Who could be trusted to do governance?

[iamnotback]

1 - Allow the development team to (heaven forbid) pre-mine some coins for themselves, they get paid when they make them worth something

I am also coming to the conclusion that is the only way to do it because all other ways appear to be illegal. And that was my original plan in 2014, but was told by everyone that premine was horrible. Yet I've come to realize that every project was premined, even Bitcoin and Monero. There was always some limited number of people who were mining with huge resources at the very start when the difficulty was miniscule.

Seigniorage is inevitable when one creates a monetary asset.  It is considered "unfair" and can harm, as such, the monetary belief in the system, but seigniorage will always happen.
With fiat, the seigniorage goes to the government ('s buddies), and people scream "THIEF", but it is just a tax like any other.

Yeah thanks, let's discuss about monetary theory.

The seigniorage is the price we-the-society pay for there being confidence in the currency. For without confidence, money has no value. This is a critical point that most people under appreciate, so it is very important that readers click that link and understand more deeply the linked thread in all its detail.

The problem with seigniorage is not the LOSS by society (your analysis is correct), but rather the *unmerited gain* of those obtaining seigniorage, and hence the economic power the obtain "for nothing".

It is not so much the fact that it costs you something, it is the nasty effect to see the other guy get rich without production of value.

Seigniorage is on the receiving side, not on the paying side.  That a monetary asset network costs value is OK.  But that this value gets in the hands of some is not OK.  If it is destroyed, then that's OK.  This is what is so brilliant about PoW.

1. PoW does not destroy (aka "burn") the economic value. Most of it ends up as cash flow to the utility companies, which means more demand for subsidized large infrastructure power projects, given that utilities are price-controlled and regulated (which means the political corruption of privatizing the profits and charging the costs to the public). There is some portion of the value traipsing into to the environment as "waste" heat (i.e. disordered), but there is friction in any system that interfaces with the tangible world, thus it isn't a unique feature of PoW.

2. The problem is not an incipient gain by a group able to hoist a more efficient monetary system on to society, but rather a gain which doesn't naturally diminish exponentially, because otherwise it sells the future to the past which is a reduction of degrees-of-freedom and incompatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics trend towards increasing entropy. The fiat masters try to unnaturally maintain the right of gain from seigniorage over the long-term being rewarded for being a top-down Coasian cost on society, which is low entropy and this top-down statis is why nation-states collapse over and over again throughout our human history.


Thus there is nothing wrong with the creator obtaining some exponentially diminishing seigniorage. And PoW's great contribution is in the objectively, competitive distribution which runs on auto-pilot and doesn't require ongoing seigniorage (except as pointed out above the seniorage of the government utilities it furthers and also the fact that economies-of-scale centralize it and create an ongoing seigniorage, which is really, really bad and why Bitcoin is in a scalepocalypse political clusterfuck as the power vacuum must be filled). But PoW doesn't actually destroy the value transferred in the process. Destroying all value will be akin to moving to infinite entropy (disorder) which would mean we could not exist.

Btw, what I am attempting to do is design and launch a variant of the root concepts explored by Satoshi's PoW, which I hope ameliorate the aforementioned power vacuum. However, even I will admit to you that my design can be gamed by whoever can convince society that an objective system is not a priority. But at least my design doesn't require that most people need to stop being apathetic (because they only have to make a decision to employ the objectively provably correct automated client/wallet software). It only requires that society has the correct ideological understanding of objectivity. So we must teach. Or alternatively that only those who do have that understanding stay on the well functioning fork of my design. With Satoshi's PoW, we can all have the correct understanding, but it doesn't help us avoid the fact the economics of PoW are naturally centralizing due to asymmetrically higher profits that accrue to those with more hashrate than others (and other forms of economies-of-scale such as cheaper electricity and the fact that @ArticMine's decentralized space heater concept is provably incorrect as I have exhaustively explained in my unpublished white paper).

Following rant is prompted by the usual argument between @ArticMine and myself flaring up again before I slept (just woke up).

<rant>
Before you read this, please read Surgeons Should Not Look Like Surgeons by Nicholas Taleb, the progenitor of antifragility.

