Thoughts on Zcash?

[QNaka]

Zcash appears to be demonstrating their lack of technical expertise on block chain related matters:

Additionally I was thinking that this Equihash can be trivially sped up on an ASIC because the Equihash algorithm is not memory latency bound and thus is bound on the sorting and computation speed and/or the memory bandwidth, which can be optimized with specialized hardware.

There is no publicly available optimized code for Equihash, so we don't really know to what extent it
is bandwidth or latency bound. There may be subtle trade offs between the two. We really need to see the memory behaviour of actual running optimized code.

1. You didn't address my electrical efficiency point, which I think is probably the most damning. I very much doubt that the memory power consumption will be even 1/10 of the computational power consumption. Thus an ASIC will be at least 10 times more power efficient, Don't I remember pointing out the same issue with your Cuckoo hash? What was your retort again?

2. I also very much doubt it will be latency bound (even after the 10X speed up of the computation), because optimized sorting doesn't have to be random access.

For any memory bandwidth bound, there is this:

WAT? Not very forward thinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Bandwidth_Memory

Out of interest. Why does it matter for a coin which is currently in the alpha stage and only running on the test net?
Isn't the whole point of this stage to weed out issues like this and work on a more sustainable architecture before it ever goes live?

If it goes live with these issues then I would find it worrisome and quite comical, but I don't understand the point of complaining about a alpha stage.

[1714130086]

1714130086

[1714130086]

1714130086

[1714130086]

1714130086

[1714130086]

1714130086

[1714130086]

1714130086

[generalizethis]

Zcash appears to be demonstrating their lack of technical expertise on block chain related matters:

Additionally I was thinking that this Equihash can be trivially sped up on an ASIC because the Equihash algorithm is not memory latency bound and thus is bound on the sorting and computation speed and/or the memory bandwidth, which can be optimized with specialized hardware.

There is no publicly available optimized code for Equihash, so we don't really know to what extent it
is bandwidth or latency bound. There may be subtle trade offs between the two. We really need to see the memory behaviour of actual running optimized code.

1. You didn't address my electrical efficiency point, which I think is probably the most damning. I very much doubt that the memory power consumption will be even 1/10 of the computational power consumption. Thus an ASIC will be at least 10 times more power efficient, Don't I remember pointing out the same issue with your Cuckoo hash? What was your retort again?

2. I also very much doubt it will be latency bound (even after the 10X speed up of the computation), because optimized sorting doesn't have to be random access.

For any memory bandwidth bound, there is this:

WAT? Not very forward thinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Bandwidth_Memory

Out of interest. Why does it matter for a coin which is currently in the alpha stage and only running on the test net?
Isn't the whole point of this stage to weed out issues like this and work on a more sustainable architecture before it ever goes live?

If it goes live with these issues then I would find it worrisome and quite comical, but I don't understand the point of complaining about a alpha stage.

Not sure his bedside manner should be of much interest. If the concerns, complaints, (whatever you want to ascribe to the general term of potential issues) are valid, it becomes a question of whether they are solvable? Can the current organization solve them in their current state? Are they willing to adapt (gain resources, change plans, etc...) in order to solve them? Will changing (organization, code, etc...) result in a the desired state or did the initial state render all possible future states failures? --think of an organism that you want to fly, but starts with the evolutionary traits of an elephant; it may get there eventually, but it requires a long evolutionary road and/or new sciences to be developed to augment the evolutionary process--hardly an efficient process.

My position is that the threat of financial information being at the whim of everyone with the knowledge, resources, or both, to exploit the average citizen into servitude (by means of control or theft) is of too great importance for bruised egos to get in the way of progress. Maybe a solution would be to focus on the facts as they are and not how they are served up.

[TPTB_need_war]

Zcash appears to be demonstrating their lack of technical expertise on block chain related matters:

Additionally I was thinking that this Equihash can be trivially sped up on an ASIC because the Equihash algorithm is not memory latency bound and thus is bound on the sorting and computation speed and/or the memory bandwidth, which can be optimized with specialized hardware.

There is no publicly available optimized code for Equihash, so we don't really know to what extent it
is bandwidth or latency bound. There may be subtle trade offs between the two. We really need to see the memory behaviour of actual running optimized code.

