I have a degree in Supply Chain Operations and 20+ years of experience.  I don't think that managing it is broken.  There's a whole world out there that's been doing it for decades.  You should check out APICS and their knowledge on the application of it.

Lost of discussion on eMunie. What would you like to know?

As for the inference that MV=PQ is broken and/or pseudo-science, that's not the entire the story. 

The theory is sound, but all prior implementations have been flawed.  Why?  Humans!   The only way to efficiently and accurately control supply prior to emunie was to have a central governing body analyze hundreds of reports on the economic health and these reports are generally delayed in their ability to provide "timely" information (e.g. months or quarters old since it takes a while to collect and distribute).  Accordingly, these delays add a whipsaw/bullwhip effect when utilized for monetary policy since they are acting with imperfect information. 

With a systemic method of monitor/response the ecosystem can maintain the supply/demand balance much more rationally.

The golden age of mankind in my understanding was about 1870-1912. The prices were not stable, there were +/- 30% moves annually based on natural factors, but the trend was that money (gold) gained purchasing power about 0.5% per year.

Since that is pretty much the only period in history when money has gained purchasing power, and I also happen to hold it as the best and most worthy of imitation, I also support the idea that money should increase in value.

It of course increases in value only if the economy using that money grows faster than the money supply.

what about

Even? There is just as much pseudo science here as anywhere else.

There is nothing wrong with MV=PQ. It is a tautology though. The issue comes when people try to make inferences using it, often holding values constant when they should not be.

Another good subject started by wilikon.

Looks like the retail industry is prepping for the impacts of the common core math program:



The first thing I thought when looking at some of the curriculum is that the common core math program is designed to make as many of our citizens as possible be terrified mathematics and completely dependent on 'those who are considered expert' to do even the most trivial of estimates.

Why is this simplistic economic equation MV=PQ so popular, even among many bitcoiners ? It's pseudo science in my opinion.     

How does it work (mods - again please allow 10 lines)?

Sure, we can just say "hey it is an experiment". But wouldn't it be nicer to have a logical economic reasoning with maybe not precisely predictable results, but at least an intelligently planned results? I already see interesting brain storming in the last few posts. Generally the less magic numbers, the better. Something for Monero Research Labs maybe...



EDIT: If I'm dragging this on in the wrong thread just ask and I'll happily move it elsewhere.

We're not sure - at this stage it appears that they are linking to the binaries on getmonero.org, but as it is somebody who is unknown it should be treated with caution. The fact that they link to MinerGate (a pool most likely operated by the BCN scammers) is also quite concerning.

Community sites are always welcome, but this is not obviously a community site. To anyone coming across it they would think it is the official site, which makes it especially dangerous. Perhaps they are trying to build up some SEO, after which they can just change links to whatever they want.

<meta name="generator" content="WooCommerce 2.3.7" />

That's true, not perfect, but it's the closest thing I currently have to burning. If ppl can see confirmed outgoing transactions to this address it can be used as a good enough proof for the burning process. one can assume that if an outgoing tx. appears in the ledger so it means a corresponding incoming tx. exist. and because it's highly improbable that anyone will have the private key to this address, it means those fund are unspendable.

If someone here can answer luigi1111's question he might be able to create the address

Heh..  That's good out of the box thinking.  But will that not rape the block chain?

It's always a matter of tradeoff between convenience and security. If you're worried about large payments, just enter/check the address by hand instead of using open alias.

After the disappointment (or worse) of the FreeBazaar project, people are going to be understandably more reluctant to give direct donations to even a legitimate project.

Until the crowdfunding features of the Monero forum are up and running I'd suggest finding a trusted escrow to hold the funds and release them upon defined milestones (some could be released at start once a funding goal is achieved).

fluffypony donated 50 himself, so i figured that was enough for me to trust. Hope it works out! 

I think that depends on the development of Monero! I mean, its an open source project, so anything can happen, right?

I don't know the Tor/I2P thing. I mean, couldn't the privacy thing (at least with monero) just be achieved with a VPN?

decentralization of mining - the project map has "new algorithm" on it at somepoint, so who knows. I also concur that this is something that needs focus.

real time transactions - i ultimately think most point of sale transactions will just use a cloaked account check. So the merchant software queries the blockchain to see if theres enough in your account, and then executes the transaction. Realistically, any double spend attack requires more coordination than someone buying groceries, doesn't it?

fragmentation of internet - This is particularly interesting, because theoretically if the internet becomes fragmented, individuals making transactions will be segregated into two unique blockchain forks. However, there might/could/should be a way for the two forks to merge if the daemon can verify that all of the transactions on each unique fork were indeed unique. The only possible exploit would be if you could manage to get your private key from one segregated net to the other, so you can have activity on both forks. Yeah, because the longest chain rule would pick one fragmented net over the other, voiding all transactions during the fragment.

Calling out lying scammers for who and what they are not "fud", it is the duty of any person of integrity. Something you would know nothing about.

Quote: "If you see fraud and don't shout fraud, you are a fraud"
  -- Nassim Taleb (author or Black Swan and Anti-fragility; credit to opennux for the quote).

Most people are sceptical about the wrong things and gullible about the wrong things.

If you take risks and face your fate with dignity, there is nothing you can do that makes you small; if you don't take risks, there is nothing you can do that makes you grand, nothing.

You will get the most attention from those who hate you. No friend, no admirer and no partner will flatter you with as much curiosity.

Success is about honour, feeling morally calibrated, absence of shame, not what some newspaper defines from an external metric.

Economics make homeopath and alternative healers look empirical and scientific.

Pretty good, way better than David's presentation.

Seem like Matthew Zipkin follows this thread closely, love his last question "Is there anything else you want to add, do you guys need developers?"

Fuck off

In my opinion you add nothing to this coin or community.

Why do exchanges not use tokens and only activate wallets for updates and/or withdrawals? Then all wallets can be cold and separate (as well as separately encrypted) for a majority of the time. Sorry if this is a stupid question as I've never really thought of how exchanges operate. Also there would be a higher level of control as during updates the process can be monitored and there can be checks for an inordinate amount of wallets be activated at once thereby adding a layer of checks that can notify operators of suspicious activity. I would think this would make it pretty tough to steal 7000 BTC.