I want to encourage everyone to present alternative points-of-view. Groupthink will not serve us well. We need to check and re-check our rationality and supporting data. [snip]
There will be some alt-coins that will survive, but again not because they present any sort of transaction-like competitive advantages. Traditional banks will win this transaction war, there is no doubt in my mind that Bitcoin will not win a transaction war. Banks, PayPals, Amazons, Apples all won't sit idly and watch crypto-like currencies eat into their mainstream revenue. In five years, transactions for banks will be good-enough that the average consumer moving into bitcoin won't make sense for their financial systems will be good enough.
Banks' technical capabilities might reach global reach (but I very much doubt that too), but they have an insurmountable problem. The governments are going to institute capital controls in order to trap wealth and tax it to death as the global economic implosion proceeds. Ditto war is rising and trading with the enemies' citizens will not be allowed on the official banking systems (note the recent sanctions against Russia). Here look how bad it is getting already with HSBC. And I see they have no prayer of supporting the volume of tiny micro payments any time soon (VISA only sales to 6000 txs per second now), nor getting significant penetration into all NICs emerging markets. Here where I am, if someone in the grocery lane is holding a card instead of cash, I run to the next queue because it adds about 5 minutes delay to the transaction. The derelict card readers are only at every 3rd register (some broke or don't work or timeout over and over) and it just isn't well integrated into the POS here. And this is at ShoeMart mall, which is the largest and one of the most modern mall chains in the country which also has malls in China. Hong Kong has a very efficient electronic swipe payment system used by most of the population there. But this is not in every country in the world. You can argue this doesn't affect the mainstream, but who is left to hold up the F.U.B.A.R. global economy if we rely on the oblivious n00bs who are sucking the tit of social welfare and hdea lth systems. Possibly the only real economy standing will be ours. Or if the banks can keep 80% market share of that demographic which is 20% of productivity = 0.8 x 0.2 = 16% GDP share. We will take 20% market share of that demographic which is 80% of productivity = 0.2 x 0.8= 16% GDP share. If the socialism overshoots into the abyss, then the banks can take 80% of 0% productivity. Also I don't assume we can't do transactions better than they can. We have to learn how to play to our decentralized advantage. I think we will find ways, but my logic doesn't depend on it. For example, how will Paypal ever stop fraud wherein someone reversed the charge on 2 BTC I sold them? Banks don't trust each other, and that fragmentation will get worse not better. As the global economy gets worse, fraud and theft is going to skyrocket. Banks are going to be stealing from their depositors with bail-ins. Who the hell is going to trust a bank? Mt.Gox is an early indicator of what is coming to every bank near you.  As for transaction speed, I think it is technically possible to get to 30 seconds or lower with decentralized proof-of-work crypto-currency. The technical issue is orphan rate. [snip]
Bitcoin does not need mainstream adoption, it doesn't need even a fraction of the general population to be wildly valuable. Bitcoin will grow on greed and speculation alone for a long time to come. It is enough for penny stocks, internet boom 1.0, precious metals, and countless other speculative assets, it will be enough for Bitcoin. Transactions only serve as the ultimate excuse for governments to allow it to live. Transactions are only the secret protection that allows Bitcoin to live wave after wave of speculative bubble.
Greed and speculation alone are enough to propel Bitcoin to 250 billion dollars or more.
[snip]
I also estimate around $10,000 is roughly the top for Bitcoin. Might reach $50,000 at most, but that is less likely. |
|
|
|
What defeats your rebuttal in this case to me is that the 50-60% implied rate of continued success is still "good enough" based on his original argument. [snip] Coupling this with the idea that most things (like food) should have a significant loss in relative value (thus becoming more affordable as per prev. discussion in this thread) . . then I would logically conclude that my government would just increase taxes . . successfully allowing our game to continue. [snip] Maybe we could expand into a more detailed breakdown? Do you have any more examples? Short answer: ask the Wiemar subsequently Nazi Germans how it worked out for them. Longer answer: taxing over the Laffer limit during an economic downturn is not an equilibrium. Capital is hoarded, it spirals downward into an abyss, and everything grinds to a halt. See the prior post I made which had a link to a blog post by Martin Armstrong which elaborates on that. The 47% technological unemployment predicted by Oxford U, can have multiple outcomes. - Govt dissolves itself, we radically increase knowledge networking, everyone finds a new job. Yahoo!!
