Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?

[AnonyMint]

However, some of your own criticisms have been weak, re: "it's a ponzi because people can't cash out large amounts". You should understand that the largest stake holders can only ever "cash out" by doing private swap deals that don't move the market. The bigger the 'ponzi', the bigger the vested interest at the top to keep the value high and stable.

Actually I agree. My wild (not sure of course) speculation is their plan all along has been to collude with the government and will be rewarded for doing so. That doesn't mean the price will be spared a return towards 0. You need to think this out more deeply. The serious players know damn well they won't have anything lasting if they don't play ball with the governments.

Since the top stake holders have a strong incentive to act honestly, decentralisation is only needed during the initial adoption phase.

Destroying decentralization is not honest, it is selling out. And it is exactly what I expect them to do. A ponzi failure could possibly be a cover for making the transition to government control. It may be disguised as "proof-of-stake".

Similarly, in the beginning, the 'cost' of inflating the supply and promoting equal opportunities for participants (proof-of-work, open source code and generic PC hardware) is very important because it appeals to egalitarian ideals.

Exactly. Marketing. Deception.

Later, when the ownership structure has significantly evolved due to competition and mergers, at some point it becomes unnecessary and inefficient to 'allow' new competitors to mine blocks. The ongoing process of centralisation either wasn't thought of initially, or the story was that it's a bad idea. Alternatively, they couldn't predict how quickly the system would evolve from widely distributed CPU mining through to ASIC farms in a few strong hands. So Bitcoin seems to be accidentally stumbling towards a structure with a central issuer, but with vestigial proof-of-work that adds a tonne of dead weight.

Satoshi predicted all the outcome we have now. Read his early writings at the cryptography discussion group.

Fee collection, network costs, ddos attacks. Practical concerns with high volume transactions were probably not considered very seriously in the beginning. Say that the transaction queue is getting 100k hits every second, and most of those are bogus. So a spam prevention scheme is deployed whereby a proof-of-work puzzle has to be solved before a request will be accepted into the queue. This effectively creates a separate payment scheme to pay small deposits before placing the real bid for moving large amounts of money. See how the structure becomes multi-tiered? Map it out. Or... Don't map it out. Do you really believe that 2 heads are better than 1? Then leave some parts of the development up to an organic process of trial and error, just like Bitcoin is doing.

There are multiple possible designs. I am hoping open source wins over the alternative presented above.

Provide a convincing cover story. You know that story about a fixed supply of 21 million coins? That fearful creator who disappeared? The highly convoluted decentralised and trust-free structure, the Bitcoin Rube Goldberg machine, because centralisation is evil? It's a stroke of genius from a marketing point of view (assuming it wasn't all a hilarious cosmic accident).
Whatever alternative you promote, like:
--demurrage or perpetual inflation
--some element of centrally planned spending that covers more than just network maintenance.
--smarter inflation that dis-empowers speculators,
or some balanced combination, you'll probably find that at best you'll get a lukewarm reception (think: polite clapping) from a small number of pragmatic, reasonable people who stumble upon your idea. But you won't gain traction unless you rally some religious fervour to give your cause a kick-start and also give it protective padding against growth pains. You really need to figure this out.

Not every altcoin has to strive for instant recognition and a ponzi-bubble.

I see someone wrote that the altcoins have been rising faster in value past few days than Bitcoin. Didn't verify.

But of course, that hypothetical altcoin will have an ace up its sleeve, otherwise it won't be the one. You don't need to explain marketing to me, I had 1% of the internet in 2001. What slowed me down was losing 95% vision in an eye end of 1999 and being in surgeries and face down in bed for 1.5 years. The momentum carried forward on its own until 2001 when friendster was released.

Friendster started the friend-of-friend feature and peaked at millions of users. Myspace and facebook copied.

But I don't know why everyone assumes it will be me to create that altcoin. I am also writing to inspire others to compete to do so. You don't know whom I have shared my algorithms and ideas with.

[1714156238]

1714156238

[rpietila]

Familiarize yourself with my concept of "rake", which is the % that you sell after each doubling in price.

