:10:11 PM
The serious players know damn well they won't have anything lasting if they don't play ball with the governments.

Quote
Destroying decentralization is not honest, it is selling out. And it is exactly what I expect them to do. A ponzi failure could possibly be a cover for making the transition to government control. It may be disguised as "proof-of-stake".

To what extent have you tried to analyse your own biases about governments? The usual short summary among Libertarians on this forum seems to be: "they're basically evil and should be kept to a bare minimum". Ditto Anarchists and Voluntarists. Even the Zeitgeist people don't seem too keen on allowing mere humans to be in charge of anything. However, the incentives that apply to governments at the individual and group level seem to be the same as the ones applying to everyone else:

-Some hunger for power and/or comfort, and various subjective needs. Money seems to be a great enabler for many things, regardless of employment sector.
-Intellectual energy conservation, and the resulting dogmatism, principles, and belief systems. Mental plasticity burns a shit-load of energy. Once a person or group "figures out how the world works", they face a decision: keep burning energy by adjusting that model whenever pressure is applied, or conserve energy by accepting it as good enough?

Now, unless you use a fundamentally different model of person for government employees versus non-govt people, why should the game theory be any different? Granted, incumbent power structures tend to have various monopoly resources at their disposal, such as a giant police force or a system of laws, but I see the potential threats as unconvincing.

Could you explain the reasoning (or lack of reasoning) that an evil government would follow by co-opting or seeking to destroy Bitcoin?

Competition and greed are not the problem, rather it is the power vacuum that enables centralizing power. The government bureaucrat doesn't know how to compete in a granular market.

Governments, cartels, and monopolies exist because there is a power vacuum that can't be dominated by more granular competition. (Will write another time about why granular yields better fitness and less waste)

Those vested interests will always squash or co-opt any decentralization (movement or technology) which threatens to make granular competition dominant.

The World Without Web (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3335) would have occurred if key scientists at DARPA had not "lied through their teeth". The vested interests have fought back on many fronts, e.g. outlined in revelations from Snowden.

But they are still losing the war overall, as every time they shut something down, the hackers make it stronger. Thus I think they are going to lose the electronic currency war, but it is possible there will be two: the Bitcoin-morphed government currency and a hackers' currency. Most people use the government sites, e.g. Facebook, Google, etc.. The hackers have decentralized hangouts, e.g. Git, Mercurial.

I believe the hacker culture will spread and it is taking over the future economy. So steady growth of the hacker coin would be fine with me.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 05:39:39 PM
Incorrect. The government can't enforce taxes if the people and the bond investors are running from the currency, because the government can't pay the police, tax collectors, etc.. The government hyperinflates attempting to do so.

I didn't quite get what you meant by "the government hyperinflates attempting to do so". To do what?

Facing widespread dumping of the currency, hyperinflates to continue to fund its mercenaries, ahem I mean police, tax collectors, and other "useful" bureaucrats. It is a futile attempt to maintain control over the loss of confidence.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 05:44:00 PM
On these 2 points  at least I agree with AnonyMint.  Will they want to squash it? Will they be able to?  Will they find a way to use it or live with it?  Nobody has that answer.

Government pays salary to its employees. They can run from the currency only if they leave civil service. If they do leave, there is no public staff, then there is no government, no state, right? The confidence being referred to is not confidence in the money as such but rather it is confidence in the state and its government...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 05:45:46 PM
Facing of widespread dumping of the currency, hyperinflates to continue to fund its mercenaries, ahem I mean police, tax collectors, and other "useful" bureaucrats. It is a futile attempt to maintain control over the loss of confidence.

Do you mean seigniorage or what? I still don't get where you're going. If the loss of confidence you refer to is caused by diminishing purchasing power due to the currency inflation (but could it be caused by anything else?) then there wouldn't be such loss among police, tax collectors and other civil service employees for rather obvious reasons...

Weimar Germany didn't plunge into anarchy, neither did Yugoslavia nor Zimbabwe for the same reasons...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 05:48:58 PM
Where can I throw a post that was deleted from another thread.

Quote from: Bitcoin Forum
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Quote

The Robo ATM is going to require a palm scan and a face scan with government-issued photo id.


They have a RoboCoin ATM in Vancouver and my friends and I have used it many times.  It *only* requires a palm scan and this is just for Canadian AML/KYC compliance.  You do not have to give the machine any other information.  It does not scan your licence, require your name, and you could wear a paper bag over your head and still buy coins, if you were so inclined.  In fact, I bet you could buy a cadaver's hand from a crooked mortician and use that!  Seriously, it is pretty low key and relaxed.  

Are you serious?

It will not remain so casual. All small things look great, and as they become more widespread society expects certain things.

I listened to the interview with the principle of that company and he said the design requires all those 3 I mentioned to comply with KYC laws.

The operators of each machine decide, based on guidance from the company. So it is possible that operator is being more lax, but the government can clamp down at any time. The government would be wise to wait until the Robo ATMs are widespread and depended upon, before clamping down and requiring the full capabilities of the design.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/social-logins-for-government-services.html



Quote from: Bitcoin Forum
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Quote
I don't have time to read all of that but I will hit the key point:

It is good to read something concise concerning Bitcoin, and not just random forum talk:

Summaries

http://evoorhees.blogspot.ch/2013/05/bitcoin-2013-role-of-bitcoin-as-money.html

This is the second time I've caught Evoorhees in a logic fail.

Intrinsic, useful, or quasi-universal, it makes no difference what we call it. Fact is that gold is rare, can't be replicated, Bitcoin can't have those assurances. A currency can't be rare, otherwise it can't be distributed and behave as a currency.

The only reason that Bitcoin can ever have quasi-universal acceptance (valuation) is if it can become a currency, and it can't because it is being valued for a delusion about it being rare with a companion delusion about it being (or becoming) a currency which is an antithesis of the first delusion.

The usefulness of Bitcoin as a cheaper and less regulated money transfer is very ephemeral. The Spiraling Transaction Fees design of Bitcoin will kill the cheapness over time, as well the government regulation is coming and the spy agencies are recording all your transfers and identities and taxman cometh later to destroy the delusion ex post facto with nice penalties and treble rates.

You were a terrorist trying to move your money outside of the country or to another person avoiding the $600 1099 reporting requirement?! How dare you. Show your paperwork. Ah we find your paperwork is lacking. Confiscated. Done.


Whether or not the pyramid or ponzi scheme terms are misused by pedantic definitions does not provide an argument against bitcoin being a * scheme. It is a "bitcoin scheme" which closely resembles a pyramid scheme but has a few twists.

28%. Wow we are making headway in the consciousness of the audience.

The key characteristics of anything that resembles a ponzi or pyramid scheme are:

1. No intrinsic value, it is all a willful delusion of the participants.

2. Viral adoption as deluded participants scurry to induce greater fools by word-of-mouth.


Physical gold investment most certainly has an intrinsic value and you will always have that rarity and tangible value (that you can hold in your hand) and thus it can't go to 0. Bitcoins are not rare, because...




Future Applications

Mike Hearn's 2012 talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD4L7xDNCmA

All of those features are very important and we discussed their implementation in the Mini-block chain thread.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 05:56:07 PM
The idea of bitcoin distribution is not to hand them out as broadly as possible. It is a system to reward people who run their computers to help secure and operate the network. It is not a free lunch program. Miners do work and are paid for it.

1. Distribution of coin rewards is halving every 4 years, thus diminishing towards 0. Half of all coins went to adopters in first 4 years.

2. ASICs means PC owners can't leverage their existing assets. Thus not a widely distribution coin.

3. PC mining need not be a free lunch, could also secure the network.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 05:57:50 PM
On these 2 points  at least I agree with AnonyMint.  Will they want to squash it? Will they be able to?  Will they find a way to use it or live with it?  Nobody has that answer.

Government pays salary to its employees. They can run from the currency only if they leave civil service. If they do leave, there is no public staff, then there is no government, no state, right? The confidence being referred to is not confidence in the money as such but rather it is confidence in the state and its government...

They can run by actually running upon receiving salary to the bread store at the corner to dump their currency before it depreciates. I had a photo of them doing exactly that in Wiemar Germany.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 06:01:22 PM
Facing of widespread dumping of the currency, hyperinflates to continue to fund its mercenaries, ahem I mean police, tax collectors, and other "useful" bureaucrats. It is a futile attempt to maintain control over the loss of confidence.

Do you mean seigniorage or what? I still don't get where you're going. If the loss of confidence you refer to is caused by diminishing purchasing power due to the currency inflation (but could it be caused by anything else?) then there wouldn't be such loss among police, tax collectors and other civil service employees for rather obvious reasons...

Hyperinflation is never caused by inflation. It is caused by the government being wrecked by revolution and/or Communism and the people losing all confidence in the government.

In Zimbabwe, the blacks revolted against the white land owners. That caused a crisis of confidence.

Weimar Germany didn't plunge into anarchy, neither did Yugoslavia nor Zimbabwe for the same reasons...

 ??? You must have a different definition of anarchy than I do.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 06:11:58 PM
Not if buying the Bitcoin requires impoverishing oneself and society into hyperinflation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=347349.msg3718969#msg3718969).

You can't have this type of radical transfer of wealth to speculators. Society will never allow it.

[snip]

How do you supposee that society will not allow that?

Wow you really doubt the power of the government. I guess you forget who has the bigger guns.

You are not anonymous in Bitcoin. They can attack with the tax agencies without bringing out the big guns. The big guns are the last resort. As the final resort, nuclear winter and the underground shelters the elite have built.

Absolutely no way the elite will hand over the power over the creation of money. They will co-opt it peacefully or by as much violence as it requires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Warburg

Quote
Warburg was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He gained some notice in a February 17, 1950, appearance before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in which he said, "We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: rpietila on November 26, 2013, 06:15:12 PM
It is not easy to see yourself, but your ignore button has reached its maximum color :(


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 06:17:27 PM
They can run by actually running upon receiving salary to the bread store at the corner to dump their currency before it depreciates. I had a photo of them doing exactly that in Wiemar Germany.

Wherever they ran, they paid and were paid with money. They didn't quit their jobs, so we have to admit they didn't lose confidence, right?

Internet is full of such photos, even with people using packs of banknotes as fuel...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: npl on November 26, 2013, 06:19:37 PM
you lot are veering off topic and not acknowledging the brilliance of my response to the OP's question  :)

The idea of bitcoin distribution is not to hand them out as broadly as possible. It is a system to reward people who run their computers to help secure and operate the network. It is not a free lunch program. Miners do work and are paid for it.

My proposal does not negate miner profit, it calls to reconfigure the way mining inputs are expended.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 06:22:11 PM
Do you mean seigniorage or what? I still don't get where you're going. If the loss of confidence you refer to is caused by diminishing purchasing power due to the currency inflation (but could it be caused by anything else?) then there wouldn't be such loss among police, tax collectors and other civil service employees for rather obvious reasons...
Hyperinflation is never caused by inflation. It is caused by the government being wrecked by revolution and/or Communism and the people losing all confidence in the government.

In Zimbabwe, the blacks revolted against the white land owners. That caused a crisis of confidence.

So you recognize that it is not confidence in money (or lack thereof) which makes the government go bankrupt, but rather the loss of confidence in the government itself which makes its currency irrelevant, right?


