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

[iamnotback]

Infinite relative profit to the other miners, and since at 100% there are no other miners, then yes infinite relative profit.

The key concept is relativity here.

And what would happen to the value of the system?

Your question is malformed. I understand the intent of your question is to imply that a system which is controlled by one entity is no longer trustable and thus valueless. But that reasoning doesn't account for the inertia...

If Bitcoin is the ultimate ideal money that the power brokers of our world decide to use for their reserves and thus we collapse the current financial system and replace it with this new "better" one.

Then later (80 years? 309 years later? I dunno how long it takes) when that system has concentrated 51% (or even 100% later) of the wealth into one entity's control (per the math I showed), then the value of the system is no longer relative to anything else. That entity will have enslaved the world, which is ultimate power.

The value is ultimate power. That is what it has always been about for the elite. They don't need money. They use money as a tool for power. Money (even gold) has a declining marginal utility, so the only thing left to pursue is either knowledge or power both of which can be insatiable. The fungible money crowd pursues power. This is why when someone gets too wealthy as measured in fungible money, they typically go insane because they lose normal goals and only have absolute power as unreachable goal (and otherwise meaningless life without challenge if they don't shift to striving for knowledge instead).

The reason FOFOA is incorrect about his claim that gold has a constant marginal utility is because fungible money doesn't have constant marginal utility. For example, one can't buy creativity with money, as my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay explained. This infuriates the elite of fungible money, so they lust for power in the hopes that they can ameliorate the value of knowledge.

Note Bitcoin has a higher marginal utility than gold, because it is a more ideal money. I quoted upthread Nash's explanation of why gold is inferior.

[1715394942]

1715394942

[1715394942]

1715394942

[1715394942]

1715394942

[traincarswreck]

Of course Im sure you agree the markets wouldn't value such a proposal and so it would have no relevance or power. 

So you must be speaking of some future...

[iamnotback]

Of course Im sure you agree the markets wouldn't value such a proposal and so it would have no relevance or power.  

The markets can't see a Sybil attack. And the nature of finance is that hidden shit isn't properly valued until it collapses. That was the problem Nash was trying to solve. Lol.

I could explain at a higher abstract level why Nash was foolish (in fact I already did upthread but without math proofs), yet I know you want accept it. So I won't even bother.

The point is markets can't value what they can't see. If you don't know how a Sybil attack is relevant here, then we can't have an interesting discussion.

[traincarswreck]

The markets can't see a Sybil attack.

But you can?

[iamnotback]

The Sybil attack isn't on hashrate (which of course is impossible). It is a Sybil attack on the determination of how divided is the hashrate. We can see a similar phenomenon with pools. We have no way to know how many entities actually own the hashrate behind the pools. I showed mathematically that the power brokers who aggregate the wealth (showed mathematically that it is winner-take-all) and thus the transactions that can fit in fixed size block, are the miners (whether they have slave miner doing it for them is irrelevant).

The market has no way of determining how concentrated is the wealth in Bitcoin. At the end times, we'll all find out to our detriment.

Nash was trying to fix fungible money. That can't be done. But he was close to discovering what I did, which is that we can achieve asymptotic stable relative value with non-fungible trade. The problem in the past was that barter was inefficient, which Nash described mathematically in that paper I cited upthread. However, with the advent of the Inverse Commons, trade in non-fungible knowledge becomes highly efficient. The 160 IQ genius Eric S. Raymond noted that it is the only positive scaling law of engineering.

While Nash was doing his main work decades ago, the Inverse Commons was only discovered and popularized in the 1990s as "open source". But it has far reaching implications on our future, not just software.

Nash went crazy when he realized how evil fungible money was. He ran away from the USA. Thus he made it one of his life's missions to try to fix it and remove the evil of it. He even said the rational world felt like a jail.

Follow the link in the quote below to learn about Nash's history...

Nah he doesnt type the same.. your off by a mile check the comments section. To me nash fits the bill perfectly.. been saying it for a few years seems people catching on

Seems a little too old.