1. You didn't address my electrical efficiency point, which I think is probably the most damning. I very much doubt that the memory power consumption will be even 1/10 of the computational power consumption. Thus an ASIC will be at least 10 times more power efficient, Don't I remember pointing out the same issue with your Cuckoo hash? What was your retort again?

2. I also very much doubt it will be latency bound (even after the 10X speed up of the computation), because optimized sorting doesn't have to be random access.

For any memory bandwidth bound, there is this:

WAT? Not very forward thinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Bandwidth_Memory

Out of interest. Why does it matter for a coin which is currently in the alpha stage and only running on the test net?
Isn't the whole point of this stage to weed out issues like this and work on a more sustainable architecture before it ever goes live?

If it goes live with these issues then I would find it worrisome and quite comical, but I don't understand the point of complaining about a alpha stage.

Ostensibly you do not understand the technical distinction I noted.

The issue here is not one of ferreting out bugs and optimization, which is what an alpha and beta stage release are for. Rather, I am noting they didn't even mention (nor anticipate) in their research paper all the factors that are relevant, so it may exemplify they are not very expertise in this particular area of ASIC resistant proof-of-work technology.

[QNaka]

Zcash appears to be demonstrating their lack of technical expertise on block chain related matters:

Additionally I was thinking that this Equihash can be trivially sped up on an ASIC because the Equihash algorithm is not memory latency bound and thus is bound on the sorting and computation speed and/or the memory bandwidth, which can be optimized with specialized hardware.

There is no publicly available optimized code for Equihash, so we don't really know to what extent it
is bandwidth or latency bound. There may be subtle trade offs between the two. We really need to see the memory behaviour of actual running optimized code.

1. You didn't address my electrical efficiency point, which I think is probably the most damning. I very much doubt that the memory power consumption will be even 1/10 of the computational power consumption. Thus an ASIC will be at least 10 times more power efficient, Don't I remember pointing out the same issue with your Cuckoo hash? What was your retort again?

2. I also very much doubt it will be latency bound (even after the 10X speed up of the computation), because optimized sorting doesn't have to be random access.

For any memory bandwidth bound, there is this:

WAT? Not very forward thinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Bandwidth_Memory

Out of interest. Why does it matter for a coin which is currently in the alpha stage and only running on the test net?
Isn't the whole point of this stage to weed out issues like this and work on a more sustainable architecture before it ever goes live?

If it goes live with these issues then I would find it worrisome and quite comical, but I don't understand the point of complaining about a alpha stage.

Ostensibly you do not understand the technical distinction I noted.

The issue here is not one of ferreting out bugs and optimization, which is what an alpha and beta stage release are for. Rather, I am noting they didn't even mention (nor anticipate) in their research paper all the factors that are relevant, so it may exemplify they are not very expertise in this particular area of ASIC resistant proof-of-work technology.

No, I misunderstood. But now I agree.

But then I think it is much to early to reach a verdict.
The coin is not near to being finished and if it gets released with such or other fundamental issues then they don't have anything at all. Just more noise in the crypto market.
This could be said about any crypto, but the team behind Zcash looks very promising. So I definitely want to see where this project goes in short and long term.

Has anyone reviewed the white paper further and found any other issues?

[dEBRUYNE]

I have added ZeroCash to http://miningcountdown.com hopefully they give us a date soon so we can mine it.

Seems to moved to September already instead of the earlier mentioned July, see:

https://github.com/zcash/zcash/milestones

Under "1.0 Launch".

[IOTUSA]

^ Yup.  This is the real deal indeed.  

I forgot to include this coin on my "next mega pump" list.  

I have been waiting years for this coin! Although, their disclaimer for the alpha is kind of scary... I guess we should wait for the beta?

No seriously.  The tech their team is trying to develop will make Dash and Monero look second rate.

As someone with a pretty solid background in zero knowledge systems I can't help but agree. Solid team, and solid plan.

[IOTUSA]

Ethereum can be programmed to do anything including anonymity so no more need for specialized coins.

Actually ETH can't do true anonymity.

Anonymity is something that has to be in the core protocols, you can't build it on top with bolt on scripts or DAPs without some centralization.

