NEW WORLD ECONOMY - PART TWO

[Michele1940]

Basic Staff - Part Two
In Part One, I have briefly described what is going on in the big box named www .

We have seen that there are three main actors playing different roles : the publishers, the users and the Advertisers. We have also established that the engine of the whole www are the users.

In this post, I would like to focus on the users and, specifically, on their potential to create a shift into the system.
First of all what do I mean by saying that users have the potential to create a shift in the system ? what kind of shift ?

Well, users of the www are mostly passive in the ecosystem (surely not all of them ). They find what they want and use it, of course, but in a passive way. Changing this into an active attitude would already created part of the shift since users would surf the web in a more efficient and focused way that will eventually persuade the publishers to create more and more focused content on their web pages.

But we need  a way to "persuade" users to move out of their routine without compromising too much their habits or else they would run away from the novelty addressing it as too demanding. After all we are all humans, aren't we ?

The best way to persuade people to do something is, in my opinion, by rewarding them. I have two sons and believe me it really works !!

If we find a system that rewards people according to the use they do of the web, could be possible that some of the users would start doing things in a different way. If the reward is attractive they would persuade friends to do the same and so on and so forth. In addition if the reward is something they can actually "built up" by themselves, they would feel it as it it is their own and would spread the whole thing more efficiently.

We will discuss on possible way to reward people in the near future, not now.

One thing important to notice : This blog is named New World Economy. What does all this has to do with economy ? Above I 've mentioned that only part of the shift can be obtained by rewarding people. The complete shift occurs only if the reward is somehow linked with Economy............Stay tuned.

Signed: Twitter @Michele1940 blog: pointapp.blogspot.com

[1714148111]

1714148111

[1714148111]

1714148111

[1714148111]

1714148111

[1714148111]

1714148111

[ElHajjaj]

You admit that people already "find what they want and use it". Why are you searching for some kind of "reward" when people are already getting what they want out of the WWW? Do you have an entitlement mentality?

[rocker340]

is this your idea to end trolling on the internet

[Brutus]

Man I said I wouldn't comment on this as it has a little of the 'Workers of the World Unite' type of fluff but I like your enthusiasm.

So you mentioned the usage of the Internet and later focused to the web.  There are so many other actors and roles using the network itself over TCP using differing protocols to exchange all types of data to aid in commerce, GIS, medicine, etc. So I don't really see where you are going with this because the premise seems thin.

Regarding this post you are basically describing the market place where two or more individuals enter into a mutually beneficial exchange.  Adam Smith's Invisible Hand if you will.  Regarding changing the system which is a statist/collectivist system which favors centralization and politically connected players the question is perhaps as old as time.  It is a questions of the struggle between those that would control others and those that favor freedom and liberty.  

From a practical standpoint changing the balance between centralized control systems and individual liberty can be done in many ways, toward one end of the spectrum and back again.  One way is of course changing who controls the currency and here we are.

Focusing on the practical uptake of BTC or a P2P economy is perhaps where the loin's share of intellectual capital should be spent because philosophically most people here will agree with your underlying premise of which I believe is how to change/influence how currency systems currently operate (I could have misunderstood your main thrust though and I apologize if that's the case).

At the end of the day there are two ways that are commonly used to solve the challenges of the allocation of scare resources.  They are either economic or they are political in nature.  One requires choice and the other requires force.  

[Hawker]

"But we need  a way to "persuade" users to move out of their routine without compromising too much their habits or else they would run away from the novelty addressing it as too demanding. After all we are all humans, aren't we ?"

Two questions:
(1) By your own analysis, users already get what they want.  Why do we "need" to change how they work at all? 

(2) Lets assume you only have to move users from one of the millions of sites on the www, namely Facebook. The costs of "rewarding" people for not using Facebook would be immense.  Do you have the resources to move people off Facebook? 

[contingencyplan]

I don't understand what your objective is. Yes, incentives help spur change in behavior, but I don't see what change in behavior you're wanting to effect.

Judging by the forum you're posting this on, I'm surmising that your objective is to get people to use BTC. If that is the case, then judging by recent events, the focus should be on achieving parity with the existing currency systems, especially in terms of trust, security, reliability, accountability, and soforth. If people are as rational as I gather this forum assumes them to be, then on something like money, there's not an incentive large enough to convince someone to use a new system that cannot perform as well as the existing system (i.e., according to any sort of a baseline, bare-minimum acceptable manner), aside from the prospect of making a quick buck by screwing over his fellow man before the bottom falls out.

