Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

[iamnotback]

There are multiple implied messages in this April fool's prank.

1. That Bitcoin is a signaling mess, but Litecoin isn't.
2. That signaling on Bitcoin is a fool's errand, because Bitcoin will never fork because in finance the tail never wags the dog meaning that Satoshi cleverly designed the game theory such that Bitcoin can't fork.
3. That smart money should profit the most on this wisdom, so our ecosystem isn't in the control of fools. SegWit on Litecoin is now at 58% and climbing roughly 1% per hour. Activation at 75%.

@franky1 those who manufacture Scrypt ASICs and those who have pre-ordered the new generation of Scrypt ASICs will also profit.

You might be correct that Antpool is the odd man out, but creating more demand for limited fab space probably means their existing stock of ASICs becomes more valuable. When mining farms for Bitcoin (or Litecoin) can't ramp up difficulty fast enough to keep up with price rises, then all existing miners earn more profit throughout the industry.

By eliminating the stalemate on Bitcoin by getting SegWit activated on Litecoin, this frees up Bitcoin to move to $2000+ because scaling will be provided by the ecosystem. And I already explained in the other thread that the tail doesn't wag the dog in finance, thus scaling on Litecoin will drive demand for Bitcoin up by the power brokers who must use Bitcoin (because of the reasons I stated).

I am not sure how Bitcoin traders will initially react to scaling going exclusively to Litecoin, maybe they might sell Bitcoin, but later they will come to understand that Bitcoin grows as its altcoins grow. The ecosystem is symbiotic. MPEx the Bitcoin options and stock exchange was capturing a percentage of all the speculation waves in all altcoin tokens, not just Bitcoin.

the $50 will come down to the Chinese and how they will perform in the following days. it has always been like this.
remember the LTC halving pump? liteocin was on a good path up and suddenly someone over in China let lose of the bags on the market and crushed the price as if they don't know why a slow sell to get most profit means!

but so far we are good and the rise seems to be starting. hope to see LTC go higher, it really deserves it more than the rest of them.

Litecoin offered no compelling need to exist before the SegWit impasse. Now it has a very, very important reason to exist.

Chinaman mining industry was keeping Litecoin low to prevent any serious competition to Bitcoin, and to prepare to have the power that they have now to incentivize activation of compelling protocol changes by allowing the LTC price to rise which causes ASIC demand to outstrip supply. I explained the dynamics upthread. The mining industry makes a huge profit with this move. The Chinaman is a chess player.

Re-reading all my posts (and clicking all links in posts) in this thread and the other thread, will bring holistic understanding.

[1714848332]

1714848332

[1714848332]

1714848332

[1714848332]

1714848332

[1714848332]

1714848332

[traincarswreck]

Fungible money:  When one cannot determine any difference between instances of money.  For example, we each have a dollar bill, we swap and no one can tell.  But, if the serial numbers were recorded then it can be determined which bill is which.  A clean crisp new bill is worth more than an old raggedy bill in some/many places.

Bitcoin is an interesting mixture of really good fungibility and not even close to fungible.  If a miner takes care then they can create a portion of Bitcoin pretty much out of thin air with virtually no traceability; without care in theory it can be traced.  Each time bitcoins are transacted they tend to become more and more traceable.

I heard once that if you have a US $100 bill in your possession it is very likely to have been used in an illegal drug transaction.  In fact, it is quite likely to have trace amounts of cocaine on it.  I have not confirmed this but it sounds plausible.  If so then arguably you are in possession of something that endangers you.  It would behoove you to wash such clean.

Some altcoins are superior to Bitcoin in terms of fungibility, although they might come with other issues.

I need INB to explain their own understanding/relevance.

All the above I understand to some extent.  I'm thinking there must be an admitting of a social factor through.  The usd example shows this.  If people are willing to ignore such issues (being used for crime etc.) then there is not really a problem.

[traincarswreck]

Oh, well, that is still 100 years away  Bitcoin most probably won't exist any more then.
And in any case, no tail emission is a disaster if you need to reward people.  I think no inflation is OK, but in a voluntary system only.

The argument for or against a deflationary or inflationary money seems to be largely perspective and context.  So often different people with didn't perspectives and or speaking to or from different contexts will battle it out basically semantically.

The highest perspective, as I understand, is to see that society is looking for a stable metric for value.  This would be optimal to have, its a great technology.

From this perspective inflation is not a good thing because you are literally talking about a measuring device which changes "length".  

If we don't have such a perfectly stable measuring device then the competition between different currencies has a different meaning.  If you do introduce that device then the concept of inflation becomes non-nonsensical, irrational, and damaging.

[iamnotback]

Ok, then what shall we do?

Buy moooore

Lol. Well humans are quite resourceful. And smart people are working on it. So my stance is to stay tuned (and of course so you can buy Moore). I think it may be possible to get closer to Nash's ideal than where I think Bitcoin puts us. I want to try to reply to @traincarswreck on this point.

[iamnotback]

I don't believe in a "bankster cartel".

I know the theory about the supposed "Blockstream conspiration" - "banksters want to harm Bitcoin, so they would like it to stay small and highly dependant on centralized payment processors". But I don't think they would have any success with such a dumb strategy, as every altcoin could replace BTC relatively fast and we have also already a real contender (Ethereum) that is focusing on on chain scaling.

Nobody has published a way to scale on chain. Ethereum hasn't either. I haven't published yet.

The currently only known way to scale is centralization (all altcoins that claim to scale accomplish it via centralization, even if they've tried to obfuscate that fact).

The bankster cartel was pushing to get off chain enabled on Bitcoin, but as it turns out Satoshi designed a game theory that makes it impossible to fork Bitcoin as I explained in my prior posts upthread (and credit to @dinofelis for first stating and predicting this principle). But apparently DTCC and Core have a plan B prepared which is the do the scaling on Litecoin. And I have explained upthread why that will be good for Bitcoin. There is no reason to settle the LN channels on Bitcoin. So it will happen on Litecoin instead. The bankster cartel will get what they want which is private fractional reserve banking on LN, and the Bitcoin whales and miners will get what they want which is small blocks and the inability to fork Bitcoin, so that Bitcoin remains a non-manipulated stable money according to Nash's theory of ideal money and the benefits that would bring onto society such as economically sound private fractional reserve banking.

Note LN doesn't scale up without centralized hubs which means private fractional reserve banking. @dinofelis explained that well upthread. I had also explained some of the LN issues in the past.

You really need to see the big picture. The miners and whales in Bitcoin are a benevolent cartel but in an Inverse Commons (as opposed to a Tragedy of the Commons) in that they can't change anything for the worse, yet they will act as a cartel to defend the protocol either unified defense or threats of mutual self-destruction. Because they are mutually locked into defending Bitcoin's protocol lest they lead to mutual self-destruction as I explained upthread. As I explained upthread, Bitcoin's game theory equilibrium depends on it remaining the most stable and largest fulcrum of value in this new fiat-less economy, thus it doesn't fulfill Nash's asymptotic ideal money because as I had already explained, the concentration of wealth in any finance system of fungible money will trend to winner-take-all which is thus eventually destroys Bitcoin's equilibrium when one whale becomes omnipotent in Bitcoin so Bitcoin will lose the protection of mutual self-destruction of whales who attempt to take control over the protocol (and once that happens then it is the NWO-666 outcome which will be the ultimate outcome of Bitcoin where all the capital gets concentrated on one hill in Jerusalem).

In the case of miners, things are not so clear - I think there may be mining pools conspiring to maximize profit regarding transaction fees.

That is by design and part of the clever game theory Satoshi designed.