A Turing complete script can read and write data on the block chain, so in theory it can do anything a block chain core protocol can do. Of course performance and other issues may be not be optimal. Yet one can reason that the script can be hard or soft forked into the core protocol to improve efficiency if there is popular demand for the feature.

Z.cash's problem is that a more popular altcoin can steal their technology.

One feature altcoins are a dead end.

The future belongs to the altcoin which can swallow everything and spread adoption because of being multi-faceted. Currency is the most widely used medium-of-exchange.

Academics are not usually savvy businessmen.

It's just I see Zcash and think it's way more professional right from the start.

11% of the coins to be paid to the foundation or developers. Thus the world has an incentive to fork their coin.

Buying the launch hype though might be a great speculation trade.

Problem is that there is no value in copy-paste coins other than a pump and dump.

[twostepsally]

Ethereum can be programmed to do anything including anonymity so no more need for specialized coins.

Ethereum will eventually provide all needs. Other coins pale in comparison.

Ethereum is already a mature produce with $millions spent on development. Z.cash is immature and not yet ready for prime time. Ethereum's price and market cap are going up and now #2 market cap.

Ethereum will steamroll everything including Bitcoin.

Sell your XMR and DRK for ETH.

Its educational to look back at comments...

[twostepsally]

Is there an op page?

What algorithm?

Pow/pos ups iou or cod...more info!

Tokens/coins?

Explorer?

...you know, the core shit for the people with money and can mobilize the network effect in the crypto ecosystem.

[Psynthax]

I have added ZeroCash to http://miningcountdown.com hopefully they give us a date soon so we can mine it.

Another cool site from you, bookmarked.. I think I will be mining this, we will see if it will be profitable or not..

[iamnotback]

Continuing a discussion from another thread:

When you have one global corporation (a group of companies beholden to their collective oligarchy) charging fees, this is equivalent to taxation. They will charge their failures to the collective and keep the profits. It is just a world government by another name.

And I agree they will want privacy, except they will demand to have the masterkey to see everything.

I totally agree with making privacy technology for corporations. I was emphasizing that months ago in the Thoughts on Zcash thread.

Individual focused anonymity technology (i.e. resisting the "State" or collective outcome) has no market and no future (whereas privacy controlled by corporations does). I don't like this realization. I am ready to retire to some obscure place and ignore the world. (but first I'll try to make my technology contribution, health willing)

Note we are threadjacking the DAO hack theme. So if we want to discuss the tangent further, it would be best to start a new thread or move discussion to an appropriate existing thread.

Fair enough. I think the only sticking point we would have is over the new corporate system's need to see people's private information as they would get their money upfront, while traditional governments have used taxation to get their money after the fact--so if you started a new thread, my point would be that you don't need an IRS if you have a national sales tax, and if the companies are collecting the fees for themselves, you don't need much, if any, oversight at all.

Sorry, smooth, for getting this off-topic.

Politics of regressive taxation.

[generalizethis]

Continuing a discussion from another thread:

When you have one global corporation (a group of companies beholden to their collective oligarchy) charging fees, this is equivalent to taxation. They will charge their failures to the collective and keep the profits. It is just a world government by another name.

And I agree they will want privacy, except they will demand to have the masterkey to see everything.

I totally agree with making privacy technology for corporations. I was emphasizing that months ago in the Thoughts on Zcash thread.

Individual focused anonymity technology (i.e. resisting the "State" or collective outcome) has no market and no future (whereas privacy controlled by corporations does). I don't like this realization. I am ready to retire to some obscure place and ignore the world. (but first I'll try to make my technology contribution, health willing)

Note we are threadjacking the DAO hack theme. So if we want to discuss the tangent further, it would be best to start a new thread or move discussion to an appropriate existing thread.

Fair enough. I think the only sticking point we would have is over the new corporate system's need to see people's private information as they would get their money upfront, while traditional governments have used taxation to get their money after the fact--so if you started a new thread, my point would be that you don't need an IRS if you have a national sales tax, and if the companies are collecting the fees for themselves, you don't need much, if any, oversight at all.

Sorry, smooth, for getting this off-topic.

Politics of regressive taxation.