Hes perfect for the role.. someone who did work for nsa.. hated them and also knows.game theory and studied it with crypto for his.whole life.

http://fuk.io/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto-the-truth/

I don't know if Nash was actually the main coder of Bitcoin or if he was even directly involved. But he was surely the source of the idea of ideal money.

Was Nash murdered?

[traincarswreck]

Ok in regard to inverse commons is this what you are citing? http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/magic-cauldron/ar01s05.html

The nash stuff you are citing originates with me.

[traincarswreck]

Was Nash murdered?

The very intro/abstract to Ideal Money

Mathematician John Nash, Wife Killed In NJ Turnpike Crash

[iamnotback]

Ok in regard to inverse commons is this what you are citing? http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/magic-cauldron/ar01s05.html

Yes that is the "type 2" that Nash refers to:

[iamnotback]

Was Nash murdered?

The very intro/abstract to Ideal Money

Mathematician John Nash, Wife Killed In NJ Turnpike Crash

"EZ Pass" and Nash killed on the NJ turnpike

 


Edit: Thinking more about this. Nash was given a Nobel prize, elevated and given the opportunity to give speeches about Ideal Money. The elite created Bitcoin (not Nash, he couldn't do that all by himself). Nash didn't murder himself on the NJ turnpike.

Nash's flight was somehow made to arrive 5 hours too early, then he had no option but to call cab instead of the limo he normally schedules. The dispatcher gives him a cab with an immigrant who only started driving a cab 2 weeks earlier. And I can't find any statements about interview with the driver as to how he lost control or mechanical investigation of the taxi.

My husband and I were on the New Jersey Turnpike that day and drove past the accident soon after it happened ... We got a very good look at that taxi Nash was riding in. It looked like it had been firebombed.

Compare the "firebombed" taxi in dashcam view:



To the taxi which was shown on the news:

A last-minute change in travel plans
They'd been scheduled to fly home Saturday afternoon, but the vagaries of air travel altered their plans. Nirenberg, booked on the same flight with his wife and the Nashes, said United Airlines informed them their plane was running hours late.

To avoid inconveniencing them, the airline had taken the liberty of booking them on an SAS flight scheduled for Saturday morning, Nirenberg said.

They arrived at Newark Liberty International Airport between noon and 1 p.m., he recalled. Nirenberg called his daughter for a ride, but it would be at least an hour before she arrived.

Because of the earlier flight, the Nashes' car service wasn't there to greet them, and the couple didn't have a cell phone. They waited with the Nirenbergs in terminal B, chatting to pass the time.

"Their spirits were very good, both of them," Louis Nirenberg said. "He was unhappy the limo wasn't there, but otherwise he was fine. We talked about their son. We talked about the trip."

At one point, they pulled out their Abel Prizes, realizing for the first time that King Harald had given each man the other's award during the ceremony days earlier. With a chuckle, they swapped, Nirenberg said.

When Nirenberg's daughter arrived, the Nashes used her cell phone to try the car service, but the company was unable to get a vehicle there quickly, the mathematician said.

As a last resort, they opted for a taxi.

[traincarswreck]

It is a coincidental fact that the inherent nature of mining and mining technology makes it possible for the prices of certain commodities that are produced as a result of the devotion of labor and capital to the effort of mining to increase less (or decrease more) than might be expected.  There is a “dimension paradox”: Agricultural products are produced by using the two-dimensional resource of the earth surface, so the “disappearing frontier” creates a limitation. In contrast, some mining, particularly for elemental metals, can essentially be done in three dimensions, although, of course, there are increasing costs for deep digging. So, really there is lots and lots of gold, silver, platinum, tungtsten, and so forth out there and more can be found by digging deeper.

And this is relevant in regard to the inverse of commons.

