Bitcoin didn't solve BGP either. Nothing does because...
What you keep denying is that there are solutions (all solutions, and provably so in the case of BGP) that solve the problem within a specified range. Generally up to 33%-of-generals in the case of BGP and maybe 50%-of-hash rate for Bitcoin. ASIC-resistant PoW seems like a delightful idea to me. Is memory latency the barrier to stand upon for the ages? Hmm, that sounds familiar.
Of course no PoW proving algorithm (of any design) can be as efficient on less optimized consumer hardware and retail electricity (10 - 20 cents per KWH) as compared to highly optimized ASIC mining farms on 0 - 4 cents per KWH electricity (hydropower colocated or China's collectivized corruption). Even distributing ASICs to consumers won't level the playing field and not only because of differences in electricity costs, yet also due to economies-of-scale, access to lower interest loans, better connectivity to the major pools of the P2P announcement network, amortization of block chain verification over great income, etc.. Profitable PoW will always centralize, because there is a "selfish mining" attack always ongoing and there is no such thing as a minimum requirement for 25 or 33% of the hashrate, because (a conceptual variant of) "selfish mining" is built into the economics of Bitcoin (e.g. the amortization of verification costs, etc). That is why I designed an UNprofitable PoW system. There is no other hope. Edit: the reason I am interested in narrowing the margin between PoW prover computation on consumer hardware and mining farms, is because in an UNprofitable mining design then the aforementioned ratio dictates from the ratio of UNprofitable hashrate to profitable hashrate determines how high that block reward can be and not be profitable to any miner. Obviously a coinbase reward of 0 is always UNprofitable (unless transaction fees are considered which is another detail I covered in the Decentralization thread). |
|
|
|
Bitcoin didn't solve BGP either. Nothing does because...
What you keep denying is that there are solutions (all solutions, and provably so in the case of BGP) that solve the problem within a specified range. Generally up to 33%-of-generals in the case of BGP and maybe 50%-of-hash rate for Bitcoin. ASIC-resistant PoW seems like a delightful idea to me. Is memory latency the barrier to stand upon for the ages? Hmm, that sounds familiar.
Of course no PoW proving algorithm (of any design) can be as efficient on less optimized consumer hardware and retail electricity (10 - 20 cents per KWH) as compared to highly optimized ASIC mining farms on 0 - 4 cents per KWH electricity (hydropower colocated or China's collectivized corruption). Even distributing ASICs to consumers won't level the playing field and not only because of differences in electricity costs, yet also due to economies-of-scale, access to lower interest loans, better connectivity to the major pools of the P2P announcement network, amortization of block chain verification over great income, etc.. Profitable PoW will always centralize, because there is a "selfish mining" attack always ongoing and there is no such thing as a minimum requirement for 25 or 33% of the hashrate, because (a conceptual variant of) "selfish mining" is built into the economics of Bitcoin (e.g. the amortization of verification costs, etc). That is why I designed an UNprofitable PoW system. There is no other hope. Edit: the reason I am interested in narrowing the margin between PoW prover computation on consumer hardware and mining farms, is because in an UNprofitable mining design then the aforementioned ratio dictates from the ratio of UNprofitable hashrate to profitable hashrate determines how high that block reward can be and not be profitable to any miner. Obviously a coinbase reward of 0 is always UNprofitable (unless transaction fees are considered which is another detail I covered in the Decentralization thread). |
|
|
|
Here (August 28th, 2009) http://s3.amazonaws.com/armstrongeconomics-wp/2012/03/will-gold-reach-5000-809.pdf MA says “It is coming into its own and is still poised to rally to at least test the $3,000 level if not much higher.” And “Government has promised the moon, and can no more keep their promise that Santa really eats the cookies. When there is no one who buys the US debt, that is when the ceiling will fall. We will see this most likely after 2010 and it appears the end may be 2015-2016. A 21 year bull market in stocks points to 2015 and a 17.2 year high in gold points to 2016. This does not negate the decline after Labor Day back into 2010 that seems to be shaping up”. Why am I the only one capable of reading the sources sloanf cites and pointing out that he is lying and cherry-picking quotes out-of-context every damn time! Here one last time and I better never ever read anyone agreeing with sloanf unless they've carefully analyzed the cited MA document. I have provided the technical analysis on Gold based on a monthly chart. The first real resistance
is formed by the Primary Channel that shows $1,350 - $1,750 between 2010 and 2012.
Which is exactly what happened, which is exactly what he reiterated in his March 2011 prediction. This represents still a plain old normal technical move with nothing that would reflect a
meltdown. It is breaking this overhead resistance where it becomes support that we
enter the "danger zone" of a true meltdown in Public Confidence.
Most of the projected resistance from the major low back in 1999, shows various
targets from $1,700 to $2,750. However, if gold exceeds this level and it too forms
the subsequent support, now we are looking at the
$3,500 to $5,000 target zone.
This is where we see the potential for Gold is a true economic meltdown of
Confidence. In the next leg down into 2011...
Again this is the same unlikely alternative scenario he discussed in the March 2011 document, which explained less likely. And again he reiterated the downturn to 2011 for the ECM (i.e. the public economy confidence since we are in the 51.6 year Public wave overall) which means a rising gold (private economy or loss in confidence in public econony) through the turn date shown on the chart (page 17) for the ECM of 2011.45 which is precisely what transpired! sloanf is digging his own grave with his citations of MA. And note the 2009 document above was written while MA was in prison and didn't have access to Socrates. |
|
|
|
However, the very success of social animals, their dominance, would be expected to contain the seeds of destruction - since the conditions for free-riding and parasitism are greatly increased by the expansion in numbers and the relative autonomy from environmental constraints such as food supply and predation.