I don't know if it would amount to that or not, as marginal costs are trending towards zero and it's in the best interest for companies to move that way rather than glean a few extra sheckles by pissing off their user base --think of a world where you can buy a shirt (or print one) that doesn't need to be washed and changes colors and patterns on demand, a world where you don't need a car as you can make car appointments with automated uber-like systems and your job is likely in a digital capacity, so you really don't have many places to go and you can take a vr vacation without the threat of kidnappings, zika, or just a crumby locale that you got locked into--in that world the costs are so minimal that, unless your country is engaging in taxing for a living income--which will likely rise before it crumbles under the weight of its absurdity, then you can expect companies to manage by streamlining operations and lowering costs, rather than increasing pricing and remaining top-heavy. Until you imagine a world where humans can be replaced by quantum computers and traditional jobs replaced by virtual endeavors, you can't imagine a future without traditional governments and taxation schemes. The real question is what the future military looks like--will it be old style war machines that are costly and spend much of their time collecting dust, half-breed systems of corporate mercenary mechanization, OR control systems that use economic policy to set an ever widening global, and post-planetary, border system?

[iamnotback]

Continuing a discussion from another thread:

When you have one global corporation (a group of companies beholden to their collective oligarchy) charging fees, this is equivalent to taxation. They will charge their failures to the collective and keep the profits. It is just a world government by another name.

And I agree they will want privacy, except they will demand to have the masterkey to see everything.

I totally agree with making privacy technology for corporations. I was emphasizing that months ago in the Thoughts on Zcash thread.

Individual focused anonymity technology (i.e. resisting the "State" or collective outcome) has no market and no future (whereas privacy controlled by corporations does). I don't like this realization. I am ready to retire to some obscure place and ignore the world. (but first I'll try to make my technology contribution, health willing)

Note we are threadjacking the DAO hack theme. So if we want to discuss the tangent further, it would be best to start a new thread or move discussion to an appropriate existing thread.

Fair enough. I think the only sticking point we would have is over the new corporate system's need to see people's private information as they would get their money upfront, while traditional governments have used taxation to get their money after the fact--so if you started a new thread, my point would be that you don't need an IRS if you have a national sales tax, and if the companies are collecting the fees for themselves, you don't need much, if any, oversight at all.

Sorry, smooth, for getting this off-topic.

Politics of regressive taxation.

I don't know if it would amount to that or not, as marginal costs are trending towards zero and it's in the best interest for companies to move that way rather than glean a few extra sheckles by pissing off their user base --think of a world where you can buy a shirt (or print one) that doesn't need to be washed and changes colors and patterns on demand, a world where you don't need a car as you can make car appointments with automated uber-like systems and your job is likely in a digital capacity, so you really don't have many places to go and you can take a vr vacation without the threat of kidnappings, zika, or just a crumby locale that you got locked into--in that world the costs are so minimal that, unless your country is engaging in taxing for a living income--which will likely rise before it crumbles under the weight of its absurdity, then you can expect companies to manage by streamlining operations and lowering costs, rather than increasing pricing and remaining top-heavy. Until you imagine a world where humans can be replaced by quantum computers and traditional jobs replaced by virtual endeavors, you can't imagine a future without traditional governments and taxation schemes. The real question is what the future military looks like--will it be old style war machines that are costly and spend much of their time collecting dust, half-breed systems of corporate mercenary mechanization, OR control systems that use economic policy to set an ever widening global, and post-planetary, border system?

What do we do with all the people who don't have a job? Harvest them for body parts in an efficient corporate world?

Costs go closer to zero (at least for tangible goods), so it is nearly free to give them basic needs, but still there needs to be a transfer of wealth from the productive to the non-productive in order to pay for it, no matter how epsilon it is.

Would corporations offer a signup program for indigent to exempt them from fees and thus the productive can pay for the indigent without needing to provide their identity?

What is the economic advantage for the corporation? Hmmm.

[SmirkinPepe]

I'll believe it when I Z it
LOL

[generalizethis]

Continuing a discussion from another thread:

When you have one global corporation (a group of companies beholden to their collective oligarchy) charging fees, this is equivalent to taxation. They will charge their failures to the collective and keep the profits. It is just a world government by another name.

And I agree they will want privacy, except they will demand to have the masterkey to see everything.

I totally agree with making privacy technology for corporations. I was emphasizing that months ago in the Thoughts on Zcash thread.

