The number 666 is already on all of the bar codes used in the world. (there are two lines at the beginning, middle and end without any number written under them but they are the same as a 6 on the second half of codes with the number 6 in them.)
6 is two lines followed by 4 spaces, not just 2 lines. Google is your friend www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUvdknVO73YThis whole thing is getting really off topic. Feel free to clean up older posts. |
|
|
|
Because knowledge development can't be foreseen. When I sit down to write a program, its design invariably changes so much from the original thoughts about what and when it would be a reality. By the time get to release, the entire landscape may have changed.
More saliently because knowledge becomes a larger share of development, and fixed capital becomes a smaller share. Thus a deflating demand for fixed capital relative to knowledge share.
Saving will still be wise yet we will to an increasing degree save in our brain. Instead of being lazy, one would be learning and creating new store of ability to create knowledge.
My thesis is money will have a declining function as a longer-term store-of-value. But not to zero, and not overnight.
But this vast and rapid increase in knowledge didn't decrease the amount of physical items that we demand, it increased them. You can now convert your knowledge into long-term store-of-value, and spend it on thousands of different electronics and knowledge derived tools. So the need and demand for capital, and a wider variety of capital, actually increased, along with the need for long-term capital used to acquire that new technology. Your counterargument is that 3D printing will make the physical capital creation of those tools so easy as to be irrelevant. Maybe. However, 3D printers are limited in what they are able to produce (can't print CPUs or specific chemicals for inputs now), and there is a good chance that knowledge will always outpace the capapibilty of 3D printers, meaning some things will always need to be done by hand. Also, this argument seems to be very similar to the ludite argument that as machines replace labor, there will be less and less labor, and thus employment. Replace knowledge with labor, and machines with knowledge. I could argue that, as knowledge increases and the rate and capability of automated capital production increases, there will be an increased pace of specialized knowledge creation and specialized capital production creating the type of capital we haven't even imagined yet, just as automation replacing jobs ended up creating jobs we haven't imagined in early 1900's. |
|
|
|
Since the portion of the human genome pertaining to the brain has an entropy in the millions or billions, each human brain is potentially at least one-in-a-million or one-in-a-billion unique.
Just an FYI, brain isn't an organ like a heart, where the genes tell it what it's structure should be and how many valves or parts it should have. It's a network of neurons, which actually physically change based on what you experience through life, which grows new neurons as old ones, along with their links, die. So brain entropy is not dependent on the number of genes in the human genome, but on the number of neurons in the brain and the number and variability of networned connections those neurons could make. So the entropy is vastly larger than one-in-a-billion. |
|
|
|
Could the counterargument be that capital seeking collectivism (i.e. not open source collectivism) requires capital to be immobile and easy to seize, and that we now have systems to keep capital extremely mobile and difficult to seize? I.e. used to be that to have a lot of capital, you either stored it in a bank or property, both of which are difficult to move and easy to seize, while now we can store a lot of capital in digital currencies, and those who own it can't simply have it taken from them, and can easily move around the world undetected if they need to.
But this is not a counterargument. All collectivism requires is that capital be seizable by force. If large amounts of capital becomes hidden and mobile it may avoid being seized. This will result in collectivism starving at a faster rate (requiring it to consume more of the resources it can sieze) then it would otherwise do. In effect this will accelerate the crisis not avoid it. Oh, um, well, yeah, maybe. Imperial evidence shows that exact thing in Venezuela, and possibly the opposite thing in USSR, where collapsing collectivism resulted in the ruling party stealing as much as they could before getting out, while economic freedom was being very slightly expanded. Though it may be because people in Venezuela are in a democracy, while people in USSR were essentially a dictatorship, so the former could demand more collectivism, while the later could not. So, when SHTF, all rich people should GTFO to North Korea? |
|
|
|
*) number grouping for large numbers
Is this for wealthy bitcoiners??? |
|
|
|
Try to say your two years old kid that there's no Santa and watch what happens.
