Its not a question of existence it is a question of applicability. You can't apply Invisible Hand to model actors that know and understand its mechanics.

Essentially the actors by understanding the invisible hand, they model it. So that model cannot now model said actors, you need a meta-model. It is an incompleteness argument really.

This is why I think that an AI, serving as metamodel can really be used to model economy. It may understand us if and only if we don't understand it.

I agree that that economic collapse and overpopulation could lead to worsening squalor increased contact with infected animals and increased chance of a pathogen jumping the species barrier. If economic collapse and downturns occurred cyclically that could introduce a cyclic increase in jump probability and the Poisson distribution would not hold.

However, all that would mean is that there would be times of increased risk of a pandemic and times of lesser risk. A higher probability is no guarantee that such a pathogen will jump. The Jump itself would still be a random process. It seems ridiculous to me for anyone to claim there is definitively going to be a pandemic in 2018. The only way to know that with certainly would be if you were the one introducing the pandemic.  

Common symptoms of infection with the virus include mild headaches, maculopapular rash, fever, malaise, conjunctivitis, and joint pains. The first well-documented case of Zika virus was described in 1964; it began with a mild headache, and progressed to a maculopapular rash, fever, and back pain. Within two days, the rash started fading, and within three days, the fever resolved and only the rash remained. Thus far, Zika fever has been a relatively mild disease of limited scope, with only one in five persons developing symptoms, with no fatalities.

Feel the sensual cl0seness between us in 0ur mutual selfless unwavering dev0ti0n t0 Ethereum br0.  

L0ve yu0 s000 much. Mwhaaa.

So let me get this straight, moderation is an abstract thing that only exists in a fantasy and everything that we do is censorship? I don't see how this could be censorship in any way.

Please put a pause on all your well-intended but rather useless (never ending) noise (drivel) about derivatives, what the government should do, evil of central banks, evil of debt, etc and all these superfluous issues that you can neither change nor which will determine the direction global society is headed. Let me have your undivided attention please. (RealBitcoin et al just please STFU for a while please since you won't grasp the relevance of the following)

Getting back to my writings (written in 2010 - 2012) which were the main theme of the OP of this thread back in 2013, and based on a recent paradigm-shift revelation on the markets for the crypto currency I am working on, I have now seen the light of how specifically the Knowledge Age I've been predicting will take form.

And glorious it is our future.

The key insight is that I now see how Knowledge Age producers (workers) will be paid digitally directly by Knowledge Age consumers, and the middle man can't exist (because the competition will be to remove him). I am not yet going to tell you exactly why this is so and all the mechanics because I need to retain this a secret for the time being while I am implementing this.

So what this means is that anonymity was never the way we were going to restructure government and fix society. Instead it is the coming social media metaphorsis of commerce such that there can't be a middle man which the government can expropriate. This is a critical distinction from the game theory in which the world operates now, because when the government can take on debt, promise everything to the masses, and then charge the costs of the taxes and/or end game regulatory capture to the large corporations (rich and upper middle class), then the majority (masses) are in no way incentivized to resist. This game theory is summarized in Some Iron Laws of Political Economics. CoinCube has also discussed this game theory upthread and I have some where in AnonyMint's archives better summarized and justified the Iron Law of Political Economics (I think the Dark Enlightenment thread and/or possibly upthread in this Economic Devastation thread).

So what happens when the majority earn their income and are paid directly by the consumers of the produced Knowledge Age work, is that the government can't charge the cost of the end game collapse of debt to any one! It is when the government can steal from the minority and buy off the majority with debt financed socialism, that the government power grows without bound until the minority is depleted and a Dark Age is entered. Luckily throughout history technology usually (but not always which is why there have been 600 year Dark Ages where only food was money) rescues society and the majority is able to recover its ability to earn income more directly. Examples of such past technological innovations would be soil management technology for agriculture, the spread of knowledge via the printing press, etc..