- Govt gets involved taxing, we use anonymity to dissolve govt and radically increase knowledge networking, everyone finds a new job. Yahoo!!
- Govt stays involved but not higher taxes, we don't figure out how to accelerate knowledge networking for most, so 47% unemployment.
- Govt gets involved by taxing, capital goes into hiding, the unemployment goes to 80% (other 20% work as thugs for the govt) and we euthanize everyone.
The range of outcomes is some where between those in varying degrees. Why does the government involvement matter on who finds a new job in high tech? Because for as long as the government will give you everything for free, why should the masses be bothered! This another reason there aren't more plumbers. No one has to do unglamorous jobs, because Obama and Europe and Canada provide social safety nets. Heck in Europe you only have to work 35 hours a week, you can't be fired, and you get 1 or 2 months paid vacation a year. And in some countries, they sleep in the office lounge chair in the afternoon or go to meetings at a fine restaurant. Meanwhile lately I'm working 14-18 hours a day, haven't had a shower in 2 months, haven't shaven, wearing the same stinky short pants for past 3 months since my washing machine isn't at this location, and eat tuna fish sandwiches so I don't have to leave the cave. I am a managing to get my jogs and sprints in, and still seem to attract the ladies when I do out to eat looking and smelling like a stinky caveman. Thank God I am in a country where the women love to eat stinky dried fish. I swear it seems they can't even smell it, whilst my odor is intoxicating me while I am trying to move away ("stay back, this cave dwelling beast is not fit for human consumption at this time"). |
|
|
|
I understand the idea of technological unemployment. The issue I see is the relationship the masses have with the centralized powers that be. The masses give those that hold centralized power their bite.
While economics may weaken the masses. It doesn't take away the fact that they have a sayso in the direction the world goes. Confiscation of wealth, etc.
So perhaps we are back at square one. I'm understanding better the term opt out as opposed to taking away or interference with centralization powers that be directly.
Still. To an extent does the idea of money not come from it being acknowledged by all people as such? Gold, clamshells, fiat, or bitcoin? Until now bitcoin adoption (&speculation) is what has driven the value.
[snip]
Although I agreed in No Money Exists Without the Minority, but consider that not everyone on earth has to use the same type of money, e.g. each country has its own independent currency and (hopefully but I doubt it) independent central banks. I posit a major advantage over national currencies of such a smarter currency used by the smartest who want to opt-opt of the sinking Titanic, is that is straddles all borders, doesn't require the weak to pollute it, and could within years (based on Bitcoin experience) have the same or greater population of a smaller country. Given those differences and the cleverness of those who use it networked on the internet for more powerful network effects than physical currencies, it can I hopefully work as a liquid unit-of-exchange and store-of-value (but not an heirloom, please use gold for that function when you need it). Cpu-only coin may not suffer from Bitcoin's log-logistic declining rate of adoption and may instead take on the usual technology logistic adoption wherein the adoption rate accelerates until reaching 50% adoption. Why? Because who doesn't think it is leave your computer on while sleeping and receive some technobabble money. Even Grandad might get a kick out of that. They wouldn't even notice any significant change to their electric bill because other household appliances consume much more than their computer. However, making a cpu-only algorithm has escaped all those who tried, as far as I know. I have studied many algorithms that attempted to accomplish this and they all fail in some way. The closest I found was the Cuckoo Cycle by tromp. The problem it has it that it only requires memory. And memory can be scaled along with a lower cost processor cores such as the Atom or a custom ASIC that has a DRAM interface for each processing core. Cuckoo Cycle is really only GPU resistant. Also the Cuckoo Cycle white paper admits it is runs faster on multiple threads, even if slightly sublinear when doing so, thus the specialized Tilera CPUs for servers should kick ass on the cpus we use on our computers on a hash rate per $ and per Watt basis. Also I am not confident that some algorithm couldn't subvert the Cuckoo Cycle hash because it is ordered setup. For example, I envisioned using bit strings in place of empty memory locations. |