(This can be seen very clearly in modern human society, where the large surplus of modern economies above subsistence allows for unprecedented levels of parasitic behaviour by individuals, and also groups - such as bureaucracies.)
....
A successful social species can therefore find itself in the situation when the main proximate constraint on reproductive success is competition within the species - and this creates many niches for more-or-less parasitic and exploitative behaviours (the individual profiting at the expense of the group).
...despite that many or most geniuses have below average reproductive success due to their energies and efforts being directed at non-reproductive, non-social goals.
Overall it is a good read and does remarkably jibe with what we were recently discussing. He introduces some more detailed ways to associate the evolutionary perspective with what you and I were alluding to upthread and in my Knowledge Is Alive! essay. Note Eric S. Raymond is a genius and is very much into the social game, e.g. he coined the name "open source" and wrote the books on the open source phenomenon. When he worries about the significance of parasitism, Bruce Charlton seems to make the same mistake as so many others (by not realizing the parasitism is only significant relative to those who don't enter the much higher valued/productive economy of knowledge formation and the entropic force of the Knowledge Age synergies is his social group selection in action, i.e. the entropic force of the Invisible Hand trends to maximum entropy ... and not just from the perspective of heaviness of atoms but encoding information in the genome, culture, and network that out-lives any individual death): Wherein I had pointed out that the entropic force and the Knowledge Age diminishes the relevancy of "the heaviness of atoms". Again I will (in the future) argue is also the essence of what I believe to be a myopia in Jorge Stolfi's stance in the open debate I postponed. P.S. unfortunately I am lacking the energy to read more of Charlton's work. I barely made it through the last post you provided. Note biology was not my favorite subject in high school. |
|
|
|
Decentralized proof-of-storage is always flawed, and that will include IPFS's Filecoin as well. In addition to the insoluble issue of how to not infringe copyright in decentralized file storage (and thus per my prior three posts above not be at odds with the coming Knowledge Age creators and the government), another point is how are we going to pay for decentralized file storage for all websites and content on the internet  If we say that we'll all host this content for free on our home computers and serve it via our home ISP internet connections, I have already pointed out insoluble problems: - Last mile physics is such that home connections have asymmetric upload (less than download) bandwidth. Thus even if we all trade our bandwidth tit-for-tat equally, then we have collectively more download bandwidth than we have upload bandwidth. Not only does this steal from ISPs that provide more upload bandwidth, which is what I warning Bittorrent in 2008 would lead to the Communism of Net Neutrality (and they ignored me and just this month they ostensibly removed the archives when I raised this point again!), but it also is impossible to balance and thus we pay for it by hosting it on symmetrically backbone connected hosts as the internet is currently. So then how do we pay for that upload and hosting service if the owner of the files is not hosting them? Do we send microtransactions for each file we request, i.e. we put a paywall on the entire internet(!!!)? Or do we pay a Communist tax to the government (e.g. the plans for Net Neutrality) and it regulates a file store for us and also so the government can enforce copyright? I guess one can argue that bandwidth will become so cheap, we can afford to consider it free. But still someone has to pay for it and even as costs decline, bandwidth demands increase. And global bandwidth costs are I would guess in the $billions.
- There is no way to insure persistence unless one keeps a copy of the file hosted themselves, thus this sort of defeats one of the main point of decentralized file storage which is reliability of archival.
I do think we need smarter decentralized caching for the internet which pays for itself by saving bandwidth! I do think we need to reference files by hash (perhaps with a hint for primary source url where also blame can be assigned for promulgating copyright infringement, thus all such records would need to be signed with the public key for the HTTPS certificate of the site) for permanence of references. So perhaps there is a way to do a decentralized overlay network on top of the URL paradigm that can deal with copyright blame and respect the policies so encoded by the aforementioned signature. I am going to email Juan Benet again and pass this idea along. I am urging him and others to be less ideological and more pragmatic. Delusional leanings such as proof-of-storage (which I thought of in 2013 and discarded because it can't be sound) and wanting to attack the establishment at any cost of nonsensical economic, political-economic, and technological issues. Let's get back to standing on solid engineering work.
Storj guy here. All of the actor vectors you described are addressed in the our whitepaper or a blog post. I read the white paper last week. 1) Sybil - Bonds and unique pieces
There is no way to do proof-of-storage that is robust. The only way is to make some assumptions about latency of propagation to a centralized copy of all files, but that can be gamed. Propagation is not proof. 2) Illegal content - Greylists
The Storj FAQ confirms these are opt-in, and not forced. Thus I maintain my point that the Storj protocol can become banned (refused) by Hosts (and even ISPs). We are moving into totalitarianism and increased government control over the internet. This direction of enabling theft of copyrights is begging for your project to be attacked and fail. 3) Bandwidth vs storage - pay for both
Pay how? Micropayments for each access to bandwidth? How to pay for storage when it is decentralized with unbounded replications and can be Sybil attacked. Sorry these decentralized systems are doomed. The concept can't work.
1) Sybil - Bonds and unique pieces
The mathematical models are right there in the paper. We are collecting live data from the network, which proves the models are correct. "Its not going to work" in face of real data showing that is working is not going to cut it. Please provide some data or mathematical models that say otherwise. Latency doesn't matter for proofs. Testnets do not prove that the Sybil attack resistance and payment model economics work (because game theory is fully incentivized in the wild). Regarding case 1) in the quote above, the fact is the math models are often myopic[1] (and again that is so in this case), because it is impossible to prove proof-of-storage/retrievability: These proof-of-storage/retrievability algorithms also employ a challenge/response to force the node to have access to the full copy of the data which should be stored, but this does not prevent the node from outsourcing the storage to a single centralized repository. So to attempt prevent that centralized repository attack (i.e. Sybil attack on the nodes) these proof-of-storage/retrievability algorithms “try to use network latency to prevent centralized outsourcing, but [that is impossible because] ubiquitously consistent network latency is not a reliable commodity”.