When the majority is directly earning the lion's share of the income in society, then the government will find it politically implausible to steal from the majority to redistribute, because the majority will refuse. It is only by appeasing the majority making them dependent on socialism and then stealing from those middle men who aggregate the capital, that the elite at the top are able to fool the majority into stealing from the minority and handing all the power to a super-minority elite. Without a minority to expropriate, the governments' debt collapses (this also includes the expectation that crypto currency can be redesigned to remain decentralized and thus the government won't be able to simply turn it into fiat again and print money out of thin air which steals from everyone and this also includes that even if they could, they will no longer be able to use that funny money to aggregate middle man controls... the entire paradigm of the Iron Law of Political Economics hinges on the existence of middle men extracting rents...this was a key epiphany)

Anonymity is entirely unrealistic and doesn't address the political-economic structural issue (that is why I have recently admonished Monero to look at anonymity as a way to make public block chains RELIABLY private, End-to End principled, and efficient but not for the purpose of avoiding taxation and encouraged them to look at making simple scripting private not just currency and thus I assert they need Zerocash/zk-snarks and not Cryptonote nor RingCT). Whereas a new way of thinking about social media and microtransactions does. Stay tuned for the second coming of Satoshi has arrived. And this will be the real deal.

So if there is 90% hashrate in favor of Classic and a fork ensues would be be ok with that outcome?

I pretty much agree with what you say*, initially I think the treshold was 75% Classic but if making it 90% can bring more peace I don't see any problem with that.

*I would add that future users are as valuable as present users and should be take into account (miners, by their profit calculations, incorporate so it's good they have the final say).

OK I was worried that you thought that Core folks are the only experts out there.

Increasing the blocksize is fairly straightforward choice but there is a civil war about that. What will happen with possibly more contentious issues?

We need a governance mechanism for future debates because we can be sure there will be several others. And I prefer a governance mechaism who is bottum up  -hard fork and let the ecosystem choose - than one who is top down and doesn't support competion (extremely fragile position).

We don't rip apart the ecosystem by hard forking, not more than the creation of an altcoin rips apart the ecosystem. Remember when the first alcoin was created there were debates about whether that should be avoided for the good of Bitcoin. The endgame of a hard fork is the same : there will be yet another altcoin. And the network effect of the winning chain will keep sucking every human and capital resources which want to be part of this revolution.

Why are you calling experts the people who don't see the need to move the blocksize limit, which you agree is needful?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/42fggm/chinese_community_has_voiced_consensus_opinion_to/

I think this is why we are starting to go up. Miners providing clear road map.

Also, I'm interpreting this as a miner revolt. Not siding with core or classic. Just changing 1mb to 2mb and nothing else. I'm happy with the move but not everyone might be.


Copied from Google translate.


[Currency] 1992 consensus reached circle gathering support 2MB, against less than 90% count bifurcated force consensus
Lai Bite mine pool | 01-24 | Look landlord
This post was last at 2016-1-24 22:25 edited by 莱比特 mine pool

Author : Lai Bite mine pond river Thatcher stakeholders : Bitcoin / litecoin miners, who hold out

January 23 afternoon, the coldest day in Beijing, good Bitcoin (haobtc.com) organized a party in full swing in currency circles. Participants in the development of good bitcoins, bitcoin block expansion, force mining operator, on Bitcoin future prospects and other topics heated discussion.

On the block expansion, the participants reached the following consensus and hoped that all bitcoin businesses and users to join this broad nine (90%) di (2MB) consensus:

1, Bitcoin need expansion to 2MB.
2, against less than 90% count bifurcated force consensus.

Meeting participants :
Good Bitcoin CEO Wu Gang, super bitcoin, Thief, Bear, etc.
Continental CEO Wu Ji Han Bit
Ants mine pool Panzhi Biao
Ants mining machine Li Ying Fei
Guo Hong Btc123 only
Wells Fargo Funds Zhao Guofeng
Cloud coins cat
Too wallet than Wenhao
Look currency Fangfang
Soso Bitcoin Linjia Peng
(Many participants, if missing, please forgive me)
...
Consensus:
As we all know, this block expansion is no longer a technical issue, but a conflict of interest due to political problems. Background see previous article: " [Bitcoin facing a critical choice] urge all people to support macro news 2MB expansion . "...