I want to preface this rant with an acknowledgement that Monero comprises an important body of work that advanced our ecosystem's understanding and technology. However, what I found to be so ironic and what has irked me about Monero's community attitude/ideology since the start was this holier than thou religion that (only Monero's variant of) PoW was the Holy Grail which eliminated the evils of seniorage. They voiced superiority over every other project and economic scheme (although I end up agreeing with them about the centralization flaws in other schemes such as Dash's masternodes). And only their anonymity was worthy. Etc.. As it turns out, no system based on Satoshi's PoW avoids centralization long-term. And even the anonymity of Monero appears to me to be incompatible with reporting taxation totals to the authorities, thus afaics (IMO) meaning it can't possibly become mainstream and thus can't become a unit-of-account and thus will always be tied and enslaved to fiat. Monero folks were always telling me I had to work for free and could only get my ROI by having a large amount of capital to invest in XMR (i.e. a big boys club and I ain't in it):

The global elite are all in the same club. And we ain't in that club.  <--- PLEASE CLICK AND LISTEN

Underlying implication and attitude was that I had better join them or end up being left behind as a failure (and that they had the larger grouping of smart people and so one guy on his own trying initiate something creative couldn't possibly compete). According to their groupthink, they felt smug to belittle anyone who claims there could be opportunity to go create something great and earn more than the most lucrative year of my career thus far ($350K in 2001). Instead they throw some bones out for the little guys in the form of measly donations. Hey if I just wanted a job earning $50 per hour, I could in theory go earn more than that back in Texas. One of the reasons for working every waking moment on this stuff is not just because it is very challenging and interesting work (and also for the social interaction given I am an extrovert), but also because of the potential financial upside given I am at the tail end of my most productive years. People have opportunity costs. My opportunity cost is that I am age ~52 with negative networth, no retirement, and minanarchist meaning I won't accept government handouts, so I can't just work for free for fun. That doesn't mean anybody owes me anything. We only can earn what we are capable of earning. In this ecosystem, the fact is that others can clone your open source work. There are factors to consider...  Any way for the moment I decided I just want to work on it, and not think about my potential ROI. I will not do an ICO. I am funded for some more months on my basic expenses, so I will just enjoy working on it and see if it can be launched. Then the free market can decide. Note I do want to acknowledge that several guys in Monero's community have been very generous to me. I think I've received on the order of ~15 - 20 BTC in total (at an average BTC price < $500 and I spent it on expenses) in total from those in the Monero community over the past 3 years. So perhaps my ranting above is insolent. I am trying to make a point about the evils of groupthink, not a personal admonition of individuals in that community per se.
</rant>

[1714639567]

1714639567

[1714639567]

1714639567

[1714639567]

1714639567

[1714639567]

1714639567

[iamnotback]

Byteball did this. The problem is that when you give away coins for free to speculators, they are likely to sell them because they didn't decide to BURN anything (e.g. buy or do effort for it) for it, e.g. Auroracoin.

There's nothing wrong for them to sell it, on the contrary.  The more a coin gets traded, the less it is concentrated in the hands of a few.

We can't give away for free that which is not free.

When Russia privatized the land after the fall of the Soviet union in Perestroika by giving it away free to people who didn't know how to own/steward/manage private land anymore, the rich bought up all the land, so there was less significant change in the top-down control of the economy than one might have hoped for.

Instead of harvesting high diversity of effort (i.e. true investment) with a viral distribution model, IMO Byteball is creating a low entropy speculation with too much top-down control at the nascent stage where it needs exponential distribution. Thus the probability of failure is much higher, i.e. the antifragility is very low.

You don't need people to "invest" in something.  The only thing you need is a large list of non-identical crypto-identity holders, so that the initial distribution is as large as possible.

You have clearly demonstrated to me by now in our discussions over the past days that you entirely do not understand/appreciate the critical importance of the entropic force and the irreversibility of thermodynamic processes.

Replication is not the same as a diversity of irreversible paths. Replication is low entropy. You have a huge blindspot in this area of conceptualization and it is the source of your incorrect analysis on many issues. Sorry just being frank.

If it were possible to have, in one way or another, a public key of every person on earth, that would be the most ideal distribution.

Egalitarianism is the same as infinite entropy (in that everything is equiprobable and simultaneously absolute top-down order) which is the same as non-existence and a static universe.

It has to be a list "of the past".

Nicholas Taleb disagrees.

[iamnotback]

So in lieu of doing some scam like those,

Those things are not scams.

the problem is that you undersell yourself. You don't believe your ideas are worth it. But they are. It actually doesn't matter whether your ideas ultimately work out. What matters is that we need many people like you to be creative to push to try things.
Let us take care of whether its a "scam"or not.

We are all involved in the experiment, and we can't predict exactly where it is going, so we need people like you with knowledge and ideas to experiment.
I'd happily put money into an ICO of yours.
I have done very well in crypto because I'm not afraid to take risks and to believe.

You have something to contribute. It doesn''t matter whether it is perfect.  Do it.

And remeber , if something is worth doing it's worth doing badly the first time.

I agree with all of this. And part of my experiment, is explaining what I think about various things such as monetary theory and ICOs, etc..