[traincarswreck]

This is a framework that I suspect will be useful for this dialogue:
http://www.academia.edu/15747776/The_Fundamental_Cause_of_a_Wealthy_Nation_Via_the_Generalization_of_the_Kula_Ring_Conjecture

1) For humans to live, co-habitate, and create a thriving sustainable civilization, 3 (possibly) scare resources are needed: Food, Shelter from the environment, and Fresh water.
2) These 3 crucial resources can either be secured in a civilization’s own lands or bartered for.
3) Nick Szabo’s Kula Ring conjecture shows how money itself might arise from a coincidence of these (or other) wants.
4) The four color map theorem states: “…given any separation of a plane into contiguous regions, producing a figure called a map, no more than four colors are required to color the regions of the map so that no two adjacent regions have the same color.”
5) A Nash Equilibrium occurs when “…no player can benefit by changing strategies while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitutes a Nash equilibrium.”

This suggests then on a plane/surface, such as our planet and in relation to the “nature and causes” of “wealthy nations”, there is necessitated a minimum of 4 main distinct “resources” (food, shelter, fresh water, “money”) needed to create a Nash equilibrium for stability. For example (or in other words), if there was only 3 main resources there would always then be a competitor to offer at least one of the same resources as one of the other civilizations. If 5 or greater main resources were required it might not necessarily then be a Nash Equilibrium since such a market/trade equilibrium might “evolve” to only needing 4 (thus destabilizing it).

http://szabo.best.vwh.net/kula.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

What is only need is the concept of higher order.  What I would understand to be related to derivatives. We would say, things are chaotic until an equilibrium is reached and pressure builds until it breaks.  If the pressure builds enough and the system is stable enough, the only thing to break it or move beyond it is higher order.

Money is what facilitates the change to higher order, not fiat of course, but a granular movement that can, in some from, move the system to a new equilibrium. But there is no inherent quantum or quanta of money in this sense, yet we can quantize it to understand it.

[iamnotback]

It is a coincidental fact that the inherent nature of mining and mining technology makes it possible for the prices of certain commodities that are produced as a result of the devotion of labor and capital to the effort of mining to increase less (or decrease more) than might be expected.  There is a “dimension paradox”: Agricultural products are produced by using the two-dimensional resource of the earth surface, so the “disappearing frontier” creates a limitation. In contrast, some mining, particularly for elemental metals, can essentially be done in three dimensions, although, of course, there are increasing costs for deep digging. So, really there is lots and lots of gold, silver, platinum, tungtsten, and so forth out there and more can be found by digging deeper.

And this is relevant in regard to the inverse of commons.

Szabo also wrote about that (@anonymous there is myself). You may wish to read that linked thread to see if it is applicable to our discussion, especially the most recent comment by Lima. That is Eric S. Raymond's blog.

Btw, what you and I are doing right now is exchanging knowledge (and thereby creating new knowledge) in an Inverse Commons. Neither of us exchanged fungible money.

[traincarswreck]

Btw, what you and I are doing right now is exchanging knowledge (and thereby creating new knowledge) in an Inverse Commons. Neither of us exchanged fungible money.

We're getting to this yes^  I'm still understanding.
https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-absurdity-of-communism-and-hard-forking-bitcoin-to-coup-core-4486aa9191c8

The Myth Of Metcalfe’s Law

Here is the law:

    Metcalfe’s law states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n2).

But we quickly gain clarification:

    First formulated in this form by George Gilder in 1993,[1] and attributed to Robert Metcalfe in regard to Ethernet, Metcalfe’s law was originally presented, c. 1980, not in terms of users, but rather of “compatible communicating devices” (for example, fax machines, telephones, etc.).[2]

Metcalfe’s law does not state in any way that if you add users to a network then the value, and therefore the price, increases. This would be an absurd claim and the analogy that comes to mind is an increasing population full of infants using fax machines.

Metcalfe rather speaks to POTENTIAL value, if we are going think about the price and market cap of a network. That is to say that there is room for matchmaking connections for N² users, but there is nothing in such a law to suggest that any amount of users can efficiently use a certain network (later in this writing we will read Szabo alluding to such redundancies).

In other words it cannot be said that the addition of each user adds the same amount of value which is then multiplied across the network. In most cases it is probably easier to show such a claim cannot be true (how much value would be added from the last person in the world to have a fax network?).