Of course decentralized file systems are not compatible with the 19th century business models of the MPAA and RIAA, such as placing music on Edison Cylinders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_cylinder and then distributing the Edison Cylinders by sailing ship. That does not mean however that decentralized file systems are doomed, what it does mean is that decentralized file systems will serve to further accelerate the demise of these 19th century business models, and the corporations that promote them. The political argument is irrelevant for as long as the technology and payment (economic) models are irreparably flawed, as I explained above. |
|
|
|
Decentralized proof-of-storage is always flawed, and that will include IPFS's Filecoin as well. In addition to the insoluble issue of how to not infringe copyright in decentralized file storage (and thus per my prior three posts above not be at odds with the coming Knowledge Age creators and the government), another point is how are we going to pay for decentralized file storage for all websites and content on the internet If we say that we'll all host this content for free on our home computers and serve it via our home ISP internet connections, I have already pointed out insoluble problems: - Last mile physics is such that home connections have asymmetric upload (less than download) bandwidth. Thus even if we all trade our bandwidth tit-for-tat equally, then we have collectively more download bandwidth than we have upload bandwidth. Not only does this steal from ISPs that provide more upload bandwidth, which is what I warning Bittorrent in 2008 would lead to the Communism of Net Neutrality (and they ignored me and just this month they ostensibly removed the archives when I raised this point again!), but it also is impossible to balance and thus we pay for it by hosting it on symmetrically backbone connected hosts as the internet is currently. So then how do we pay for that upload and hosting service if the owner of the files is not hosting them? Do we send microtransactions for each file we request, i.e. we put a paywall on the entire internet(!!!)? Or do we pay a Communist tax to the government (e.g. the plans for Net Neutrality) and it regulates a file store for us and also so the government can enforce copyright? I guess one can argue that bandwidth will become so cheap, we can afford to consider it free. But still someone has to pay for it and even as costs decline, bandwidth demands increase. And global bandwidth costs are I would guess in the $billions.
- There is no way to insure persistence unless one keeps a copy of the file hosted themselves, thus this sort of defeats one of the main point of decentralized file storage which is reliability of archival.
I do think we need smarter decentralized caching for the internet which pays for itself by saving bandwidth! I do think we need to reference files by hash (perhaps with a hint for primary source url where also blame can be assigned for promulgating copyright infringement, thus all such records would need to be signed with the public key for the HTTPS certificate of the site) for permanence of references. So perhaps there is a way to do a decentralized overlay network on top of the URL paradigm that can deal with copyright blame and respect the policies so encoded by the aforementioned signature. I am going to email Juan Benet again and pass this idea along. I am urging him and others to be less ideological and more pragmatic. Delusional leanings such as proof-of-storage (which I thought of in 2013 and discarded because it can't be sound) and wanting to attack the establishment at any cost of nonsensical economic, political-economic, and technological issues. Let's get back to standing on solid engineering work.
|
|
|
|
So basically MA does scenario analysis, like everyone else in the finance industry.
Yup. But has mountains of data going back to the start of human civilization and an A.I. computer model constructed from that data, which enables him to pull order out-of-chaos that other analysts see only as noise or a random walk. I repeat this quote again: Please note (and also in reference to thaaanos' post below) that no one can know what is the noise and what is the data, because in unbounded entropy no one can know a total ordering and predict the future precisely enough to know how to organize the mutations. Without friction and a finite speed-of-light, 0 entropy and infinite entropy would be indistinguishable and the game collapses. Martin Armstrong can find higher dimensions of order (repeating cycle patterns) in the chaotic interaction of a plurality of interacting cycles (Butterfly effects) which has been named the Strange Attractor in Lorentz's famous and widely respected Chaos Theory. So he can determine timings on repeating cycles, but he can't tell nature which mutations which adapt to the future because he can't know all the details about the future. He can see one partial ordering which is more informational than than those who don't compile and multi-dimensionally inspect as much data as he claims.
|
|
|
|
Afaik, the reason artists were devalued throughout history was due to two facts:
Lack of abundance in the ancient economy
Which is why I find the idea of turning into more of a knowledge age economy unrealistic. It makes the assumption of permanent abundance on the lower levels of things like Maslow's pyramid (or whatever sociology mechanism you subscribe to), thus forcing the price of those things lower, while giving greater, perhaps unwarranted value (a bubble) to things higher on the pyramid (entertainers). The fact is, things like the amount of life in the sea and the wild are decreasing, which is diametrically opposed to the functionality of this age of abundance. Not to mention that such a thing would probably require a flatlined or decreasing population and more intrusive, tyrannical government, with even more power to regulate all aspects of things like copyright. From doing a brief inventory of the world, it's kind of obvious we're already in this so called knowledge age right now, probably peak knowledge age, at least for our lifetimes, due to the fact that population is still increasing. Unless population decides to take an immediate nose dive to sustainable, pre-industrial revolution levels (500 million), I see the value of the lower levels of the pyramid (food, housing, etc) increasing, which they are, and the more frivolous things like entertainment decreasing in comparison (bubble dies).
Even if you claim technology and robotics will infinitely scale the lower levels of Maslow's pyramid beyond all human needs, the specialization of skills required to make them function will lead to increased centralization and monopoly to do whatever they want with the price (already happening with Monsanto and we're still relatively low tech).