Body count I would use it more as evidence of evil which is funny as most probably the most deadly Idea is "God"
…
The notion of "God" and the Ideas around it has generated countless heated religion wars since the dawn of time. One may argue that the real reasons for war have been imperialistic but "God" has been used as a vehicle to motivate the masses and instrument the war, so the body count gets awarded to "God". Thankfully as science and the instruments of war advanced in efficiency, the religious passion waned. But if you normalize by total Human population I think it will be number 1.
Mormons are not a representative sample, they are generally a "new" dogma, so they don't provide anything to the discussion

Take the conflict between the Christian emperor Theodosius the Great and St. Ambrose. It happened in 300 A.D. when some in Thessalonica rioted and aroused the anger of the emperor who overreacted by slaughtering approximately seven thousand people, most of whom were innocent. Bishop Ambrose asked the emperor to repent and when Theodosius refused, the bishop excommunicated him. After a month Theodosius prostrated himself and repented in Ambrose’s cathedral.

IE Imagine the Lives Saved by 1bn Chinese missing the Industrial Revolution, and not becoming a consumerism society, does communism now look as bad?
...
Simple Aggregate CO2 production per capita in China had been consistently lower than in US or Europe, only recently China took the lead.  Had the Chinese followed the US paradigm and drive V8 cars instead of Bikes where would we now be?

Great Leap Forward Famine, was the period in the People's Republic of China between the years 1959 and 1961 characterized by widespread famine.

Estimates vary, but scholars have estimated the number of famine victims to be between 20 and 43 million.[3] Historian Frank Dikötter, having been granted special access to Chinese archival materials, estimates that there were at least 45 million premature deaths from 1958 to 1962. Chinese journalist Yang Jisheng concluded there were 36 million deaths due to starvation, while another 40 million others failed to be born, so that "China's total population loss during the Great Famine then comes to 76 million."[6]The term "Three Bitter Years" is often used by Chinese peasants to refer to this period.

The great Chinese famine was caused by social pressure, economic mismanagement, and radical changes in agriculture... Mao Zedong, chairman of the Chinese communist party, introduced drastic changes in farming which prohibited farm ownership.

Productivity is not a virtue that brings entitlements to wealth, productivity is a zero sum game within the pareto boundary, for one to produce more some one else needs to produce less, therefore increasing ones productivity comes with a cost to someone else.
...
I think the crux is that Productivity is in most cases a zero sum game and only certain events increase productivity ie Industrial Revolution, Computer Revolution, Genetic Revolution and in my mind the individuals involved in those events that increase standards of living and total production capacity have a well deserved wealth.

The rest and more common people simply compete over who will take a piece of a fixed amount of productivity, this is showcased by never actually reaching full employment. If total production capacity was not fixed, ie not a zero sum game then there would be no unemployment.

But unbounded Total production capacity "impossible" due to the fact that production must balance Demand and that would be that Demand would be unbounded.
Planned obsolescence, ponzi real estate growth, black holing production are tricks we have played over time to keep Demand and thus Production up but eventually a plateu is reached.

The real argument though that plagues economy discussion and from which all arguments stem is: Demand drives Production? or Production drives Demand?. Me I think its like EM waves, They are entangled in a lockstep and this is why economy behaves in a wavelike pattern. Differential equations have not yet reached the minds of economists, math is too hard I guess.

Body count of an Idea as a metric is truly an interesting view but I wouldn't count on it as a metric although it is easier measured that the preferable inverse that really matters ie:"Lives Saved" which is very difficult to measure cause it is in the hypothetical space, this is actually demonstrated in the Trolley Problems.
IE Imagine the Lives Saved by 1bn Chinese missing the Industrial Revolution, and not becoming a consumerism society, does communism now look as bad?
Body count I would use it more as evidence of evil which is funny as most probably the most deadly Idea is "God"
...