I think the current stalemate is simply because of stubbornness and short-sighted thinking on both sides. There might be some interest conflict behind, but I'm sure if it was only that it could be solved with a solution similar to the Roundtable Consensus.

Polarization, simply, is en vogue now.

No it is by design of Satoshi. And a very good thing. And it was intentionally designed that way.

If it's done with Litecoins it'll be done with bitcoins.

Incorrect. <--- the entire thread should be digested

There will be no forks on Bitcoin, other than non-contentious (especially emergency) bug fixes that all relevant economic players in the system agree on wholeheartedly.

Satoshi designed the game theory of Bitcoin's political-economics such that it's protocol can't be upgraded so that it can't be manipulated.

[iamnotback]

My understanding of Nash's mathematical theory of ideal money is that if we have unit-of-account and store-of-value for reserves (but not necessarily a medium-of-exchange!) which has a non-manipulable and predictable rate of change of its supply, then that money can form the basis of sound financial systems which correctly value the activities in the economy and thus don't create distortions which lead to for example the failure of private fractional reserve banking, depressions, and misallocation of economic resources and capital.

So this is why the primary value of Bitcoin is the inability to change its protocol. If Bitcoin's protocol can be changed by anyone, then it is no longer a reliable metric in Nash's mathematical scheme.

So Satoshi tried to design a monetary system which would meet the requirements of Nash's ideal money scheme. Because in theory this can bring great benefits to society, such as destroying all the fiat systems, corrupt governments and destroying the inherently correct concept of socialism and democracy. These justifications have been explained in more detail upthread (and in extensive detail in my archives on BCT), so I won't repeat that information.

But as I already explained upthread, the immutability of PoW only exists for the token (blockchain) which has the greatest value, because the finance tail doesn't wag the dog. I explained upthread that whales on a higher valued blockchain can potentially manipulate a lowered valued altcoin as is the case ongoing now with Litecoin wherein they are able to change the protocol.

I also explained upthread how (using MPEx as an example) finance always accumulates to the one with the most reserves, i.e. finance is inherently a winner-take-all construct. It is a gravitational system that sucks everything into itself until it is the entire economy and then it self-destructs. Thus Nash's ideal money can't exist in reality with finance.

Nash wanted an asymptotic solution wherein the number of stable currencies could be unbounded and thus no one could ever gain sufficient omniscient information in order to winner-take-all the financial system. Unfortunately Bitcoin as the center of the financial universe as the only stable currency is of course an abomination and not at all what Nash would have wanted. (Note altcoins are not stable currencies because they are not immutable.) Because of course I explained already upthread how over time there will end up with one whale who has monopolized the Bitcoin economy and thus can change the protocol at-will. This is why I say Bitcoin is the NWO system and was probably created by a think tank funded by an elite globalist such as Rothschild.

Nash required two incongruent things. He wanted a metric to be stable so the (rest of the) financial system could be measured against it, yet he also needed that metric to be absolute (as in its veracity/protocol not being relative to anything which could be controlled or gamed). There are no absolutes in our universe. We live in a relativistic universe which is only constructed from relative perspectives. None of us can even communicate our present to everyone and we can't even communicate our histories incontrovertibly because there is no way to prove an event happened other than by the corroboration of the memories of others who witnessed it (which is not a total ordering thus isn't incontrovertible). For example (but this is by no means the main point of what I am trying to explain here), this weakness in fungible money is why money requires a total ordering consensus so as to order the transactions globally to insure a double-spend wasn't attempted some where else in the universe.

I wrote as @anonymous:

O/T assigned a descriptive model where nodes or their connections are assumed to have unequal value without any model for why they do. Eric posited a generative model wherein communication has a space-time frictional cost. Subsequent commentary has pointed out that the more generalized generative model is that networking (in the generalized conceptualization of communication and/or group formation) has a myriad of genres of opportunity cost (e.g. even political opportunity cost in cooperative games theory), so this can account for preferences in group formation which may in some cases be independent of physical transport costs.

Something else occurred to me while reading the O/T paper before reading Robert Willis's thoughts, and I think combining the opportunity cost generalization with the following insight might model his point. Note that if the possible connections between nodes are limited by opportunity cost weighted compatibility of groups of nodes, then we can approximate a model of the network as connections between groups (aka clusters) of nodes. In this case, the equations for relative value of network mergers changes such that it is possible for the value proposition to invert between small and larger networks, if the larger network has fewer groupings (on an opportunity cost potential connections weighted basis). O/T mentioned clusters but in the context of their descriptive model of assumed unequal value. The key point of opportunity cost is that value is relativistic to the observer. The highly relativistic model is capable of higher-order effects such as those described by Robert Willis. Demographics matter.

I want to investigate whether Verlinde's entropic force emergent information based gravitation model is applicable and perhaps a generative mathematical foundation.

So I believe what Nash worked out in his mind mathematically was that in some hypothetical asymptotic case wherein there are an unbounded number of stable, non-manipulable currencies, then it would not be possible for any player in the system to always win just because he/she held the most reserves, because that player would lack information about whether he/she held the most powerful basket of reserves, so it would thus not be a power vacuum winner-take-all outcome in the theoretical asymptotic case. So Nash was correct that in the asymptotic case, his ideal money is stable, but the problem is that such an asymptotic case isn't known to exist nor does anyone know how to make it come into existence. Even Satoshi's design requires Bitcoin to be the stable currency with the highest value otherwise as I had explained, its immutability is not assured by the game theory.

Precisely four years ago, I wrote Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch, and I see now that I was entirely correct. Bitcoin is an abomination of Nash's ideal money scheme. Its end game is one globalist who controls everything. One omnipotent whale who stomps on all life. The NWO-666 outcome. Sorry I can't stand by idle and let that happen! Four years ago, I set out to try to figure out how to fix this problem. I've been working incessantly ever since on this in spite of my disseminated Tuberculosis illness (which I am now undergoing treatment to cure hopefully).

But along my journey of thinking about money every since I got interested in gold in 2006 because by late 2005 I could already see in my mind that a global crisis of debt and socialism was ahead in the real world, I ended up making a discovery and writing it down some time in the period between 2011 and 2013. That essay was Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance.

The generative essence of that discovery was that knowledge can't be financed, because unlike manual labor, knowledge production is not fungible. Read the essay I wrote for more explanation.

Also Eric S. Raymond had discovered Linus' Law "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" when he wrote the seminal The Cathedral and the Bazaar which launched the open source revolution and Eric had invented the term "open source" preferring it over Richard Stallman's "free software". Eric followed that up with the explanation of open source economics models in the Magic Cauldron wherein he explained the opposite of a Tragedy-of-the-Commons is an Inverse Commons which is what open source is.

So what I had figured out that finance would die because the entire point of money is an information system which routes perception of value to those who help the society produce the most. Fungible money worked during the tangible ages (agriculture and industrial) because society needed to aggregate large amounts of capital (because economies-of-scale were paramount in agriculture and industry) and labor was fungible (i.e. replaceable) and thus finance was useful for maximizing production. Companies aggregate fungible resources and economies-of-scale to gain a transactional cost advantage to solve the coordination problem of the Tragedy-of-the-Commons of uncoordinated resources per the Theory of the Firm (and such transactional cost advantages decline in the knowledge age due to technological changes which enable more diverse production with lower economies-of-scale and Inverse Commons coordination). Although this system carried with it huge social problems because laborers had no pricing power unless they could restrict membership (e.g. unions) or otherwise use the government to try to redistribute wealth (or do birth control eugenics to lower their competition with each other). In other words, the broken concepts such as democracy and socialism were ramifications of the fact that labor was too fungible (replaceable) and finance was cardinal. That is why so many hate capitalism, but they don't understand that the fledgling knowledge age (which is already underway!) will change everything to a meritocracy and destroy finance and money.