If BTC is as good a principle as y'all are claiming it to be, then stop trying to focus on getting more people to use them and focus on getting the infrastructure up to par. A better system, by definition, subsumes and surpasses the lesser system. Can you honestly say that the current infrastructure (the exchanges, etc.) are as good as those for traditional currencies?

Until such time as parity is achieved, discussing terms like the NEW WORLD ECONOMY is pointless - good for nothing than playing buzzword bingo and daydreaming about how you're going to be the driving force for the obviously inevitable paradigm shift.

And that's the optimistic take on it - honestly, when I see discussions like these, all it seems to me is that you're trying to get more victims suckers investors to put their money in the pyramid scheme system to improve your profits before everything goes tits-up.

P.S.: To be clear, I'm not trolling or flaming. I have my strong doubts, but I'm curious to see where the whole system goes, and I do wish everyone here well. However, I don't see a point in pulling punches either.

[Michele1940]

Well it seams that I have to make a few things clear before proceeding. I apologise if my English sometimes cannot be up to the level it should be to discuss things of this kind but I am sure I will manage to get to the point (somehow).

First of all , I would like to address you guys to my previous posts NEW WORLD ECONOMY - PART ONE & Bitcoin Paradigm.

Now, what is the main purpose of BTC ? Satoshi Nakamoto,  presenting the project, writes as follows:


Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.


So BTC is a solution to a specific problem i.e. " .....a solution to the double-spending problem ....."

If you read my posts with ONLY this goal in mind, surely we will never understand each others. Ok, my wrong choice to post into this blog, probably. I might agree on that, or at least on what it appears to be.

In my post Bitcoin Paradigm, I stated that BTC is merely a tool that might be useful to implement the " Paradigm shift".

Obviously the Paradigm Shift to which I refer to in that post is much wider that a solution to double-spending problems that occurs in transactions. What I am suggesting is that the economy as it is today (taken in its widest meaning ) is obsolete and that we are all understanding this by noticing those that I have described as "anomalies " in the current system.
This is probably the main reason why so many people are investing so much intellectual's capital into BTC, I guess. Again, double-spending problem on transactions is just a specific anomaly of the whole system that is now being analyzed by many, thanks to BTC' s inventor. But this is only one of the many anomalies that are inherent in the present economic system.

Needless to say that it is the technology progress that allows all of us to see this specific anomaly and many others. With technology, we have reached a point where people can actually become Prime Actors in the economic system rather than being just passive. See Mr Google interview : 

http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Googles_view_on_the_future_of_business_An_interview_with_CEO_Eric_Schmidt_2229


I am not suggesting that Mr Schmidt has in mind what I have in mind, but clearly he is drawing a pattern where the main focus is on people using the internet ( which is nothing new to Google ). Only this time there is a difference. They want you to let them know what you want. And I am not talking about what kind of app would be most useful or staff like this. They want to know from us what we would like to buy and possibly when we would by what we want. Google, in my opinion, has simply found another anomaly in the economic system. And this one has nothing to do with transactions at all.

Signed : Twitter @Michele1940 Blog: pointapp.blogspot.com

[Michele1940]

Well it seams that I have to make a few things clear before proceeding. I apologise if my English sometimes cannot be up to the level it should be to discuss things of this kind but I am sure I will manage to get to the point (somehow).

First of all , I would like to address you guys to my previous posts NEW WORLD ECONOMY - PART ONE & Bitcoin Paradigm.

Now, what is the main purpose of BTC ? Satoshi Nakamoto,  presenting the project, writes as follows:


Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.


So BTC is a solution to a specific problem i.e. " .....a solution to the double-spending problem ....."

If you read my posts with ONLY this goal in mind, surely we will never understand each others. Ok, my wrong choice to post into this blog, probably. I might agree on that, or at least on what it appears to be.

In my post Bitcoin Paradigm, I stated that BTC is merely a tool that might be useful to implement the " Paradigm shift".

Obviously the Paradigm Shift to which I refer to in that post is much wider that a solution to double-spending problems that occurs in transactions. What I am suggesting is that the economy as it is today (taken in its widest meaning ) is obsolete and that we are all understanding this by noticing those that I have described as "anomalies " in the current system.
This is probably the main reason why so many people are investing so much intellectual's capital into BTC, I guess. Again, double-spending problem on transactions is just a specific anomaly of the whole system that is now being analyzed by many, thanks to BTC' s inventor. But this is only one of the many anomalies that are inherent in the present economic system.