[iamnotback]

The incorrect claim of Byteball creating a wide and fair distribution:

https://medium.com/iconominet/iconomi-acquires-9-766-of-byteball-initial-distribution-free-of-charge-cd9c4a5d49ac#.rkuo958we

[dinofelis]

:-*1. PoW does not destroy (aka "burn") the economic value. Most of it ends up as cash flow to the utility companies, which means more demand for subsidized large infrastructure power projects, given that utilities are price-controlled and regulated (which means the political corruption of privatizing the profits and charging the costs to the public). There is some portion of the value traipsing into to the environment as "waste" heat (i.e. disordered), but there is friction in any system that interfaces with the tangible world, thus it isn't a unique feature of PoW.

You are right that the energy markets are not totally free, but in reality, there IS commodity destruction.  It is not as complete as in the case of a totally free and competitive liquid energy and ASIC market, but there is more waste than if you had to print dollar bills.

The real problem of PoW doesn't come from the fact that there are still large margins taken on the commodities that need to be destroyed, but rather that the coin value at the moment of its PoW creation only has a fractional value of its later value.  The value increase of the coin over time is also a form of seigniorage: people get value for just holding coins.  At what point that is seigniorage, and at what point that is "investment", can be discussed.  I consider that it is not an investment as such, because there's no economic value produced by the investment - well, there is the ultra-small economic value produced by the utility of the crypto currency, which is essentially zilch: almost no consumer good, in the end, has seen the daylight that wouldn't have seen the daylight if crypto currencies didn't exist, and consumer goods/services are the bottom line of economic value of course.

Thus there is nothing wrong with the creator obtaining some exponentially diminishing seigniorage. And PoW's great contribution is in the objectively, competitive distribution which runs on auto-pilot and doesn't require ongoing seigniorage (except as pointed out above the seniorage of the government utilities it furthers and also the fact that economies-of-scale centralize it and create an ongoing seigniorage, which is really, really bad and why Bitcoin is in a scalepocalypse political clusterfuck as the power vacuum must be filled). But PoW doesn't actually destroy the value transferred in the process.

There are two remarks on this.  First of all, holding a seigniorage-obtained fraction of a collectible which grows in market cap over time, gives you a proportional growth in seigniorage, without doing anything.  If you possess 5% of bitcoin when its market cap is 1 million dollars because of seigniorage, and bitcoin goes to 1000 billion, your seigniorage has grown proportionally.  So you DO gain continuous seigniorage by just holding the coins.  That is even the case if you wasted 50 000 dollars to obtain them, that is, if you destroyed entirely the initial seigniorage when you created them.  This is the problem with a "sound money" collectible as a monetary asset.  You could formulate it that its seigniorage properties are not invariant over time.  This is a problem in my opinion.

The second is that value that is transferred (the goal of a currency) shouldn't, of course, be destroyed !  It is coins created that should have their value destroyed, apart from a small competitive margin.  The economic value of a crypto currency is ultimately only worth what it allowed to produce in utility for the end consumer, and that is not much.  This economic value can be distributed over the people that made this happen, took the risk and had the vision, like with any investment.  But the problem with a monetary asset is that it doesn't take its *added economic value* as market cap, but *the whole traded value*.  There is no "economic fairness" in this.

If I have, say, a big machine that can labour land, and you want to labour your land, my machine has economic value to you, because you can grow more food on your land with my machine.   Let us say that the gain in food production ends up being 1000 if you use my machine.  You using my machine is hence worth 1000.  But we have to get my machine to your place.  If I have to hire 20 people to carry it to your place, that would cost us 200, which means that only 800 remains.  Now, if Joe has a truck, and he can transport the machine to your place.  He needs to spend a value of 50 on gas, maintenance and so on for his truck.  You can say that in the end, the economic value of him using the truck is 150, because without the truck, we would end up obtaining 800, and with his truck, we end up obtaining 950 of value.

However, his truck did transport my machine, which was worth 1000 in total.  But the truck voyage itself was only worth 150.

With a monetary asset, however, the existence of the monetary asset, which is the "truck for value", brings in some economic value (like the truck did, about 150), but takes on, as a market cap, the FULL value of what is transported.

The confusion with a monetary asset is between the value it *transports* and the value *creation* of the system itself (the competitive advantage the monetary system brings over other ways of transporting value).   My claim is that, at the moment, the competitive advantage of crypto over, say, fiat, in pure end-consumer value creation is minuscule.  This minuscule value is what could be fairly distributed to the "investors" in crypto - like they would if they had invested in any other stock.  But with crypto (like with any other monetary asset), the value of the asset itself is confused with the value it transports.  It is not because I bought something for 10 000 dollars with bitcoin, that the bitcoin system created me an economic value of 10 000 dollars, it only transported it (like the truck) ; as such, it did bring me some small value because otherwise I would have done it with fiat, but this is a very small amount.