So we tie all this together and note that we increasingly are exchanging our knowledge and doing knowledge creation in open source Inverse Commons, especially those who produce the most in the new economy of the knowledge age. Eric Raymond had eloquently pointed out that the Inverse Commons of open source is the only known positive scaling law of engineering. And it applies to almost any field of knowledge creation that applies the open source principle (such as what we doing right now here by discussing a new concept and peer reviewing it here).

So I figured out that if I could tie the knowledge production within Inverse Commons to exchange of a fungible monetary unit, I could bridge the gap between where we are now and where we are headed. And that each time some fungible money would be exchanged in this system I designed, then the value of the fungible money would not be in exchange for the knowledge but rather in exchange for the service provided to host the knowledge. Then the fungible portion of exchange would only be a small fraction of the non-fungible value created by the activity. This was a very clever and insightful and essential discovery that I made!

So I had figured out a way to make new blockchain currency which would scale out larger than Bitcoin and thus defeat it while also itself not being vulnerable to manipulation because the fungible finance portion of the economy would orders-of-magnitude inferior in relative value to the knowledge portion. In other words, no one could ever monopolize it.

Then I combined that with a clever consensus algorithm which doesn't require PoW. And voila I named the unpublished design the Bitcoin Killer.

In other words, it achieves Nash's asymptotic ideal money by turning a person's brain into their non-fungible money (the unbounded number of brains is the asymptotic domain) and leverages that huge value creation in order to make the associated fungible token more demanded than Bitcoin. The economy shifts from a predominately monetary one into a predominately reputation and gift culture, wherein we recognize value by accomplishments and not by monetary digits.

Those parasite high finance and Wallstreet thugs have to find a new vocation and actually work together in society or become irrelevant.

I rather like my discovery. I think you will too if I am correct.

[sidhujag]

No asymptotic ideal money means that one money that follows some principles that allow for higher transfer utility will be accepted by yhe market but we will never reach the perfect money because you cant have perfectly stable and infinite transfer utility and thus you will get better versions over time in that if one is a paradaigm shift over another it may have a chance at being a better asymptotically ideal money. Fiat with rate targeting replaced gold standard and we posit cryptocurrency with stable supply may be a big enough shift to create that paradaign shift because it removes greed of central bankers. I think he meant ideal would be a rate targetted money based on an auditable economic metric but that may not be possible without greedy centralized entities.

[dinofelis]

The highest perspective, as I understand, is to see that society is looking for a stable metric for value.  This would be optimal to have, its a great technology.

That is really not difficult.  The prostitute fuck is a stable metric of value.

You can express all market value as an amount of  "one good prostitute half hour".  Something that is not going to be modified a lot by technology, that has millennia-long tradition, of which demand and offer has always been more or less stable over the ages.

I think that this is a very stable measure of value.

The other one is the Big Mac, but it has no historical perspective.

[traincarswreck]

is that a suggestion that big macs don't get cheaper to produce over time?

[dinofelis]

My understanding of Nash's mathematical theory of ideal money is that if we have unit-of-account and store-of-value for reserves (but not necessarily a unit-of-exchange!) which has a non-manipulable and predictable rate of change of its supply, then that money can form the basis of sound financial systems which correctly value the activities in the economy and thus don't create distortions which lead to for example the failure of private fractional reserve banking, depressions, and misallocation of economic resources and capital.

So this is why the primary value of Bitcoin is the inability to change its protocol. If Bitcoin's protocol can be changed by anyone, then it is no longer a reliable metric in Nash's mathematical scheme.

So Satoshi tried to design a monetary system which would meet the requirements of Nash's ideal money scheme. Because in theory this can bring great benefits to society, such as destroying all the fiat systems, corrupt governments and destroying the inherently correct concept of socialism and democracy. These justifications have been explained in more detail upthread (and in extensive detail in my archives on BCT), so I won't repeat that information.

But as I already explained upthread, the immutability of PoW only exists for the token (blockchain) which has the greatest value, because the finance tail doesn't wag the dog. I explained upthread that whales on a higher valued blockchain can potentially manipulate a lowered valued altcoin as is the case ongoing now with Litecoin wherein they are able to change the protocol.

I also explained upthread how (using MPEx as an example) finance always accumulates to the one with the most reserves, i.e. finance is inherently a winner-take-all construct. It is a gravitational system that sucks everything into itself until it is the entire economy and then it self-destructs. Thus Nash's ideal money can't exist in reality with finance.

Nash wanted an asymptotic solution wherein the number of stable currencies could be unbounded and thus no one could ever gain sufficient omniscient information in order to winner-take-all the financial system. Unfortunately Bitcoin as the center of the financial universe as the only stable currency is of course an abomination and not at all what Nash would have wanted. (Note altcoins are not stable currencies because they are not immutable.) Because of course I explained already upthread how over time there will end up with one whale who has monopolized the Bitcoin economy and thus can change the protocol at-will. This is why I say Bitcoin is the NWO system and was probably created by a think tank funded by an elite globalist such as Rothschild.

Nash required two incongruent things. He wanted a metric to be stable so the (rest of the) financial system could be measured against it, yet he also needed that metric to be absolute (as in its veracity/protocol not being relative to anything which could be controlled or gamed). There are no absolutes in our universe. We live in a relativistic universe which is only constructed from relative perspectives. None of us can even communicate our present to everyone and we can't even communicate our histories incontrovertibly because there is no way to prove an event happened other than by the corroboration of the memories of others who witnessed it (which is not a total ordering thus isn't incontrovertible). For example (but this is by no means the main point of what I am trying to explain here), this weakness in fungible money is why money requires a total ordering consensus so as to order the transactions globally to insure a double-spend wasn't attempted some where else in the universe.

I wrote as @anonymous:

O/T assigned a descriptive model where nodes or their connections are assumed to have unequal value without any model for why they do. Eric posited a generative model wherein communication has a space-time frictional cost. Subsequent commentary has pointed out that the more generalized generative model is that networking (in the generalized conceptualization of communication and/or group formation) has a myriad of genres of opportunity cost (e.g. even political opportunity cost in cooperative games theory), so this can account for preferences in group formation which may in some cases be independent of physical transport costs.

Something else occurred to me while reading the O/T paper before reading Robert Willis's thoughts, and I think combining the opportunity cost generalization with the following insight might model his point. Note that if the possible connections between nodes are limited by opportunity cost weighted compatibility of groups of nodes, then we can approximate a model of the network as connections between groups (aka clusters) of nodes. In this case, the equations for relative value of network mergers changes such that it is possible for the value proposition to invert between small and larger networks, if the larger network has fewer groupings (on an opportunity cost potential connections weighted basis). O/T mentioned clusters but in the context of their descriptive model of assumed unequal value. The key point of opportunity cost is that value is relativistic to the observer. The highly relativistic model is capable of higher-order effects such as those described by Robert Willis. Demographics matter.

I want to investigate whether Verlinde's entropic force emergent information based gravitation model is applicable and perhaps a generative mathematical foundation.

So I believe what Nash worked out in his mind mathematically was that in some hypothetical asymptotic case wherein there are an unbounded number of stable, non-manipulable currencies, then it would not be possible for any player in the system to always win just because he/she held the most reserves, because that player would lack information about whether he/she held the most powerful basket of reserves, so it would thus not be a power vacuum winner-take-all outcome in the theoretical asymptotic case. So Nash was correct that in the asymptotic case, his ideal money is stable, but the problem is that such an asymptotic case isn't known to exist nor does anyone know how to make it come into existence. Even Satoshi's design requires Bitcoin to be the stable currency with the highest value otherwise as I had explained, its immutability is not assured by the game theory.