|
|
|
In the following quoted post which comes from upthread, I had written about the need for perpetual debasement to fund mining (because transactions fees is broken design for several reasons): The upside is a 0 transaction fees design is a very attractive feature for consumers and merchants. And with a cpu-only coin, the debasement is going right back to the users of the coin any way. And it enables such a coin to be obtained autonomously without any other party nor exchange necessary. Even Bitcoin is being debased by 11% annually now. Of course exchanges should still be available, but they should P2P decentralized. No more Mt.Gox! In addition to the explanation at the above link inside the above quote, perpetual debasement is not a problem if there are no taxes as follows. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/05/lagarde-part-ii/Increasing the money supply will NOT be inflationary when you are offsetting that by raising taxes. If the total money supply is $1,000 and I tax you 20% leaving you $800, increasing the money supply at $1,500 and raising taxes to 50% is still deflationary for you end up with less – $750. Absolutely everything is balanced. This is why the cause and effect scenarios fail every time – it is a bell curve in everything. Armstrong forgets to make the point that increasing the money supply can increase the general price level causing income, capital gains, and VAT taxes to be higher, while there no net gain in purchasing power.
Thus increasing the money supply even while holding taxes constant, actually eats purchasing power. Whereas increasing money supply with no taxes at all, would not harm purchasing power. |
|
|
|
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/05/lagarde-part-ii/Increasing the money supply will NOT be inflationary when you are offsetting that by raising taxes. If the total money supply is $1,000 and I tax you 20% leaving you $800, increasing the money supply at $1,500 and raising taxes to 50% is still deflationary for you end up with less – $750. Absolutely everything is balanced. This is why the cause and effect scenarios fail every time – it is a bell curve in everything. Armstrong forgets to make the point that increasing the money supply can increase the general price level causing income, capital gains, and VAT taxes to be higher, while there no net gain in purchasing power. Thus increasing the money supply even while holding taxes constant, actually eats purchasing power. Whereas increasing money supply with no taxes at all, would not harm purchasing power.
|
|
|
|
It is a fairly stable country some remnants of Tension exist between the strong right and left wings of the country which are in part due to the legacy of the Pinochet era and the transition from a Presidential dictatorship to a democratic system but overall other than that it is doing well.
Until the copper price implodes. Then you will see the lurking social inequities in Chile burst in out into the open as civil unrest and political chaos, just as we are seeing elsewhere in the world. |
|
|
|
But as someone with an average IQ, average knowledge and reasonable gut senses...
Your observations are correct and clearly stated. 1.) The masses care less than you think they do...
2.) The masses are less intelligent than you give them credit for...
3.) The masses are less creative than you give them credit for...
4.) The masses are not competent enough to take control of their banking...
Yup. We know that. I know I said that before and even recently. That is why I said anonymity is about opting-out of the collective madness. I don't expect everyone under the Bell Curve to use a smarter currency (at least not at the start), rather I am expecting the smartest to use such innovations if they come to reality and since the rest will destroy themselves, then eventually everyone who wants to survive and prosper is forced to learn and come over our way (or perish). |
|
|
|
It's the breakout
The shape of the low on April 3 would qualify as a U shaped bottom as I had called for. However, I was expecting a U with a much longer duration say weeks.
So I am not convinced this isn't another bull trap.
Any way, as you know it doesn't matter for me, because I showed with the log-logistic curve fit that Bitcoin will be drastically underperforming certain altcoins. The only reason for me to invest in Bitcoin is for diversification, but I diversify right into the coin which is tracked by my friendly Obama and I have no idea how bad what he has on tap against people of net worth. I heard from Armstrong that high-level sources say 70% taxes. That wouldn't be as bad as the totalitarianism that follows after imploding the economy with 70% taxes. I just offer this thought, "you didn't build that".