However, the holder of "seigniorage bitcoins" takes the full value that is transported as reward, and not just the value creation by the bitcoin monetary system.   This unfair economic advantage makes that one hugely overinvests in this system.  In other words, the seigniorage-by-holding-coins is a huge market failure, that directs tons and tons of resources towards something that has very little economic consumer value.

[dinofelis]

The incorrect claim of Byteball creating a wide and fair distribution:

https://medium.com/iconominet/iconomi-acquires-9-766-of-byteball-initial-distribution-free-of-charge-cd9c4a5d49ac#.rkuo958we

I have only casually looked at it, but it seems that byteball is not really a FORK of bitcoin at a certain block height, but rather organizes "rounds" where you can obtain coins if you participate.  As such, you are obtaining the same "inside knowledge" unfairness as a ninja mine.  You simply "have to know and be there at the right time".
A genuine fork would allow people to use their (former) bitcoin address signatures *automatically* and at any time to create their byteball coins ; in fact, their coins would be considered existing on the byteball system, in the same way that ETC coins were considered existing on the ETC chain when people had ETH coins before the fork.

[dinofelis]

You have clearly demonstrated to me by now in our discussions over the past days that you entirely do not understand/appreciate the critical importance of the entropic force and the irreversibility of thermodynamic processes.

Well, I have the impression that you deify the notion of entropy.  For sure it is an important and fascinating concept, and it sneaks into areas of research where one didn't expect it at first sight.  But it isn't a magic word.  Entropy has a very well-defined meaning, and using the word and the notion outside of its well-defined meaning can sometimes be speculative theory, but most of the times, charlatanism.  There's another word like that, "quantum", that is often abused.  It is not always clear in what way the author using that word is simply being casually speculative but has in fact a clear idea in mind, and when he's using the word "magically".   I've seen that you sometimes use the word "entropy" in a context where I cannot link it in a clear way to its definition.  I don't know if, at those moments, you use it with a clear link to its definition, which I fail to understand, or as a "magic word" because you're somehow fascinated by it, without clearly understanding yourself what it could mean in that context, but you "feel in your bones" that it must have something to do with it, but you don't know what.

Entropy is just "lack of knowledge of an event".  The event has a specific state/value/outcome... (will have, had, ...) and you don't know which one it is, but you only know it must be "one of several possibilities".

Entropy is hence a relationship between the entity that can take on the event, and the entity that "ignores".  What is entropy for me, is maybe not entropy for you (and in that case, YOUR entropy for me is at least as big as the entropy I have about the system - which is the essence of the second law).

Now, what can we ignore ?  Almost anything, which is exactly why this notion is so all-pervading.  "physical entropy" is our ignorance of the exact micro state of a physical system, that still satisfies a given "macro state".

If I have a cup of hot water, I know its macro state: it is "hot water".  However, I don't know where what water molecule is, exactly, on a microscopic scale.  This ignorance is the entropy that how water has.  Note that it is dependent on what I consider as micro state.  I also don't know the nuclear state of hot water, but usually I don't care, so I don't take this into account in its physical entropy.  When I have to do nuclear stuff with water, suddenly water has much more entropy, than when I will be doing chemistry with it.   The heat that I can get out of water by using nuclear fusion is not accounted for by the usual values of entropy one gives to hot water, because most of the time, we don't consider that kind of outcomes.

In the same way as I can ignore physical micro states, I can ignore other things, like memory states of a computer, the actual state of a finite-state machine.  Take a whole network as a big finite state machine, then my ignorance of the exact state of this network can be measured in entropy units.
I can ignore "complex outcomes", like throwing a dice.  I know that if you throw a dice (or if you threw one yesterday, but didn't tell me the outcome), that it must be one of 6 outcomes, but I don't know which one.  Entropy.

In very much most cases, the entropy of the ignorance of a physical state is MUCH, MUCH larger than anything "computer-related".  There's more entropy in my hot cup of water than in the whole internet.

But, and this is important, we now come to the complementary notion: information.  Information is what sets off entropy (and is hence the same kind of quantity).  I need to receive information in order to diminish my entropy about something.  If you tell me that the dice thrown gave a 4, then my entropy about that dice is now entirely lifted, by an equal amount of information I received.

But information has another aspect.  It has the aspect of "what I care about".  Information has also to do with what one calls "macro states".  If I have hot water, the physical entropy of that is huge, but I don't care.  I only need the macro state to make coffee.  So my "entropy about the macro state" is essentially 0, because I KNOW the macro state.  I don't need the micro state if I want to make coffee.