Precisely four years ago, I wrote Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch, and I see now that I was entirely correct. Bitcoin is an abomination of Nash's ideal money scheme. Its end game is one globalist who controls everything. One omnipotent whale who stomps on all life. The NWO-666 outcome. Sorry I can't stand by idle and let that happen! Four years ago, I set out to try to figure out how to fix this problem. I've been working incessantly ever since on this in spite of my disseminated Tuberculosis illness (which I am now undergoing treatment to cure hopefully).

But along my journey of thinking about money every since I got interested in gold in 2006 because by late 2005 I could already see in my mind that a global crisis of debt and socialism was ahead in the real world, I ended up making a discovery and writing it down some time in the period between 2011 and 2013. That essay was Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance.

The generative essence of that discovery was that knowledge can't be financed, because unlike manual labor, knowledge production is not fungible. Read the essay I wrote for more explanation.

Also Eric S. Raymond had discovered Linus' Law "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" when he wrote the seminal The Cathedral and the Bazaar which launched the open source revolution and Eric had invented the term "open source" preferring it over Richard Stallman's "free software". Eric followed that up with the explanation of open source economics models in the Magic Cauldron wherein he explained the opposite of a Tragedy-of-the-Commons is an Inverse Commons which is what open source is.

(I am still writing this post, please reload again after some minutes)

@iamnotback, simply a brilliant analysis.  You put crisp arguments and logic on points I vaguely felt without always knowing exactly why.

However, two things bug me, if you think in bitcoin as gold for the elite, and litecoin as the silver for the plebs, with the market cap of bitcoin so dominant over LTC, that it can manipulate it at will.

Like the tail doesn't wag the dog, the flea on the tail doesn't wag the tail either.  The principle you illustrate is exactly what the FED has been doing with most fungible stores of value, including gold: the market cap of $$ being much larger than anything else, the FED having unlimited supply of it, can dictate the price and flow of gold, silver, foreign currencies etc...
(that is being challenged now by the $$ not being so hugely more important than other stores of value in the world).

So two questions remain:
1) bitcoin is maybe the dog as compared to alts, but it is the tail as compared to the FED.  Bitcoin can be wagged by the FED from the moment that it gets a more official status and the FED can buy it and sell it as an asset.  $20 billion is peanuts

2) If LTC is the LN activated system, what would keep up the market price of bitcoin ?  Right now, that market price is kept up by greater-fool theory and the belief in moon.  Bitcoin's economic value at this moment must be less than $10,- per coin (that is, if the only demand for it were given by the need to obtain them to buy goods and services for it - Fisher's formula).

Most gullible people plunk down $1000 or so of their hard-earned money for a bitcoin, because they think that one day it will be worth $100 000 and they will retire ; that is, one day they will find a fool who will plunk down $100 000,- for their coin.  Like they plunked down $1000,- to someone who bought it maybe for $10,- some years ago.
The whales, full of bitcoin when it was less than $10,- dump some of their coins on these gullible to rip them off their $1000,-.

But in order for these armies of gullible to keep coming (called "adoption"), the dream needs to be sustained that they too, will find even bigger armies of even more gullible that will plunk down $100 000,- for their coins.  Telling everybody that bitcoin is going to become the world currency and that there are only 21 million of them, is keeping up that dream.

But if LTC is going to be the payment system with LN on top of it, what story are you going to tell about the gullible, and how one day people will beg them to sell their coin for $100 000,- ?  While you need litecoin to buy stuff at Wallmart ?

Given that LTC is only a few $$ right now, what idiot would plunk down $1000,- for something you can't buy anything at Wallmart with, while he can get much more LTC for that amount of money ?  He can get a much larger share of "the stuff that will become world money" with his $1000,- than of BTC ?

Yes, I know, gold and silver.  But gold was universally accepted by all in power, from kings to temples.  Bitcoin only has value because it "was going to be the unique world currency and all the rest are shit coins".

LN activation on LTC will be very dangerous for bitcoin.  Once bitcoin loses its leading market cap, bitcoin is nothing any more.  Bitcoin is the thing that was the first mover, the highest market cap, and "all the rest are shit coins".   If bitcoin needs a shitcoin to do the real payments at Wallmart, what good is bitcoin ?

[dinofelis]

is that a suggestion that big macs don't get cheaper to produce over time?

I would think that, even though some optimisation happens, yes.  Because essentially, it is fungible, relatively uneducated labour (life time of people, doesn't change much over time) and a relatively constant demand (you won't eat 20 times more Big Macs because they become 20 times cheaper).  So I would think that the fraction of life time sacrificed to make a big mac over the pleasure to eat a big mac keeps its "true market value" more or less constant.

[traincarswreck]

I would think that, even though some optimisation happens, yes.  Because essentially, it is fungible, relatively uneducated labour (life time of people, doesn't change much over time) and a relatively constant demand (you won't eat 20 times more Big Macs because they become 20 times cheaper).  So I would think that the fraction of life time sacrificed to make a big mac over the pleasure to eat a big mac keeps its "true market value" more or less constant.

Not sure i understand, are you including robots and or food printing machines in this?

[iamnotback]

When I see those charts I always have to reflect on how this has all played out and I'm astounded.

So yes, the LTC chart seems to show that LTC is just playing out how we should expect really.

I had a similar reaction when I viewed today the LTC chart in perspective of this theory of first hump and then second larger hump that seems to occur in technology adoption.

Although as you were saying, and I had thought myself many times, LTC didn't really seem to have any unique and valuable characteristics and I kinda assumed it was dead.

Yeah I just couldn't think of any compelling feature that could ignite LTC, but I had myopically forgotten that perhaps Litecoin could activate SegWit (and thus Lightning Networks scaling). And it hadn't completely become clear to me until 2-3 days ago, that Bitcoin was never going to fork or softfork significant changes to its protocol. I explained why. Once I realized Bitcoin is never going to allow any major changes to its protocol, then I started to think about what would Blockstream do. That is when I was ripe for realizing what the LTC spike in price is probably about. Of course most of the Bitcoiners are stuck on this concept that Bitcoin has to scale, which I have realized is entirely unnecessary (and you still need to understand this) because Litecoin can scale yet Bitcoin will still capture the lion's share of the value of the scaling of Litecoin.

After you had mentioned hedging by buying other alt-coins, I got thinking that in terms of a true hedge, LTC seemed to be the most non-volatile coin for the past 2 years. I was going to make a purchase of LTC simply as a safe haven to wait out the BTC mess and I literally woke up the next morning and it had jumped from $4ish to $6ish. Once I reviewed your ideas more, it seemed to be sign and it made perfect sense that LTC would adopt SegWit and get it's second chance.

Many of us were looking at LTC and almost ready to pull the trigger. I was wanting to trade 33% of my ETH because ETH had risen from $45 to $52, so I wanted to lock-in that gain. I just was too slow in assimilating my thought process (because of being overworked and still somewhat chronically ill), so I too woke up to find the price had jumped before I had finished my analysis. But then I was able to quickly assimilate all the facts and realize what was really going is not likely just another pump & dump.

Now thinking of LTC as the the Silver to BTC's Gold, again it feels like it should play out that way. I don't know how to explain it other than a feeling for me. Are you saying that you believe BTC can't rise until LTC catches up because you see it as a Gold/Silver ratio and it's too far out of line right now? Or are what specifically are you seeing in the chart?