Individual focused anonymity technology (i.e. resisting the "State" or collective outcome) has no market and no future (whereas privacy controlled by corporations does). I don't like this realization. I am ready to retire to some obscure place and ignore the world. (but first I'll try to make my technology contribution, health willing)

Note we are threadjacking the DAO hack theme. So if we want to discuss the tangent further, it would be best to start a new thread or move discussion to an appropriate existing thread.

Fair enough. I think the only sticking point we would have is over the new corporate system's need to see people's private information as they would get their money upfront, while traditional governments have used taxation to get their money after the fact--so if you started a new thread, my point would be that you don't need an IRS if you have a national sales tax, and if the companies are collecting the fees for themselves, you don't need much, if any, oversight at all.

Sorry, smooth, for getting this off-topic.

Politics of regressive taxation.

I don't know if it would amount to that or not, as marginal costs are trending towards zero and it's in the best interest for companies to move that way rather than glean a few extra sheckles by pissing off their user base --think of a world where you can buy a shirt (or print one) that doesn't need to be washed and changes colors and patterns on demand, a world where you don't need a car as you can make car appointments with automated uber-like systems and your job is likely in a digital capacity, so you really don't have many places to go and you can take a vr vacation without the threat of kidnappings, zika, or just a crumby locale that you got locked into--in that world the costs are so minimal that, unless your country is engaging in taxing for a living income--which will likely rise before it crumbles under the weight of its absurdity, then you can expect companies to manage by streamlining operations and lowering costs, rather than increasing pricing and remaining top-heavy. Until you imagine a world where humans can be replaced by quantum computers and traditional jobs replaced by virtual endeavors, you can't imagine a future without traditional governments and taxation schemes. The real question is what the future military looks like--will it be old style war machines that are costly and spend much of their time collecting dust, half-breed systems of corporate mercenary mechanization, OR control systems that use economic policy to set an ever widening global, and post-planetary, border system?

What do we do with all the people who don't have a job? Harvest them for body parts in an efficient corporate world?

Costs go closer to zero, so it is nearly free to give them basic needs, but still there needs to be a transfer of wealth from the productive to the non-productive in order to pay for it, no matter how epsilon it is.

Would corporations offer a signup program for indigent to exempt them from fees and thus the productive can pay for the indigent without needing to provide their identity?

What is the economic advantage for the corporation? Hmmm.

We are moving towards a boon, and yes,  that boon will be built on machinic labor, rather than human labor. I doubt we will actually produce much, if anything, ourselves--as even music and art can be produced by programs--my guess is we will busy ourselves with video game-like jobs within VR culture or produce blogs about our kids and dogs, and create art and other hobby/busy work to give ourselves the satisfaction of feeling productive--my guess is a lot of people will just sit on their asses.  Corporations will likely spread further from the planet collecting resources that, when compared to our present state, will seem infinite. Though, I guess atomic printers essentially do just that without us needing to leave the planet. Think of us moving from a tribal state to a parasite state--where our existence is subsidized by machinic labor capacity. I'm sure some (maybe all that survive) will cross the bounds into cryberhumanity, but then you will a world no one 100% human can comprehend, and certainly not one living before it happens. My guess is that we will have multiple systems competing with each other until a dominate form takes shape (much as today)--But I'm betting on the corporate model pre-singularity, efficiency trumps tradition.

[iamnotback]

What do we do with all the people who don't have a job? Harvest them for body parts in an efficient corporate world?

Costs go closer to zero, so it is nearly free to give them basic needs, but still there needs to be a transfer of wealth from the productive to the non-productive in order to pay for it, no matter how epsilon it is.

Would corporations offer a signup program for indigent to exempt them from fees and thus the productive can pay for the indigent without needing to provide their identity?

What is the economic advantage for the corporation? Hmmm.