So the fact that when I pour a cup of hot water over my instant coffee, and that I'm "Handling huge amounts of entropy", doesn't matter for what I'm doing.

I've seen you fall into this trap several times, like with the "entropy of the network with latencies calculating the digits of Pi".  I don't care, because the macro state I'm only interested in, is the value of the digits of pi, and the "microstates of the network" don't matter.  They are the equivalent of the hot cup of water, and its microstates.  I don't have to know them to make coffee.

Replication is not the same as a diversity of irreversible paths.

Chaotic irreversibility is nothing else but the amplification of a specific micro state to a macro state.  The ignorance of the micro state then results in the ignorance of the macro state.
There are usually two opposing dynamics: one is chaotic dynamics which "brings micro states to the macro level", and the other is "statistical averaging" over large populations, which turns "individual macro states" into "system micro states".

The first one makes that one can "lose information", the second makes that "this information doesn't really matter".

If I use hot water, and I pour it to make coffee, I not only have the physical entropy of the hot water, I also have the chaotic dynamics of the turbulence in the water flow.  And all of this doesn't, in the end, matter, and I end up having a cup of coffee.

However, in as much as the turbulence is too turbulent, say, I can burn myself, I have to go to the hospital, and this implies a change in my life path that was difficult to foresee.  However, on the level of humanity, on average, 0.001% of people making coffee burn themselves, so this becomes again a kind of macro state.

So one cannot just be "amazed at the amount of entropy in a system".  There's more entropy in your cup of hot water than there is in the whole internet.  It doesn't always matter.

[dinofelis]

Egalitarianism is the same as infinite entropy (in that everything is equiprobable and simultaneously absolute top-down order) which is the same as non-existence and a static universe.

This has nothing to do with "egalitarianism".   I don't want everybody to "have equal income" or some silliness of that kind.  But if a monetary asset is to be introduced as something new, there is absolutely no reason why it should go into the hands of some more than in the hands of others, because any difference on that level is seigniorage, and gives value "against no economic production" to some over others.

Of course, an initially equal distribution of a monetary asset will not stay that way, but that doesn't matter.  At least, there has not been someone having had seigniorage from it.  Nobody has won anything by such an initial distribution, and that is how it should be.  That you can gain value by trading the asset against economic production, and accumulate wealth that way, is OK: you obtained it by providing value.  But you should not have gotten "value for nothing" which is exactly what seigniorage is about (and what most of crypto speculation is about).

And this is one of the cases where the word "entropy" doesn't have its place, honestly.  We're talking about how a token system that serves to transport value should "start out".  There's no reason why some should have more tokens *against no value* than others.  The only thing that makes sense in a monetary asset is the *transport* of value.  But the *creation of tokens* means that this is a non-equilibrated "transport", which is contradictory to the idea of the system that value only goes in closed circles through the system.  The best way to do this is by an as uniform as possible initial distribution, so that the "value out of thin air" is equal for everybody, and hence doesn't represent, in the end, any value.  From that point on, the tokens can transport value in closed circles.
This has nothing to do with "ignoring outcomes" or "ignoring states" and hence, has nothing to do with "entropy".

[Spoetnik]

1 - Allow the development team to (heaven forbid) pre-mine some coins for themselves, they get paid when they make them worth something

I am also coming to the conclusion that is the only way to do it because all other ways appear to be illegal. And that was my original plan in 2014, but was told by everyone that premine was horrible. Yet I've come to realize that every project was premined, even Bitcoin and Monero. There was always some limited number of people who were mining with huge resources at the very start when the difficulty was miniscule.

There is a distinction though.
Take the launch of MAX Coin for example.
It was screamed LOUDLY that it was coming.. and in turn we all piled onto it.
We all had the same advantage to have mining hardware ready to go on launch.
Is it a premine if another guy has more money to buy more mining PC's for the planned launch ?
Saying Bitcoin etc was premined is to me insanity.
I get what your driving at but i am not buying it.

What you are missing is the fact there was no better way to do it.
And the massive intense super ultra mega world changing revolution of the ICO
..is a step in reverse.

NOT INNOVATION.

The retarded logic is that if a mined coin *can* be exploited by a whale on launch then we must abandon the entire concept of mining a coin at launch all together.
If that does not sound retarded to you guys then i bet you are an ICO supporter  

And lets not forget that Bitcoin was not premined with cash in hand BEFORE the product was released.
The first block reward of value was mined AFTER the coin was launched and the person rewarded was paid so for doing a task.. making the system work / securing the block chain.

I can see some of you really do enjoy the little game of verbal gymnastics  

I already said who can be trusted.. it's obvious.
And it is not the people holding their hand out for something that will come *later.
Some of you are fucked in the head bad enough that you really do not comprehend others will do something for nothing.