Still waiting to hear from Risto in a private message. His opportunity is slipping away. |
|
|
|
It's the breakout
The shape of the low on April 3 would qualify as a U shaped bottom as I had called for. However, I was expecting a U with a much longer duration say weeks. So I am not convinced this isn't another bull trap. Any way, as you know it doesn't matter for me, because I showed with the log-logistic curve fit that Bitcoin will be drastically underperforming certain altcoins. The only reason for me to invest in Bitcoin is for diversification, but I diversify right into the coin which is tracked by my friendly Obama and I have no idea how bad what he has on tap against people of net worth. I heard from Armstrong that high-level sources say 70% taxes. That wouldn't be as bad as the totalitarianism that follows after imploding the economy with 70% taxes. I just offer this thought, " you didn't build that". Still waiting to hear from Risto in a private message. His opportunity is slipping away. |
|
|
|
I think it would be interesting to write an essay about some of these issues, to get everything together in one place.
If anybody wants to contribute some thoughts, I have just corrected my Bitmessage contact details in my profile. I didn't realise before, but the address had been cut short when I tried to paste it in...
Corazon79 has experience interfacing with established mass media. |
|
|
|
Anonymity is protection for the individual, decentralization is protection for the network...
quite so! that's catchy, I like it  Agreed that should probably be adopted as a slogan. And both posts were astute, eloquent, and added understanding for interested readers. This is high knowledge (quality) community. |
|
|
|
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-480286> We’re still a long way from solving the shortage of skilled labor, as anyone who has ever needed a plumber can attest. I am in the Lazarus Long camp that says there is nothing the government can't unimprove if it can touch it. Plumbing is not an extremely highly skilled activity, at least without the kafkaesque, labyrinth of building codes that must be navigated in some jurisdictions. Of course I am not arguing that building best practices aren't a good idea if done in the free market. I strongly suspect the supply of plumbers is restricted by the onerous licensing requirements which mismatch the education level of someone who wouldn't be bored out their freakin' mind to pursue that career. I was an autodidact plumber when I was 5 years old. Currently it is difficult to find a plumber in the post-BRICs NICs portion of the developing world, because the debt was driven sky-high by the Fed's ZIRP carry trade and uneconomic construction is going full tilt (to implode globally 2016 in a massive conflagrapocalypse).
I expect the discussion will likely digress to the usual pissing politics, so I won't participate further unless there is a solid refutation of my salient point about knowledge networking scaling faster than vertical integration.
|
|
|
|
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-480286> We’re still a long way from solving the shortage of skilled labor, as anyone who has ever needed a plumber can attest. I am in the Lazarus Long camp that says there is nothing the government can't unimprove if it can touch it. Plumbing is not an extremely highly skilled activity, at least without the kafkaesque, labyrinth of building codes that must be navigated in some jurisdictions. Of course I am not arguing that building best practices aren't a good idea if done in the free market. I strongly suspect the supply of plumbers is restricted by the onerous licensing requirements which mismatch the education level of someone who wouldn't be bored out their freakin' mind to pursue that career. I was an autodidact plumber when I was 5 years old. Currently it is difficult to find a plumber in the post-BRICs NICs portion of the developing world, because the debt was driven sky-high by the Fed's ZIRP carry trade and uneconomic construction is going full tilt (to implode globally 2016 in a massive conflagrapocalypse).
I expect the discussion will likely digress to the usual pissing politics, so I won't participate further unless there is a solid refutation of my salient point about knowledge networking scaling faster than vertical integration.
|
|
|
|
Eric presented his refutation and I replied. This pretty much cements it for me. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-480217> For Rifkin’s predictions to come true it would not suffice for knowledge creation to rise in value. For his predictions to come true, material goods would have to fall to zero marginal cost. That will not happen, because atoms are heavy. Mea culpa I haven't read the book. I indicated in my linked refutation, that I wouldn't agree with any Communist basis and agree with Eric's critique on that aspect. For the conceptual idea to scale, there must be symbiosis between individual gain and collective gain, per the Eric's Inverse Commons in the Magic Cauldron.