Even if your average rake is as low as 10%, it means that an early adopter with a cost base of $0.005/BTC, has only 16% of his stash left when the price hits $1,000. With a 20% rake he has a mere 2% remaining.

Each doubling in price requires new money to push price up. On average, about 25% new money has been needed, compared to the market cap increase. This corresponds to a weighted average rake of about 17% among current market participants.

If we extrapolate the 17% rake to the price going from $1k to $1M, only 16% of the bitcoins will in the end belong to the same people. The paper wallets that are regarded sacrosanct at present, will be opened in stages if/when the price rises higher than the owners expect.

What is the thread is actually moot, and the market mechanism is well able to take care of the distribution of the circulating medium?  

[AnonyMint]

Risto for that to work we need to have redistribution to the 0.1 - 10 BTC range of accounts. Whereas I suspect the weighted average buying in now is more in the range of 10 - 100 BTC.

It becomes progressively less efficient when trying to redistribute to smaller holdings via the market mechanism. So this is another reason the bubble peaks. You have even mentioned that exchanges can't scale even at current larger size holdings entering (assuming my assumption is correct).

At 1 BTC each and perfectly uniform distribution that would only be 21 million users. That is 1 out of every 50 people in the developed world, not including China. But it is impossible to get perfect distribution and considering how concentrated it is now, figure more likely is a maximum of 1 million will own 1 BTC or more. That would only 1 out of every 1000 people in the developed world. That won't fly as a currency.

I just can't see a math that rates market redistribution to currency scale as very likely.

[rpietila]

I am in the process of calculating this. But currently, and based on the experiences of having already gone up 5.5 orders of magnitude and less to go, I think that there will be no early adopter problem. Also I think I will have to take the average 17% rake into account when discounting all the 2010 (AHA), 2011 (KnightMB) and 2012 large holders.

Let's face it, according to math and blockchain, only 2 million coins (16%) belong to the original owners. There is no problem in Bitcoin regarding this issue. Anonymity and blocksize are issues, but not the topic of this thread.

[AnonyMint]

wachtwoord, I deleted your post (the only post I deleted in this thread) then I realized you were implying that purchases of smaller BTC holdings will increase as price rises, because the same size dollar position will constitute a smaller quantity of BTC. That is a valid point.

However you need to factor in that they too will be bringing in large dollar positions, thus still not buying for spending rather for investment.

Arguing that the smartest early adopters are able to sell out by fooling the middle adopters into buy & hold, isn't an argument that we've got a currency.

I very much believe Bitcoin is going to be morphed into a currency, just that it will be done through an initial ponzi failure and taken over by the governments to protect the "consumer interest" from future market failures.

You are supporting that the number of people harmed could be much greater. I have allowed to 2016 and $100,000 price as a possibility.

[AnonyMint]

In summary, the most efficient distribution of a currency is legal tender by government decree.

Mises counters that and says a currency only arises spontaneously from something that was already widely used for barter (then I assume the government co-opts it).

If I could visualize how Bitcoin can make the largest wealth transfer in the history of mankind, while also having signs of becoming a currency, while also transitioning distribution, while also being immune to government takeover, then I would be more optimistic. I just see too many failure modes for that to be a reality.

[rpietila]

In summary, the most efficient distribution of a currency is legal tender by government decree.

I suppose you are too tired to think reasonably. Just wait, I will be able to present the concise model of bitcoin balance evolution (so far and from now on) in a few days.

[wachtwoord]

wachtwoord, I deleted your post (the only post I deleted in this thread) then I realized you were implying that purchases of smaller BTC holdings will increase as price rises, because the same size dollar position will constitute a smaller quantity of BTC. That is a valid point.

However you need to factor in that they too will be bringing in large dollar positions, thus still not buying for spending rather for investment.

Arguing that the smartest early adopters are able to sell out by fooling the middle adopters into buy & hold, isn't an argument that we've got a currency.

I very much believe Bitcoin is going to be morphed into a currency, just that it will be done through an initial ponzi failure and taken over by the governments to protect the "consumer interest" from future market failures.