I just finished installing Visual Studio and fixed an error on an Android / Windows program posted on XDA.
The dev left long ago when interest and money / donations dried up i guess..
No one is going to be giving me fuck all for my time & effort.. i did it because i felt like it.

This bullshit has turned into a cesspool of greed and entitlement.. aka: the ICO.
If you do not have the means to launch a coin then leave it someone who can.
ICO shitheads will never get 1 single cent from me.
I do not support Crypto-Pan Handling fer ROI'z.
I support Crypto Currency's (not crypto-schemes for profit)
Either you make it and post it or fuck off ..pretty simple.

I am not purchasing *convincing varied levels of idealism tokens for trading LOL


EDIT:

By the way i donated a while back Bitcoin to an XDA dev too.. panhandling ?
Nope.. he created it FIRST ..then i paid him Bitcoin.
See how that works guys ?

[iamnotback]

The incorrect claim of Byteball creating a wide and fair distribution:

https://medium.com/iconominet/iconomi-acquires-9-766-of-byteball-initial-distribution-free-of-charge-cd9c4a5d49ac#.rkuo958we

I have only casually looked at it, but it seems that byteball is not really a FORK of bitcoin at a certain block height, but rather organizes "rounds" where you can obtain coins if you participate.  As such, you are obtaining the same "inside knowledge" unfairness as a ninja mine.  You simply "have to know and be there at the right time".

Okay so you've concurred that Byteball's distribution is flawed.

A genuine fork would allow people to use their (former) bitcoin address signatures *automatically* and at any time to create their byteball coins ; in fact, their coins would be considered existing on the byteball system, in the same way that ETC coins were considered existing on the ETC chain when people had ETH coins before the fork.

Then you'd be back to giving things (e.g. de-nationalized land in Russia, tokens in our case) away free to people who weren't motivated to invest and work for them. And the dumping of them to whales as a result and thus not a wide distribution. Besides the Bitcoin distribution is tiny as it is.

[iamnotback]

I consider that it is not an investment as such, because there's no economic value produced by the investment - well, there is the ultra-small economic value produced by the utility of the crypto currency, which is essentially zilch: almost no consumer good, in the end, has seen the daylight that wouldn't have seen the daylight if crypto currencies didn't exist, and consumer goods/services are the bottom line of economic value of course.

It is difficult for me the fathom how you can be so myopic.

Incredible value has already been created by the degrees-of-freedom of being able to move funds globally without permission. (I had already mentioned my personal examples to you in another thread, yet you cling your myopic viewpoint, so can see Monero and anonymity as the only feature of interest)

Bitcoin's daily volume is only $0.2 billion compared to $6000 billion for the SWIFT transfer system, i.e. 1/30,000th. Imagine if its volume was 100X higher what the effects would be.

And the final chapter of what blockchains are going to enable has not been written yet. Stay tuned...

(You are such a pessimist. I would not want to live in Europe, it's so gloomy. My Belgian friend says he hates going back there to see all the long frowning faces)

[iamnotback]

There is a distinction though.
Take the launch of MAX Coin for example.
It was screamed LOUDLY that it was coming.. and in turn we all piled onto it.
We all had the same advantage to have mining hardware ready to go on launch.
Is it a premine if another guy has more money to buy more mining PC's for the planned launch ?

No.

Saying Bitcoin etc was premined is to me insanity.
I get what your driving at but i am not buying it.

But Bitcoin didn't have everyone trying to pile in to mine it. It only had Satoshi who was seriously mining it. Because only he knew the masterplan and its importance. So when a developer takes a premine, he is essentially doing the same as Satoshi.

I understand you are making the distinction that anyone could have mined Bitcoin at the start. And with a premine no one could. But I can retort you on that. Anyone at the start of premine could have created their own altcoin instead. And they could fork it and mine it.

Gotcha. 

What you are missing is the fact there was no better way to do it.

Wanna bet?

The retarded logic is that if a mined coin *can* be exploited by a whale on launch then we must abandon the entire concept of mining a coin at launch all together.
If that does not sound retarded to you guys then i bet you are an ICO supporter  

I didn't propose an ICO. Please don't conflate.

Some of you are fucked in the head bad enough that you really do not comprehend others will do something for nothing.

But it doesn't logically follow that everyone MUST also work for free ALWAYS.

I just finished installing Visual Studio and fixed an error on an Android / Windows program posted on XDA.

So make a blockchain by yourself then from scratch. Launch it. Etc..

The amount of work you are doing for that toy hobby doesn't compare.