We are moving towards a boon, and yes,  that boon will be built on machinic labor, rather than human labor. I doubt we will actually produce much, if anything, ourselves--as even music and art can be produced by programs--my guess is we will busy ourselves with video game-like jobs within VR culture or produce blogs about our kids and dogs, and create art and other hobby/busy work to give ourselves the satisfaction of feeling productive--my guess is a lot of people will just sit on their asses.  Corporations will likely spread further from the planet collecting resources that, when compared to our present state, will seem infinite. Though, I guess atomic printers essentially do just that without us needing to leave the planet. Think of us moving from a tribal state to a parasite state--where our existence is subsidized by machinic labor capacity. I'm sure some (maybe all that survive) will cross the bounds into cryberhumanity, but then you will a world no one 100% human can comprehend, and certainly not one living before it happens. My guess is that we will have multiple systems competing with each other until a dominate form takes shape (much as today)--But I'm betting on the corporate model pre-singularity, efficiency trumps tradition.

I don't agree with those who think A.I. will replace human creativity. I wrote a blog post on that:

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy

Until a computer learns how to become one with nature (i.e. the necessity of imperfection! c.f. my explanation that timespeed-of-light must be finite...), then it can't compete on creativity. And if it becomes one with imperfection, then it has no advantage over the human genome entropy in this regard (and the computer will need to consume resources as well). Sorry Kurzweil is wrong!

The key question to answer is what is the economic motivation of the corporation.

The corporation wants to amass as much power as possible as the oligarchy is a winner-take-all power vacuum. So the corporation wants to do what will maximize its global share of the economic profits. It wants to eliminate competition to maximize profits, but it must also allow degrees-of-freedom else creativity is lost and it will crumble under its own inability to adapt/improve (as Communism does).

The larger the corporation the less adept it is. Thus the larger corporations depend on their ability to use their control over politics and large capital, to swallow all the innovation of the smaller ventures.

So I continue to foresee large corporations pandering to the unproductive majority, for the power to steal from the productive minority. This is the Iron Law of Political Economics.

Your mistake is that for corporations to view their fees as sufficient, there must be a level playing field between corporations (i.e. their fees not raided). But there is not. Thus a collective will be required to decide what is fair, and of course the large corporations will game that politik. So the large corporations (i.e. the government by any other name) will not allow the smaller corporations to collect fees anonymously. Realize the individual will become a company. Companies will become much smaller and more adept. We are  moving to a do-it-yourself open source world, e.g. 3D printing.

If we solve the political problem, then we don't need anonymity any way. In an open source world, who cares who knows who my customers are. And the world is moving away from being ashamed when your grandmother knows one has some bizarre fetish. Your grandmother probably will have one too.

I think the world will view privacy as a pita. And focus more on creativity and maximizing production. Basic level privacy yes. Anonymity from the collective, I think is a pita.

[Hueristic]

Moved from other topic, be aware I have not read this thread at all yet.

... We can't actually succeed by fighting the majority, unless our minority is very significant in size. I am hoping that microtransactions are so numerous and tiny, that the State can't afford to enforce some form of taxation on all of them. But I admit that eventually the global State will get organized and perfect the systems of digital control. It just seems inevitable. Only the will of the people at-large will decide if the State's power is curtailed....

Unfortunately the will of the people is blocked at every turn and those that speak loudly enough to gain traction become labeled as "UN-Patriotic" and "radicals" which is one step from terrorist and are attacked through psy ops until they are powerless. Only the power elite can afford change and they are so comfortable in their position that they have no incentive to do so.

I am thinking that maybe a time equity could be built in to offset a sudden majority possibley?

The corporation will still charge the costs to the collective and keep the profits for themselves. And it will still be a power vacuum of winner takes all. So it doesn't change my argument.

Corporate-fascism is just the State by another name. It will be multi-national, i.e. a world governance.

But that doesn't change my point about taxation--it's more efficient to just charge fees onto purchases, and the corporate algorithm machine will figure this out, which means anonymous coins aren't a threat and actually give them better ways to secure the information associated with their finances. I can't imagine any company who would want their payroll or research and development funds tracked on an a clear blockchain or a traditional bank. My inkling is that banks adopt means to keep these records safe from human eyes or the corporate world does it for them.