Here we get Szabo’s extension of Metcalfe’s law in regard to emerging economics (through Adam Smith):

    Metcalfe’s Law states that a value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of its nodes. In an area where good soils, mines, and forests are randomly distributed, the number of nodes valuable to an industrial economy is proportional to the area encompassed. The number of such nodes that can be economically accessed is an inverse square of the cost per mile of transportation. Combine this with Metcalfe’s Law and we reach a dramatic but solid mathematical conclusion: the potential value of a land transportation network is the inverse fourth power of the cost of that transportation.

Notice Szabo’s use of the word “potential”.

Wiki supports these points:

    In addition to the difficulty of quantifying the “value” of a network, the mathematical justification for Metcalfe’s law measures only the potential number of contacts, i.e., the technological side of a network. However the social utility of a network depends upon the number of nodes in contact. If there are language barriers or other reasons why large parts of a network are not in contact with other parts then the effect may be smaller.

    Metcalfe’s law assumes that the value of each node n is of equal benefit.[6] If this is not the case, for example because the one fax machines serves 50 workers, the second half of that, the third one third, and so on, then the relative value of an additional connection decreases. Likewise, in social networks, if users that join later use the network less than early adopters, then the benefit of each additional user may lessen, making the overall network less efficient if costs per users are fixed.

[iamnotback]

@dinofelis, but what about his argument that unregulated fractional reserve banking without a central bank will be some panacea? He is citing Hayek and I am saying Hayek's theory is nonsense.

I'm a great admirerer of the Austrian school, even if I think that some of their views are outdated.  But I'm also convinced that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with fractional reserve banking.  The reason why people think it is wrong is because they don't really understand what it is about (and everything is done to confuse the issue, true).

What is fractional reserve banking ?   It is issuing a DIFFERENT ASSET that is kept on-par with a base asset through a fund that serves as a form of collateral for individual transactions.  People, however, are made to confuse the new asset with the underlying base asset, and this is where the system looks like cheating.

If you go to a bank X and have a bank account there in $, you don't hold "dollars".  You hold "bank X dollars", an asset that bank X issues.  An "alt coin".   In order for this to be CREDIBLE, bank X has to have a fund, so that it has enough reserves to settle with other banks, so that bank X dollars are also accepted in bank Y.  So what bank X has to do, is to make sure that the INBALANCE between bank X and all other banks, never becomes larger than its "collateral for inter-bank settling", its reserve of base dollars.

If, statistically, bank X dollars are about as much versed to bank Y, than bank Y dollars are versed to bank X *it doesn't matter how many X dollars bank X and Y dollars bank Y have brought in circulation* ; they can always settle with a small mutual collateral in base dollars.  But of course, for this to happen, bank X and bank Y must have about the ratio of scarcity of their X and Y dollars.  A big bank can emit more dollars than a small one, because it has more demand, more customers.
A bank that emits too much money will see more of its dollars go to the neighbours, than it will receive from the neighbours, and hence, will have to deplete its stash of base dollars in settlements.

Once the settlements are exhausted, its bank dollars will not be accepted any more by other banks, and hence, the market value of its dollars plummet.  *there is nothing wrong with that*.  Its customers were holding a coin that simply wasn't valuable !  They shouldn't complain !  They only think they have been cheated upon because they lived in the illusion to hold "real base dollars", while they only held Bank Y coins, that were kept on-par with base dollars as long as the bank had sufficient collateral to settle with neighbouring banks.

So, in as much that people realize that when they have money at a bank, they don't possess "base money",  but only "bank money", and if they can have a CLEAR VIEW ON THE EMISSION of the bank money, they take the risk, or they don't.  They buy litecoin or they buy monero.  They buy citibank dollars or they buy HSCB dollars.  Knowing that these dollars are only kept on par with US FED dollars as long as the collateral reserves last.  Which can be considered an acceptable, or unacceptable risk.