Don't count on this. We are not at all far from the point where people can do DNA editing in their garage. Hey, I'm not a farmer, I just assume we can't use any mysterious tricks to create an infinite food supply from a finite top soil, seemingly more contested fresh water supply amongst counties and states, and dwindling ocean population. The last time we tried to farm everything in sight we ended up with "the dust bowl". The UN is saying people should "eat insects" to fight world hunger: You pay attention to the propaganda from your enslavers at the UN Nothing is infinite in the quantized (real) world, because the speed-of-light isn't infinite ( for it is was the past & future would collapse into an infinitesimal point and we'd all be "proof its gone") and thus the heaviness of atoms isn't as informational (entropic) as human knowledge formation. Ah we have ArticMine the Malthusian who apparently religiously (irrationally) subscribes to the fable tale fraud of AGW and r0ach the Mathusian who doesn't appear to be aware that we can grow more food in our basements than we need: MA was predicting some technical innovation to enable us to grow food in less space and in any mini Ice Age coming... One of the more vital technological advancements has been developed locally in Philadelphia. They can grow all the necessary food without farmland from inside a warehouse that is completely free from genetic tinkering or chemical whatever. The owners of Metropolis Farms actually grow fresh produce all year long. Those interested in survival of the fittest, well here it is. President Jack Griffin developed this technology and has been doing a bang-up job. It would probably be a bad idea to set one up in a basement for the years ahead. As he explained, “The innovation here is density, as well as energy and water conservation.” Griffin continued, “We can grow more food in less space using less energy and water. The result is that I can replace 44,000 square feet with 36 square feet. When you hear those numbers, it kind of makes sense.” This is the way of the future — fresh food coming from your basement. I believe the key technological breakthrough may be long-life, high-efficiency, solid-state LED grow lights: https://www.google.com/search?q=high+efficiency+grow+lightr0ach do you want to remembered and laughed at like the Luddites who resisted industrialization because they said it would destroy civilization? There are no absolutely no population problem limits that won't be solved by the free market. Period. The Mathusians have always been wrong and always will be. Always. Forever. The [Existential] fear emotion is inherited from the primitive, post-paleozoic, hunter-gatherer time period when mortal danger was omnipresent. Fear stimulates a fight-or-flight adrenaline spike in response to extreme stress. Adrenaline rushes are thrilling and addictive, especially when the threat is low-grade, not thoroughly exhausting, and thus repeatable because it only exists in the imagination. Adrenaline (plus cortisol) shuts down rational thought in the pre-frontal cortex. Production of the steriod cortisol spikes to redistribute more energy to the muscles and nerves, depleting energy from the immune system, digestion, and toxic waste processing necessary to maintain health.
Even if you claim technology and robotics will infinitely scale the lower levels of Maslow's pyramid beyond all human needs, the specialization of skills required to make them function will lead to increased centralization and monopoly to do whatever they want with the price (already happening with Monsanto and we're still relatively low tech). As for human population, yea, I'm aware how some people forecast we will hit something like 8 billion then start going down, but nothing like this is set in stone. Humans can only survive by all of them converting to K selection theory. I think most people who actually work in this field claim that all humans are K selection by default, which seems like complete bullshit to me. You can find huge differences by looking at different ethnic groups alone, possibly from colder vs warmer climates as well. This is why national sovereignty is such an important thing. Nations that don't implode obviously have converted to K selection, then you have people from Marxist, organized Jewry coming along and saying, whoa, homogeneous society is bad (except for Israel of course), it's time for us to use the most powerful lobby in the world (AIPAC) to force you to import some 3rd world R-selection rapefugees to destroy your civilization. And this is what they have done by overthrowing the 1924 and 1965 immigration act of America. Their latest foray into blatant hypocritical behavior and destruction of the entire planet is exporting all their K selection refugees out of Israel and into Sweden. Even though both countries are similar population, Israel said the refugees were a threat to the destruction of the Jewish state, but hey, who cares if Sweden is destroyed right? http://www.europeanguardian.com/81-uncategorised/immigration/635-israel-is-shipping-its-deported-africans-off-to-swedenhttp://www.jpost.com/National-News/Eritrean-migrants-resettled-from-Israel-to-Sweden-337414[/list] So yea, you're not getting any knowledge age as long as you have the all powerful, organized Jewish lobbies attempting to force multiculturalism upon all nations. Which in reality just means dumping as many K selection groups as possible on top of your functional society to destroy it. It's no coincidence this is happening right now either. Right at the opportune moment when bankers are at their weakest an in danger of being overthrown, they wanted to give you a more immediate problem to deal with to distract you. Readers I didn't intend to thread-jack the Zero cash thread with a sociology tangent about copyright, The Zero Marginal Cost Society, maximum-division-of-labor, the heaviness of atoms, and the Knowledge Age, but it just spawned spontaneously due to a debate upthread between CoinHoarder and myself. Quoting myself: I am quite flabbergast that Eric S. Raymond (self-professed to have 150 - 170IQ, the creator of the "open source" movement) could get the logic so wrong on the coming Knowledge Age. In his critique of Jeremy Rifkin's book, The Zero Marginal Cost Society, he misses the key generative model of open source, which is that the source is always changing. The enslavement of knowledge by capital is due to the transactional cost of the propagation of creations. As we lower that friction, knowledge takes over. And he apparently fails to comprehend capital can't buy knowledge because thought isn't fungible, and this becomes more evident as the diversity of innovation becomes more fine-grained. The claim that the material input costs will be significant relative to the marginal cost of distributing more copies of intellectual property is wrong because the only costs in material production that can't be reduced asymptotically to 0 at economy-of-scale and automation are the knowledge inputs. Thus knowledge is infinitely more valuable than material production at the asymptote. The only reason that capital has been able to enslave the knowledge portion of the cost in the material cost is due to inability of fine-grain, autonomous knowledge to control the creative outputs of material production. The 