Why do people lie to their kids about Santa in the first place, knowing that it will just cause major disappointment and possible trust issues later. And why is it that when they are told that, while one guy with superpowers who can see everything you do and sits in judgment of you is fake, the other one is still real? Also, wait, wouldn't Santa be one of dank's gods, too? |
|
|
|
Just read in the news that Google have joined into job-killing race! Awesome. Maybe people will finally stop complaining about people in China working in sweatshops. |
|
|
|
Frankie to Mark, me Dear Mark, Please meet my friend Dmitry. We met in business school and he now runs a foundation that is looking for worthy nonprofits to donate to. He just donated $1,000 each to my friend Jessie's IBME and my friend Amy's Primate Education Network. He's looking for nonpolitical, nonreligious organizations and I think he might like Washington Improv Theater. Dmitry's foundation is called BitCoin100. They arose out of the generosity of a few early BitCoin adopters to promote the value of the currency for nonprofits: when donors make their donations in BitCoins, the recipient nonprofit keeps 100% (hence the name). None of the funds are lost to credit card or processing fees. BitCoin100 donates $1,000 to selected nonprofits who agree to accept the currency on their donation page. It doesn't take much work to get it set up, but I know the money could do a lot of good supporting more of the awesome programs you put on with W.I.T. @Dmitry, Mark is a friend of mine who has been Washington Improv Theater's executive director for years. He works tirelessly to organize classes for folks in DC to build confidence and have fun learning the art of improv comedy and put on shows. Like most arts programs, their efforts rarely break even, so they rely heavily on the generosity of the community and private funders. A $1,000 donation would make a big difference for their work. Good luck! I'm a bit more ambivalent about this one. Pros/cons/ideas? EDIT: Actually I'm ok with this one too. Still, feedback would be appreciated. Phinn is being busy, no one else is willing to comment, and these guys moved FAST! http://washingtonimprovtheater.com/pages.php?pageName=donatetowitSo, hopefully my judgement is good enough, and $1,000 sent https://blockchain.info/tx/37eb75f7c39266358161e5b33bfe75caf279fd93dc585d7735f7e536bbffb4fc |
|
|
|
I documented in the thread from which those quotes originate. You can click the link on a quote to go to thread (and post) where it comes from.
Specifically a recent Oxford study predicts 45% of all existing jobs will be lost to automation by 2033. This confirms we are in a period of radical technological unemployment. This appears to happen every 78 years. The difference is this time we are all tied together in socialism by central banks. You can re-read my quotes from the prior post to weigh the gravity of this thud of a realization.
If you are arguing that automation will lead to long-term unemployment, I think you are wrong. Authors have written extensively on this subject since the 1900s (and perhaps earlier). Many were worried that machines would replace men. What we have seen is that automation simply results in higher efficiency and unforseen job opportunities on the automation side. This seems obvious to me, so you must be arguing something else despite what I'm reading here. He is arguing something else. He is arguing that collectivism is nearing the point where it causes general economic collapse. Furthermore he is arguing that when such a collapse occurs the populace will demand yet more collectivism in tragic feedback loop. Could the counterargument be that capital seeking collectivism (i.e. not open source collectivism) requires capital to be immobile and easy to seize, and that we now have systems to keep capital extremely mobile and difficult to seize? I.e. used to be that to have a lot of capital, you either stored it in a bank or property, both of which are difficult to move and easy to seize, while now we can store a lot of capital in digital currencies, and those who own it can't simply have it taken from them, and can easily move around the world undetected if they need to. |
|
|
|
I think my unique insight (which those others did not publish) is that finance and capital itself is losing relevance as the fixed capital industrial age dies. I am asserting that storing money won't be as valuable an activity any more, because top-down money can't buy knowledge. Unlike manual labor, knowledge is not fungible from person-to-person, thus it can't be bought. It spawns from accretive, bottom-up activity. http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Thought_Isn't_FungibleThis is actually one of your papers, and conclusions, I have a serious issue with. In short, though, to come to the conclusion you propose one would have to assume that all knowledge is priceless, or that all knowledge is worth the same. That's patently false, as the knowledge for how to to brain surgery is vastly more difficult to obtain (even with free information available on the internet) than the knowledge of how to, say, fix a computer, and thus necessarily would demand more reward for applying it. So, I'm fairly confident that someone with low level knowledge skills would still like to convert his knowledge into capital and save it over time, to be able to afford the knowledge skills of someone else who may have more, or even just different, knowledge from them. The TL;DR of the first paper seems to take established economic hoistorical progression: Hunter/Gatherer Economy > Individualized Skill Labor Economy (think blacksmiths and farmers) > Industreal/Assembly Line Economy > Service/Knowledge Economy and replaces the last one with the idea that knowledge-based will not be able to fit into the standard capitalist model for whatever reason. Maybe I missed something, but it seems to either somehow ignore that knowledge can still be traded for capital, and capital be used to hire knowledge, and the empirical evidence that many first-world nations, and especially tiny nations without natural resources, have long switched to this knowledge economy without any such collapse, OR that maybe AnonyMint is proposing that there is a historical step beyond the Service/Knowledge economy. |
|
|
|
rpietila, we can't give away knowledge. I have tried to give away my knowledge and I can't even force it down the readers' throats. Knowledge is impossible to bottle up and distribute. Knowledge is dynamic, diverse, spawns from fitness as motivated by the diverse situations that humans encounter.
Did you just claim that all schools, universities, and technical books have zero effect on teaching people? |
|
|
|
Presumably if you are that rich of an insider, you already own the exchange too. You created an exchange because it was insane not to.
What would prevent a competitor from buying coins from you on your own exchange. Exchange-owned Sybil identities to hit the government imposed limits in favor of the owner of the exchange. When the access is very limited as it currently is with exchanges, this tells you that Bitcoin is a fraud. I know the solution to this, it is a CPU-only coin and anonymity, so we don't need exchanges so much. So the attacker sells a lot to make the price crash, then runs up the limit, making it impossible for anyone else to buy or sell for a while? I'm missing something. Regarding your solution, how would people convert into that currency without an exchange? |
|
|
|
An interesting metric would be: what percentage of coins are in the hands of people, for whom the holding represents X% of portfolio.