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 06:37:10 PM
Do you mean seigniorage or what? I still don't get where you're going. If the loss of confidence you refer to is caused by diminishing purchasing power due to the currency inflation (but could it be caused by anything else?) then there wouldn't be such loss among police, tax collectors and other civil service employees for rather obvious reasons...
Hyperinflation is never caused by inflation. It is caused by the government being wrecked by revolution and/or Communism and the people losing all confidence in the government.

In Zimbabwe, the blacks revolted against the white land owners. That caused a crisis of confidence.

So you recognize that it is not confidence in money (or lack thereof) which makes the government go bankrupt, but rather the loss of confidence in the government itself which makes its currency irrelevant, right?

Agreed, but isn't that distinction as useful as splitting hairs on a frog's back.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 06:39:01 PM
They can run by actually running upon receiving salary to the bread store at the corner to dump their currency before it depreciates. I had a photo of them doing exactly that in Wiemar Germany.

Wherever they ran, they paid and were paid with money. They didn't quit their jobs, so we have to admit they didn't lose confidence, right?

They may have no other job offer.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 26, 2013, 06:41:48 PM
It is not easy to see yourself, but your ignore button has reached its maximum color :(

You really think I give a flying f$ck about reputation?

Everything is technology now. Reputation can be fabricated out of thin air (or purchased).

I would rather be correct on the technological outcome than be popular. The former means I will be able to buy (as slaves) all of the people who ignored me if I wanted to. You do know the Bible condones slavery as necessary form of rehabilitation of those who were not wise.

I saw it hours ago:

The prior two posts made me smile in spite of my 62+ ignores. At least my nose isn't brown.  ;D

The ignore browning is the most inane, asinine feature of this otherwise excellent forum design. So with 10,000 members, one gets 62, i.e. 0.5% ignore rate then that is supposed to be meaninful? How about showing our non-ignore rate instead, i.e. 99.5%.

Lack of browning should logically be embarrassing. It can be interpreted to mean one hasn't stuck their neck out at all. Played it ultra-safe, not written enough controversial statements to justify the wrath of the groupthink.

Ultra-safe is not how you win big in this life. No risk, no cookies.

The prior two posts made me smile in spite of my 62+ ignores. At least my nose isn't brown.  ;D

The ignore browning is the most inane, asinine feature of this otherwise excellent forum design. So with 10,000 members, one gets 62, i.e. 0.5% ignore rate then that is supposed to be meaninful? How about showing our non-ignore rate instead, i.e. 99.5%.

Lack of browning should logically be embarrassing. It can be interpreted to mean one hasn't stuck their neck out at all. Played it ultra-safe, not written enough controversial statements to justify the wrath of the groupthink.

Ultra-safe is not how you win big in this life. No risk, no cookies.


Typically, people ignore you not for sticking your neck out, but for being a complete douchebag about it. Also, it's rather difficult to get 62 people to think you are so not worth their time, that they actually take the time to click the "Ignore" button instead of simply scrolling past your post.

Let's remember who was the first douchebag.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279650.msg3525396#msg3525396

Quote from: Rassah
My apologies, I did not realize that you were a crazy person. Cary on.

Butt hurt Bitards press ignore when they want to continue their Ponzi delusion.

That proves what? That they are butt hurt. Nothing more.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: RodeoX on November 26, 2013, 07:23:14 PM
The idea of bitcoin distribution is not to hand them out as broadly as possible. It is a system to reward people who run their computers to help secure and operate the network. It is not a free lunch program. Miners do work and are paid for it.

1. Distribution of coin rewards is halving every 4 years, thus diminishing towards 0. Half of all coins went to adopters in first 4 years.

2. ASICs means PC owners can't leverage their existing assets. Thus not a widely distribution coin.

3. PC mining need not be a free lunch, could also secure the network.

1. True. Those who act first are more greatly rewarded. Welcome to economics.
In the future fees will replace block rewards. They will also go to those who work hardest and smartest.   

2. True. They must buy ASICs. Just as the last generation of miners needed to buy GPU's and before that, powerful CPUs. Miners must spend money on equipment and electricity. You can't pan for gold anymore either, now you must invest in expensive equipment.

3. PC mining was fine for protecting a market cap in the millions, but it is far to weak for the billions we are at now. This scaling acts against the profitability of a 51% attack.

Bitcoin is market driven. It rewards hard work, capital investment and greed, but nothing else.

P.S. I'm glad you are a contrarian. We need more than one uni-brain here.  ;)


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: Adrian-x on November 26, 2013, 08:03:16 PM
A While ago this idea was nicknamed GaussCoin
http://www.jdidesign.com/files-in/Bitcoin-Enhanced-Rate-of-Supply-2.jpg

 It has some merits in that that the velocity of distribution is consistent with the  market distribution mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_mechanism) and consistent with the laws of diffusion of innovation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations), once about 2/3ds of total adoption is complete you will have relative adoption and relative distribution.

Bitcoins value at the moment is not a reflection of the economy size but a reflection of the benefits of storing fungible and transferable wealth in a finite medium that is secured and distributed on a P2P network, that demand will naturally be subject to human preference and is reflected as volatility.

One improvement I could think to achieve the goal would be to adjust but build in the rate of supply to reflect (a Logistic Function (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function)) and not the current step function to a normal distribution model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution), and have new coins mined on a Gaussian Curve to better correlate supply with growth, for added supply and greater and faster user adoption all the while more accurately meeting demand.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 08:05:25 PM
So you recognize that it is not confidence in money (or lack thereof) which makes the government go bankrupt, but rather the loss of confidence in the government itself which makes its currency irrelevant, right?

Agreed, but isn't that distinction as useful as splitting hairs on a frog's back.

It just proves that the problem of "a debt based fiat system" is not a problem within and of itself. And the most important inference from this is that you can't call such a currency system a Ponzi scheme, for otherwise it would imply denying confidence in the government as being a real asset behind the currency. Yes, it could burst but it still would be supported at some level by something (i.e. confidence) which is not speculative in nature (see the real estate bubble example)...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 08:16:35 PM
Wherever they ran, they paid and were paid with money. They didn't quit their jobs, so we have to admit they didn't lose confidence, right?

They may have no other job offer.

Nope. It just means they still have confidence in the system (at least some of them), plain and simple. If they didn't, it would mean the money completely had lost its exchange value, i.e. ceased to be money, so no more sense to work. Direct inference from your assertion ("intrinsic value of fiat relies on society maintaining confidence in its government and financial system")...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: CoinCube on November 26, 2013, 08:26:00 PM
It is not easy to see yourself, but your ignore button has reached its maximum color :(

AnonyMint is the first person I have seen get ignored for posting annoyingly strong arguments in an arrogant manner. Lots of people have thin skins.

Personally I make an effort to seek out his posts.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: Adrian-x on November 26, 2013, 08:31:05 PM
Nope. It just means they still have confidence in the system, plain and simple. If they didn't, it would mean the money completely lost its exchange value, i.e. ceased to be money, so no more sense to work. Direct inference from your assertion ("intrinsic value of fiat relies on society maintaining confidence in its government and financial system")...

and we are not there yet?

Personally the OP has a legitimate concern; honestly I think Bitcoin is doing a better (more equitable) job of disseminating currency than fiat from our Government / Bank Partnerships.

At the end of the day I like the fact that huge amounts of Bitcoin sit in cold storage, the first fork to deviate will encore high inflation, as old coins flood the new fork while still remaining in cold storage with potentual in the stronger fork.  (ie - old coins could spend in both forks)


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 08:32:31 PM
Nope. In a housing bubble new buyers are required to continually enter the market and buy new homes lest the bubble should burst, but this doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme. New debt being created continually makes it a debt bubble. The debt bubble popping may actually cause an economic collapse, but the possibility of it doesn't make a debt based fiat system a Ponzi either. You're just using the wrong term here...

I had taken this position recently, but I said "yes" upthread because I was remembering the notion (is it true?) that all fiat currencies have returned to their intrinsic value of 0 on long enough time scales.

To say that all fiat currencies have returned to their intrinsic value of 0 on long enough time distance is equal to saying that all states have to die sooner or later. Historically, this is a well-grounded stance (even without making provisions for fiat currencies), but you should be very careful about the cause and effect relationship and the sequence of events...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: Adrian-x on November 26, 2013, 08:36:04 PM
You do know the Bible condones slavery as necessary form of rehabilitation of those who were not wise.

No but that is great, for me and nice to know God has a place for those "not wise" dogmatic Keynesians ::)


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 08:38:52 PM
AnonyMint is the first person I have seen get ignored for posting annoyingly strong arguments in an arrogant manner. Lots of people have thin skins.

Personally I make an effort to seek out his posts.

They are not actually that strong, but this is just my opinion and your choice indeed. Also he is known for deleting posts (his own and the replies to them) where he had been proven flat-out wrong. I guess that's why he has a high ignore score...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 08:43:28 PM
Nope. It just means they still have confidence in the system, plain and simple. If they didn't, it would mean the money completely lost its exchange value, i.e. ceased to be money, so no more sense to work. Direct inference from your assertion ("intrinsic value of fiat relies on society maintaining confidence in its government and financial system")...

and we are not there yet?

Unemployment figures tell us that we haven't yet even started... Actually, we were talking about Weimar Germany and its hyperinflation of 1922-1923


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: Adrian-x on November 26, 2013, 08:55:37 PM
Nope. It just means they still have confidence in the system, plain and simple. If they didn't, it would mean the money completely lost its exchange value, i.e. ceased to be money, so no more sense to work. Direct inference from your assertion ("intrinsic value of fiat relies on society maintaining confidence in its government and financial system")...

and we are not there yet?

Unemployment figures tell us that we haven't yet even started...

Speak for yourself, when you no longer qualify as unemployed they don't count you anymore.

Anyway, just been skimming these posts and realised I've been hanging out a lot in the speculation threads for so long I forgot it's not just about Bitcoin but ego. Anyway carry on as you were I'm sure no one is missing me.

Just a friendly observation though not directed at anyone, Bitcoin is working, despite all the reasons it shouldn't.
I think the high price really ups the ante when making an argument.

I'm sure if this quote below is true; Ill look more favorably on Christians, when I no longer feel enslaved. Thanks Bitcoin. 
You do know the Bible condones slavery as necessary form of rehabilitation of those who were not wise.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: CoinCube on November 26, 2013, 09:04:55 PM

They are not actually that strong, but this is just my opinion and your choice indeed. Also he is known for deleting posts (his own and the replies to them) where he had been proven flat-out wrong. I guess that's why he has a high ignore score...

Focus on the message rather then the messenger.
At the very least AnonyMints arguments are novel and interesting.
The possibility exists that (although most of us would hate to admit it) that he is correct.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 09:32:26 PM
Unemployment figures tell us that we haven't yet even started...

Speak for yourself, when you no longer qualify as unemployed they don't count you anymore.

You seem to be missing the whole thing we're talking about. It doesn't matter whether you qualify as unemployed or not, what matters here is your conscious reluctance or unwillingness to work since you are being paid with what you don't consider any longer as money. If so, you wouldn't give a damn if they counted you or not. That was the point we were discussing. Involuntary unemployment is beyond the scope of this discussion...

But if you personally think dollars have already become trash, I don't mind you sending them all to me!


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 26, 2013, 09:35:03 PM
They are not actually that strong, but this is just my opinion and your choice indeed. Also he is known for deleting posts (his own and the replies to them) where he had been proven flat-out wrong. I guess that's why he has a high ignore score...