Mormons also tend to have more children than other groups. Mormons ages 40-59 have had an average of 3.4 children in their lifetime, well above the comparable figure for all Americans in that age range and higher than any other group.

Options date back to when farmers sold their crop in the Spring for financing or just to capture a good price .  Come Autumn, they may never have a crop to sell but they've sold it forward anyway (potentially they must buy at market).  Its a valid instrument and it is leveraged and potentially dangerous especially as every farmer could fail in that harvest from bad weather.  Its something dating back hundreds of years, I wouldnt call it a scam.

A simple explanation of derivatives

Heidi is the owner of a small bar in Detroit. She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar. To solve this problem, she comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later. Heidi keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).

Word gets around about Heidi’s “drink now, pay later” marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi’s bar. Soon, she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit. By providing her customers freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently, Heidi’s gross sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi’s borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the drinkers (unemployed alcoholics) as collateral.
At the bank’s corporate headquarters, expert traders figure a way to make huge commissions trading these future securities, and transform the customer loans into DRINK BONDS.

These “securities” then are bundled together and traded on international securities markets.
Naive investors don’t really understand that the securities being sold to them as “AAA Secured Bonds” are actually packaged debts of unemployed alcoholics.  Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation’s leading brokerage houses.

For me the only entitlement to wealth goes to the one that increases the total productivity and pushes the pareto boundary further. In that sense Bill Gates fortune is well deserved but it also means that Linus should be equally awarded.

Communism, Fascism, Capitalism they are Ideas. Ideas kill... always  You really want to rate Ideas by body count? How many kills the Right to Property has?

In Europe the notion of private property and property rights emerged in the Renaissance as international trade by merchants gave rise to mercantilist ideas. In 16th Century Europe Lutheranism and the Protestant Reformation advanced property rights using biblical terminology. Protestant work ethic and views on man's destiny came to underline social view in emerging capitalist economies in Early modern Europe. The right to private property emerged as a radical demand for human rights vis-a-vis the state in the 17th Century revolutionary Europe. But in the 18th and 19th Century the right to property as a human right became subject of intense controversy.

Except your lack of formal training in computer science means you missed the major monkey wrench in your statement of the ideal goal at least as pertains to crypto currency. That is the technological fact that centralization of databases is the antithesis of trustless, redundancy, reliability, and high availability.

Any ideas on where to go from there?

So I am trying to figure out how we construct a crypto coin so that there remains a tension or competition between decentralization and centralization ongoing. We don't want entirely decentralization and no centralization as that is just as bad as entirely centralization, e.g. see the reply I made to ArticMine upthread and how 100% decentralized control over what goes in the block chain means a choice between unbounded spam or oligarchy control. Thus the problem is the lack of balance and Bitcoin flip flops either to too much decentralization forcing too much centralization (a Tragedy of the Commons). Credit CoinCube for making me aware of the applicable math on that point.

You must use PoW or PoS and thus the problems of centralization and government control are the end result of all of what we are doing here. And helping to force a world government cooperation of regulating the internet, encryption, and Bitcoin mining. Bitcoin is a Trojan Horse that weakens the nation-states and traditional banks, which must fight back by cooperating with a world governance regulation of the internet and Bitcoin mining.

The evolution of the social contract appears to be a progressive climb to higher potential energy systems with increased degrees of freedom. The state of nature begat tribalism. Tribalism grew into despotism. Despotism advanced into monarchy. Monarchies were replaced by republics. I suspect that in the future republics will be consumed by world government, world government will evolve into decentralized government, and decentralized government will finally mature into a shared consensus among individuals with limited or no government.

Each iteration has a common theme for each advance increases the number of individuals able to engage in cooperative activity while lowering the number of individuals able to defect. To borrow from the links in the opening post each iteration increases the amount of entropy the system can sustainably support.