The economic model behind Bitcoin is flawed

[deisik]

Using a monetary system in which you are not constantly being robbed always will help, and always has helped, your economic well being.  Do you somehow disagree with this statement?  It's impossible to argue it

No doubt, it is impossible to argue this. But it is not what I actually said. I was precise in my words and terms while you are now distorting and misinterpreting them. Why the "sound" money cannot possibly contribute to the wealth of society I have pretty much explained in my second post in this thread. In practice, though, there were periods in human history when the "sound" money behaved more like fiat in a runaway mode, thereby it didn't just fail to contribute to the wealth of society (which is a given), but in fact robbed the society of its wealth...

If you somehow think that the "sound" money is totally free from the primary drawback that the fiat money is always credited as well as blamed with, you are way off base

[deisik]

a metric which we agree on of what that phrase means.. then we can see if individual's economic well being does or doesn't so contribute

Why should I care? I'm not very much interested in this issue since it is now evident that you are pretty much incompetent in the field, and the way you brazen it out doesn't in the least make me feel inclined to cast pearls here. Nevertheless, I have suggested that you try to coherently explain the exponential growth of population since 1950, but you apparently shrink from that. Most likely, you are afraid of making a fool of yourself by inadvertently confirming my point...

Or just failing to explain this phenomenon by mouthing some outright bullshit, lol

[funkenstein]

a metric which we agree on of what that phrase means.. then we can see if individual's economic well being does or doesn't so contribute

Why should I care? I'm not very much interested in this issue since it is now evident that you are pretty much incompetent in the field, and the way you brazen it out doesn't in the least make me feel inclined to cast pearls here. Nevertheless, I have suggested that you try to coherently explain the exponential growth of population since 1950, but you apparently shrink from that. Most likely, you are afraid of making a fool of yourself by inadvertently confirming my point...

Or just failing to explain this phenomenon by mouthing some outright bullshit, lol

You'll find that human population growth has been FASTER than exponential from roughly the year 0 onward.  This is due to MANY factors, the most commonly sited are agriculture, technology, favorable growth conditions, and societal behaviors such as acceptance of large families.  The use of internal combustion engines in agriculture especially correlated with rapid growth in the last 100 years.  

Nice non-sequitur huh?  As you yourself CORRECTLY pointed out earlier in the thread, what we have been using for exchange commodities means little with regard to e.g. slavery or other societal conditions, which includes those that influence population growth.  You're not really trying to imply now that people's being robbed via exchange commodity fraud has led to population growth are you?  

      

[deisik]

a metric which we agree on of what that phrase means.. then we can see if individual's economic well being does or doesn't so contribute

Why should I care? I'm not very much interested in this issue since it is now evident that you are pretty much incompetent in the field, and the way you brazen it out doesn't in the least make me feel inclined to cast pearls here. Nevertheless, I have suggested that you try to coherently explain the exponential growth of population since 1950, but you apparently shrink from that. Most likely, you are afraid of making a fool of yourself by inadvertently confirming my point...

Or just failing to explain this phenomenon by mouthing some outright bullshit, lol

You'll find that human population growth has been FASTER than exponential from roughly the year 0 onward

Are you kidding or what? The human population was roughly constant most of its history (and most here means 99.999...% of the time of its existence), even dramatically declining in the case of some natural disasters like worldwide pandemics (say, the Plague of Justinian of the 6th century), up to a point of the so-called bottleneck. Do you (fail to) see the flat line from year 1050 till 1500 in the chart that I posted earlier? Is this what you call exponential, lol?

In 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change. This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age

The rate of the population growth that started in the second half of the 20th century is unprecedented and has no match in the entire human history

Still wanna talk about the exponential growth from year 0?

[deisik]

The use of internal combustion engines in agriculture especially correlated with rapid growth in the last 100 years

So you agree that the use of machinery allowed to produce more foods and goods by the same hands, right?