Focus on the message rather then the messenger.
At the very least AnonyMints arguments are novel and interesting.
The possibility exists that (although most of us would hate to admit it) that he is correct.

I don't think you would love your messages being deleted...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 02:10:42 AM
They are not actually that strong, but this is just my opinion and your choice indeed. Also he is known for deleting posts (his own and the replies to them) where he had been proven flat-out wrong. I guess that's why he has a high ignore score...

Focus on the message rather then the messenger.
At the very least AnonyMints arguments are novel and interesting.
The possibility exists that (although most of us would hate to admit it) that he is correct.

I don't think you would love your messages being deleted...

I only deleted one message in this thread accidentally from someone who in the prior post had said he was taunting me. Thus I thought his one sentence quip was off-topic. After I clicked, I realized he had a valid point and so I wrote a post acknowledging his point, which he confirmed in another post.

I deleted many messages in the ponzi thread, for the valid reason I stated in the last post of the thread, which provides a link to the alternative thread of the same title, where all can repost their deleted messages (deleted messages are sent to your PM inbox so easy to copy+paste).

I blast my mouth because I am extremely (99+%) confident about my insight. I am slightly less confident about my ability to implement my insights, yet on the order of 80% confidence.

I'm sure if this quote below is true; Ill look more favorably on Christians, when I no longer feel enslaved. Thanks Bitcoin.  
You do know the Bible condones slavery as necessary form of rehabilitation of those who were not wise.

My point is the people clicking ignore on me are going to eat humble pie.

And I mean that literally, as this is not going to some symbolic victory, but a tangible one I will hold in my hands.

I consider it the most noble thing to do is to tell everyone roughly how I am going to defeat and give them every opportunity to benefit, and watch them do exactly the opposite because their ego is bigger than mine and blinds them.

I eat ignores as motivation. Please give me the ignore championship. I am going to work even harder to win.

It is not easy to see yourself, but your ignore button has reached its maximum color :(

AnonyMint is the first person I have seen get ignored for posting annoyingly strong arguments in an arrogant manner. Lots of people have thin skins.

Personally I make an effort to seek out his posts.

I post arrogantly because I am so sick of the disrespect such as when I was trying to be unemotional in the Problem with Altcoins thread and received this comment from Rassah:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279650.msg3525396#msg3525396

Quote from: Rassah
My apologies, I did not realize that you were a crazy person. Cary on.

I realized what some of those who are silent think about me. So I figured if they are going to think that about me, might as well tell them what I think about them = Bitard.

My arrogance is not directed at CoinCube, nor anyone else who is reasonable.

People who know me, know me as a jovial and caring person, almost to the point of seeming to be female.

But I have a competitive fire like Michael Jordan. If you incite my fire, I won't sleep until I win.

Congrats you have turned on my fire. Thank you. It is the best gift I could receive from this forum.

What you are reading as arrogance, is my testosterone climbing through the roof. I literally had to go to the basketball court and play at 2pm in 35C and 90% humidity to calm myself down.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 02:38:24 AM
AnonyMint is the first person I have seen get ignored for posting annoyingly strong arguments in an arrogant manner. Lots of people have thin skins.

Personally I make an effort to seek out his posts.

They are not actually that strong, but this is just my opinion and your choice indeed. Also he is known for deleting posts (his own and the replies to them) where he had been proven flat-out wrong. I guess that's why he has a high ignore score...

I deleted my own posts either because they were not on topic, or more importantly I've deleted them because they contained evidence and technical clues of what I am working on!  ;)


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: Cryddit on November 27, 2013, 02:39:07 AM
If you want efficient distribution of money in an altcoin, do the following:

1.  Use a mining algorithm that doesn't reward specialized equipment, because that makes mining a specialized business that only rich people will do.  

2.  Abandon the idea of a fixed finite amount of eventual coin.  Instead, increase mining rewards by 5% every year.  In the very long run, you can build a very healthy economy with 5% inflation.  Value will fluctuate wildly in the adoption phase, but eventually you get 5% inflation.

3.  Fix it so mining rewards are not so concentrated.  Every block should reward hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people with small awards.  Not by making "pools" but directly.  Make mining reward "near misses."

4.  5% inflation, when finally achieved, progressively devalues any money that is just hoarded.  That includes the highly disproportionate rewards held by the very early adopters.  There's a motive to spend it, possibly to capitalize new businesses.


Now, if you do this, you will *still* get a wealthy elite.  But it'll be a wealthy elite who have to get that way by managing their money and investing wisely, rather than just buying in early.





Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 02:51:35 AM
The idea of bitcoin distribution is not to hand them out as broadly as possible. It is a system to reward people who run their computers to help secure and operate the network. It is not a free lunch program. Miners do work and are paid for it.

1. Distribution of coin rewards is halving every 4 years, thus diminishing towards 0. Half of all coins went to adopters in first 4 years.

2. ASICs means PC owners can't leverage their existing assets. Thus not a widely distribution coin.

3. PC mining need not be a free lunch, could also secure the network.

1. True. Those who act first are more greatly rewarded. Welcome to economics.
In the future fees will replace block rewards. They will also go to those who work hardest and smartest.

"Welcome to economics" is 0 information content comment. Many things are economics, including perpetual coin rewards, which have all the advantages and none of the disadvantages. I have covered this extensively in my posts over the past weeks, and I am not going to re-summarize. It is up to you if you want to research them or not. Transaction fees are failure due to Transaction Withholding Attack, Spiraling Transactions Fees, and because the coin isn't distributed to the 97% for spending and the 3% power-law hoarders aren't continually debased (as it must be for a society to not hit gridlock).

2. True. They must buy ASICs. Just as the last generation of miners needed to buy GPU's and before that, powerful CPUs. Miners must spend money on equipment and electricity. You can't pan for gold anymore either, now you must invest in expensive equipment.

And it doesn't have to be that way. Soon they will only need to buy DRAM, if they don't already have enough. A powerful CPU will help, but not having one won't prevent one from mining something.

DRAM is for sale every where, unlike ASICs which are difficult to obtain. I can't buy an ASIC at my local electronics or computer store.

The high DRAM requirement is necessary to eliminate the threat of Botnets. It also means that any zombie bots will freeze up for their user or the proof-of-work output of the bot will be so incredibly low so as to render the few such bots the botnet has (percentage wise) to be insignificant to the network hashrate.

You may have noticed I purposely ignored a post upthread about (Sparc and) Tilera CPUs.

3. PC mining was fine for protecting a market cap in the millions, but it is far to weak for the billions we are at now. This scaling acts against the profitability of a 51% attack.

It is not the hashrate that indicates the security, but rather the cost of attaining 50+% (51% is technically incorrect) of the hashrate. Much more plausible for a deep pocketed entity person to corner the market on ASICs than to corner the market on PCs.

Bitcoin is market driven. It rewards hard work, capital investment and greed, but nothing else.

P.S. I'm glad you are a contrarian. We need more than one uni-brain here.  ;)

And competition against Bitcoin. Which I think will be increasing.

And the above is not the only "ace up the sleeve" secret that is lurking and coming against Bitcoin.

All who want to work on such an altcoin and be paid well for doing so will get that chance. This will not remain closed-source for long.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 03:10:02 AM
If you want efficient distribution of money in an altcoin, do the following:

1.  Use a mining algorithm that doesn't reward specialized equipment, because that makes mining a specialized business that only rich people will do.  

2.  Abandon the idea of a fixed finite amount of eventual coin.  Instead, increase mining rewards by 5% every year.  In the very long run, you can build a very healthy economy with 5% inflation.  Value will fluctuate wildly in the adoption phase, but eventually you get 5% inflation.

3.  Fix it so mining rewards are not so concentrated.  Every block should reward hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people with small awards.  Not by making "pools" but directly.  Make mining reward "near misses."

4.  5% inflation, when finally achieved, progressively devalues any money that is just hoarded.  That includes the highly disproportionate rewards held by the very early adopters.  There's a motive to spend it, possibly to capitalize new businesses.


Now, if you do this, you will *still* get a wealthy elite.  But it'll be a wealthy elite who have to get that way by managing their money and investing wisely, rather than just buying in early.

Why are you telling them our altcoin design? :) You agreed to keep it secret until release, or did you forget! <- joke


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 03:19:16 AM
Wherever they ran, they paid and were paid with money. They didn't quit their jobs, so we have to admit they didn't lose confidence, right?

They may have no other job offer.

Nope. It just means they still have confidence in the system (at least some of them), plain and simple. If they didn't, it would mean the money completely had lost its exchange value, i.e. ceased to be money, so no more sense to work. Direct inference from your assertion ("intrinsic value of fiat relies on society maintaining confidence in its government and financial system")...

You assume a world of 0 friction where change happens instantly. If change happened instantly there would be no change, the end game would already be the present and the past. Friction (inertia) and (the existence of) time are inseparable. Without friction there would be no past, present, or future. These are the sort of deep insights on my blog:

http://unheresy.com/


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 03:39:26 AM
Eat humble pie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value

"This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed"

There were many economic theories throughout history of human thought. The prevailing theory and most researched one in economics nowadays is the subjective theory of value where the notion of "intrinsic value" has no meaning...

Economists are like antithesis-of-assholes, everyone thinks they have one.

The concept of subjective value is dubious or incomplete, because economists can't even holistically incorporate marginal, market price in a universal model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics))

In short, trust those who do, not those who pontificate. So finance wins over (inconsistent) theory.

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_Anneals

Quote
Knowledge Anneals

Unsophisticated thinkers have an incorrect understanding of knowledge creation, idolizing a well-structured top-down sparkling academic cathedral of vastly superior theoretical minds. Rather knowledge primary spawns from accretive learning (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4817&cpage=1#comment-395262) due to unexpected random chaotic fitness created from multitudes of random path dependencies that can only exist in the bottom-up free market. Top-down systems are inherently fragile because they overcommit to egregious error (http://longplayer.org/what/whatelse/letters.php) (link to Taleb's simplest summary of the math).


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: Impaler on November 27, 2013, 03:59:30 AM
Provide a convincing cover story. You know that story about a fixed supply of 21 million coins? That fearful creator who disappeared? The highly convoluted decentralised and trust-free structure, the Bitcoin Rube Goldberg machine, because centralisation is evil? It's a stroke of genius from a marketing point of view (assuming it wasn't all a hilarious cosmic accident).
Whatever alternative you promote, like:
--demurrage or perpetual inflation
--some element of centrally planned spending that covers more than just network maintenance.
--smarter inflation that dis-empowers speculators,
or some balanced combination, you'll probably find that at best you'll get a lukewarm reception (think: polite clapping) from a small number of pragmatic, reasonable people who stumble upon your idea. But you won't gain traction unless you rally some religious fervour to give your cause a kick-start and also give it protective padding against growth pains. You really need to figure this out.

At Freicoin we hope to stir up some righteous fervor over Usury, it is after all the one sin condemned by Moses, Jesus, Mohammad and Buddha.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: Rassah on November 27, 2013, 05:20:04 AM
All fiat started out being extremely centralized, first going to the central bankers, and then to private bankers, before finally getting down to the users. How was USD initially distributed and dispersed? Maybe you can follow that model.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 05:29:01 AM
There was a hypothetical question in my PM which is basically am I going to put all my effort in one altcoin. And my answer is I would support and help any coin that I feel has promise in stopping the bad outcomes I fear. I might even use gains I achieved by investing in one coin to fund development on and invest in other coin. Any one who produces good stuff, I am in. I am trying to incite more quality competition. Systems that have a single point of failure are not resilient, e.g. one crypto-currency for the world.