[iamnotback]

Thus there is nothing wrong with the creator obtaining some exponentially diminishing seigniorage. And PoW's great contribution is in the objectively, competitive distribution which runs on auto-pilot and doesn't require ongoing seigniorage (except as pointed out above the seniorage of the government utilities it furthers and also the fact that economies-of-scale centralize it and create an ongoing seigniorage, which is really, really bad and why Bitcoin is in a scalepocalypse political clusterfuck as the power vacuum must be filled). But PoW doesn't actually destroy the value transferred in the process.

There are two remarks on this.  First of all, holding a seigniorage-obtained fraction of a collectible which grows in market cap over time, gives you a proportional growth in seigniorage, without doing anything.  If you possess 5% of bitcoin when its market cap is 1 million dollars because of seigniorage, and bitcoin goes to 1000 billion, your seigniorage has grown proportionally.  So you DO gain continuous seigniorage by just holding the coins.  That is even the case if you wasted 50 000 dollars to obtain them, that is, if you destroyed entirely the initial seigniorage when you created them.  This is the problem with a "sound money" collectible as a monetary asset.  You could formulate it that its seigniorage properties are not invariant over time.  This is a problem in my opinion.

The HODLer has an opportunity cost which is not free. The external economy didn't just cease to exist while he was HODLing.

Sitting still in your chair is not free and has a (n opportunity) cost.

It is not because I bought something for 10 000 dollars with bitcoin, that the bitcoin system created me an economic value of 10 000 dollars, it only transported it (like the truck) ; as such, it did bring me some small value because otherwise I would have done it with fiat, but this is a very small amount.

However, the holder of "seigniorage bitcoins" takes the full value that is transported as reward, and not just the value creation by the bitcoin monetary system.   This unfair economic advantage makes that one hugely overinvests in this system.  In other words, the seigniorage-by-holding-coins is a huge market failure, that directs tons and tons of resources towards something that has very little economic consumer value.

This is not quite right or not the complete story. Society needs both savings and consumption. The money supply can growth faster than GDP, but any way the Quantity Theory of Money is not accurate because the value of money is complex and intertwined with confidence and derivatives.

It is quite complex, because even for example we may need that effect you lament to counteract the extreme level of money supply growth in the early distribution phase and also to encourage early adopters to invest in the ecosystem and not just dump their tokens for fiat (for the more liquid unit-of-account and unit-of-exchange).

[kelsey]

Whereas, telling me not to creating the Bitcoin Killer advance because you don't want me to get paid what I am worth, is nonsensical. If you could somehow stop me, then I would go work on some other project not in crypto and earn the (up to) $350,000 a year I used to earn before.

then please do, if this is your opinion then honestly the development of a 'bitcoin killer' isn't for you.

lost on most the crypto crowd is the entire point behind the development of a true p2p currency. its not about developing another payment system, seriously the world doesn't need a new visa or paypal etc etc etc  

yes bitcoin was essentially premined and one of the many reasons i think its more a distraction then the future of p2p currency. the only good thing todate to come out of cryptocurrency is the idea.

whats the point of being an alternative to the greedy bankers system if we ourselves become the greedy bankers  

[AusKipper]

whats the point of being an alternative to the greedy bankers system if we ourselves become the greedy bankers  

The greedy bankers system we have today concentrates more and more power to the greedy bankers. Ie, because they have money, they can get more money, because they are in charge of the interest rates etc they can affect the economy.

In a cryptocurrency greedy banker scenario as the banker "consumes" his wealth (stake in the crypto currency) he becomes less relevent because as a percentage his share is going down.

eg: I realease a coin and pre-mine 50% of the coins. People start buying the other 50% and put the price up, so I decide i'm going to dump 50% of my holdings, I make some nice alternate currency (ie, USD) and feel very happy, fat and greedy, but, now I only own 25% of the currency. Thats not really how it goes in the current system of greedy bankers, where they get rich, spend it, the print some more and give it to themselves.

Also, provided I am the only one with access to my wallet or something in a de-centralized sytem, if something happens to me (eat too much cake and have a heart attack and die) then thats it, the coin continues without me, no more greedy banker.

If something happens to the current centralized greedy banker the vice greedy banker becomes the cheif greedy banker and it continues.

[iamnotback]

Whereas, telling me not to creating the Bitcoin Killer advance because you don't want me to get paid what I am worth, is nonsensical. If you could somehow stop me, then I would go work on some other project not in crypto and earn the (up to) $350,000 a year I used to earn before.

then please do, if this is your opinion then honestly the development of a 'bitcoin killer' isn't for you

Communists have never been wrong.

[iamnotback]

There's more entropy in my hot cup of water than in the whole internet.