[deisik]

Nice non-sequitur huh?  As you yourself CORRECTLY pointed out earlier in the thread, what we have been using for exchange commodities means little with regard to e.g. slavery or other societal conditions, which includes those that influence population growth.  You're not really trying to imply now that people's being robbed via exchange commodity fraud has led to population growth are you? 

If you assume that fiat is a means to rob population, then I obviously can't agree with this assumption in the first place. Thereby, your conclusion presented as a question makes no sense to me...

I think you may want to stop juggling with words and facts

[virtualx]

Nice non-sequitur huh?  As you yourself CORRECTLY pointed out earlier in the thread, what we have been using for exchange commodities means little with regard to e.g. slavery or other societal conditions, which includes those that influence population growth.  You're not really trying to imply now that people's being robbed via exchange commodity fraud has led to population growth are you? 

If you assume that fiat is a means to rob population, then I obviously can't agree with this assumption in the first place.

Why?   Is the creation of money not theft?  Would you not print millions if you had the legal permission?

[deisik]

Nice non-sequitur huh?  As you yourself CORRECTLY pointed out earlier in the thread, what we have been using for exchange commodities means little with regard to e.g. slavery or other societal conditions, which includes those that influence population growth.  You're not really trying to imply now that people's being robbed via exchange commodity fraud has led to population growth are you? 

If you assume that fiat is a means to rob population, then I obviously can't agree with this assumption in the first place.

Why? Is the creation of money not theft?  Would you not print millions if you had the legal permission?

It all depends. As I have explained it earlier, the ultimate idea of money is to provide a handy and universal tool for measuring the value of goods against each other. If the number of goods produced in the economy increases, then you have to create more money so that to keep the reference point of the scale the same (which you set when you bootstrap the money). Conversely, if the number of goods decreases, you have to destroy some fraction of money. The fiat money (namely, the credit money) fulfills this function automatically through a positive feedback loop...

That is, increased production triggers creation of new money (so-called endogenous money), and vice versa

[deisik]

If you decided to interfere with this process either way, you would in fact be stealing from either producers (by excessively restricting the money supply) or consumers (by excessively expanding it). And sometimes it is actually useful and beneficial to forcefully change the money supply for a number of reasons beyond just the level of production in the economy...

For example, if you want to stimulate the economy, cool it down, or change the unemployment rate (yes, you can)

[funkenstein]

You'll find that human population growth has been FASTER than exponential from roughly the year 0 onward

Are you kidding or what? The human population was roughly constant most of its history (and most here means 99.999...% of the time of its existence), even dramatically declining in the case of some natural disasters like worldwide pandemics (say, the Plague of Justinian of the 6th century), up to a point of the so-called bottleneck. Do you (fail to) see the flat line from year 1050 till 1500 in the chart that I posted earlier? Is this what you call exponential, lol?

In 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change. This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age

The rate of the population growth that started in the second half of the 20th century is unprecedented and has no match in the entire human history

Still wanna talk about the exponential growth from year 0?

That plot appears to have been made from the "Hyde 2007" data in your link, though also mostly agrees with "McEvedy & Jones" from your link.  No I never wanted to talk about your population growth as it is a complete nonsequitur.  Seriously: this has nothing at all to do with exchange commodities.  What is your point here?  


But while we're here let me help you out with basic literacy.  "Exponential" means that the slope of a function is proportional to the value of the function.  Full stop.  df/dx = k*x.  That's what an exponential is.  Logarithms are an absolutely essential part of basic math as is understanding what exactly the number "e" is.  Until you are very familiar with these concepts I would recommend avoiding use of the word "exponential".

When you plot a pure exponential function on a linear scale you see that at the far right it shoots upwards.  It doesn't "go exponential" there.  It always is exponential.

Yes, every set of data you have in your wikipedia article shows exponential and greater than exponential growth from e.g. year 0 to 1500.  