By letting go broke banks that emit too much dollars, (and letting go broke their customers too), this system auto-regulates and kills of the most greedy ones regularly.  The only problem is the gullible masses that will complain that they are broke and should starve to death because of their ignorance.... As long as people will want to be compassionate (or pretend to be so), such autoregulating systems will always end up put a burden on the reasonable, to let the greedy reap in benefits when it works, and to let the reasonable pay for their mistakes when it goes wrong.

I don't know how valid the following analogy is, but you could see fractional reserve banking as bitcoin whales making new altcoins of which they control the minting, and they pump (with their bitcoin stash) the price of their altcoin to a given level.  As long as they have enough bitcoin stash to pump the price, this alt coin lives on happily a stable price level.  This can last very long, even if the market cap of the alt coin is way way larger than the bitcoin stash of the whale.

It's an interesting analogy, but we don't have a fractional reserve banking system. Banks will lend money (create new money credit and debt ledger entries simultaneously) and then seek the reserves later. That is they pull on the reserves string from the central bank. That is why QE is known as pushing on a string, it doesn't result in increased lending, the banks are simply restocking reserves on their previous over lending.
The reason banks aren't allowed to go bust in any significant way is because of the steaming derivatives pile. No one knows who owes who what, so the tax payer props up presumed failed banks so that the entire steaming pile of derivatives doesn't collapse. Only once that is unwound, would we really know who the survivors would be.

@CoinCube posted a quote which seems to relate to what AngryDwarf pointed out:

I tend to think of Bitcoin as just an incremental improvement in a long line of incremental improvements. Something that will have its time in the sun and eventually be surpassed by yet another incremental improvement.    

http://sacred-economics.com/sacred-economics-chapter-9-the-story-of-value/

In its several-thousand-year history, money has gone through an ever-accelerating evolution in its form. The first stage was commodity money — grain, oil, cattle, metal, and many other things — that functioned as media of exchange without possessing any fiduciary value. This stage lasted several millennia. The next step was coinage, which added fiduciarity to the intrinsic metallic value of silver and gold. Money consisted then of two components: a material and a symbolic.

It was quite natural that eventually the symbol would become detached from the metal, which is what happened with the advent of credit money in the Middle Ages and even before. In China, the first paper money (which was actually a kind of bank draft) was in use by the ninth century and circulated as far as Persia. (1) In the Arab world, a form of check was in wide use around that time as well. Italian traders used bills of exchange as early as the twelfth century, a practice that spread rapidly and was followed in the sixteenth and seventeenth century by fractional-reserve banking.(2) This was a major innovation, since it freed the money supply from the metal supply and allowed it to grow organically in response to economic activity. The detachment of money from metal was gradual. During the fractional-reserve banking era, which lasted several centuries, bank notes were still, at least in theory, backed by metal.

Today the era of fractional-reserve banking is over, and money has become pure credit. This is not widely recognized. Many authorities, including most economics textbooks and the Federal Reserve itself, (3) still maintain the pretense that reserves are a limiting factor in money creation, but in practice they almost never are.(4) Banks’ real constraints on money creation are their total capital and their ability to find willing, creditworthy borrowers — that is, those with either uncommitted earning potential or assets to use as collateral. In other words, social agreements govern the creation of money, primary among them the dictum, encoded in interest, that money should go to those who will make even more of it in the future. Today’s money, as I shall explain, is backed by growth; when, as is happening now, growth slows, the entire financial edifice begins to crumble.
...
Some observers, seeing the disastrous consequences of today’s credit-based currencies, advocate a return to the good old days of currencies backed by something tangible, such as gold. They reason that commodity-backed currency would be noninflationary or would eliminate the compulsion for endless growth. I think some of these “hard currency” or “real money” advocates are tapping in to an atavistic desire to return to simpler days, when things were what they were. Dividing the world into two categories, the objectively real and the conventional, they believe that credit-money is an illusion, a lie, that must inevitably collapse with every bust cycle. Actually, this dichotomy is itself an illusion, a construct that reflects deeper mythologies — such as the doctrine of objectivity in physics — that are also breaking down in our time.