The entropy (a measure of possible surprise) of the Internet includes not just the hardware and software but all the biology of the humans interacting on it, which is not just a product of their DNA. There is a lot more water out there interacting with the Internet than in your cup of water.

So the fact that when I pour a cup of hot water over my instant coffee, and that I'm "Handling huge amounts of entropy", doesn't matter for what I'm doing.

At the infinite asymptotic limit of all possible trials (or otherwise stated that on a long enough time window in the past and future of the path dependencies of irreversible thermodynamic processes), you will be exposed to all possible surprise due to the microstates (and their Butterfly effect interaction with the environment) unless you can replicate those trials in an isolated system (which you can't in a real world). You implicitly presume that thermodynamics processes are reversible (i.e. able to be isolated to known initial conditions), but they are only reversible in a general relativistic framework, wherein the reversal is a simultaneous occupation of more than one inertial frame (which is impossible due to the quantified speed-of-light). You build artificial, impossible conditions around which you base your analysis, i.e. I am pouring this cup of coffee without any entropy in the initial conditions of the experiment (i.e. a totally isolated system).

You don't live in a vacuum!

And that is the essence of the error you keep repeating and why you still are incorrect about our past discussion about human vs. machine intelligence.

And all of this doesn't, in the end, matter, and I end up having a cup of coffee.

Due to microstates interacting with the environment as you pour, aka the Butterfly Effect, you don't know if the next time you were going to pour a cup of coffee, you instead have an entirely different outcome than had you not poured the coffee (and due to the microstates in some cases, not just due to the macrostate of pouring). That is why it is myopic to say the microstates in the water are irrelevant.

There are usually two opposing dynamics: one is chaotic dynamics which "brings micro states to the macro level", and the other is "statistical averaging" over large populations, which turns "individual macro states" into "system micro states".

The first one makes that one can "lose information", the second makes that "this information doesn't really matter".

You think seem to think statistical averaging loses microstate information relative to the totality of every possible inertial frame and that is your huge blind spot in our debate on machine intelligence. From the perspective of any particular snapshot of the macrostate, you might conclude that the information was lost, but this would be myopic. No one person is omniscient and has perfect information, but this doesn't mean the information was destroyed as the process of evolving to the dynamic, continuous, living system of microstates that exist at any point in time is irreversible (i.e. not bijective to the past). Meaning that  inertial frames lose their ability to know the totality of the universe (i.e. they become unknowing of the totality so in this sense they've lost access to all information) but the total entropy of all inertial frames hasn't disappeared. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that entropy does not decrease on the whole universe, but can only decrease in some systems as it increases in others.

You are conflating the perception of information by any finite perspective (i.e. any partial order) with the entropy of the unbounded universe. The perception of a total order can't exist (because it would require an unquantifiable speed-of-light and the past and future would collapse into indistriguishable), but the (Butterfly) effects of the total entropy exist via unbounded space-time.

[kelsey]

Whereas, telling me not to creating the Bitcoin Killer advance because you don't want me to get paid what I am worth, is nonsensical. If you could somehow stop me, then I would go work on some other project not in crypto and earn the (up to) $350,000 a year I used to earn before.

then please do, if this is your opinion then honestly the development of a 'bitcoin killer' isn't for you

Communists have never been wrong.

tis nothing to do with political ideology in facts its the lack there of.

[dinofelis]

There's more entropy in my hot cup of water than in the whole internet.

The entropy (a measure of possible surprise) of the Internet includes not just the hardware and software but all the biology of the humans interacting on it, which is not just a product of their DNA. There is a lot more water out there interacting with the Internet than in your cup of water.

This is where you are simply wrong concerning the concept of entropy, and where you deify it.
I think that as long as you haven't cleared that up, you will use the concept in a "magical" way and be misled by otherwise correct claims about it, like the second law of thermodynamics.

It is this kind of erroneous handling of the concept that also leads creationists to claim that evolution is not possible because of the second law of thermodynamics, for instance.   This is because they use the notion of entropy outside of its established, well-defined domain, but hope to use results that are only valid from within that well-established domain.

No offence, you are a brilliant guy, but don't fall in the trap of using precise mathematical/physical notions outside of their domain of definition in a hand-waving way, and hope that their rigorous properties from within the well-defined logical system still mean something.

[iamnotback]

Whereas, telling me not to creating the Bitcoin Killer advance because you don't want me to get paid what I am worth, is nonsensical. If you could somehow stop me, then I would go work on some other project not in crypto and earn the (up to) $350,000 a year I used to earn before.

then please do, if this is your opinion then honestly the development of a 'bitcoin killer' isn't for you

Communists have never been wrong.

tis nothing to do with political ideology in facts its the lack there of.

@AusKipper refuted your logic.