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_Anneals

Quote
Top-down systems are inherently fragile because they overcommit to egregious error (http://longplayer.org/what/whatelse/letters.php) (link to Taleb's simplest summary of the math).


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 05:46:00 AM
Competition and greed are not the problem, rather it is the power vacuum that enables centralizing power. The government bureaucrat doesn't know how to compete in a granular market.

Governments, cartels, and monopolies exist because there is a power vacuum that can't be dominated by more granular competition. (Will write another time about why granular yields better fitness and less waste)

Those vested interests will always squash or co-opt any decentralization (movement or technology) which threatens to make granular competition dominant.

Perhaps, but in focusing on granular competition, aren't you forgetting the pecking order that they're also fighting over? If the US+UK don't want Bitcoin interfering with their banking system, then what about Russia, China, or other major players like the EU/Germany or Japan? Out of some kind of fear that the other will start to dominate, they sometimes seem to compete over who can incubate and nurture new technology the fastest.

As the dominant player, the US seems to face problems on 2 fronts: attack the Bitcoin up-start in any manner that is too obvious, and it also puts their "law and order" ponzi under pressure.

The idea of competition between nations is amusing to me, since all are dependent on the dollar. The tail doesn't wag the dog.

Fiat is centralizing, and the top dog wags the puppies. Until China leaves fiat (which ain't gonna happen by choice of the controllers of China), the overall game hasn't changed just moving some pieces around the board.

China's (and East Asia in general) controllers want to run their economies as top-down, productive businesses (seeks to increase the productivity of the people), whereas the West is run as a non-productive, rent seeking collective (discourages the productivity of the people). I postulate that this at least partially derives from the innate (http://blog.jim.com/politics/why-east-asians-vote-democrat.html) submissive/cooperative (at least on the face of it) culture of the Asian. Or for at least as long as they are export economies with trade surpluses and small government share of GDP, instead of consuming economies with trade deficits and government with majority share of GDP.

They will free up the Yuan FX rate, because they have no other pathway towards future business growth, since they exhausted the state-owned enterprises model of top-down export and fixed capital investment growth at the suppression of the consumer (home) share of the GDP, e.g. suppressing imports and international purchasing power of the Yuan. I believe they calculate that they can ramp up the consumer sector while stagnating the aforementioned sector by 2020 (as stated in recent news) so as to avoid implosion. I think they will partially fail to contain a slump due to global contagion coming which will severely impact their export sector, and the high level of NPL debt that has to be absorbed. China will come out of that severe slump as a fledgling consumer giant.

But they are not giving up central bank control.

Consider relative size.

Crypto-currencies are a small fast moving thing that could disrupt their slow moving thing. The taipans can't play in our tiny market and we can't play in the huge slower growth one (of centralized control).


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 06:41:20 AM
All fiat started out being extremely centralized, first going to the central bankers, and then to private bankers, before finally getting down to the users. How was USD initially distributed and dispersed? Maybe you can follow that model.

Actually wasn't it more like the masses held some barter commodities and they traded these for more efficient (i.e. fungible, divisible) forms of medium-of-exchange, which ended up being fractionally debased (e.g. shaving coins) by intermediaries or fractional reserves by private banks, which ended up in failures, which caused larger protection (against failure, ahem) rackets to form, which is what we today call government and central banks.

That is why I wrote upthread that the fundamental issue is the power vacuum that society needs debased money (to continually flow from the usury hoarders back to the producers). Either the government provides this, or we decentralize the mechanism. In the former case, the government will slowly turn the people into 1984 zombies as I believe it is the top-down outcome. Thus not resilient and towards failure of the human race, e.g. Ted Turner's Georgia Guidestones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones#Inscriptions) goal.

P.S. I often hear the story of natives trading their land for a mirror to a European colonist or mestizo offspring. In my opinion, analogously (expected gains from) Bitcoin is the mirror and our collective freedom is the land.

Ted Turner what a hypocrite. He has I think 5 kids, yet he thinks from now on we should only be allowed 1 or 2. He thinks Buffalo are more important than the diversity of human knowledge, which can only grow exponentially by growing the population exponentially (http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy). Like most elite, he is socially and macro-economically insane, although rational on business profit. He got warped by his money or something and fell in love with the Buffalo or something. And now thinks he is smarter than nature and wants to enforce his warped priorities on the entire freaking world.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 07:50:58 AM
Consider relative size.

Crypto-currencies are a small fast moving thing that could disrupt their slow moving thing. The taipans can't play in our tiny market and we can't play in the huge slower growth one (of centralized control).

Expounded in our microcosm:

Since one can't predict which copy wins out in the end large holders must continuously diversify into new coins.  This is OT and obviously implies greater bitcoin growth for this to even become an issue.

Shows absolutely no understanding of large holders.

Large holders can't diversify. If they put a few % in an altcoin, they can't on a risk-weighted basis catch up to their 9x% even if it grows slower. If they diversify too much percent, they are not being risk-adverse.

Big capital is always blind to smaller opportunities (what I figuratively referred to as "dumb"), because it has to be. This is why won't see Richard Branson investing seriously in Bitcoin.

That is why large hoarders must be diluted by perpetual debasement. Otherwise they would enslave humanity in their vested interest. Society fights back, which is why government is compelled to redistribute. But government is captured by the elite (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984). What a racket! All because we don't have a technology to dilute decentralized.

But we do! We just are not using it!

Note 5% per year is a very small tax to a fast growing smaller enterprise, yet it is naturally limiting the size of large holdings, because very large capital can do nearly nothing but lend at prevailing usury rates.

P.S. If you become rich, forget about growing your wealth (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-24&version=NIV). Invest (risk) it on venture capitalism. You will always have enough to eat (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A25-34). In fact, you will probably become as wealthy as King Solomon both materially, in compassion, and in wisdom. I wish this on you.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: DoomDumas on November 27, 2013, 08:21:10 AM
BTC are less concentrated than fiat !

Do you research instead of being jealous and crying !


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 08:30:52 AM
BTC are less concentrated than fiat !

Do you research instead of being jealous and crying !

Mathematically myopic mistake.

BTC are not distributed to even 1 / 1000 of all those who have fiat.

Why do butt hurt Bitards always assume I am jealous or crying? When I am getting ready to kick your ass, it doesn't mean I am jealous or weak, it means I see low hanging fruit.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: rpietila on November 27, 2013, 08:34:40 AM
BTC are less concentrated than fiat !

Do you research instead of being jealous and crying !

Mathematically myopic mistake.

BTC are not distributed to even 1 / 1000 of all those who have fiat.

Why do butt hurt Bitards always assume I am crying?


Hmm... how many % are actually short fiat (mortgages, credit cards)?

It may be that 100% of fiat is concentrated to 0.1% of people, if we really dig deeper into numbers.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 08:38:33 AM
BTC are less concentrated than fiat !

Do you research instead of being jealous and crying !

Mathematically myopic mistake.

BTC are not distributed to even 1 / 1000 of all those who have fiat.

Why do butt hurt Bitards always assume I am crying?


Hmm... how many % are actually short fiat (mortgages, credit cards)?

It may be that 100% of fiat is concentrated to 0.1% of people, if we really dig deeper into numbers.

Clever and true. But it doesn't matter because per my prior post on this page, the government exists to make sure the masses are contented with the redistribution (whether they are 1984 zombies or not is another issue, which you also explained they get accustomed to).

Unfortunately are the occasional megadeaths that occur along the way with that paradigm.

Edit: Also Bitcoin has no intrinsic value either, so actually not as clever as I initially thought.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 27, 2013, 08:38:42 AM
I deleted my own posts either because they were not on topic, or more importantly I've deleted them because they contained evidence and technical clues of what I am working on!  ;)

I remember, yesterday you posted a message in reply to one of my posts regarding a Ponzi scheme where you stated some sheer nonsense about fractional reserve banking being a Ponzi (which was along the line of the discussion then). And just as I wanted to submit my reply and hit the Post button, your post suddenly disappeared!


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 08:44:24 AM
I deleted my own posts either because they were not on topic, or more importantly I've deleted them because they contained evidence and technical clues of what I am working on!  ;)

I remember, yesterday you posted a message in reply to one of my posts regarding a Ponzi scheme where you stated some sheer nonsense about fractional reserve banking being a Ponzi (which was along the line of the discussion then). And just as I wanted to submit my reply and hit the Post button, your post suddenly disappeared!

If I deleted something quickly, it might have meant I realized it was incorrect. I really don't remember writing what you claim.

When I delete my own posts, they don't go to my PM, so there is no way for me to check your claim. I would have been willing to explain what I was thinking and why I deleted if I could find the post you are referring to.

Do you remember any of what I allegedly wrote?


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 27, 2013, 08:46:13 AM
They may have no other job offer.

Nope. It just means they still have confidence in the system (at least some of them), plain and simple. If they didn't, it would mean the money completely had lost its exchange value, i.e. ceased to be money, so no more sense to work. Direct inference from your assertion ("intrinsic value of fiat relies on society maintaining confidence in its government and financial system")...

You assume a world of 0 friction where change happens instantly. If change happened instantly there would be no change, the end game would already be the present and the past. Friction (inertia) and time are inseparable. These are the sort of deep insights on my blog:

And now you say there is some inertia in the system. Before that, you said they might not have had another job offer... What will your next dodge be?


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 08:49:56 AM
They may have no other job offer.

Nope. It just means they still have confidence in the system (at least some of them), plain and simple. If they didn't, it would mean the money completely had lost its exchange value, i.e. ceased to be money, so no more sense to work. Direct inference from your assertion ("intrinsic value of fiat relies on society maintaining confidence in its government and financial system")...

You assume a world of 0 friction where change happens instantly. If change happened instantly there would be no change, the end game would already be the present and the past. Friction (inertia) and time are inseparable. These are the sort of deep insights on my blog:

And now you say there is some inertia in the system. Before that, you said they might not have had another job offer... What will your next dodge be?

I hope you will realize that is not a logical retort.

When I present an argument, it doesn't mean I have to write every implied fact which you don't realize. I can't read your mind as to what misassumptions the reader has.

If you are asserting that inertia in the system and they did not leave because they did not have another job offer are mutually exclusive, then that is illogical.

It is fairly simple to understand. Hyperinflation doesn't go to infinity

1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000..................

in the blink of an eye. Real humans have to deal with real limitations on how fast they can transact to dump money they don't trust.

Losing trust in the system doesn't mean everyone can instantly find a way to survive outside the system.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 27, 2013, 08:51:28 AM
I remember, yesterday you posted a message in reply to one of my posts regarding a Ponzi scheme where you stated some sheer nonsense about fractional reserve banking being a Ponzi (which was along the line of the discussion then). And just as I wanted to submit my reply and hit the Post button, your post suddenly disappeared!

If I deleted something quickly, it might have meant I realized it was incorrect. I really don't remember writing what you claim.

When I delete my own posts, they don't go to my PM, so there is no way for me to check your claim. I would have been willing to explain what I was thinking and why I deleted if I could find the post you are referring to.