The difference between an unbacked and backed currency is not as great as one might suppose. On the face of it, they seem very different: a backed currency derives its value from something real, while an unbacked currency has value only because people agree it does. This is a false distinction: in either case, ultimately what gives money value is the story that surrounds it, a set of social, cultural, and legal conventions.

[traincarswreck]

Selgin Hayek and Nash refute that claim.

Today the era of fractional-reserve banking is over, and money has become pure credit. This is not widely recognized. Many authorities, including most economics textbooks and the Federal Reserve itself, (3) still maintain the pretense that reserves are a limiting factor in money creation, but in practice they almost never are.(4)

The idea is that with the premise of the monopoly on money creation is broken then the system will self regulate. This point has to be addressed.

[iamnotback]

Selgin Hayek and Nash refute that claim.

Today the era of fractional-reserve banking is over, and money has become pure credit. This is not widely recognized. Many authorities, including most economics textbooks and the Federal Reserve itself, (3) still maintain the pretense that reserves are a limiting factor in money creation, but in practice they almost never are.(4)

The idea is that with the premise of the monopoly on money creation is broken then the system will self regulate. This point has to be addressed.

Agreed a non-manipulable reserve currency such as Bitcoin (at least until it becomes controlled by one entity as my math pointed out is inevitable) would re-enable the soundness and discipline of credit.

Except I agree with @CoinCube's implication that we won't go back to hard reserves and instead are moving forward to something better, as I have been explaining or alluding to. My perspective is that Bitcoin is the antiquated last gasp of desperation by those who love fungible money too much.

I will elaborate in my next post.

[Deja]

Current consensus mechanisms are not totally perfect PoS, PoW, etc but in general any one of them can suffer an attack to control it, the network relies on trusting people with major hashrate or stake holders in the case of PoS, obviously many people will disagree with an action taken by this major group of people; that's why is a 51% consensus not a 99 or 100%.

[iamnotback]

Metcalfe’s law does not state in any way that if you add users to a network then the value, and therefore the price, increases. This would be an absurd claim and the analogy that comes to mind is an increasing population full of infants using fax machines.

Metcalfe rather speaks to POTENTIAL value, if we are going think about the price and market cap of a network. That is to say that there is room for matchmaking connections for N² users, but there is nothing in such a law to suggest that any amount of users can efficiently use a certain network (later in this writing we will read Szabo alluding to such redundancies).

In other words it cannot be said that the addition of each user adds the same amount of value which is then multiplied across the network. In most cases it is probably easier to show such a claim cannot be true (how much value would be added from the last person in the world to have a fax network?).

Here we get Szabo’s extension of Metcalfe’s law in regard to emerging economics (through Adam Smith):

Metcalfe’s Law states that a value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of its nodes. In an area where good soils, mines, and forests are randomly distributed, the number of nodes valuable to an industrial economy is proportional to the area encompassed. The number of such nodes that can be economically accessed is an inverse square of the cost per mile of transportation. Combine this with Metcalfe’s Law and we reach a dramatic but solid mathematical conclusion: the potential value of a land transportation network is the inverse fourth power of the cost of that transportation.

Notice Szabo’s use of the word “potential”.

I had already linked to that Szabo quote before you mentioned it:

Szabo also wrote about that (@anonymous there is myself).