3D printer changes this because the printer will be in every person's home. The commodity value relative to knowledge value of raw material inputs will fall asymptotically to 0. What Eric misses is that many types of intellectual creations and creative processes can be incrementally fluid and shared, including music, video production, medical processes, etc.. People can take the designs of others and refine them. This is precisely open source. It is not that we won't possibly use fungible money (micro payments perhaps) to pay each other for creations, but that money won't be in control of the startup costs. Individuals will choose what they want to work spontaneously. This destroys the power of stored capital to enslave knowledge. We will still use this money to buy those non-creative things that drop near to 0 in price, such as raw materials and food. This is what I was trying to explain to Eric a long time ago, but it just flew right over his (and his readers') cuckoo head(s) so he banned me. Note this doesn't mean I am agreeing with Rifkin's Marxist conclusions about the end of private property rights. All the indicia of cod-Marxism are present. False identification of capitalism with vertical integration and industrial centralization: check. Vertical integration enslaves knowledge and will fall away. Capital will increasingly become knowledge instead of stored fungible claims on labor. Writing about human supercooperative behavior as though it falsifies classical and neoclassical economics Supercooperative doesn't have to mean Communism. It can mean more finely-grained, autonomy of work. Eric is conflating here, even though Rifkin was also apparently erroneously introducing Marxism. They both got it wrong. the concept of “the commons” is not a magic wand that banishes questions about self-determination, power relationships, and the perils of majoritarianism. Nor is it a universal solvent against actual scarcity problems Wrong! The commons means knowledge takes control. For example, physics assures us that energy is neither created nor destroyed, so it is only the lack of knowledge production that makes energy finite or scarce. And I am not referring to perpetual motion machines, rather to more efficiency and automation of extraction of energy through greater innovation due to faster propagation of knowledge. Nobody ever says that “the commons” requires behavior that individuals themselves would not freely choose, and if anyone ever tried to do so they would be driven out with scorn. Correct. Rifkin doesn't understand fine-grained, autonomy is the key element of the commons. >So @esr, how do you align the long tail of maintenance into the sunk v marginal cost framework? Er, simply by observing that it is neither of those things and can’t be jammed into that framework. He makes it clear that he didn't even consider that the lower transactional propagation cost of digital distribution of editable creations increases the frequency, granularity, and autonomy of those maintenance edits. He apparently doesn't remember that Metcalfe's or Reed's Law says that as the number of those editing nodes increases, then the value of the knowledge network increases squared. When people speak of “capitalism” and “free markets” as being separable ideas, and I inquire into that, I generally find that they’re identifying capitalism with the way free-market economies behave in the presence of high communication and transaction costs – big firms with lots of vertical integration, deskilled employees treated like cogs in Taylorized processes, and elaborate hierarchical management structures designed to manage the largest possible lumps of capital to collect economies of scale.
Economies mostly stop looking like that as the costs of transaction and communication drop and technological leverage increases revenue per employee. But it’s still capitalism because specialists in capital accumulation drive most of the productive activity. Ah he was so close to getting the point, then he screwed it up on the last sentence. Yes Eric, but what capital are they accumulating? Stored capital or knowledge capital. He just hasn't quite had the epiphany yet on how the relative value of stored capital can plummet.
Oil is food, Oil is materials, Oil is Energy, Oil is what backs USD
Oil is what you can't print. Oil is your Tax.
You can't seem to agree that knowledge will 1000X more valuable than those raw materials. You have entirely missed the point of my post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg6065144#msg6065144So I think we will stop the discussion now. I don't have more time. Let them raise the price of oil to $1 million per liter. Our knowledge value will rise proportionally. Then I (and others) will be earning $1 trillion per day. It is the value-added to raw inputs that is relevant. With mass production, the value-added of knowledge was amortized over the capital cost of the factory and millions of xerox copies. Now the creations will change 1000s of variants per day or minute. The value-added is unfathomable. It is the speed of the propagation of creation of product innovation that destroys (devalues) their control. 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. |
|
|
|
Fine, no argument from me there, that gold has not hit 3,000 and US debt is still good. I have no issue with the call not being 100% spot on, as I have said before - every economist I follow gets somethings wrong. They then adjust as the landscape changes.
MA did not get anything wrong. Both of you are taking those words out-of-context. I am not going to explain it again, I already did upthread. None of you are comprehending at all MA's scenarios and models. That is not his fault. You all needed me to interpret it for you all from the very start. MA's IQ and models are beyond the comprehension of weekend warriors who try to dip in once in a while. Spend some years studying then maybe you will understand. As I said, I didn't understand MA at all when I first started reading him when he was writing from prison. It took some years for it to gel. And I have tried to explain upthread recently, but apparently guys can't comprehend what I am saying about MA presents all the scenarios and then says which price points have to be hit to elect each scenario. These are "what if" statements, and of the scenario choices some have much lower probability. From my upthread refutation of sloanf, MA's preferred scenario (predicted in March 2011) was for gold to rise above $1,500, go into a PHASE TRANSITION immediately (which it did to $1,900) and then collapse into a low by 2015.75 which it did at $1050. He also stated other possible scenarios and what had to transpire to make it happen. These lower probability scenarios were not elected by the market, as he expected. tabnloz if you feed that troll again and allow me to see what you have quoted from him, then you will go on my shit list and I will ignore you. I am sick and tired of the trolling. Unfair or not, take it or leave it. Again sloanf will hide under a rock later this year as Armstrong's predictions play out yet again as they always do. Sloanf doesn't have a clue about how international capital flows work and why. He doesn't understand CONFIDENCE and how it breaks in a waterfall collapse. Etc. |
|
|
|