So now you come up with memory lapses... Splendid!


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 08:54:31 AM
I remember, yesterday you posted a message in reply to one of my posts regarding a Ponzi scheme where you stated some sheer nonsense about fractional reserve banking being a Ponzi (which was along the line of the discussion then). And just as I wanted to submit my reply and hit the Post button, your post suddenly disappeared!

If I deleted something quickly, it might have meant I realized it was incorrect. I really don't remember writing what you claim.

When I delete my own posts, they don't go to my PM, so there is no way for me to check your claim. I would have been willing to explain what I was thinking and why I deleted if I could find the post you are referring to.

So now you come up with memory lapses... Splendid!

And you? You remember what you claim was written obviously since you are accusing me?


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 27, 2013, 09:06:10 AM
So now you come up with memory lapses... Splendid!

Any you? You remember what you claim was written obviously since you are accusing me?

What me? You wrote a post answering me and someone else, you quoted this sentence "Whereas in a Ponzi scheme no real component in the underlying "asset" is present..." from my previous post, saying in reply that "fractional reserve banking is also a Ponzi scheme because banks create credit out of nothing and if there is a bank-run the system would crash"...

It seems that I remember what you wrote better than you yourself do!


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 09:38:17 AM
So now you come up with memory lapses... Splendid!

Any you? You remember what you claim was written obviously since you are accusing me?

What me? You wrote a post answering me and someone else, you quoted this sentence "Whereas in a Ponzi scheme no real component in the underlying "asset" is present..." from my previous post, saying in reply that "fractional reserve banking is also a Ponzi scheme because banks create credit out of nothing and if there is a bank-run the system would crash"...

It seems that I remember what you wrote better than you yourself do!

Sorry I did not write that. The only point I wrote in this thread was fiat is ponzi because it is based on the people's confidence (consent) to be governed.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 09:38:58 AM
"Talk is cheap, show me the code"-- Linus Torvalds.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 27, 2013, 09:47:33 AM
Sorry I did not write that. The only point I wrote in this thread was fiat is ponzi because it is based on the people's confidence (consent) to be governed.

Ok then, what about the inference from your own logic showing that fiat can't be ponzi which I wrote in one of my posts that you successfully ignored?


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: User705 on November 27, 2013, 10:42:58 AM
To distribute money more efficiently all you need to do is ensure that 'mining' (the process itself, not its results) has a net positive effect (involves expenditure on renewable goods and services) instead of a net negative one (energy waste). It's simple as that.

(quoting myself here...)

OK it's not quite as simple as that, because you have to factor in time horizons and the early adoption phase, in which coin production costs are marginal (thus not allowing for efficient distribution). With BTC the design was such that a great deal of coins were produced during the early phase for a very low cost (the first 1,000,000 BTC were mined for a cost of what it would take to mine less than 1 BTC today, roughly speaking).

More efficient distribution would thus require (aside from finding a way to make mining a net positive process) a shorter early adoption phase in which production costs are trivial, so that we could arrive at the point where mining produces tangible positive effects more quickly. However, the early adoption phase should still last long enough and be lucrative enough for the coin to gain popularity.  

Efficiency in the context of this thread is the rate (relative to the maximum possible rate) of adoption of the currency as a currency and not as an investment asset. Very few people in normal times (before sovereign debt crisis safe haven demand) considered holding dollars long-term (in your mattress, i.e paying no interest) as an investment. A hallmark feature of a currency is you rarely concern yourself with its exchange value.

I am asserting that the challenge is to design an upstart crypto-currency which has enough near-term investment appeal to drive excitement and investment adoption, while simultaneously driving synergistic adoption for spending which eventually subsumes the investment gains.

Some here are challenging my assertion.
So you want both a currency that has the hallmark feature of not being concerned with exchange rate and a currency that has investment appeal?  Are you sure you aren't mixing up currency as a unit of exchange and wealth/savings/investments as saved capital surplus?


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 02:05:56 PM
To distribute money more efficiently all you need to do is ensure that 'mining' (the process itself, not its results) has a net positive effect (involves expenditure on renewable goods and services) instead of a net negative one (energy waste). It's simple as that.

(quoting myself here...)

OK it's not quite as simple as that, because you have to factor in time horizons and the early adoption phase, in which coin production costs are marginal (thus not allowing for efficient distribution). With BTC the design was such that a great deal of coins were produced during the early phase for a very low cost (the first 1,000,000 BTC were mined for a cost of what it would take to mine less than 1 BTC today, roughly speaking).

More efficient distribution would thus require (aside from finding a way to make mining a net positive process) a shorter early adoption phase in which production costs are trivial, so that we could arrive at the point where mining produces tangible positive effects more quickly. However, the early adoption phase should still last long enough and be lucrative enough for the coin to gain popularity.  

Efficiency in the context of this thread is the rate (relative to the maximum possible rate) of adoption of the currency as a currency and not as an investment asset. Very few people in normal times (before sovereign debt crisis safe haven demand) considered holding dollars long-term (in your mattress, i.e paying no interest) as an investment. A hallmark feature of a currency is you rarely concern yourself with its exchange value.

I am asserting that the challenge is to design an upstart crypto-currency which has enough near-term investment appeal to drive excitement and investment adoption, while simultaneously driving synergistic adoption for spending which eventually subsumes the investment gains.

Some here are challenging my assertion.
So you want both a currency that has the hallmark feature of not being concerned with exchange rate (B) and a currency that has investment appeal (A)?  Are you sure you aren't mixing up currency as a unit of exchange and wealth/savings/investments as saved capital surplus?

Realize that A comes before B. B is the goal, where at which time A cashes out without ponzi crash, because B supplies demand. This is accomplished by raising transactions to a very high level early with PC mining.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 27, 2013, 02:13:18 PM
And it doesn't have to be that way. Soon they will only need to buy DRAM, if they don't already have enough. A powerful CPU will help, but not having one won't prevent one from mining something.

DRAM is for sale every where, unlike ASICs which are difficult to obtain. I can't buy an ASIC at my local electronics or computer store.

The high DRAM requirement is necessary to eliminate the threat of Botnets. It also means that any zombie bots will freeze up for their user or the proof-of-work output of the bot will be so incredibly low so as to render the few such bots the botnet has (percentage wise) to be insignificant to the network hashrate.

You may have noticed I purposely ignored a post upthread about (Sparc and) Tilera CPUs.

Counterarguments:

Premature optimization.
Musical chairs.

A simple, unoptimised hashing algorithm gave Bitcoin's early developers an opportunity to compete for additional rewards based on merit, neutralising the possibility of early "dumb money" that thought a supercomputer could net them all the bitcoins. Admittedly, a state of the art algorithm that is tuned for generic PCs could still present various clever opportunities, but part of the original game-plan was clearly an insurance plan against big money trying to buy their way in (too soon, that is).

Big money is going to be debased every year.

Medium-to-long-term if the debasement rate isn't high enough, someone will create a clone with a higher rate of debasement. Consumers will move to the coin that has the most stable value, so the hoarders are not going to be able to win strategically. The only gain is for early adopters as it ramps up to a currency.

Think bimetallic standard of gold and silver. Arbitrage can stabilize their relative values. Well this didn't work out because fiat (fractional reserves of gold receipts) is the measuring stick and then the supply/price can be manipulated, partially because there isn't the threat of a 3rd and 4th option (Russia cornered Pd and Pt).

The free market is taking over money now. Technology can eliminate the power vacuum. I hope.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: User705 on November 27, 2013, 06:46:33 PM
...
So you want both a currency that has the hallmark feature of not being concerned with exchange rate (B) and a currency that has investment appeal (A)?  Are you sure you aren't mixing up currency as a unit of exchange and wealth/savings/investments as saved capital surplus?

Realize that A comes before B. B is the goal, where at which time A cashes out without ponzi crash, because B supplies demand. This is accomplished by raising transactions to a very high level early with PC mining.
You can't have high level of transactions at an early stage because it's an early stage.  So you've arrived back at bitcoin.  Currently it is in stage A.  Possibly it will get to stage B.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 28, 2013, 01:40:24 AM
Transaction fees appear to be the major Achilles heal of Bitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=336816.msg3745161#msg3745161).


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 28, 2013, 01:59:21 AM
...
So you want both a currency that has the hallmark feature of not being concerned with exchange rate (B) and a currency that has investment appeal (A)?  Are you sure you aren't mixing up currency as a unit of exchange and wealth/savings/investments as saved capital surplus?

Realize that A comes before B. B is the goal, where at which time A cashes out without ponzi crash, because B supplies demand. This is accomplished by raising transactions to a very high level early with PC mining.
You can't have high level of transactions at an early stage because it's an early stage.  So you've arrived back at bitcoin.  Currently it is in stage A.  Possibly it will get to stage B.

The early adopters are always being diluted by coin rewards which are going to PC mining, which is thus deconcentrating (dispersing in smaller morsels) the coin and developing a spending demand. Imagine two curves and at some point they cross, the hoarders on the way down and the spenders on the way up. Gradually the speculative gain function declines relative to the spending function.

The 3% power-law distributed most wealthy (http://physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/papers/PhysicaA-299-213-2001.pdf), do not hold their net worth in currency. They hold many forms of assets.

Bitcoin can't do this, because there isn't any trend to spending which doesn't bankrupt the middle class (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=342848.msg3720476#msg3720476). Thus the only way for Bitcoiners to exit is via "rake" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=323988.msg3732994#msg3732994), i.e. not spending (nor investing as BTC) rather converting back to fiat.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 28, 2013, 03:03:57 AM
Try reading the links I provided, as it is explained there why your logic is incorrect. In short, the masses don't have BTC yet, they have fiat, so the relative value does impact their net worth.

You could make an argument that most people are in debt or are subsistence laborers, thus they have no net worth any way. So all they care about is receiving BTC in payment for their ongoing labor.

However, it is the middle class which still has net worth that makes that decision because only they can buy and obtain Bitcoin (unless the rich hoarders spend all on labor, but that again is chicken and egg problem because the laborers can't accept BTC because they can't spend it).


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on November 29, 2013, 11:16:48 AM
grab a graph of gold mining costs for the last 150 years. then overlay gold prices. do you see a pattern. now thats been said i think you can guess the next task i ask you to do.

go grab a graph of mining costs/difficulty/electric costs and over lay the bitcoin price. see the pattern.

Oooh that is good. Thank you very much.

Now note how Bitcoin kills itself on funding mining (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=349869.msg3754745#msg3754745).

You've just elevated my confidence substantially. Thank you. This is the most important post I've read in while.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: CoinCube on November 30, 2013, 09:19:21 PM
AnonyMint I agree with your fundamental critique of finance and its consequences. What you have yet to prove in my opinion is the need of anonymity in such a currency. Should you succeed in your goals of creating a truly anonymous distributed currency that was debased over time and used world wide you would see the following benefits/consequences.

Consequences:
Starvation/shrinkage of government: Tax revenues will decline resulting in collapse of most government services
Loss of governmental ability to redistribute wealth
Government assault: Government would combat any such currency probably by trying to outlaw it and by supporting a non anonymous alternative
Increase in illegal activity: The ability to receive and spend funds over the net with complete anonymity will open the door to a wave of new and difficult to stop criminal activity.

Benefits:
Government can not tax people -> Less collectivism -> Higher degrees of freedom in the economy and thus more productivity

Given the tremendous consequences of an anonymous coin in terms of social instability/crime/government collapse why is your solution better then the status quo?