For example, one could argue that any initial start-up cost for a creation couldn't be offset by the knowledge network value of incremental edits because the initial creator is not directly receiving the return on investment. My counter logic is there may be business models dealing with modularity or diminishing trail of appreciation (citation) that when combined with micro payments can route remuneration backtracked to the creators. Moreover the non-monetary square law scaling of the Inverse Commons applies in that participants gain the return of the creations and incremental improvements of their brethren. It is a mesh topology N-highway of sharing. My belief is that according to gift culture Eric outlined, the community is aligned towards acknowledging sources especially when the act of doing so is only an insignificant (automated) micro payment or other remuneration models the ingenious may develop. Insignificant micro payments then aggregate to the creators at the rate of the participants squared. The squared law seems to be so powerful and at the heart of why the Inverse Commons is the "only known positive scaling law of software engineering" as so eloquently and astutely noted by Eric. That audio of Eric is permanently imprinted in my primary consciousness. I can never forget random "monkeys beating on the code" can outperform the cathedral of closed source (which I want to extend to vertical integration in general).
Also I noticed in the Bitcoin and now especially in the Dogecoin community, there is much more tipping and donations than I know about in the fiat world. The participants understand that to make their ecosystem grow, they need to reward participation. That is not Communism because it is an individual decision, no Max Weber central authority is holding a gun to each of our heads. You can see in my linked discussion thread, the participants are rallying the concepts and refining them perhaps better than I could, or at least differently and scaling requires diversity.
Atoms are heavy but that is lacking information. How heavy? Relativity is all the matters here. I never wrote zero, I wrote relative value is trending asymptotically towards zero.> You are just as wrong as anyone who around 1900, observing the steep fall in marginal cost of manufactured goods, predicted that food would become effectively free. In fact food declined from say a third or half of someone's income to something on the order of a tenth now in the developed world. The third world didn't industrialize so was devalued. The industrial economy was more valuable than the agricultural economy, and to survive the agricultural economy had to move to higher economies-of-scale and automation, thus significantly lowering relative prices.
And now the Knowledge Age economy is devaluing the Industrial and Agricultural age economies. Food is maybe a hundredth of my income and that is the future.> We’re still a long way from solving the shortage of skilled labor, as anyone who has ever needed a plumber can attest. I am in the Lazarus Long camp that says there is nothing the government can't unimprove if it can touch it. Plumbing is not an extremely highly skilled activity, at least without the kafkaesque, labyrinth of building codes that must be navigated in some jurisdictions. Of course I am not arguing that building best practices aren't a good idea if done in the free market. I strongly suspect the supply of plumbers is restricted by the onerous licensing requirements which mismatch the education level of someone who wouldn't be bored out their freakin' mind to pursue that career. I was an autodidact plumber when I was 5 years old. Currently it is difficult to find a plumber in the post-BRICs NICs portion of the developing world, because the debt was driven sky-high by the Fed's ZIRP carry trade and uneconomic construction is going full tilt (to implode globally 2016 in a massive conflagrapocalypse).
I expect the discussion will likely digress to the usual pissing politics, so I won't participate further unless there is a solid refutation of my salient point about knowledge networking scaling faster than vertical integration. |
|
|
|
Eric presented his refutation and I replied. This pretty much cements it for me. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-480217> For Rifkin’s predictions to come true it would not suffice for knowledge creation to rise in value. For his predictions to come true, material goods would have to fall to zero marginal cost. That will not happen, because atoms are heavy. Mea culpa I haven't read the book. I indicated in my linked refutation, that I wouldn't agree with any Communist basis and agree with Eric's critique on that aspect. For the conceptual idea to scale, there must be symbiosis between individual gain and collective gain, per the Eric's Inverse Commons in the Magic Cauldron.