The issue that is being ignored here is that when one pays for "legal" music the actual amount to goes to the artist is in most cases zero and in those cases where there is an actual net royalty to the artist *the very famous" artists it is a minuscule percentage. The bulk of the revenue goes the "music industry" which has been made obsolete by changing technology. Digital distribution of music is fundamentally different than pressing vinyl or even pressing CDs, in that there is minimal up front up capital required so there is no need for a capitalist to provide this capital. A simple pay what you want approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_what_you_want will yield the artist way more by eliminating parasites such as "the music industry" or Apple with its 30% big brother tax. Of course the gross is far less, but would you rather as an artist receive 95% of say 2 USD or 0.0001% of 20 USD? The same is also the case with book / ebook publishers and authors, and the parasitic scientific publishing industry, vs scientists in University Industry or Government. These dying parasitic corporate players are causing a lot of damage with "technologies" such as DRM that attempt to protect "intellectual property". DRM and the attempt to protect "intellectual property" is among the greatest threats to civil liberties and individual freedom in most western counties. It is also the ultimate cause of a very significant and rising portion of China's greenhouse gas emissions. Edit: One only has to compare the relative Developer ranking in https://www.coingecko.com/en of Monero 81 (Pay what you want) vs Ethereum 74 (Traditional capitalist IPO model). Z.cash is following the Ethereum model with its 11% pre-mine to fund the venture capitalists. Those pictures of spinning diamonds did not come cheap. ArticMine, one of my points is we need to enable fans to pay musicians directly for music without a middleman taking most of it (ditto other digital creations perhaps such as video, but video is quite different from music in usage patterns). This what for example Bandcamp is doing (taking a 15% fee, although the credit card companies take another 5+%) and btw the CTO/co-founder Shawn Grunberger used to work in Tech support at Fractal Design when I was a Programmer and I interfaced with him on my own initiative as a liason. I even was the one who encouraged him to become a programmer and I remember he was telling me his idea for Bandcamp back then in 1995. So he finally did it. Congrats to him. Unfortunately he did not reply to my attempt to contact him, so they may find soon they have me as a competitor rather than as an ally. C'est la vie. Bandcamp has a weakness in their model in that one can only sample a few of the songs for free. (Also I found their app navigation and music finding UI is poorly designed, as well no social features!) Sorry but that is why Bandcamp doesn't have the wide distribution and 150 million musicians that SoundCloud has. You don't put a paywall in front of your users and expect to achieve popularity. That is a fundamental tenet of marketing and attrition minimization. Perhaps they understand the market better than me, which is why I am very interested in this discussion. I forgot to make the point in reply to r0ach that FM radio quality audio could indeed be distributed for free by musicians and this wouldn't necessarily destroy the musicians' ability to sell higher quality versions of the same songs. So I don't agree with r0ach that FM radio set a precedent for theft, because I remember I used to buy $9 - $18 CDs even though I could record from the radio station (and that even before I become rich as programmer when I was just earning a typical income as young man working odd jobs). The FM radio will have the radio DJ/host or advertising talking/fading in at the start or end of a song, it will have equalization added, it is of lower quality, and the paid CD may have additionally remix versions. I had in my 20s some hundreds of CDs and 1000s of songs that I paid for. That is why I was really pissed off when I had to buy the same songs again when I lost my CD collection due to my turbulent/adventurous life of travails and travels, so then I reverted to using means of obtaining the music for free. But still I did pay $0.99 per song over recent years at Amazon for songs I couldn't locate easily for free. And I would not prefer converting songs from Youtubes versus spending 5 - 10 cents to pay a musician directly, know I'm getting the high quality original, and have it all organized for me and so I never have to pay again for the same song and I can never lose my collection again (I am so incredibly overloaded and have not even enough time to replace the blown cigarette lighter fuse on my car, meaning I am apt to lose my song collection again because I can't keep track of everything in my life)! ArticMine, I never understood the model of having researchers pay to obtain white papers (other than as a legacy from when journals were printing on paper and physically distributed). Researchers are not funded by their cohorts buying their white papers. I don't understand your point about DRM? Please make your point more cogent? Btw (and entirely tangential/orthogonal to the discussion I added above), I like greenhouse emissions. If I obtain more funds, I will upsize my SUV and perhaps get a few dozen Hummers so I can make more greenhouse gases. I'll eat more beans (for farts) and cows (for their farts) too if I get healthy. The anthropogenic global warming (climate change redux/goal post moving) fraud is junk science and deception. Anyone who mentions that I immediately classify them as a kook, delusional, and incapable of researching scientific fact vs. fiction. Sorry to bust your bubble, but we are headed into a Mini Ice Age. Bobby Jimmy & The Critters - Somebody Farted |
|
|
|
Again I think this another evidence that Bitcoin was created by the DEEP STATE with evil intentions Another? As far as I know such an argument is the only evidence. Well r0ach is correct. You are slippery like Bill Clinton and will argue disingenuously on a point due to stubbornness and vested interests rather than applying balanced reason. One guy in his basement created Bitcoin.  And used clever psychology to cause geeky Libertarian hard money folks to lose their reason and wet their pants by claiming Bitcoin is a better gold because it has 0% debasement (when in fact anyone with a functioning brain stem can see the debasement has been in the double-digits for the duration which Bitcoin can obscure its coming failure). I wrote these observations when I first joined this forum in March 2013. Inserted edit: He disappeared without a trace, yet the entire world is hunting for him. No mere mortals can do that. Your other post is a lie (or a persistent will to misconstrue facts). I will explain when I get back from running errands outside. I did not sleep last night and it was 9am when I was debating you guys. When I get back, you can deal with me with a fresh mind where I am not trying to write delirious due to a lack of sleep. |
|
|
|
|
It is a seemingly very intractable problem it is to solve the BGP in a decentralized context open to Sybil attacks.
One can create Power Law winner takes all as Satoshi did, but that isn't a solution. That is the equivalent to saying who ever can kill all the generals wins.