It seems to me that over time we are on a track to achieve your knowledge economy without an anonymous coin. True there will be repeated cycles of finance induced booms and busts over time but as the knowledge component of the economy grows these should get smaller and less relevant with time.

Essentially I am asking you to defend your thesis that Keynesian redistribution (partially controlled by vested interests) is worse then redistribution by anonymous coin algorithm.  

 


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on November 30, 2013, 09:52:09 PM
In a capitalist economy, technological improvement and its consequent increased production augment the amount of material wealth (use value) in society, whilst simultaneously diminishing the economic value of the same wealth, thereby diminishing the rate of profit. - Das Kapital

The gold standard was reigning when this text was written, with a hard currency system backed up by gold in which expansion of production had self-limiting effect through currency appreciation. The emboldened text is not valid for a properly organized fiat currency system in which producers profits are no longer diminishing with technological improvements and innovations...


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: rpietila on November 30, 2013, 10:13:22 PM
The thread has truly deteriorated to be a socialists' lair. I had high hopes for this altcoin in the beginning, but now it seems so obvious that it is going nowhere.. Is there any way to unsubscribe the thread?  :(


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: CoinCube on November 30, 2013, 10:18:50 PM
The thread has truly deteriorated to be a socialists' lair. I had high hopes for this altcoin in the beginning, but now it seems so obvious that it is going nowhere.. Is there any way to unsubscribe the thread?  :(

I am confused as to why you think AnonyMint's proposed ideas are socialist. If anything they are the antithesis of socialism.

I quoted Marx only to drive home the point that you can start from a valid critique of the current economic system and then end up in
a solution that is far worse then the disease. I see that point did not come across the way I intended it to.

Edit: I removed the Marx quote as it was tangential to the overall post and obviously not transmitting the idea I was trying to convey.



Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: rpietila on November 30, 2013, 10:29:44 PM
I am confused as to why you think AnonyMint's proposed ideas are socialist. If anything they are the antithesis of socialism.

I quoted Marx only to drive home the point that you can start from a valid critique of the current economic system and then end up in
a solution that is far worse then the disease. I see that point did not come across the way I intended it to.

AnonyMint invents problems for Bitcoin that just are not there. The more I have considered the distribution model, the more ingenious it feels. In the beginning I supported a "more equitable" altcoin but then realized that it just cannot be done any other way (or let's say all the proposed alternatives are inferior: the further from Bitcoin, the more inferior). So now I think that:

- Bitcoin is doing just fine
- The alt would not fly anyway.

He has the exact opposite opinion, which I think is unfounded in truth, and that he is actually "butthurt" to have missed the 100x of 2013.

Most people here know even less about economics than me, so quoting marx may be a good idea since they don't understand it at all.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: CoinCube on November 30, 2013, 10:38:38 PM
I am confused as to why you think AnonyMint's proposed ideas are socialist. If anything they are the antithesis of socialism.

I quoted Marx only to drive home the point that you can start from a valid critique of the current economic system and then end up in
a solution that is far worse then the disease. I see that point did not come across the way I intended it to.

AnonyMint invents problems for Bitcoin that just are not there. The more I have considered the distribution model, the more ingenious it feels. In the beginning I supported a "more equitable" altcoin but then realized that it just cannot be done any other way (or let's say all the proposed alternatives are inferior: the further from Bitcoin, the more inferior). So now I think that:

- Bitcoin is doing just fine
- The alt would not fly anyway.

He has the exact opposite opinion, which I think is unfounded in truth, and that he is actually "butthurt" to have missed the 100x of 2013.

Most people here know even less about economics than me, so quoting marx may be a good idea since they don't understand it at all.

I highly recommend reading the following three links

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html
http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Understand%20Everything%20Fundamentally.html
http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html

Whatever you think about AnonyMint's chance of succeeding with his coin there is no denying that he has some insight that is worth seriously considering.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: rpietila on November 30, 2013, 10:57:14 PM
Hey 7 years ago I already thought he's the coolest guy in the universe.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: CoinCube on November 30, 2013, 11:08:27 PM
Hey 7 years ago I already thought he's the coolest guy in the universe.

If you read the links above and find flaws let me know.
I am a very critical reader and yet I find myself sitting here going yep I pretty much agree with all of this.
That's almost unheard of for me so I read it all a second time and still nothing I could find fault with.

In my opinion anyone smart enough to come up with the above material may just be able to pull off a "bitcoin killer"
At the very least I think it would be unwise not to keep following this thread.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on December 01, 2013, 01:05:14 AM
The way a programmer feels when he has something so awesome for the world and wants to share the source code but realizes he can't (yet) is probably how a boxer feels the week before the fight. The itch to "get it on" is just unfathomable.

I very much admire Manny Pacquiao because he doesn't talk smack. He lets his fists do the talking. Unfortunately I had to stir the pot here in the forum to open a few minds, just a few, so that an altcoin can get its initial support and grows from there as the rest such as Risto will be late because their pre-frontal cortex has shutdown probably due to the greed. Risto is correct that the only fast way to grow adoption of a crypto-currency is via investment gains. And he judges everything by that one-sided, myopic criteria. I am correct about the inability of Bitcoin to transition to a currency (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=341594.msg3787693#msg3787693) and also its long-term technical vulnerability (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=352734.msg3787435#msg3787435). Thus the opportunity to defeat the fiat NWO outcome is very slim even with a perfect altcoin. Yet I am trying any way. We've got to try. Hopefully at least we can use that altcoin in a parallel economy even if the NWO outcome proceeds for the masses. Thus it has been designed to be able to operate in parallel.

Risto is entirely incorrect about socialism. He is conflating government redistribution with monetary necessity (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=352734.msg3787435#msg3787435) (also follow the sub-link (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=342007.msg3775043#msg3775043) in the linked post).

I think they forget (or didn't know) that I have already been the sole author on million user success commercial software. I was one of the first few authors on Corel Painter also but not the primary two authors, which was originally Fractal Design Painter in 1993 the world's first natural media paint software. I did that in between Word Up and Cool Page.

Nevertheless I hate vaporware.

We must hurry with an altcoin, as Bitcoin is being revealed now to be a Ponzi scheme by Ron Paul and Mises Institute (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=341594.msg3787693#msg3787693), so our opportunity to launch one that is not a Ponzi scheme will soon be destroyed, just as I predicted with the government take over of the role of digital money. The end for Bitcoin could come as soon as January 2014. Although I am still betting the greater fools won't hear the above, so maybe as late as end of 2015.

Hey 7 years ago I already thought he's the coolest guy in the universe.

Actually thank you for the sentiments and I knew that, as well appreciated the liquidity you brought me at that time and was happy to give you some suggestions at that time, but we diverged in our activities and goals. You may think this again. Let's pray Bitcoin doesn't crash to $500 before going higher so you don't reinvest that $1 million (1000+ BTC) back in Bitcoin's ponzi again. So you won't be too distraught when the bitter end for Bitcoin comes. I do note you are diversified, e.g. precious metals. But the precious metals are going lower before they make new all time highs (after 2015) the G20 is likely going to confiscate them. So don't count your eggs before they hatch.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: CoinCube on December 01, 2013, 03:13:43 AM
I am confused as to why you think AnonyMint's proposed ideas are socialist.

Doesn't the title of this thread and the first couple lines of the OP make this obvious?

Not really, the OP is asking about the possible distribution of a new or soon to be released cryptocurrency not redistributing peoples current bitcoins or dollars. OP's actual ideas are extremely anti collectivist/socialist.

Also you must admit that having a truly anonymous currency without any way to track you assets would make taxes very hard
to collect. Sure you would have to pay something to justify your lifestyle but you could probably get by with reporting a fraction
of your net worth ie the person making $800,000k a month could pretend he is only making $150,000k


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on December 01, 2013, 03:40:21 AM
I am in agreement with the progress of the dissection of the issues by Impaler and CoinCube. I will add my thoughts to hopefully attain a higher-level agreement.

Mint:  If your arguing that hard money will be rejected by the people and can only be forcefully imposed by government that is indeed a more nuanced position then I had originally though you had.  But I would still disagree.

I believe that individuals DO crave hard money, everyone knows that if they possess a harder form of money then everyone else they will be advantaged.  It's like the classic prisoners-dilemma where you win by betraying your partner, hard money is when everyone is betraying everyone.  This is why people (particularly 'libertarian' types who view other people only as means to their own ends) are attracted to things like BTC, their is a natural greedy response to acquire hard money like a 'sweet tooth' that makes us eat too much sugar, the systemic effects are terrible but most people do not think systemically so we end up stuck in a sub-optimal situation.  Basically I see a logical bottom-up explanation for how we got here so I don't attribute it to a top-down cabal, I always turn to the conspiratorial theories LAST.

Please consider that the truth is neither either or. There is a symbiosis of bottom-up and top-down which is operating in waves cascading effects from one to the other throughout history.

Indeed the people individually want the hard money advantage for themself, yet they hate the collective outcome and since they don't see that the source of the problem is their individual desires, they have only one possible way to cash in on their grievances-- government redistribution. So the bottom-up is driving the top-down, yet the top-down is also driving the bottom-up as I will explain below. There is no conspiracy theory, it is just the way it works systemically.

It is really a sad state-of-humanity at this point.

Their are certainly instances in history were central authority forces hard money onto the populous (usually by taking away soft-money) but we can see from the rabid BTC zealots that exist that the imposition of hard money will be meet with Cheers and Applause by large swaths of the masses.  Thus is it not JUST a problem of government, and particularly now that so much inertia is built up behind it.  Most people only know our current money system which is harder then it should be (BTC is hyper-hard by comparison).  Given the existence of gold as an easily mined, easily traded commodity it is very easy to see how it became money all over the world, no central authority is necessary to do that.  Most negative government action has been in the form of suppression of alternatives to hard money (or the softening of the money standard ) rather then to create the norm of hard money in the first place.

Very insightful how you've noticed that the top-down controllers would at times prefer the money to be harder not softer. And they do this not only by limiting the expansion of the money supply at times, but also by overexpanding it when they are concentrating into their own pockets as with the current QE.

There is no mathematical correlation of expansion of the money supply and inflation in the Quantity Theory of Money (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=222998.msg3615848#msg3615848). That recently popular notion appears to be propaganda fed to the hard-on money bugs in order to encourage them to destroy themselves and foster the hamster wheel for society.

...

It instead focused on Free-market which were never the problem, such markets are such an engine of wealth creation that people living under interest AND Free-markets ended up materially wealthier even with the vast 'sucking up' of their productivity to elites.  Meanwhile the political elite in a Centrally planned economies skim wealth in a much more obvious fashion and were soon seen to be parasitic with no benefits.  In the 'Capitalist' nations the Free-markets benefits are never distinguished from the parasitic interest system, so most people think of the Capitalist economy as one monolithic system and defend parasitic interest payments as a necessary part of free-markets, indeed if Hard-money is a hidden axiom then interest IS indeed necessary for any investment and growth.

Indeed the masses conflate everything. IQ is a bell curve, and even high IQ doesn't distribute uniformly on each issue. So as one of the elite said, "only one in a million can" see the truth.

And the top-control profiteers have every incentive to continue feeding them propaganda and educating them in state-schools where they can form their minds.