For example, one could argue that any initial start-up cost for a creation couldn't be offset by the knowledge network value of incremental edits because the initial creator is not directly receiving the return on investment. My counter logic is there may be business models dealing with modularity or diminishing trail of appreciation (citation) that when combined with micro payments can route remuneration backtracked to the creators. Moreover the non-monetary square law scaling of the Inverse Commons applies in that participants gain the return of the creations and incremental improvements of their brethren. It is a mesh topology N-highway of sharing. My belief is that according to gift culture Eric outlined, the community is aligned towards acknowledging sources especially when the act of doing so is only an insignificant (automated) micro payment or other remuneration models the ingenious may develop. Insignificant micro payments then aggregate to the creators at the rate of the participants squared. The squared law seems to be so powerful and at the heart of why the Inverse Commons is the "only known positive scaling law of software engineering" as so eloquently and astutely noted by Eric. That audio of Eric is permanently imprinted in my primary consciousness. I can never forget random "monkeys beating on the code" can outperform the cathedral of closed source (which I want to extend to vertical integration in general).
Also I noticed in the Bitcoin and now especially in the Dogecoin community, there is much more tipping and donations than I know about in the fiat world. The participants understand that to make their ecosystem grow, they need to reward participation. That is not Communism because it is an individual decision, no Max Weber central authority is holding a gun to each of our heads. You can see in my linked discussion thread, the participants are rallying the concepts and refining them perhaps better than I could, or at least differently and scaling requires diversity.
Atoms are heavy but that is lacking information. How heavy? Relativity is all the matters here. I never wrote zero, I wrote relative value is trending asymptotically towards zero.> You are just as wrong as anyone who around 1900, observing the steep fall in marginal cost of manufactured goods, predicted that food would become effectively free. In fact food declined from say a third or half of someone's income to something on the order of a tenth now in the developed world. The third world didn't industrialize so was devalued. The industrial economy was more valuable than the agricultural economy, and to survive the agricultural economy had to move to higher economies-of-scale and automation, thus significantly lowering relative prices.
And now the Knowledge Age economy is devaluing the Industrial and Agricultural age economies. Food is maybe a hundredth of my income and that is the future. |
|
|
|
Eric presented his refutation and I replied. This pretty much cements it for me. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-480217> For Rifkin’s predictions to come true it would not suffice for knowledge creation to rise in value. For his predictions to come true, material goods would have to fall to zero marginal cost. That will not happen, because atoms are heavy. Mea culpa I haven't read the book. I indicated in my linked refutation, that I wouldn't agree with any Communist basis and agree with Eric's critique on that aspect. For the conceptual idea to scale, there must be symbiosis between individual gain and collective gain, per the Eric's Inverse Commons in the Magic Cauldron.
For example, one could argue that any initial start-up cost for a creation couldn't be offset by the knowledge network value of incremental edits because the initial creator is not directly receiving the return on investment. My counter logic is there may be business models dealing with modularity or diminishing trail of appreciation (citation) that when combined with micro payments can route remuneration backtracked to the creators. Moreover the non-monetary square law scaling of the Inverse Commons applies in that participants gain the return of the creations and incremental improvements of their brethren. It is a mesh topology N-highway of sharing. My belief is that according to gift culture Eric outlined, the community is aligned towards acknowledging sources especially when the act of doing so is only an insignificant (automated) micro payment or other remuneration models the ingenious may develop. Insignificant micro payments then aggregate to the creators at the rate of the participants squared. The squared law seems to be so powerful and at the heart of why the Inverse Commons is the "only known positive scaling law of software engineering" as so eloquently and astutely noted by Eric. That audio of Eric is permanently imprinted in my primary consciousness. I can never forget random "monkeys beating on the code" can outperform the cathedral of closed source (which I want to extend to vertical integration in general).
Also I noticed in the Bitcoin and now especially in the Dogecoin community, there is much more tipping and donations than I know about in the fiat world. The participants understand that to make their ecosystem grow, they need to reward participation. That is not Communism because it is an individual decision, no Max Weber central authority is holding a gun to each of our heads. You can see in my linked discussion thread, the participants are rallying the concepts and refining them perhaps better than I could, or at least differently and scaling requires diversity.