I mean fundamentally it makes total sense to me that BTC will not go higher until the scaling issue is resolved. LTC activating SegWit doesn't solve it for BTC, but it does clear the air of the negativity surrounding the BU/Core squabble.

Not a feeling. I have explained that Bitcoin can never get scaling. The only way currently known to get scaling (note I haven't published yet ), is private fractional reserve banking via centralized hubs with Lightning Networks. And to realize this will end up giving Bitcoin much more value than it will give to Litecoin (after Litecoin has caught up and is no longer extremely undervalued). And the only realistic way we get LN on a coin that has a suitable pedigree is Litecoin. There is no other option. Not only pedigree, but also because only Litecoin is sufficiently undervalued in order to totally shock the mining network of Litecoin such that old A4 will be mining profitably on the huge price jump so all the old A4 stock will get sold and will of course signal SegWit.

So it is just the free markets flowing downhill in the path of least resistance. No need for a feeling. It is an objective economics analysis.

No need for voodoo black magic or magical guesses of seeing a witch's eye in a cloud formation.  

Mailed some of these pools and asked about segwit, but it will probably take a while.

Can you be more specific?

Pools don't have much say in this. Miners do.

Miners can change to a pool which signals SegWit because miners will earn more with a higher Litecoin price, because the supply of Litecoin mining hardware is limited. The newer ASICs are already out-of-stock. It is only the older A4 ASICs which are not sold out yet (but will be soon enough if the price continues to rise). The miners who already have mining equipment will be making a fortune. So they will signal SeqWit or end up with an unprofitable ASIC that they can't use.

Well if you're honest about your 40-50$+ ltc and not just hype, then i really doubt that.

Fundamental economics trumps marketing.

Actually I am serious about $100+ within a year (probably sooner).

Unless SegWit activation fails, but I highly doubt it. There isn't any other choice. These small scale miners can't mine Ethereum in the future.

Miners aren't going to cut their own throat. Vitalik is switching to PoS. These miners need something they can mine at a good profit. Miners can buy an old A4 and mine LTC profitably now given the recent price rise. Why would they buy more GPUs to mine Ethereum. And they can't mine BTC profitably any more.

I guess they can also choose Zcash or Zcash Classic if they go the GPU route. I deduce by its omission (and my study of Cryptonite) that GPU is not as advantageous on Monero? But GPU supply isn't probably as constrained as ASIC supply, thus miners will earn much more profit by buying an A4 and signaling SegWit on Litecoin (because difficulty will thus also be constrained and not keep up with the rising price on Litecoin). It is just economics. It seems inevitable and unstoppable.

Yeah it might take a while, but the more the Litecoin price goes up, the more miners are going to be jumping to purchase the remaining A4s and signal SegWit. Yet I suspect that some majors such as BTCC are just waiting for the independent mining to signal some level say 70% before they decide to throw their hashrate towards it to push it over the 75% hump. Inherently they are waiting for the Bitcoiners to give up on any changes to Bitcoin and start to argue for SegWit on Litecoin more aggressively. It is a process of Bitcoiners learning about reality and economics. Also for the other miners to learn this economics which I am explaining. Perhaps some of them don't even realize that Bitcoin will maximize its value by enabling SegWit on Litecoin.

Don't forget what btc has but nobody else has: the brand, the first one, the recognition, and thanks to that, it is accepted in places. LTC isn't accepted anywhere and neither does it have any technological features to back it up, therefore people may follow fomo to about 1billion perhaps, but then i don't see why would whales pump it at a loss, don't forget there are some really hungry bagholders in ltc.

Fundamental economics trumps marketing.

When Blockstream decides they have to switch to Litecoin, then everything will flow quite quickly. An activation of SegWit on Litecoin and a continued stalemate on Bitcoin with Ethereum releasing LN clone (Raiden) will light a fire under Blockstream's collective butts. I read some Core devs had already signaled working with Litecoin. Litecoin has been running stably for 6 years. Bugcoin Unlimited seems to have a bug every other week lately.

The Chinese are the boss now. This is the new reality in the world.

Who is losing by raising the LTC price? Any whales who buy in now and ride the revaluation upwards of Litecoin to its correct market value, will be increasing their BTC when they trade back at $50, because Bitcoin will probably only double during the same time period. Of course LTC will be more volatile.

There is enough liquidity in LTC and that is the main factor. When LTC had its first spike, it was because LTC was the only coin (with sufficient liquidity) for the BTC whales to lockin their profits when Bitcoin exceeded $1000 for the first time, without exiting to fiat.

There are only 4 projects in top 15 that aim to become currencies, excepting bitcoin and tether. All of them are in the same position as LTC, they are alts but they have either some nice feature like anonymity or they incentivise bagholding via masternodes. I really don't believe LTC can start the kind of fomo even dash can have. If they do that, they will lose alot of money.

Fundamental economics trumps marketing.

Bitcoiners decide. If Bitcoin can't scale, they have to choose something. And they sure aren't going to endorse Dash nor Ethereum. Since they can't have scaling directly on Bitcoin, they will have to choose the next best option which is Litecoin (and probably change the currency unit to "ecoin" which is the latter part of the Litecoin name). And "ecoin" is a better token name for the masses than "bitcoin".

Bitcoiners have to come to the realization that Ethereum is going to release Raiden soon and Bitcoin is never going to get LN nor bigger blocks. No protocol changes will be possible in Bitcoin. So Bitcoiners are going to have to move into Litecoin to raise the price so that miners will buy up A4s like crazy and signal SegWit. It is symbiotic effect and both parties need each to act.

Ethereum is an investment for those who believe killer apps other than just payment systems and value transfer (e.g. finance), are going to very important. Those investing Ethereum aren't doing so just for Raiden. They are investing because Ethereum has the chance of finding other killer apps for blockchains given all the smart app experimentation going on by many different groups decentralized.

Yet Bitcoiners want first and foremost a stable, secure value store and transfer blockchain that can scale. Then they want to add some other things such as those Blockstream is working such as anonymity, Rootstock smart contracts, etc.. Blockstream will not be able to move as fast as Ethereum though. Yet Bitcoiners prioritize stability, focus, and security.

And what else can they choose? The other altcoin shitcoins have no chance at all of being the chosen one. Monero has a little bit of relevance also, but I think their model of volunteer development will be far too slow to compete effectively.

Nobody would rush to accept ltc as payment even if it somehow managed to surpass bitcoin, not having any usage is it's real problem (it wasn't for bitcoin before 2014-2015 because it was a novelty either way).

Fundamental economics trumps marketing.

You'll be surprised how fast Bitpay can add a Litecoin payment option which instantly integrates given that merchants get paid in fiat.

Also Lightning Networks is about banks creating ecoins out of thin air (private fractional reserve) and loaning them to the masses. So the traditional (or modern replacements of) banks are the ones who are going to drive massive adoption. This is a critically important point.


Regarding Ripple, I'll defer to the largest Bitcoin whale's analysis:

What I mean is that Ripple is broken in the sense of severe congenital defects, the sort that cause abortion before gestation could in any way conceivably complete. Specifically :

Fatal congenital defect #1. Ripple requires any participant to trust other participants blindly. This is to say, if you trust X person to Y sum this doesn't mean that your trust is rescinded should X issue more than Y worth of debt. It simply means X may issue an infinite volume of debt and you unconditionally promise to accept Y of that. Just like that.