Probable answer: Gonzalo Lira explains why anonymity is so important but Bitcoin doesn't have it. Also, actually acquiring bitcoins is remarkably complex—and completely negates the supposed anonymity of bitcoin. Here’s a Reddit editor discussing how tough it was for him to get bitcoins, which is fairly typical of retail customers: A whole lot of hassles, and he still couldn’t buy any. And for all the talk of “bitcoin’s anonymity”, you need a whole truckload of verifiable documents making clear who you are in order to buy your first bitcoin. So the bitcoin-anonymity argument is a chimera.
The failure to meet that condition—“buy or sell exclusively and necessarily with bitcoin”—is what makes bitcoin essentially useless. That bitcoin is not anonymous as the edges where it interacts with fiat is not a secret, nor a problem. As soon as you get your money into bitcoin, you can make it completely anonymous rather easily. |
|
|
|
how many braincells will be lost that night ? (who needs a brain when he has bitcoins  ) Anyone who has a brainwallet? How many brainwallets will be lost that night? |
|
|
|
No! Don't plan a 10k party! If you plan it, and say "Let's aim for Spring," bitcoin will hit $10k in January just to screw with you. I can't handle that kind of stress!
OK, how about we "aim for Summer next year". That should be safe.  No it won't be. The $1,000 party was aimed for Spring, or even Fall. With that trend, as soon as you say you'll plan the $10k party for Spring, bitcoin will hit $10k two months ago  |
|
|
|
Since you obviously know and understand this a hell of a lot better than me, I sort of understand what you are saying, and defer to your judgement.
yeah i understand this a hell lot better than you, but it was you who asked the question: "why can't I match that number in that infinity set with any other number, like 1, in another infinity set?" and im trying to explain. And I sort of understood, and for what I didn't, will just assume you are right  |
|
|
|
It will still die if the banks decide to go offline, because then there will be no reason (or maybe ability) for governments to keep the Interned alive.
Uh... what  Government doesn't run the internet. And I would guess most of the money to support the internet infrastructure comes from Silicon Valey businesses, not banks. By the way, people who call bitcoin a Ponzi Bubble are morans. Obviously it's a Penny Auction Bubble. Or at least a Nigerian Prince Scam Bubble  which makes as much sense as calling it a ponzi bubble, if you missed the sarcasm |
|
|
|
Frankie strikes again: From: Frankie to Laurie, me Dear Laurie, Please meet my friend Dmitry. We met in business school and he now runs a foundation that is looking for worthy nonprofits to donate to. He just donated $1,000 each to my friend Jessie's IBME and my friend Amy's Primate Education Network. I think he will love Pathways Togo. Dmitry's foundation is called BitCoin100. They arose out of the generosity of a few early adopters of an amazing currency called BitCoins (if you haven't heard of them, this might help) to promote the value of the currency for nonprofits: when donors make their donations in BitCoins, the recipient nonprofit keeps 100% (hence the name). None of the funds are lost to credit card or processing fees. BitCoin100 donates $1,000 to selected nonprofits who agree to accept the currency on their donation page. It doesn't take much work to get it set up, but I know the money could do a lot of good for the women you work with in Togo. @Dmitry, Laurie is a friend of mine whose husband is on my wife's work team. She's a former Peace Corps volunteer and started Pathways Togo with two friends to provide educational scholarships, mentoring and life skills training for young women in the village where they'd worked. A $1,000 donation would make a big difference helping the young women succeed and fulfill their potential. Good luck! +1 from me. From: Frankie to Androniki, me Dear Niki, Please meet my friend Dmitry. We met in business school and he now runs a foundation that is looking for worthy nonprofits to donate to. He just donated $1,000 each to my friend Jessie's IBME and my friend Amy's Primate Education Network. I think he will really appreciate Common Good City Farm. Dmitry's foundation is called BitCoin100. They arose out of the generosity of a few early adopters of an amazing currency called BitCoins (if you haven't heard of them, this might help) to promote the value of the currency for nonprofits: when donors make their donations in BitCoins, the recipient nonprofit keeps 100% (hence the name). None of the funds are lost to credit card or processing fees. BitCoin100 donates $1,000 to selected nonprofits who agree to accept the currency on their donation page. It doesn't take much work to get it set up, but I know the money could do a lot of good for the farm's outreach and education efforts. @Dmitry, Niki is a friend of mine with a great passion for food. I met her when she worked for a fair trade chocolate company; she now volunteers for a wonderful farm in downtown D.C. that helps educate low income DC residents about food production and healthy eating. I know they could do a lot of good with $1,000. Good luck! This one seems fine to me too. |
|
|
|
still waiting BTC army to free China from dictatorship. hahahahahhaa
|
|
|
|
|
No! Don't plan a 10k party! If you plan it, and say "Let's aim for Spring," bitcoin will hit $10k in January just to screw with you. I can't handle that kind of stress!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
