The outputs always come from inputs if that is what you mean but whether any of the new UTXOs belong to the original party isn't something you can be certain of.

You might be interested in looking into things like CoinJoin in order to improve anonymity (another perhaps easier but generally not without fee approach is to move funds via crypto to crypto exchanges).

Also a CoinJoin type idea that would work across blockchains via AT is described here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=893271.msg9844660#msg9844660

You should also note that you can switch on "coin control" to decide exactly which UTXOs to use for a transaction.

Actually the opposite can be easily true with Bitcoin because if you were paid say 10 BTC at some time then you effectively have one 10 BTC "note" (the UTXO) rather than the same set of perhaps smaller notes the sender had used (the inputs).

Assuming you buy something for 1 BTC then your change is 9 BTC but I do guess that typical spending habits might be able to make analysis easier.

Thanks - very interesting.

Video is a bit of a problem for me - is there a written reference of what you did?

So we do that - now where does the "economics" theory take place?

Well as you started this new twist (and that's perfectly fine) can you give us your idea for how to do that (i.e. how are you going to make the choices)?

You know it is funny - this topic has gone way off topic yet I (the creator of the topic) love where it has gone!

Thanks for the great posts guys (I had actually expected to just have it turn into a topic telling me what an arrogant ass I am - which may of course still be true).

Let's hope that does happen before we are all choking to death (my wife and I left Beijing for that reason - if you want to experience how bad the future might be I'd recommend visiting Beijing especially around this time of year).

For a healthy person a couple of weeks isn't likely to hurt you - but living there for years is something that I'd reckon that most western GPs would advise you against doing!

Whilst I don't doubt that wind or solar energy could power the entire world the most fundamental problem is that in order to construct the infrastructure you mention is equivalent to all the energy we actually have available (meaning that we can't do it unless we decide to do nothing else).

This is the point where you actually need "science" not "economics".

That is the very crux of the point.

According to everything I've read all the renewable energy sources we have combined cannot solve the problem to supply the amount of energy needed, nuclear fission very unpopular (so not likely to get greatly expanded) and nuclear fusion has yet to produce more energy than has been spent on trying to achieve it (perhaps if we get *lucky* that might change).

A project such as this is *never completed* but what I can say is that a working system can be expected in a few months.

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


Economic growth fundamentally.

Yes - specifically I want to understand why "infinite expansion" is necessary to his economic theory (as it doesn't seem to make much sense to me).

Fair enough - but it is not that I can't be convinced that economic theory (in particular that of Keynes) is both rational and indeed useful so perhaps if my arrogant tone (which was actually meant to be more tongue in cheek) could be overlooked by someone who understands and would like to enlighten me then I am willing to be enlightened.

Well the building is actually cement but I guess that's pretty much the same as stone.

It isn't a problem where those resources have been very tightly controlled which is how Ethereum (and AT) work.

But such systems are very inefficient - so my point is that we are more likely to see much higher level approaches in the future (which is what the CIYAM project is about).

Okay - that at least makes some sense to me - thanks for the patience.

Well - I do hope that the US spends a few trillion dollars looking for oil on the Moon (as that would be money most otherwise likely to be spent on its military).