Fatal congenital defect #2. If #1 above somehow didn't kill the thing (for argument's sake), there's absolutely no way for you to receive compensation for the liquidity you provide. Conceivably no matter who X is, be it Russ Meyer or the very Bank of England in its heyday, as long as you take on its debt you're entitled to some sort of compensation for this. At least that's how things work in sane land, since forever. Not in Ripple, however. Your trust is unremunerated, which makes Ripple the only repo market in the history of finance working on 0% interest rates. Not even the FED pumping liquidity through the special bank windows did something like this.

Fatal congenital defect #3. If #1 and #2 above somehow didn't kill it (veering beyond the absurd by now), Ripple averages out all debt. You beg my pardon ? Good for you.

So, suppose Ripple was being used by Ben Bernanke, Christine Lagarde and Lou Jiwei, alongside a number of people randomly picked off the street. You'd sanely expect to be able to buy either BBdollars or Anondollars, separately, as distinct items. Right ? And then CLeuros and LJyuans as opposed to RandomChinesePersonIOU.

Well... that's not how Ripple works. As long as you trust both Lou Jiwei and some random Chinese dude, any people who trust the random dude and hold LJ's yuans can exchange LJ's yuans for any random dude's yuans that you hold.ii Or, as the case may be, the other way around. Always, always the other way around. So what happens when you find yourself trying to pay for a cab ride with what you thought were actual dollars but upon examination turn out to be pieces of paper with "DELLOR" scribbled in pink marker arcoss one side ? Awww, I guess you shouldn't have trusted your boss because he decided to trust his 5 year old daughter and now lookyiii. You've got a blue eye and the cab driver looks just about ready to give you another one.

Basically this boneheaded "everything's a Ripple" approach opens the entire space to the problem that lemon laws try to solve. Let's revisit that for a second, for the benefit of the completely clueless idiots who think it's their place to "create" and "innovate" retarded shit like thisiv.

So, inasmuch as used cars go, it is expensive for buyers to find the actual value of the item. Thus on any specified item buyers make offers based on a guess as to what the average value of a used car would be at any given time. Sellers either know this or soon find out (by being lowballed on good used cars) and soon enough only introduce into the market cars that are objectively worth less than the perceived average. This over time lowers the average, lowering the buyer expectation (and thus price offered) which further lowers the seller incentive and soon enough the only used cars you can buy are refurbished lawnmowers.

This is the problem that lemon laws try to solve. They fail.

So does Ripple. RIPv.

[dinofelis]

I would think that, even though some optimisation happens, yes.  Because essentially, it is fungible, relatively uneducated labour (life time of people, doesn't change much over time) and a relatively constant demand (you won't eat 20 times more Big Macs because they become 20 times cheaper).  So I would think that the fraction of life time sacrificed to make a big mac over the pleasure to eat a big mac keeps its "true market value" more or less constant.

Not sure i understand, are you including robots and or food printing machines in this?

At McDonalds, burgers are not printed, and not served by robots.  They are essentially fungible labour.

[iamnotback]

One more post trying to get Bitcoiners to wake up to reality:

While some of you waste your time trying to figure out what all the irrelevant noise of signaling on Bitcoin doesn't mean, the reality is something that will require re-orienting your thinking.

Bitcoin will never scale without Litecoin. No significant protocol changes will ever be made to Bitcoin. Bitcoiners need to get this nailed into their thick skulls. Read the following:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1663070.msg18424568#msg18424568

Bitcoin will achieve maximum value by enabling SegWit on Litecoin. There is no other option going forward. The above linked post explains why in detail.

Bitcoin was designed by Satoshi such that the vested interests would be that no one can change the protocol. No change is ever coming to Bitcoin. The sooner you realize this, the sooner we can get unstuck from the mud. Those of you who continue to facilitate this illusion of change coming to Bitcoin's protocol are obstacles in the way of progress.

Altcoins are good competitors to Bitcoin and I think it just needs it.

Incorrect. Most of the speculation value from altcoins ends up in BTC, not in the altcoins. Altcoins are complementary to BTC. The reason BTC percentage of market cap is diving lately is because Bitcoiners are trying to force protocol changes to Bitcoin, instead of doing it on Litecoin, and so no progress is being made at all. Stuck in the mud.

Bitcoiners need to re-orient their thinking. Read my prior post and click the link and read more.

Bitcoin will never scale without Litecoin. No significant protocol changes will ever be made to Bitcoin. Bitcoiners need to get this nailed into their thick skulls. Read the following:

Bitcoin will achieve maximum value by enabling SegWit on Litecoin. There is no other option going forward. The above linked post explains why in detail.

How would this be possible without some type of protocol change that allows stuff such as atomic swaps? Without that the chains are stuck as separate entities.

You apparently don't understand finance. The tail doesn't wag the dog.

You guys don't read all of my posts, thus you force me to post copies of my posts all over the place:

Once I realized Bitcoin is never going to allow any major changes to its protocol, then I started to think about what would Blockstream do. That is when I was ripe for realizing what the LTC spike in price is probably about. Of course most of the Bitcoiners are stuck on this concept that Bitcoin has to scale, which I have realized is entirely unnecessary (and you still need to understand this) because Litecoin can scale yet Bitcoin will still capture the lion's share of the value of the scaling of Litecoin.

I explained why days ago. But y'all don't pay attention.

Any way, I don't mind providing you the link above.

Bitcoin is a currency not money.

Incorrect. You don't understand finance. The tail doesn't wag the dog. Read this.

Bitcoin is not a medium-of-exchange. It is a unit-of-account and a store-of-value. Litecoin will be the medium-of-exchange. Small blocks will make Bitcoin for settlement amongst power brokers of finance.

Well, at some point, they need to leave the middle ground and make a decision. I think it will be better if this will made as soon as possible. People are getting tired because of these and it will not be healthy if they will drag this for so long. Or maybe, they are just playing with both BU and SegWit while at the end of the day, nothing will happen?  

There will never be a middle ground.

Correct, nothing will ever change on Bitcoin. But Litecoin...

Core hasn't been keeping the system updated, and their refusal of further updates and generally increasing the Block size is alarming and drives support away. The bitcoin unlimited bound failure doesn't lift any responsibility away from the core devs..

Entirely incorrect.

Bitcoin will never be updated and doesn't need to be updated.

Please read my posts in this thread and click the links do some extensive reading and thinking. You will learn about the absolute importance of Litecoin for Bitcoin's future.

Until you re-orient your thinking to the reality, you will be hopelessly confused.

No disrespect intended. I am trying to guide you to the truth, but you have to be willing to click and read a lot.

Core hasn't been keeping the system updated,

There's a very steady stream of updates from Core. They've also provided the protocol change that they think is best. It's sitting there waiting to be used right now.

Waiting to be used on Litecoin. Never will be activated on Bitcoin. Satoshi designed the game theory of Bitcoin so that the vested interests would never be able to agree on modifying the protocol. Otherwise Bitcoin would have no value as power broker money. Please learn that the tail does not wag the dog in finance. Go read please.

This is bouncing up and down, but slowly moving upwards. It just exceeded 59% for the first time:

http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php

It is inevitable. The hard-headed who are late are going to be butt-hurt and backsplaining.

[iamnotback]

Nash wrote a paper that provides a model for explaining that the Inverse Commons is where the participants have utility to exchange non-fungible knowledge on this common territory, e.g. contributing source code and bug fixes to an open source repository or simply sharing our ideas here on this forum. There is a significant amount of knowledge value being exchanged here today but none of us are directly paying each other for our discussions. For example, we gain reputation and stature for being candid, lucid, and genuine. We might be able to monetize that reputation (e.g. launch an ICO or what have you, although I've already stated I would not do that), but it is more valuable for us to use it motivate others to exchange knowledge to produce more innovations/insights together via synergy.