Making mining unprofitable as I propose to do, removes the incentive to kill all the generals except where externalities can generate gains, e.g. shorting the coin, advantages to the State of censoring transactions, but the security must be considered in the context of the costs to do so as well as any objectivity about faults that can be added to the system. I will need to think this through all again to compose a white paper and maybe then I will find a flaw in my proposed solution.
|
|
|
|
Bad news about Bitcoin... Since Bitcoin can not detect faultiness (consistently provable to all observers), then that means you are claiming it is Byzantine fault tolerant with up to 100% of the hashrate faulty. Which obviously violates the fundamental research about what is theoretically plausible. Which thus proves to you that your claim is incorrect.
Bitcoin is the Power Law of Economics, not Byzantine fault tolerance.
Apply that logic to any of the attempts to solve the BGP, you will find that none of them solve it, which suggests that your definition is incorrect. Each and every attempt at solving the BGP defines bounds on the failure tolerance; beyond these bounds, all bets are off. Simple logic will tell you that you are making a false statement. Given a centralized solution to the Byzantine fault tolerance where messages can't be forged because there is no Sybil attack because all participants' signing key is known, then if a less than or equal to 50% of the replicas agree, then there is a fault of consensus divergence which is provable to all observers. One might argue that if some of the replicas don't respond, it is impossible to prove they did not respond or will not. But all observers will see the same symptoms which is the definition of Byzantine fault tolerance, because they can all relay the messages (and it is assumed a P2P network can have a fully connected network if necessary). Arguing that nothing solves BGP is irrelevant. Yeah you made a typo (you meant Byzantine fault tolerance not BGP). That is the point of this thread. Bitcoin didn't solve BGP either. Nothing does because the problem is open to Sybil attacks. I will repeat, Bitcoin provides a Power Law distribution (winner takes all) consensus. That is all it does. Again I think this another evidence that Bitcoin was created by the DEEP STATE with evil intentions. It is a fools gold. As smooth said, since the system has failed once it passes the tolerance, how can it possibly detect anything? That defies logic.
Oh really. Whose illogic is that. |
|
|
|
The only question I really have in mind is who should/will pay so we end up with that roughly $24 average per annum per music consumer. Current distribution schemes seem to indicate only about 5% of the people will pay anything significant for music. The rest want it free. But maybe they would pay a little if it was reasonably insignificant and hassle-free.
This is certainly true for me. I have not paid anything for music in the last 10 years. However, I would certainly be wiling to do so if 1) I could easily identify music that I wanted to listen to with spending lots time sorting through music I disliked 2) It was easy to buy and doing so did not take much time 3) The music was easily transportable so I could listen to it without having to worry about remembering to carry around an ipod CD or some storage device all the time. I suspect there are a lot of people out there like me. You precisely confirmed my logic on what people with money want. Thanks. Decentralized file storage or not, is sort of irrelevant to your needs (ditto the musician). One can argue that SoundCloud couldn't continue its model because it was centralized and got pressured by the RIAA et al (with the implication that decentralized file storage would be immune, but I have my doubts about that look what they are doing to KimDotcom). But I tend to think they made some poor choices because they didn't understand what you wrote above and some other things. People have less time than money. That will become true in the developing world soon also (if not already starting to become the case). This is the reason people like Apple products (they work seamlessly and save time). Damn you precisely hit the nail on my new project with the bolded phrase. Amazing how precisely you even hit the name of my new project with that statement. Readers this is not some connived BS. I didn't tell CoinCube what to write. |
|
|
|
Since Bitcoin can not detect faultiness (consistently provable to all observers), then that means you are claiming it is Byzantine fault tolerant with up to 100% of the hashrate faulty. Which obviously violates the fundamental research about what is theoretically plausible. Which thus proves to you that your claim is incorrect.
Bitcoin is the Power Law of Economics, not Byzantine fault tolerance.
Apply that logic to any of the attempts to solve the BGP, you will find that none of them solve it, which suggests that your definition is incorrect. Each and every attempt at solving the BGP defines bounds on the failure tolerance; beyond these bounds, all bets are off. Simple logic will tell you that you are making a false statement. Given a centralized solution to the Byzantine fault tolerance where messages can't be forged because there is no Sybil attack because all participants' signing key is known, then if a less than or equal to 50% of the replicas agree, then there is a fault of consensus divergence which is provable to all observers. One might argue that if some of the replicas don't respond, it is impossible to prove they did not respond or will not. But all observers will see the same symptoms which is the definition of Byzantine fault tolerance, because they can all relay the messages (and it is assumed a P2P network can have a fully connected network if necessary). Arguing that nothing solves BGP is irrelevant. Yeah you made a typo (you meant Byzantine fault tolerance not BGP). That is the point of this thread. Bitcoin didn't solve BGP either. Nothing does because the problem is open to Sybil attacks. I will repeat, Bitcoin provides a Power Law distribution (winner takes all) consensus. That is all it does. Again I think this another evidence that Bitcoin was created by the DEEP STATE with evil intentions. It is a fools gold. As smooth said, since the system has failed once it passes the tolerance, how can it possibly detect anything? That defies logic.