Needless to say that it is the technology progress that allows all of us to see this specific anomaly and many others. With technology, we have reached a point where people can actually become Prime Actors in the economic system rather than being just passive. See Mr Google interview : 

http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Googles_view_on_the_future_of_business_An_interview_with_CEO_Eric_Schmidt_2229


I am not suggesting that Mr Schmidt has in mind what I have in mind, but clearly he is drawing a pattern where the main focus is on people using the internet ( which is nothing new to Google ). Only this time there is a difference. They want you to let them know what you want. And I am not talking about what kind of app would be most useful or staff like this. They want to know from us what we would like to buy and possibly when we would by what we want. Google, in my opinion, has simply found another anomaly in the economic system. And this one has nothing to do with transactions at all.

[BitcoinPorn]

I want to read this later.  I wish I had a comment, but not yet, still need to read.

[Michele1940]

I want to read this later.  I wish I had a comment, but not yet, still need to read.

Man, I read your "mission" Statement.......never had such a good lough in my whole life )) Really I have even called in my wife to read it. Let me tell you: You are a genious !!! Not kidding you. It is true.
Keep it going.

[Michele1940]

An answer given to bitcoingdude.blogspot.com

You are absolutely right when you say

"We must increase the 'efficiency' of the key systems enabling "civilization"".

And surely the system would gain efficiency from replacing conventional banking.

But can Bitcoin actually achieve this goal ?

I have nothing against BTC but I see it has serious limitations to perform its function(i.e. a p2p version of electronic cash able to allow online transactions without going through a
financial institution)on a GLOBAL TRADE scale.

The philosophy that lays be
hind Bitcoin, it is addressed to find an alternative way of payment for COMMERCE ON THE INTERNET that would cut off double-spending on transactions. Therefore BTC is just a mechanism "to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party".

This sound very nice but to me looks applicable only to certain kind of trades. I cannot possibly see this mechanism being applied and a global trade scale.

One limitation of course is a good escrow for buyers. Once the BTC transaction is made, it is irreversible. The higher is the amount of the transaction, the more you as a buyer need a good escrow in case the goods or service you receive is not up to what it was supposed.


For example, in my business we use mostly Letter of Credits (LC) to buy goods from Far East suppliers.


An LC is basically a contract that is made between to buyer and the seller with the banks acting as a third party providing an excellent escrow for both buyer and seller.

The LC amounts are usually in the order of USD 50,000 to USD 250,000 with bank fees being around USD 300 for the LC opening.

So you understand that USD 300 on amounts worth several thousands of USD, is something you might be willing to spend in order to have your escrow.
It is just like paying an Insurance Company : if you have a Life Insurance, you have it to protect your family IN CASE something would happen to you. You do not get it because you know that you will have to pass away sooner or later ( sorry for the macabre example ).


Increasing efficiency in the economic system, in my opinion, goes far behind limiting double spending on transactions. Transactions are just one element of the economic system.

It is my opinion that to make it all more efficient, as an example, we need to work on how goods or services could be sold at cheaper prices seeing how goods are being sold and cutting off the Advertisement cost that are than marked up on the products' retail prices.

Involving the final buyers in the whole process is part of the solution. The www and its users are part of this solution.

If I can a a product at 50% off, why should I care about spending money on the transaction ??

[BitcoinPorn]

Can you sum up what are you trying to say in a couple of sentences?

Just kidding.  I have few comments, but this is some interesting reading.

When you speak of Bitcoin in reference to being on a Global Trade scale, at what level would you compare it with any other currency?  In case that question didn't come out right, I mean what currency do you feel has that global level of trading that Bitcoin has not reached and will not reach?  What specific currencies already exist that have dominance as far as reach (not userbase, just reach).

[Michele1940]

Can you sum up what are you trying to say in a couple of sentences?

Just kidding.  I have few comments, but this is some interesting reading.

When you speak of Bitcoin in reference to being on a Global Trade scale, at what level would you compare it with any other currency?  In case that question didn't come out right, I mean what currency do you feel has that global level of trading that Bitcoin has not reached and will not reach?  What specific currencies already exist that have dominance as far as reach (not userbase, just reach).

 Try to sum up the answer as you want 

On a Global Trade scale, I would not compare BTC with any other currency.  BTC was invented to solve a particular problem and to overcome double spending on relatively SMALL transaction made on the web. Here is an abstract form the inventor Mr Satoshi Nakamoto

"Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for
most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot
avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions,
and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible
services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must
be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.
A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties
can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments
over a communications channel without a trusted party."

Have more to say but I need to sum up )

[Michele1940]

new post @ pointapp.blogspot.com

[Murwa]

It is changing on its own , we are entering fully emergant information age.

Poeple are being transformed from passive reciever to activists.

[Michele1940]

It is changing on its own , we are entering fully emergant information age.

Poeple are being transformed from passive reciever to activists.

Yes, see my posts on pointapp.blogspot.com