[iamnotback]

The highest perspective, as I understand, is to see that society is looking for a stable metric for value.  This would be optimal to have, its a great technology.

That is really not difficult.  The prostitute fuck is a stable metric of value.

You can express all market value as an amount of  "one good prostitute half hour".  Something that is not going to be modified a lot by technology, that has millennia-long tradition, of which demand and offer has always been more or less stable over the ages.

I think that this is a very stable measure of value.

Disagree. That could be manipulated with mass media, forced deprivation, "education", etc..

The other one is the Big Mac, but it has no historical perspective.

Again this could be manipulated both from the demand side and the supply of raw ingredients side.

At McDonalds, burgers are not printed, and not served by robots.  They are essentially fungible labour.

The labor will be automated. All tangible replicated goods will decline asymptotically towards 0 relative value. That is what my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance points out. Yeah atoms are heavily but they don't get heavier. Relative value will decline (the absolute value will always have mass but that is irrelevant as I had pointed about to Eric Raymond on his blog, c.f. the Dark Enlightenment thread).


There are no stable values in a relativistic universe. But this is a good thing, otherwise we would not exist because the past and the future would collapse into indistinguishable (the light cones of relativity would overlap) if there could be any absolute reference point because relativism wouldn't exist.

[vlight]

My understanding of Nash's mathematical theory of ideal money is that if we have unit-of-account and store-of-value for reserves (but not necessarily a medium-of-exchange!) which has a non-manipulable and predictable rate of change of its supply, then that money can form the basis of sound financial systems which correctly value the activities in the economy and thus don't create distortions which lead to for example the failure of private fractional reserve banking, depressions, and misallocation of economic resources and capital.

So this is why the primary value of Bitcoin is the inability to change its protocol. If Bitcoin's protocol can be changed by anyone, then it is no longer a reliable metric in Nash's mathematical scheme.

So Satoshi tried to design a monetary system which would meet the requirements of Nash's ideal money scheme. Because in theory this can bring great benefits to society, such as destroying all the fiat systems, corrupt governments and destroying the inherently correct concept of socialism and democracy. These justifications have been explained in more detail upthread (and in extensive detail in my archives on BCT), so I won't repeat that information.

But as I already explained upthread, the immutability of PoW only exists for the token (blockchain) which has the greatest value, because the finance tail doesn't wag the dog. I explained upthread that whales on a higher valued blockchain can potentially manipulate a lowered valued altcoin as is the case ongoing now with Litecoin wherein they are able to change the protocol.

I also explained upthread how (using MPEx as an example) finance always accumulates to the one with the most reserves, i.e. finance is inherently a winner-take-all construct. It is a gravitational system that sucks everything into itself until it is the entire economy and then it self-destructs. Thus Nash's ideal money can't exist in reality with finance.

Nash wanted an asymptotic solution wherein the number of stable currencies could be unbounded and thus no one could ever gain sufficient omniscient information in order to winner-take-all the financial system. Unfortunately Bitcoin as the center of the financial universe as the only stable currency is of course an abomination and not at all what Nash would have wanted. (Note altcoins are not stable currencies because they are not immutable.) Because of course I explained already upthread how over time there will end up with one whale who has monopolized the Bitcoin economy and thus can change the protocol at-will. This is why I say Bitcoin is the NWO system and was probably created by a think tank funded by an elite globalist such as Rothschild.

Nash required two incongruent things. He wanted a metric to be stable so the (rest of the) financial system could be measured against it, yet he also needed that metric to be absolute (as in its veracity/protocol not being relative to anything which could be controlled or gamed). There are no absolutes in our universe. We live in a relativistic universe which is only constructed from relative perspectives. None of us can even communicate our present to everyone and we can't even communicate our histories incontrovertibly because there is no way to prove an event happened other than by the corroboration of the memories of others who witnessed it (which is not a total ordering thus isn't incontrovertible). For example (but this is by no means the main point of what I am trying to explain here), this weakness in fungible money is why money requires a total ordering consensus so as to order the transactions globally to insure a double-spend wasn't attempted some where else in the universe.

I wrote as @anonymous:

O/T assigned a descriptive model where nodes or their connections are assumed to have unequal value without any model for why they do. Eric posited a generative model wherein communication has a space-time frictional cost. Subsequent commentary has pointed out that the more generalized generative model is that networking (in the generalized conceptualization of communication and/or group formation) has a myriad of genres of opportunity cost (e.g. even political opportunity cost in cooperative games theory), so this can account for preferences in group formation which may in some cases be independent of physical transport costs.

Something else occurred to me while reading the O/T paper before reading Robert Willis's thoughts, and I think combining the opportunity cost generalization with the following insight might model his point. Note that if the possible connections between nodes are limited by opportunity cost weighted compatibility of groups of nodes, then we can approximate a model of the network as connections between groups (aka clusters) of nodes. In this case, the equations for relative value of network mergers changes such that it is possible for the value proposition to invert between small and larger networks, if the larger network has fewer groupings (on an opportunity cost potential connections weighted basis). O/T mentioned clusters but in the context of their descriptive model of assumed unequal value. The key point of opportunity cost is that value is relativistic to the observer. The highly relativistic model is capable of higher-order effects such as those described by Robert Willis. Demographics matter.

I want to investigate whether Verlinde's entropic force emergent information based gravitation model is applicable and perhaps a generative mathematical foundation.

So I believe what Nash worked out in his mind mathematically was that in some hypothetical asymptotic case wherein there are an unbounded number of stable, non-manipulable currencies, then it would not be possible for any player in the system to always win just because he/she held the most reserves, because that player would lack information about whether he/she held the most powerful basket of reserves, so it would thus not be a power vacuum winner-take-all outcome in the theoretical asymptotic case. So Nash was correct that in the asymptotic case, his ideal money is stable, but the problem is that such an asymptotic case isn't known to exist nor does anyone know how to make it come into existence. Even Satoshi's design requires Bitcoin to be the stable currency with the highest value otherwise as I had explained, its immutability is not assured by the game theory.

Precisely four years ago, I wrote Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch, and I see now that I was entirely correct. Bitcoin is an abomination of Nash's ideal money scheme. Its end game is one globalist who controls everything. One omnipotent whale who stomps on all life. The NWO-666 outcome. Sorry I can't stand by idle and let that happen! Four years ago, I set out to try to figure out how to fix this problem. I've been working incessantly ever since on this in spite of my disseminated Tuberculosis illness (which I am now undergoing treatment to cure hopefully).

But along my journey of thinking about money every since I got interested in gold in 2006 because by late 2005 I could already see in my mind that a global crisis of debt and socialism was ahead in the real world, I ended up making a discovery and writing it down some time in the period between 2011 and 2013. That essay was Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance.

The generative essence of that discovery was that knowledge can't be financed, because unlike manual labor, knowledge production is not fungible. Read the essay I wrote for more explanation.

Also Eric S. Raymond had discovered Linus' Law "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" when he wrote the seminal The Cathedral and the Bazaar which launched the open source revolution and Eric had invented the term "open source" preferring it over Richard Stallman's "free software". Eric followed that up with the explanation of open source economics models in the Magic Cauldron wherein he explained the opposite of a Tragedy-of-the-Commons is an Inverse Commons which is what open source is.