And while I consider myself a Socialist in the broader sense, I have always preferred Taxation for the creation of public-good available without means testing to all members of society over crude wealth-redistribution.  Redistribution tends to be favored by the financial elites for acts to reinforce class distinction between 'net tax payers' and 'net recipients', where as public goods erase class distinctions.

But taxation can never be fair because as you see above, the bottom-up demands a top-down. And Mancur Olsen's The Logic Of Collective Action (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984) explains that the top-down will always privatize the profits and socialize the losses.

I believe that if we eliminated the hidden wealth pumping of interest then we would no longer even entertain wealth-redistribution as a solution to the remaining wealth disparities.  But we would sill desire Public-goods and hopefully create them in optimum amounts.

But surely you must realize that human nature will never allow this to be true, because as you've identified upthread, the masses will always love hard money and they don't correlate this with the negative collective (systemic) effects. And you never teach them otherwise because IQ is not uniform and not even uniform on each issue for the high IQ.

Thus government will always fill that power vacuum of the incapability of the masses to comprehend.

The only possible solution would be a technological one that eliminates the ability of the masses to harm themselves with their own ignorance.

My question for you Mint is what makes you confident that starving governments via an anonymous coin would necessarily improve things. I agree with your underlying premise that we appear to be in a cycle of boom and bust based on finance/fractional banking/debt -> collectivism -> collapse -> gold standard -> restart cycle again. However at the end of each cycle so far knowledge has advanced and passive capital has declined compared to the same point in the cycle before it aka progress.

Removing the governments ability to tax will create other problems such as the inability to regulate and prevent tragedy of the commons type situations that require collective action.

It is impossible for an anonymous coin to make brick and mortal transactions anonymous. The government will always be able to tax the industrial age economy.

My effort is targeted at the new virtual economy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=336350.msg3736243#msg3736243) I see coming, wherein a recent Oxford study predicts 45% of all existing jobs will be replaced with computerization automation by 2033 (the year Martin Armstrong's Pi model and thus I expect the sovereign debt crisis to have ended).

I see we the hitech knowledge workers taking over the world over the next 20 years. That is sufficient time to ramp up the new currency.

So let the government and the masses have their old world economy. They will have plenty of time to fade away slowly and/or adjust and migrate to the new economy.

Government can become privatized. We don't need government for anything, not for roads, not for schools, nothing. I am a minanarchist.

Give me an example of something we need government for and I will explain why I think it can be done better by private enterprise and competition.

Impaler pointed out that the masses conflate the free market with the failure that the masses causes on themselves with hard money and government. The free market is not the problem, rather it is the solution.

Edit: see the new flying car that already has a working prototype (http://unheresy.com/Flying%20Cars.html#Safety).


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: CoinCube on December 01, 2013, 03:46:35 AM

Bitcoins were distributed by a free market. How can not thinking that the distribution is proper be anything but a criticism of the free market?

They seem socialist-anarchist to me. (To the extent such a thing is possible, anyway.)

Certainly not any harder than it already is. We already have such a currency. The US dollar. And cash businesses get caught hiding income all the time.

If you don't plan on actually spending the money...well then you can probably come up with a perfectly legal tax shelter so that you don't owe taxes on it in the first place.

The OP criticism's of Bitcoins coin distribution is that its distribution will prevent it from ever succeeding as a functional currency. He is not advocating forced redistribution of bitcoins or changing bitcoins only that bitcoin is flawed and that a better system can be designed. His argument is unrelated to the free markets.

OP's ideas are definitely not socialist read his links above if you doubt me. I am not sure yet about the anarchist part I am still making up my mind on that one.

So you don't think that an anonymous coin that cannot be seized or frozen or tracked by the government will make taxes harder to collect? Sure government will still try and in some cases succeed but tax revenues are sure to decline if something like this takes off.

Edit: AnonyMint is a minanarchist see post above so I will concede that point =)
 


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on December 01, 2013, 04:09:23 AM
I am confused as to why you think AnonyMint's proposed ideas are socialist.

Doesn't the title of this thread and the first couple lines of the OP make this obvious?

Not really, the OP is asking about the possible distribution of a new or soon to be released cryptocurrency not redistributing peoples current bitcoins or dollars.

Bitcoins were distributed by a free market. How can not thinking that the distribution is proper be anything but a criticism of the free market?

Coin rewards are diminishing in Bitcoin. Transaction fees are doomed to failure (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=352734.msg3787435#msg3787435).

There is absolutely no sense in correlating the expansion of the money supply with socialism. The antithesis actually! See my prior post and the post at the link above and the sub-linked posts.

Also you must admit that having a truly anonymous currency without any way to track you assets would make taxes very hard
to collect.

Certainly not any harder difficult than it already is. We already have such a currency. The US dollar. And cash businesses get caught hiding income all the time.

I don't know if you've noticed the western governments have been phasing out cash. There are no more $10,000, $1000 bills. Ditto I believe 1000 Euro bills recently phased out. You can get less and less money from the ATMs in Europe per day. Etc. I had a post recently in my archives where I provided all the links on the plans of the USA and EU to create an electronic tracking currency and eliminate cash entirely, so they can charge you a negative interest as a tax to pay for the coming global debt implosion.

Also due to Admiralty Law, the governments are seizing cash as contraband (http://www.nestmann.com/civil-forfeiture-of-cash-it-could-happen-to-you) in both the USA and EU. I heard of people crossing the borders in EU with cash or gold and losing it all for no reason.

Sure you would have to pay something to justify your lifestyle but you could probably get by with reporting a fraction
of your net worth ie the person making $800,000k a month could pretend he is only making $150,000k

Not if the person wants to spend the $800K/month on something other than black market goods/services. Not without significantly risking going to jail, anyway.

Indeed the next 20 years is not going to be about flaunting your wealth. It is going to be jail time for those who do, because the 99% is going to be rabid against the 1%.

But the world is going to be so broken and bankrupt after 2016, that you won't need much wealth to live like a King.

Right now the objective is to preserve wealth, not gains. The fools are going to lose what they have trying to gamble.

If you don't plan on actually spending the money...well then you can probably come up with a perfectly legal tax shelter

Everything will be illegal even what was legal. You simply don't understand in history what happens (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=352080.msg3788162#msg3788162) when there is a global debt crisis where the entire western world is bankrupt. All the western countries have total debt-to-GDP ratios exceeding 300%. Even China and Japan do. The BRICs do too, once you count the way their debts will rise due to all the dollar bonds and hot money  infux they've received from QE ending up there.

offshore tax haven.

There won't be any physical havens.  All the countries are involved in this global debt implosion coming.

Of course there will be exceptions. But for most of us, we won't be lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. Most of us will be caught by the preponderance of badness coming. It is simply probability.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: CoinCube on December 01, 2013, 04:10:11 AM
My effort is targeted at the new virtual economy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=336350.msg3736243#msg3736243) I see coming, wherein a recent Oxford study predicts 45% of all existing jobs will be replaced with computerization automation by 2033 (the year Martin Armstrong's Pi model and thus I expect the sovereign debt crisis to have ended).

I see we the hitech knowledge workers taking over the world over the next 20 years. That is sufficient time to ramp up the new currency.

So let the government and the masses have their old world economy. They will have plenty of time to fade away slowly and/or adjust and migrate to the new economy.

Government can become privatized. We don't need government for anything, not for roads, not for schools, nothing. I am a minanarchist.

Give me an example of something we need government for and I will explain why I think it can be done better by private enterprise and competition.

Impaler pointed out that the masses conflate the free market with the failure that the masses causes on themselves with hard money and government. The free market is not the problem, rather it is the solution.

Edit: see the new flying car that already has a working prototype (http://unheresy.com/Flying%20Cars.html#Safety).

From Wikipedia
Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.

So after calling for backup from wikipedia (as my knowledge of Minarchism is limited I would point out that police, the court system, the military, as well as a legislature to legislate certain pollution laws (no dumping industrial toxins in drinking water) are areas where I see a need for government currently.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on December 01, 2013, 04:18:06 AM
CoinCube to the extent that needs to be the case, the collective/government can get funding from the physical economy that can't be anonymous.

I see some ying and yang balance ahead. It will sort itself out. There are no absolutes in the universe.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on December 01, 2013, 04:22:57 AM
"Give me an example of something we need government for and I will explain why I think it can be done better by private enterprise and competition."

I'd say that's anarchist, not minarchist.

See my prior post where I see ying and yang and the balance will sort itself out. I don't strive for absolutes; they don't exist.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: CoinCube on December 01, 2013, 04:25:23 AM
CoinCube to the extent that needs to be the case, the collective/government can get funding from the physical economy that can't be anonymous.

I see some ying and yang balance ahead. It will sort itself out. There are no absolutes in the universe.

Fair enough. Surprisingly I find myself converted.
Lead on AnonyMint I will follow you into the new world order  :D



Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on December 01, 2013, 04:33:43 AM
He thinks the free market got it wrong. He thinks he's right, and everyone else is wrong. This is pretty typical of socialists.

A free market is competition. We have mania which is a manifestation of the same ignorance that drives socialism. See the upthread discussion between Impaler and myself. Even the Austrian economists have confirmed that Bitcoin is a mania Ponzi.

So you don't think that an anonymous coin that cannot be seized or frozen or tracked by the government will make taxes harder to collect? Sure government will still try and in some cases succeed but tax revenues are sure to decline if something like this takes off.

You're adding something when you say that it can't be seized.

To say it can't be seized implies that it can't be collected. I'd say that essentially begs the question.

CoinCube I suggest you ignore nonsense like this. It defies comprehension of decentralized crypto-currency.

So, if your question is whether or not I think that an anonymous coin that cannot be tracked (directly) by the government will make taxes harder to collect, my answer is not much. As I said, the US dollar already has these properties.

The government is phasing out cash, as I covered in my prior post.

Now whether anonymity will work reliably and whether the coin can't be shutdown by filtering at the routers controlled by the major governments is technical discussion that will have to wait until the details of such a coin are known.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on December 01, 2013, 04:35:02 AM
CoinCube to the extent that needs to be the case, the collective/government can get funding from the physical economy that can't be anonymous.

I see some ying and yang balance ahead. It will sort itself out. There are no absolutes in the universe.

Fair enough. Surprisingly I find myself converted.
Lead on AnonyMint I will follow you into the new world order  :D

Devil is in the details. You should not accept a package without opening it to inspect the contents.

I am concerned about the governments' ability to censor internet packets to shutdown certain traffic. I believe there are counter-measures that simultaneously maintain robust anonymity.

P.S. I have adopted an Asian perspective to some degree so that might explain why you find some agreement with my posts.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on December 01, 2013, 04:37:04 AM

Indeed mathematically proven to be so. Find my post where I talked about Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=342848.msg3702810#msg3702810) and the impossibility to both band-limit and time-limit sampling without getting infinite frequencies of aliasing error and I linked to the following blog article of mine:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum






Edit: in addition to the link above, refer to the original discussion which I quoted below in case Risto deletes from his thread which he seems to do a lot:

If a guy has found such a pattern in Bitcoin price and made it visible from all the noise, and if that even somehow matches a long history up to this point, I'm going to listen to him very closely.

OMG, the dopamine spikes from the get-rich-quick-fever are running so high that the new religion is finding information in aliasing error[1].

[1] Shannon-Nyquist Sampling Theorem

Noting than Shannon defined information content for us with his work on Shannon entropy.