 

[criptix]

Gee u know it is over when the experts start rolling out wikipedia links

Btw i think op has me on ignore or he just cant find any wikipedia counter argument. ( just make your own wikipage and link it )

[funkenstein]

It all depends. As I have explained it earlier, the ultimate idea of money is to provide a handy and universal tool for measuring the value of goods against each other. If the number of goods produced in the economy increases, then you have to create more money so that to keep the reference point of the scale the same (which you set when you bootstrap the money). Conversely, if the number of goods decreases, you have to destroy some fraction of money. The fiat money (namely, the credit money) fulfills this function automatically through a positive feedback loop...

That is, increased production triggers creation of new money (so-called endogenous money), and vice versa

LOLK!  As you explained earlier, fiat money ELIMINATES any reference point of the scale.  "Dimensionless" you called it.  Production of tokens is not tied to any physical unit or good, therefore every token is unverifiable as is the total supply.    

Your claim that "if the number of goods increases we have to create more exchange commodities" is laughable.  When apple makes more iphones do they issues more shares of Apple thus robbing all shareholders?  Are you afraid that prices will go down when there is a supply glut?  Guess what, that is called price discovery in a marketplace and is important in a functioning economy.  Issuing new dimensionless exchange commodities thus thwarting market forces and robbing existing holders is always and without fail unmitigated disaster.    

    

[deisik]

You'll find that human population growth has been FASTER than exponential from roughly the year 0 onward

Are you kidding or what? The human population was roughly constant most of its history (and most here means 99.999...% of the time of its existence), even dramatically declining in the case of some natural disasters like worldwide pandemics (say, the Plague of Justinian of the 6th century), up to a point of the so-called bottleneck. Do you (fail to) see the flat line from year 1050 till 1500 in the chart that I posted earlier? Is this what you call exponential, lol?

In 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change. This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age

The rate of the population growth that started in the second half of the 20th century is unprecedented and has no match in the entire human history

Still wanna talk about the exponential growth from year 0?

That plot appears to have been made from the "Hyde 2007" data in your link, though also mostly agrees with "McEvedy & Jones" from your link.

I would like you to show the correct plot made at full range of the variable (that is, time), starting at least 100,000 years ago (the estimated age of humanity, or, rather, its lower bound) and the Y-axis at 1 (Mitochondrial Eve), that is, not 1 million (as is in this plot) but just 1 (first human). I'm afraid the resulting plot will have nothing to do with the exponential function (y=a^x), just a wild, irrelevant approximation. Only if you put the origin at around year 1800 you will get something similar to it, in form and essence...

You distort facts so that they suit your ends

[deisik]

It all depends. As I have explained it earlier, the ultimate idea of money is to provide a handy and universal tool for measuring the value of goods against each other. If the number of goods produced in the economy increases, then you have to create more money so that to keep the reference point of the scale the same (which you set when you bootstrap the money). Conversely, if the number of goods decreases, you have to destroy some fraction of money. The fiat money (namely, the credit money) fulfills this function automatically through a positive feedback loop...

That is, increased production triggers creation of new money (so-called endogenous money), and vice versa

LOLK!  As you explained earlier, fiat money ELIMINATES any reference point of the scale.  "Dimensionless" you called it.  Production of tokens is not tied to any physical unit or good, therefore every token is unverifiable as is the total supply

I'm afraid that you don't understand what you are talking about. And don't have a faintest idea what I talk about either. The reference point is not about dimension, it is about the baseline where you start counting at, and usually it is at 0. But in the case of fiat you are free to set it arbitrarily as you see most convenient, so that the prices for the majority of goods wouldn't be in either millions or millionths...

You can think of it as the least denomination of a currency with which you can still buy something (say, a matchbox)

[deisik]

And I have to repeat another question which you seem to have decided to deliberately ignore:

The use of internal combustion engines in agriculture especially correlated with rapid growth in the last 100 years

So you agree that the use of machinery allowed to produce more foods and goods by the same hands, right?