So what I had figured out that finance would die because the entire point of money is an information system which routes perception of value to those who help the society produce the most. Fungible money worked during the tangible ages (agriculture and industrial) because society needed to aggregate large amounts of capital (because economies-of-scale were paramount in agriculture and industry) and labor was fungible (i.e. replaceable) and thus finance was useful for maximizing production. Companies aggregate fungible resources and economies-of-scale to gain a transactional cost advantage to solve the coordination problem of the Tragedy-of-the-Commons of uncoordinated resources per the Theory of the Firm (and such transactional cost advantages decline in the knowledge age due to technological changes which enable more diverse production with lower economies-of-scale and Inverse Commons coordination). Although this system carried with it huge social problems because laborers had no pricing power unless they could restrict membership (e.g. unions) or otherwise use the government to try to redistribute wealth (or do birth control eugenics to lower their competition with each other). In other words, the broken concepts such as democracy and socialism were ramifications of the fact that labor was too fungible (replaceable) and finance was cardinal. That is why so many hate capitalism, but they don't understand that the fledgling knowledge age (which is already underway!) will change everything to a meritocracy and destroy finance and money.

So we tie all this together and note that we increasingly are exchanging our knowledge and doing knowledge creation in open source Inverse Commons, especially those who produce the most in the new economy of the knowledge age. Eric Raymond had eloquently pointed out that the Inverse Commons of open source is the only known positive scaling law of engineering. And it applies to almost any field of knowledge creation that applies the open source principle (such as what we doing right now here by discussing a new concept and peer reviewing it here).

So I figured out that if I could tie the knowledge production within Inverse Commons to exchange of a fungible monetary unit, I could bridge the gap between where we are now and where we are headed. And that each time some fungible money would be exchanged in this system I designed, then the value of the fungible money would not be in exchange for the knowledge but rather in exchange for the service provided to host the knowledge. Then the fungible portion of exchange would only be a small fraction of the non-fungible value created by the activity. This was a very clever and insightful and essential discovery that I made!

So I had figured out a way to make new blockchain currency which would scale out larger than Bitcoin and thus defeat it while also itself not being vulnerable to manipulation because the fungible finance portion of the economy would orders-of-magnitude inferior in relative value to the knowledge portion. In other words, no one could ever monopolize it.

Then I combined that with a clever consensus algorithm which doesn't require PoW. And voila I named the unpublished design the Bitcoin Killer.

In other words, it achieves Nash's asymptotic ideal money by turning a person's brain into their non-fungible money (the unbounded number of brains is the asymptotic domain) and leverages that huge value creation in order to make the associated fungible token more demanded than Bitcoin. The economy shifts from a predominately monetary one into a predominately reputation and gift culture, wherein we recognize value by accomplishments and not by monetary digits.

Those parasite high finance and Wallstreet thugs have to find a new vocation and actually work together in society or become irrelevant.

I rather like my discovery. I think you will too if I am correct.

Amazing info. Quoting this for future reference 

[dinofelis]

The highest perspective, as I understand, is to see that society is looking for a stable metric for value.  This would be optimal to have, its a great technology.

That is really not difficult.  The prostitute fuck is a stable metric of value.

You can express all market value as an amount of  "one good prostitute half hour".  Something that is not going to be modified a lot by technology, that has millennia-long tradition, of which demand and offer has always been more or less stable over the ages.

I think that this is a very stable measure of value.

Disagree. That could be manipulated with mass media, forced deprivation, "education", etc..

Nah.  Has been tried for millennia.  The oldest profession.  Older than gold !

I also think that you give way, way too much value to knowledge (technical/scientific that is).  It is stuff in over-production, and it is less and less needed.

The markets are held by those that possess resources (minerals, water, sunshine, clean air, land, ...) and certification rights without which you cannot bring anything legally to the market.  Imposed certification is a way to keep small competitors out of the market, have permissioned markets limited to an oligarchy in agreement with lawmakers.  Knowledge is not much needed in this domain.  Somewhat, still, but less and less.  But for every needed idea, there are 50 starving engineers waiting to sell their services for a sandwich.  This was totally different 30 years ago.  The lack of need of good knowledge in the economy is visible in the total degradation of scientific education, without any economic impact.  In other words, 30 years ago, we still needed engineers and scientists - now we don't.  Or almost not.

The only industry where this doesn't seem to be the case is entertainment, but that's a very meme-controlled industry which serves as a vector for crowd manipulation.  Panis et circenses.  

[iamnotback]

I must be frank because we are searching for the truth here, not just for back slaps. I'm confident that frankness is what you want from me.

The highest perspective, as I understand, is to see that society is looking for a stable metric for value.  This would be optimal to have, its a great technology.

That is really not difficult.  The prostitute fuck is a stable metric of value.

You can express all market value as an amount of  "one good prostitute half hour".  Something that is not going to be modified a lot by technology, that has millennia-long tradition, of which demand and offer has always been more or less stable over the ages.

I think that this is a very stable measure of value.

Disagree. That could be manipulated with mass media, forced deprivation, "education", etc..

Nah.  Has been tried for millennia.  The oldest profession.  Older than gold !

The empirical evidence proves you are absolutely incorrect. I read an account of the war in Serbia and the value of prostitution was reduced to below the value of a cigarette or a single unused bullet.

Also an average value for an economic good is meaningless. For example, I can get prostitution for a negative cost (where they pay me!), because I know how to pull the levers of a woman's hindbrain. Even a prostitute has utility for something she can't get easily.

I also think that you give way, way too much value to knowledge (technical/scientific that is).  It is stuff in over-production, and it is less and less needed.

Don't conflate noise with knowledge.

More precisely, the difference between noise and information is the resonance of the parties participating. What is noise to one person, can be information to another.

(Btw, this is how I will completely deconstruct and destroy your faith in Kurzweil's Singularity but again not now...)

The markets are held by those that possess resources (minerals, water, sunshine, clean air, land, ...) and certification rights without which you cannot bring anything legally to the market.

There you go again repeating our debate about Kurzweil's Singularity.

You are so stuck on atoms being heavy. But you entirely miss the fact that relatively speaking they are asymptotically massless. And this absolutely required mathematically else we could not exist in multiple parallel universes, and I already explained why without parallel universes we wouldn't exist at all. But please don't take me off onto this tangent. You tend to go off into obtuse math and physics which require significant verbiage (and far reaching assimilation of many fields of science) to unravel your mistakes and I don't have time for that tit-for-tat right now.

As Einstein said, our existence is nothing but an elaborate illusion constructed in our mind. Even you admitted you believe we never die because we never really existed in any absolute sense.

But for every needed idea, there are 50 starving engineers waiting to sell their services for a sandwich.  This was totally different 30 years ago.  The lack of need of good knowledge in the economy is visible in the total degradation of scientific education, without any economic impact.  In other words, 30 years ago, we still needed engineers and scientists - now we don't.  Or almost not.

What do you expect when you live in a socialistic hell where the government has corrupted all indicators of value so what the engineers train to be is entirely useless. I am creating tremendous value (look in past day I created $millions of value for those who listened to me and bought Litecoin on the pullback to $6), because I didn't listen to any sycophantic socialistic circle jerk echo chamber. I ran away from academia.

The government is not capable of preventing those who are willing to fight to be relevant. It are those who are unwilling to trade a little safety, for renewing the tree of liberty that end up enslaved. Hey it is their choice. Don't use that incorrect logic to say that the knowledge age is BS. Their EU socialist hell is BS!!! Why they haven't left it already only they know. It obviously makes them mentally ill in sense of misjudging the reality in this case. You are still super smart (probably smarter than me), but you are limited by something which keeps you stuck on measuring reality using a metric which is an entirely manipulated socialistic hell.

What you are essentially admitting is that science and knowledge are not created in Ivory Cathedrals. They are created in messy, chaotic Bazaars.

Live in a socialistic hell and attend Ivy League schools, then end up a useless xerox copy of some top-down driven curriculum and nonsense in academia.