Oh really. Whose illogic is that. |
|
|
|
Bruce Charlton has an interesting blog where he argues against the idea of professional performers http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2013/12/against-professional-performers.htmlPerhaps the distant future we will approach what he envisions. In the short to medium term, however, the continued existence of professional performers and enforceable copyright appears a safe bet. The current trend in society is towards increasing centralization and control not less. Thanks for that example refutation. That essay seems to have some non-sequitors. He says people don't dance any more and somehow thinks that is because we pay for performers but never explains the connection. Afaics, we don't dance any more because we have a zillion other things to do that wasn't the case before electricity and combustion engines back on the farm. Nostalgia is nice, but it isn't a justification that we will necessarily revert. He argues that we should all be our own performers but then doesn't explain how we will justify it when we have such a great opportunity cost these days given all the means for us to be occupied. Has he ever heard of the inexorable trend of maximum-division-of-labor. Afaics, if we want a diversity of good quality indie artists, then we need to gift something to the artists so they can pay their expenses while producing music. I listened to the YouTube Hangout videos for Synereo, and the musicians point out that creating music is not without effort, time, and expense. He fails to discuss the point that I may only like a few songs from an artist and may only be willing to transfer a $1 for that music to help the artist produce music. So I can't buy a T-shirt or go to a concert for $1. As well, I can't travel to India just to attend a concert for the interesting Indian music I can hear instantly at songdew.com. There is no way I want to listen only to the absolute best musicians. I want to listen to 1000s of songs of diversity. I get bored fast listening to the same song over and over. I think that is a critical error of the essay. Henry Ford jumpstarted the USA manufacturing economy by paying his employees more so they could afford to buy Ford cars. In a world with 7 billion people and a $40 trillion annual GDP, we can afford to pay 7 million musicians $24,000 a year. That is only $24 per person (on average) per year spent on music. That is only $168 billion per year. The only question I really have in mind is who should/will pay so we end up with that roughly $24 average per annum per music consumer. Current distribution schemes seem to indicate only about 5% of the people will pay anything significant for music. The rest want it free. But maybe they would pay a little if it was reasonably insignificant and hassle-free. So if the 95% is paying 1/20th of the 5% (and not getting all the frills that the 5% get) then that cmputes as (95/20 + 5) x = 2400, so x = $246 for per annum for the 5% and $12 per annum for the 95%. See mathematically it doesn't make much sense to target the 5% as it requires 10X more spending from them just to double the revenue of the musician. So perhaps the global economy can sustain 700,000 musicians (1/10,000 of the population-at-large) at $24,000 annually with every of the 7 billion expending $2.40 or $0.20 per month. As the developing world becomes wealthier then perhaps $24 per annum for 7 million musicians. Be honest. I will not spend $246 per year on music. Will you? But I will surely spend $2.40 and probably $24 annually which is less than I spend on food in day or days. But maybe the 95% just won't pay no matter the price. Then in that case focus on the 5% who pay, use free downloads to promote and be prepared to have 20X less musical diversity. |
|
|
|
When you see a corrected design, you will understand why not being able to Sybil attack a frame of reference is what enables establishing blame and making the system Byzantine tolerant.
It won't work - you cannot combine the majority-is-truth rule with something which gives power to the minority, because if you do, any faulty minority will be able to overthrow the majority, which leads to divergent chaos. It may work, up to its specified limits, but then it will fail a different way. I find it amusing how monsterer often declares that something is impossible and then I show him it is possible, yet then he is so sure of himself again. Making mining unprofitable combined with some different responsibilities for organizing the block chain produces a very different system in terms of the issues we are discussing. Note some centralization is always required. Bitcoin gives us centralization but without any frame of reference thus observers have no way to be objective in order to use decentralized power to prove blame to all observers. LCR has to do with converging consensus. It doesn't have to do with blame for example of which transactions get censored. Those can be orthogonal if structured in a way that allows unambiguously proving blame (independent of the LCR). In Bitcoin, when you submit a transaction to the network, you can't blame a particular pool for refusing to include it. No one can verify the claim by submitting it to network and identifying a particular pool that is the culprit. If you don't know which pool to blame and the pools are Sybil attacked any way, then you don't even know where to move your mining shares to (besides the fact that payers are not mining in Bitcoin because mining is profitable). |
|
|
|
We can't count the components because identities can be Sybil attacked.
I'm not really sure why you are having such a problem with this; it is obvious that hashing power is the only substitute for the abstract concept of a node, or a component. Because hash rate doesn't prove faultiness. Bitcoin has no frame of reference. Majority is truth. That is the ethos of bitcoin. For the 3rd or 4th time, according to definitions the rule of majority presenting different symptoms to different observers is not Byzantine fault tolerance: A system which doesn't objectively (from the perspective of all observers) know when it is failing is not Byzantine fault tolerant. Refer again to the Wikipedia definitions: The following practical, concise definitions are helpful in understanding Byzantine fault tolerance:[3][4]
Byzantine fault
Any fault presenting different symptoms to different observers
Byzantine failure
The loss of a system service due to a Byzantine fault in systems that require consensus This circular logic of yours is getting redundant. I have made my point and you have not refuted it. I hope I don't have to repeat that again. Since Bitcoin can not detect faultiness (consistently provable to all observers), then that means you are claiming it is Byzantine fault tolerant with up to 100% of the hashrate faulty. Which obviously violates the fundamental research about what is theoretically plausible. Which thus proves to you that your claim is incorrect. Bitcoin is the Power Law of Economics, not Byzantine fault tolerance. |
|
|
|
We can't count the components because identities can be Sybil attacked.
I'm not really sure why you are having such a problem with this; it is obvious that hashing power is the only substitute for the abstract concept of a node, or a component. Because hash rate doesn't prove faultiness. Bitcoin has no frame of reference. When you see a corrected design, you will understand why not being able to Sybil attack a frame of reference is what enables establishing blame and making the system Byzantine tolerant. |
|
|
|
The system will have failed, but it will have failed because it exceeded stated limits.
The system didn't fail. Who can prove it failed? You guys keep forgetting the point I made which is that Satoshi's design provides no mechanism to objectively distinguish failure. There is no such thing as faulty nodes in Satoshi's PoW. Even a double-spend attack can not be distinguished from a latency driven orphan w.r.t. to the miners' hashrate. The fact that the payer sent two signed txns is orthogonal to hashrate. Come on guys turn on your brains now. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