[deisik]

Your claim that "if the number of goods increases we have to create more exchange commodities" is laughable.  When apple makes more iphones do they issues more shares of Apple thus robbing all shareholders?  Are you afraid that prices will go down when there is a supply glut?  Guess what, that is called price discovery in a marketplace and is important in a functioning economy.  Issuing new dimensionless exchange commodities thus thwarting market forces and robbing existing holders is always and without fail unmitigated disaster.

I see that you don't have a clue about how fiat (credit) money works. Fiat money is not a commodity, to begin with. It doesn't have nor is it required to have any value of its own...

Only a transactional utility, which is a bonus

[deisik]

No I never wanted to talk about your population growth as it is a complete nonsequitur.  Seriously: this has nothing at all to do with exchange commodities.  What is your point here?

You still didn't answer why we see the surge in the rate of population growth since 1950. Until then I see no sense in explaining what it has to do with the wealth of society ("people have become much richer") and how it is related to a monetary system. If something exists, it exists independently of whether you are aware of it or not...

Besides, I have to quote your post which doesn't quite look like you never wanted to talk about the population growth (and it is not mine):

It is certainly off topic but I'm still interested in what you might possibly mean by "people have become much richer".  Perhaps a reference to improvement of infrastructure on global average, e.g. more running water, or technological progress?  Clearly the population has hugely increased, meaning that individual's fraction of ownership of the whole shebang has gone down.  Of course none of this has anything to do with being robbed blind due to stupidity of accepting counterfeitable dimensionless tokens in exchange for labor but I am still curious what metric you refer to which has increased in 100 years

Just in case, you'd better stop making a clown of yourself

[criptix]

No I never wanted to talk about your population growth as it is a complete nonsequitur.  Seriously: this has nothing at all to do with exchange commodities.  What is your point here?

You still didn't answer why we see the surge in the rate of population growth since 1950. Until then I see no sense in explaining what it has to do with the wealth of society ("people have become much richer") and how it is related to a monetary system. If something exists, it exists independently of whether you are aware of it or not...

Besides, I have to quote your post which doesn't quite look like you never wanted to talk about the population growth (and it is not mine):

It is certainly off topic but I'm still interested in what you might possibly mean by "people have become much richer".  Perhaps a reference to improvement of infrastructure on global average, e.g. more running water, or technological progress?  Clearly the population has hugely increased, meaning that individual's fraction of ownership of the whole shebang has gone down.  Of course none of this has anything to do with being robbed blind due to stupidity of accepting counterfeitable dimensionless tokens in exchange for labor but I am still curious what metric you refer to which has increased in 100 years

Just in case, you'd better stop making a clown of yourself

How comes every industry nation has declining population growth?
How comes we only see 10 kids per family in 3rd world countries?

We had several population growth since inception of humanity on planet earth and all of them were based on technological or social breakthroughs. 100.000 years before any1 though of fiat money.
( and yes, it was/is expontential growth )

Just take the tiger and dragon states for perfect examples. ( i.e. china & thailand )

Didnt you even had basic history in school?

[deisik]

Yes, every set of data you have in your wikipedia article shows exponential and greater than exponential growth from e.g. year 0 to 1500

I'm curious how are going to fit into an exponential growth two pandemics (6-7th centuries and 14th century) that each killed half of the world population back then and which required two centuries for the humanity to recover from them to its previous numbers? Should I remind you that the exponential function is a monotonically increasing one? I assume that losing half of the world population on a few occasions is enough to make the exponential function inappropriate for an approximation of the human population growth in the given time period...

But you are free to think otherwise, I don't mind

[deisik]

How comes every industry nation has declining population growth?

Get your facts straight, dude

How comes we only see 10 kids per family in 3rd world countries?

Yes, this is the question I want to hear the answer to as well (though the answer is pretty simple)