Although that is a part of the equation the bottom line is control. Even if/though TPTB are corp controlled (it matters not) there is infrastructure and services that are mandatory that continue to increase and the Gov by current law must support those. There are movements to remove that support for the under represented and corporate welfare increased and the 99% are losing that battle as the system is rigged because those that make the laws are beholding to those that put them there. Even the well meaning ones do not see the small changes they make to support their benefactors all add up in the end to devastating effect on the lower classes. This is the reality of the new ruling class you can see it in every day life easily enough. Do a test, in America drive through a affluent neighborhood in a junk car and see how quickly you are pulled over and checked and then do the same in a new car. you will be amazed at the different manner in which the enforcers treat you. Politicians do not have the power to take it from the 1% (mostly corporate) and therefore must find new ways to take it from those that are least able to defend against it. This is why the under classes must have some monetary security, the laws are written so that if you cannot afford a lawyer to protect you then you are guilty by default and are forced to continually forfeit your wealth/assets accordingly. The average person needs a private store of wealth that is hidden. Why do you think every transaction that is made above a certain limit is noted and must be justified and you do not have the right to move amounts the gov has set without them knowing? They assume if you have hard currency then you are guilty of obtaining that by illegal means. Have you not been watching the asset seizing that has been going on of people just driving down the road with a few grand?

[generalizethis]

What do we do with all the people who don't have a job? Harvest them for body parts in an efficient corporate world?

Costs go closer to zero, so it is nearly free to give them basic needs, but still there needs to be a transfer of wealth from the productive to the non-productive in order to pay for it, no matter how epsilon it is.

Would corporations offer a signup program for indigent to exempt them from fees and thus the productive can pay for the indigent without needing to provide their identity?

What is the economic advantage for the corporation? Hmmm.

We are moving towards a boon, and yes,  that boon will be built on machinic labor, rather than human labor. I doubt we will actually produce much, if anything, ourselves--as even music and art can be produced by programs--my guess is we will busy ourselves with video game-like jobs within VR culture or produce blogs about our kids and dogs, and create art and other hobby/busy work to give ourselves the satisfaction of feeling productive--my guess is a lot of people will just sit on their asses.  Corporations will likely spread further from the planet collecting resources that, when compared to our present state, will seem infinite. Though, I guess atomic printers essentially do just that without us needing to leave the planet. Think of us moving from a tribal state to a parasite state--where our existence is subsidized by machinic labor capacity. I'm sure some (maybe all that survive) will cross the bounds into cryberhumanity, but then you will a world no one 100% human can comprehend, and certainly not one living before it happens. My guess is that we will have multiple systems competing with each other until a dominate form takes shape (much as today)--But I'm betting on the corporate model pre-singularity, efficiency trumps tradition.

I don't agree with those who think A.I. will replace human creativity. I wrote a blog post on that:

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy

Until a computer learns how to become one with nature (i.e. the necessity of imperfection! c.f. my explanation that time must be finite...), then it can't compete on creativity. And if it becomes one with imperfection, then it has no advantage over the human genome entropy in this regard (and the computer will need to consume resources as well). Sorry Kurzweil is wrong!

The key question to answer is what is the economic motivation of the corporation.

The corporation wants to amass as much power as possible as the oligarchy is a winner-take-all power vacuum. So the corporation wants to do what will maximize its global share of the economic profits. It wants to eliminate competition to maximize profits, but it must also allow degrees-of-freedom else creativity is lost and it will crumble under its own inability to adapt/improve (as Communism does).

The larger the corporation the less adept it is. Thus the larger corporations depend on their ability to use their control over politics and large capital, to swallow all the innovation of the smaller ventures.

So I continue to foresee large corporations pandering to the unproductive majority, for the power to steal from the productive minority. This is the Iron Law of Political Economics.

Your mistake is that for corporations to view their fees as sufficient, there must be a level playing field between corporations (i.e. their fees not raided). But there is not. Thus a collective will be required to decide what is fair, and of course the large corporations will game that politik. So the large corporations (i.e. the government by any other name) will not allow the smaller corporations to collect fees anonymously. Realize the individual will become a company. Companies will become much smaller and more adept. We are  moving to a do-it-yourself open source world, e.g. 3D printing.

If we solve the political problem, then we don't need anonymity any way. In an open source world, who cares who knows who my customers are. And the world is moving away from being ashamed when your grandmother knows one has some bizarre fetish. Your grandmother probably will have one too.

I think the world will view privacy as a pita. And focus more on creativity and maximizing production.

Once you say "Kurzweil is wrong," you set yourself up for failure--no one in the modern era has been more correct at predicting technology's development.