Sorry just had to reply to that one ;) It is too funny (for a math and physics nerd like me).

Fitting to a trendline has no relationship to these fundamentals
I disagree. Risto specifically developed the trendline & formula to support the fundamentals in mind, ie. $300k USD/BTC for a fair price in the position of Bitcoin being a major facilitator of trade worldwide. Thus, the fitting has been rigged to match these perceived fundamentals. Given other projections, the trendline could be adjusted with an altered or altogether different formula, still seeming to "match perfectly" with the secular trend with constant deviations from the trendline.

Thus, it all is to a large degree sleight of mind. The only aspect that is obvious for everyone is the exponential uphill. How steep in the big picture is anyone's guess. I consider Risto's version rather solid compromise, with a beautiful connection and parables to the laws of nature that govern this world (can't remember how or through whose arguments I came to this conclusion).

On a more esoteric angle, I personally believe the order and laws behind all natural phenomena can be successfully extrapolated to macro environments like collective valuation of financial instruments. I'm no specialist in TA but am inclined to think that's the particular point why Technical Analysis works.

Bitcoin price is a result of natural phenomena consisting of numerous layers of invisible laws of large numbers governing the average distribution of stuff. As such, the laws add up to a sort of very complex interference pattern that reveals a virtual image to an outside observer. A bit like Moire pattern:

http://i.imgur.com/02HZB8F.jpg

See the whiteish - convex cylinder that comes up in the middle of the two large rings. That's a Moire pattern. If you examine it, it's not drawn anywhere and you will have to conclude it appears spontaneously, more likely unintended. Yet it's a very specific form arising out of the interaction of the properties of the two large red-blue rings.

If a guy has found such a pattern in Bitcoin price and made it visible from all the noise, and if that even somehow matches a long history up to this point, I'm going to listen to him very closely.

Remember; As above, so below.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: CoinCube on December 01, 2013, 04:45:41 AM

The government is phasing out cash, as I covered in my prior post.

Now whether anonymity will work reliably and whether the coin can't be shutdown by filtering at the routers controlled by the major governments is technical discussion that will have to wait until the details of such a coin are known.

It will have to be very technically robust to survive. Government will be looking for scapegoats to blame the debt collapse on.
Anonymous cryptocurrency is sure to be a target.

Devil is in the details. You should not accept a package without opening it to inspect the contents.

Fair enough consider my conversion a statement of intent rather then a binding contract.




Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on December 01, 2013, 04:51:52 AM

The government is phasing out cash, as I covered in my prior post.

Now whether anonymity will work reliably and whether the coin can't be shutdown by filtering at the routers controlled by the major governments is technical discussion that will have to wait until the details of such a coin are known.

It will have to be very technically robust to survive. Government will be looking for scapegoats to blame the debt collapse on.
Anonymous cryptocurrency is sure to be a target.

Many people in government are going to be looking for a place to hide their ill-gotten wealth from the 99% as they take it from the 1%. They might just like to have a haven too. (sorry there are no absolutes, no perfection)

They will still be able to get all those people who mess up and don't report transactions and wealth that can't be anonymous. And I think they will be much busier hunting down all the Bitcoin millionaires who cashed out. That will rather easier to do than blocking all internet traffic of a certain type in every country in the world (I don't think they can do this yet, although maybe I am naive).

I think they will find much lower hanging fruit, but again some of that determination is in the technical details.

Anonymity is the not the main or single feature I want to see in an altcoin.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on December 01, 2013, 05:40:06 AM
Richard Stallman* has spoken out in favor of anonymity instead of Bitcoin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ_3MKomQzY

* GNU tools, Free Software Foundation, the precursor to Eric S Raymond's Cathedral and the Bazaar which coined "open source" as a more ameniable notion than "free software". Stallman always politicizes and has a social cause in his software endeavors.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: RAJSALLIN on December 01, 2013, 08:11:40 AM

Actually thank you for the sentiments and I knew that, as well appreciated the liquidity you brought me at that time and was happy to give you some suggestions at that time, but we diverged in our activities and goals. You may think this again. Let's pray Bitcoin doesn't crash to $500 before going higher so you don't reinvest that $1 million (1000+ BTC) back in Bitcoin's ponzi again. So you won't be too distraught when the bitter end for Bitcoin comes. I do note you are diversified, e.g. precious metals. But the precious metals are going lower before they make new all time highs (after 2015) the G20 is likely going to confiscate them. So don't count your eggs before they hatch.

It doesn't make sense to say to hope the price doesn't go down to $500 before the end of bitcoin comes since the end would surely give these prices and bellow and hence Risto will be buying in again anyway. Unless the end you speak of would be an instantaneous zero valuation which is so remotely unlikely we can dismay it. Also I'm curious on how an end would manifest itself in your mind? Let's say the end would in fact come in the beginning of 2014. With both US and Chinese governments sending careful positive signals the biggest immediate threat as I see it is already somewhat eliminated. I think it's much more likely we see a bubble pop and people like yourself start talking about the end of bitcoin but in reality it's just a natural market reaction which bitcoin has already experienced several times and new all time highs will come within months.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: npl on December 01, 2013, 08:12:20 AM
To distribute money more efficiently all you need to do is ensure that 'mining' (the process itself, not its results) has a net positive effect (involves expenditure on renewable goods and services) instead of a net negative one (energy waste). It's simple as that.

(quoting myself here...)

OK it's not quite as simple as that, because you have to factor in time horizons and the early adoption phase, in which coin production costs are marginal (thus not allowing for efficient distribution). With BTC the design was such that a great deal of coins were produced during the early phase for a very low cost (the first 1,000,000 BTC were mined for a cost of what it would take to mine less than 1 BTC today, roughly speaking).

More efficient distribution would thus require (aside from finding a way to make mining a net positive process) a shorter early adoption phase in which production costs are trivial, so that we could arrive at the point where mining produces tangible positive effects more quickly. However, the early adoption phase should still last long enough and be lucrative enough for the coin to gain popularity.  

Efficiency in the context of this thread is the rate (relative to the maximum possible rate) of adoption of the currency as a currency and not as an investment asset. Very few people in normal times (before sovereign debt crisis safe haven demand) considered holding dollars long-term (in your mattress, i.e paying no interest) as an investment. A hallmark feature of a currency is you rarely concern yourself with its exchange value.

I am asserting that the challenge is to design an upstart crypto-currency which has enough near-term investment appeal to drive excitement and investment adoption, while simultaneously driving synergistic adoption for spending which eventually subsumes the investment gains.

Some here are challenging my assertion.

this challenge is precisely what my suggestion addresses! Think about it more closely (or do I have to spell it out?)


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on December 01, 2013, 09:09:32 AM
Spell it out please.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: npl on December 01, 2013, 05:37:25 PM
Spell it out please.

Assume a coin, we'll call it Xcoin.
Say the cost (research + equipment + electricity) to mine 1 Xcoin is 0.8 Xcoin.
I'm using a random figure for cost in this example. In a perfect market costs will tend towards 1.0 (this is not the case with BTC since increasing barriers to entry are creating mining monopolies*), except during early adoption periods when costs are very low** thus driving investment.

For BTC the money is being spent on:

paying mining equipment manufacturers (highly centralized, have incentive to hoard BTC rather than spend them)

energy companies (inefficient, wasteful, do not use or spend BTC).

So instead for Xcoin - design it so that as much as possible of the cost of 'mining' is gradually and increasingly diverted to be spent on things that work towards increased circulation - e.g. a fund that gives out 0% loans, or that invests in new Xcoin based business, or direct transfers to people with the stipulation that they must spend the money within x period of time etc.

* In a mature market, counteracting specialized mining equipment will therefore lower average profit. The only time when non specialized equipment can be used to extract excess profits is when the market is new. The best way to maintain incentive to mine is therefore probably to fix the rate of profit (while gradually decreasing it over time using an algorithm).
**technically, when expressed using the same denomination costs will be infinity (since the coin at this stage is worth nothing), but in terms of resource expenditure costs will be very low.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: npl on December 03, 2013, 03:01:49 PM
thanks for the econ lesson buddy :)
Yes, there are always barriers to entry, but Bitocin was designed to encourage concentration (assuming Satoshi was aware of the hardware arms race possibility, which I think he was).

Anyway, that's just a footnote to my main point.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: AnonyMint on December 03, 2013, 03:16:36 PM
So instead for Xcoin - design it so that as much as possible of the cost of 'mining' is gradually and increasingly diverted to be spent on things that work towards increased circulation - e.g. a fund that gives out 0% loans, or that invests in new Xcoin based business, or direct transfers to people with the stipulation that they must spend the money within x period of time etc.

The last item is Freicoin's demurrage. I have mentioned that it may make more sense than demurrage to distribute it in small granularity to miners doing CPU-only mining (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=354573.msg3805522#msg3805522).

Regarding ASICs:

Hey wait...

MemoryCoin = the coin that require memory

That is why I am asking him if his domain might be for sale at a high enough price, assuming he owns memorycoin.com and .org. And hopefully memcoin.* also.

Memory is generally available. It is an investment in an asset you use. The extra memory can be employed in a ramdisk when not mining to aid compiling speed and other tasks. ASICs not.

Edit: Memory is fungible, meaning you can sell/repurpose it in parts and separate from the PC.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: jgorham on December 05, 2013, 01:17:53 AM
Provide a convincing cover story. You know that story about a fixed supply of 21 million coins? That fearful creator who disappeared? The highly convoluted decentralised and trust-free structure, the Bitcoin Rube Goldberg machine, because centralisation is evil? It's a stroke of genius from a marketing point of view (assuming it wasn't all a hilarious cosmic accident).
Whatever alternative you promote, like:
--demurrage or perpetual inflation
--some element of centrally planned spending that covers more than just network maintenance.
--smarter inflation that dis-empowers speculators,
or some balanced combination, you'll probably find that at best you'll get a lukewarm reception (think: polite clapping) from a small number of pragmatic, reasonable people who stumble upon your idea. But you won't gain traction unless you rally some religious fervour to give your cause a kick-start and also give it protective padding against growth pains. You really need to figure this out.

At Freicoin we hope to stir up some righteous fervor over Usury, it is after all the one sin condemned by Moses, Jesus, Mohammad and Buddha.

Impaler: How does demurrage affect interest on loans? It seems like there is built in incentive to lend due to the carrying cost of money. Could loans of 0% interest be mutually beneficial assuming the existence of collateral?


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: sana8410 on April 23, 2014, 06:57:42 AM
Maybe active traders find passive trading too boring. They need the thrill of the hunt. Or maybe they just have some extra time and money to burn.


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: deisik on April 23, 2014, 07:52:24 AM
Eat humble pie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value

Cool thinking :D

From the article:

Quote
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed

What's cool about that? ;D


Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: Ozziecoin on April 23, 2014, 08:09:39 AM
We are giving out 500 ozziecoins free to the first 500 Australian residents on ANZAC day.  

Launch: https://ozziecoin.com/faucet/info.php

Info: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578881.0

We're trying to get the wider Australian public to simply tryout Blockchain technology. 



Title: Re: Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?
Post by: sana8410 on April 23, 2014, 08:52:50 AM
this is an important tool to build in my opinion. It might cause some people in the bitcoin community great distress if the USPS, UPS, or FedEx ever decided to make it even harder or impossible to ship or receive packages anonymously if there is no working alternative.