Szabo is incorrect. He fails to consider that we live in a relativistic universe. The maximum potential of the network is not the reciprocal of the number of nodes to the fourth power. Szabo is computing the potential as if the maximum is where every node communicates/trades to every other node and the cost of the transport being the limiting resource or cost. But as I showed in my other comment in the blog which I linked you to, that value is meaningless unless it is considered relative to all other opportunities, i.e. opportunity cost is the limiting resource. Value is always relative, not absolute. Szabo is ascribing an absolute cost of communication and assuming that is the dominant opportunity cost from the individualized perspective of every node. But I showed mathematically that rather it can be the grouping compatibilities that can be a limiting opportunity cost that can invert the assumption of greater relative value for the larger network. Networks increase the degrees-of-freedom of the node participants, thus the potential energy. To the extent that transport cost is a significant opportunity cost of the nodes, then Szabo's point applies, but as the cost and latency of communication decreases, there are a proliferation of opportunities which are significantly more valuable than those transport costs. As Lima pointed out, the Inverse Commons was one of those huge value opportunities that was enabled by the Internet. The value from exchanging knowledge in the Inverse Commons over the Internet far exceeds any communication costs. So as you now see, money is not the only agent that can increase degrees-of-freedom in trade and increase surplus production. Communication networks can increase the access degrees-of-freedom for non-fungible knowledge, which becomes fungible collaborative within the Inverse Commons. So thus, we see fungible money becomes only a small component of the value creation, such as to pay for the communication infrastructure costs. This is why fungible money is diminishing in utility in the knowledge age. Fungible money is applicable to increasing the degrees-of-freedom for solving the coordination issues around physical resources. Yes atoms are heavy, but relative to knowledge production value, the atoms are asymptotically (an inexorable trend to) massless. So into the knowledge age we go, and fungible money will diminish in importance and our insatiable quest will shift from power to knowledge.

Note this is second time I caught Szabo with a fundamental error. Szabo does raise interesting historical examples and his anthropological research is sometimes interesting.

@traincarswreck, your four-color theorem theory of tripartite essential resources for human life is the most basic example of the fact that fungible money increases degrees-of-freedom over barter. The increase in efficiency of fungible money w.r.t. barter, increases as the diversity of physical resources (tangible goods) increases. With three bartered resources and no fungible money, one has a 1/3 chance of holding the resource that another may want to trade for, i.e. being bordered on one of the other two colors in your four color theory. The probability fraction decreases and complexity of risk mitigation increases as the diversity of goods to be bartered increases.

[iamnotback]

It crossed 70% now!

About 1951 GH/s, or 70.4% of the network (352 out of the last 500 blocks).

The above is for the blocks in the past 21 hours, so it is slightly forward looking as compared to the 24 hour requirement.

The huge jump in price will be when the Bitcoiners realize that Bitcoin is never going to get scaling, thus they won't be able to transact any more on Bitcoin (will be too expensive) and thus Litecoin will become the transaction coin that everybody is using. This still hasn't sunk into their hard heads yet.

[traincarswreck]

Yes you linked to and mentioned the szabo blog regarding metcalfe's law, which why I brought it up.  But I brought it forth to show Szabo's use of the word POTENTIAL (which is bolded in my original writing I believe).  Szabo didn't miss this, search for the word "redundancies".  He is not stating the formulated value for a network, he is simply saying that metcalfe's law is extendable.  It makes perfect sense that a reduction in transport cost as a dramatic effect on the value of the network.  But neither metcalfe nor Szabo imply that such efficiency is perfectly transcribable to market cap of a network.  That's not either of their mistake, its others' mistake.

You say fungible money.  What is un-fungible money? Money becomes money only because of our definition which is somewhat related to "the most fungible good".  Otherwise its just barter right?

@traincarswreck, your four-color theorem theory of tripartite essential resources for human life is the most basic example of the fact that fungible money increases degrees-of-freedom over barter. The increase in efficiency of fungible money w.r.t. barter, increases as the diversity of physical resources (tangible goods) increases. With three bartered resources and no fungible money, one has a 1/3 chance of holding the resource that another may want to trade for, i.e. being bordered on one of the other two colors in your four color theory. The probability fraction decreases and complexity of risk mitigation increases as the diversity of goods to be bartered increases.

Yes its a generalization.  The reason I think it is worth something is that you present it without the four color theorem and we weren't able to proof the theorem without computers.  Is a flat plane, and changes to the topology would increase the complexity and possibly outcomes for equilibriums.  As does the addition of money as you say.  

But we can also think earlier for example in a transition from water to land, or that underwater examples of such relationship between entities, wouldn't have gravity so to speak (or near as much of an effect of it), so the equilibriums form in a different way.  

Yet it's conceivable that there is some transition to different orders (ie water to land, land to internet).  In this sense money serves as the lubricant for transition, and natural arises as such.