As far as creativity goes, I think your bias will be meet the same end as those who believed a computer could never beat a man in chess or at trivia or parallel parking--it's more a matter of when, than if.

I believe we will still compete for resources, but it will be machinic created resources (same as ticks or tapeworms), followed by ai competion (remember Kurzweill predicted that we likely become the AI).

Anyway, you are getting the anonymity timeline wrong (also, thinking the move will be everyone all at once, the world over, look outside at the states of technology that live side-by-side from different eras), because the corporate system desires anonymity for itself to disrupt the old political system, it will push for anonymous systems, after that, who knows?

[generalizethis]

Although that is a part of the equation the bottom line is control. Even if/though TPTB are corp controlled (it matters not) there is infrastructure and services that are mandatory that continue to increase and the Gov by current law must support those. There are movements to remove that support for the under represented and corporate welfare increased and the 99% are losing that battle as the system is rigged because those that make the laws are beholding to those that put them there. Even the well meaning ones do not see the small changes they make to support their benefactors all add up in the end to devastating effect on the lower classes. This is the reality of the new ruling class you can see it in every day life easily enough. Do a test, in America drive through a affluent neighborhood in a junk car and see how quickly you are pulled over and checked and then do the same in a new car. you will be amazed at the different manner in which the enforcers treat you. Politicians do not have the power to take it from the 1% (mostly corporate) and therefore must find new ways to take it from those that are least able to defend against it. This is why the under classes must have some monetary security, the laws are written so that if you cannot afford a lawyer to protect you then you are guilty by default and are forced to continually forfeit your wealth/assets accordingly. The average person needs a private store of wealth that is hidden. Why do you think every transaction that is made above a certain limit is noted and must be justified and you do not have the right to move amounts the gov has set without them knowing? They assume if you have hard currency then you are guilty of obtaining that by illegal means. Have you not been watching the asset seizing that has been going on of people just driving down the road with a few grand?

Why are people assuming I'm talking post-corporate takeover with regard to privacy? I'm talking pre-corporate take over. After that, who knows?

[iamnotback]

Once you say "Kurzweil is wrong," you set yourself up for failure--no one in the modern era has been more correct at predicting technology's development.

As far as creativity goes, I think your bias will be meet the same end as those who believed a computer could never beat a man in chess or at trivia or parallel parking--it's more a matter of when, than if.

Since you appealed to authority (which is an invalid form of argumentation), then I am compelled to fight his reputation. Kurzweil is a certified idiot.

A.I. mastering the known sciences, has nothing to do with my point about where future creativity is derived from serendipity of chance meeting imperfection. If computation could replace the necessary finiteness of the speed-of-light and the necessary zigzag imperfection fitness annealing of nature, then omniscience is possible, the speed-of-light is infinite, and the past and future collapse into an infinitesimal point of nothingness. And nothing exists any more. Kurzweil is a certified idiot!

You are too much off on this Kurzweil fantasy that has no grounding in physics. For Kurzweil to be correct, the speed-of-light would need to infinite, because his theory distils down to that computation can substitute for serendipity. That he didn't realize this, shows he is a very narrow minded thinker.

Don't repeat that fucking stupid nonsense to me again (because so many people have this misconception of physics and I get tired of repeating myself over and over again...it is like a battle of attrition). It is absurd incomprehension of the basic law of the universe, which the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Even Einstein admitted it was fundamental.

I believe we will still compete for resources, but it will be machinic created resources (same as ticks or tapeworms), followed by ai compettion (remember Kurzweill predicted that we likely become the AI).

A.I. may compete but it won't replace creativity. But I don't see how that changes my points.

Anyway, you are getting the anonymity timeline wrong (also, thinking the move will be everyone all at once, the world over, look outside at the states of technology that live side-by-side from different eras), because the corporate system desires anonymity for itself to disrupt the old political system, it will push for anonymous systems, after that, who knows?

The corporate system is the old political system. The Bilderbergs are just concerned with how to maintain their hegemony and scaling their control to global economies-of-scale instead of national as it had been.

If we do manage to overcome their hegemony with for example a decentralized DAO concept, then we've solved the political problem and thus we don't need super powered anonymity. If we don't overcome their hegemony, then our anonymity can't withstand their hegemonic gaming of the politik.