Atoms are heavy but that is lacking information. How heavy? Relativity is all the matters here. I never wrote zero, I wrote relative value is trending asymptotically towards zero.> You are just as wrong as anyone who around 1900, observing the steep fall in marginal cost of manufactured goods, predicted that food would become effectively free. In fact food declined from say a third or half of someone's income to something on the order of a tenth now in the developed world. The third world didn't industrialize so was devalued. The industrial economy was more valuable than the agricultural economy, and to survive the agricultural economy had to move to higher economies-of-scale and automation, thus significantly lowering relative prices.
And now the Knowledge Age economy is devaluing the Industrial and Agricultural age economies. Food is maybe a hundredth of my income and that is the future. |
|
|
|
Check this thread often for more details and news on the project.
I request we not discuss in this thread about any specific altcoin or altcoin project in this thread, because according to forum rules that should occur in the Altcoin forum. We can discuss about features we would like to see in an altcoin. We can compare and contrast with Bitcoin. Any post related to the OP is welcome, but I really didn't want to hear that we should make a traceable public ledger so that we can make public officials honest. Nothing will ever make politics honest.  That is proximately as convincing as putting lipstick on a pig. |
|
|
|
DieJohnny, I have addressed it, such as in my very first thread Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch over a year ago. In the following quoted post which comes from upthread, I had written about the need for perpetual debasement to fund mining (because transactions fees is broken design for several reasons): The upside is a 0 transaction fees design is a very attractive feature for consumers and merchants. And with a cpu-only coin, the debasement is going right back to the users of the coin any way. And it enables such a coin to be obtained autonomously without any other party nor exchange necessary. Even Bitcoin is being debased by 11% annually now. Of course exchanges should still be available, but they should P2P decentralized. No more Mt.Gox! I had an entire thread about Bitcoin as Ponzi scheme in November 2013, although my view has somewhat moderated since there. Also I have repeatedly stated glaring weaknesses in Bitcoin such as the 10 to 60 minute transaction delay. Of course those issues need to be corrected in any altcoin that seriously wants to achieve widespread decentralized adoption. Are you not interested at all in crypto-currency? Just curious. |
|
|
|
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479742Performers and analysts are earning tips from their YouTube videos. These seed creative thought, which spawn other creations.
We will be able to produce all the food, raw materials, and energy we need with robots. There is no reason the price shouldn't trend towards zero, once the robots can build more robots.
The activity that can't be automated is creativity and knowledge creation. Thus it should rise in relative value.
|
|
|
|
Discussion continues over at the blog of the creator of "open source". http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479716There is very limited ‘knowledge networking value’ for carrots. Extrapolate from there. What does agriculture have to do with network value of knowledge creation? Do carrots have anything to do with open source business models? Carrots will continue their downward spiral of relative value. Iron used to be a precious metal. Commodities have trended downward in price for millennia. If knowledge can be unleashed from vertical integration gridlock, those trends should accelerate. The refutation I expect is that there are many contributors to Linux and to aggregate value and then distribute it to the contributors requires business models such as corporate sponsorship. I agree a dearth of modularity is a barrier, but it doesn't apply to all types of creations. And I was working on higher-kinded semantics computer language to hopefully improve modularity. Even for Linux we could ponder a pay-per-download micro payment with a new crypto-currency, then have a list of contributors ranked by LOC and distribute to them. Not sure if that works, but I am not going to try to pretend I'm as omniscient as you and know all the limitations of ingenuity of mankind. Performers and analysts are earning tips from their YouTube videos. These seed creative thought, which spawn other creations.
We will be able to produce all the food, raw materials, and energy we need with robots. There is no reason the price shouldn't trend towards zero, once the robots can build more robots.
The activity that can't be automated is creativity and knowledge creation. Thus it should rise in relative value. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