You are supporting that the number of people harmed could be much greater. I have allowed to 2016 and $100,000 price as a possibility.

That was indeed my point

I cannot follow the rest of your argumentation. I do not advocate "cashing out" because you mean buying fiat with your Bitcoins. Why would you choose to hold such a lousy form value preservation for anything but a very short time? I also don't understand how anyone can see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme to have ever existed.

[farfiman]

..snip

I cannot follow the rest of your argumentation. I do not advocate "cashing out" because you mean buying fiat with your Bitcoins. Why would you choose to hold such a lousy form value preservation for anything but a very short time? I also don't understand how anyone can see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme to have ever existed.

Because that specific ponzi is decades long it's hard to grasp by most people. Anyone I try to explain this to is dumbfounded by the thought and totally in shock when it starts to sink in.

[AnonyMint]

I am in the process of calculating this. But currently, and based on the experiences of having already gone up 5.5 orders of magnitude and less to go, I think that there will be no early adopter problem. Also I think I will have to take the average 17% rake into account when discounting all the 2010 (AHA), 2011 (KnightMB) and 2012 large holders.

Let's face it, according to math and blockchain, only 2 million coins (16%) belong to the original owners. There is no problem in Bitcoin regarding this issue. Anonymity and blocksize are issues, but not the topic of this thread.

The assumption here is that there is no concept of overvaluation, unlike a stock which has an intrinsic value.

This is a fundamentally flawed assumption because relative value matters.

You assume that a bicycle is willing to challenge a 747 in a head-on collision.

You can't transfer the entire wealth of the planet from the current middle class to a 1 million technology enthusiasts, and expect them to be satisfied with 0 gains. They too will only play along if they think the wealth transfer works in their favor too.

There is a tipping point, where more people can't enter and still be on the favorable side of the ledger.

Thus the only way you get redistribution that will be acceptable to the majority, is via government. The only way to do that is let the Ponzi collapse, then come in and apply "justice" to protect the "public good".

The government loves anti-capitalistic (i.e. centralized control over) redistribution and so do the majority, especially when it is marketed well.

If readers are not aware of my point, potential energy = degrees-of-freedom, then I would have to review all my writings for them again. I do grow weary.

Edit: Oak trees don't grow to the moon. Nature is not a one-way street, it is wave-like due to relativity (inertia). We have to consider the viability of a paradigm shift which requires the middle class (the largest inertia) to join, but where they can't join without destroying themselves.

Can we conceive of a way that resistance inertia declines as adoption increases? With positive technology takeovers that is always the case.

This is why I say Bitcoin has the wrong design. It is fighting against itself.

Rather if we diluted the value as we increase adoption, we offer a pathway for the middle class to enter for spending, not for investment. If the masses can mine 0.001 coins by downloading a client, they are a spender, not an investor.

[AnonyMint]

..snip

I cannot follow the rest of your argumentation. I do not advocate "cashing out" because you mean buying fiat with your Bitcoins. Why would you choose to hold such a lousy form value preservation for anything but a very short time? I also don't understand how anyone can see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme to have ever existed.

Because that specific ponzi is decades long it's hard to grasp by most people. Anyone I try to explain this to is dumbfounded by the thought and totally in shock when it starts to sink in.

Yes but that weakens your argument.

[farfiman]

..snip

I cannot follow the rest of your argumentation. I do not advocate "cashing out" because you mean buying fiat with your Bitcoins. Why would you choose to hold such a lousy form value preservation for anything but a very short time? I also don't understand how anyone can see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme to have ever existed.

Because that specific ponzi is decades long it's hard to grasp by most people. Anyone I try to explain this to is dumbfounded by the thought and totally in shock when it starts to sink in.

Yes but that weakens your argument.

To emphasize-  Debt based fiat system.

[AnonyMint]

Can we conceive of a way that inertia declines as adoption increases? With positive technology takeovers that is always the case.

This is why I say Bitcoin has the wrong design. It is fighting against itself.

Rather if we diluted the value as we increase adoption, we offer a pathway for the middle class to enter for spending, not for investment. If we people can mine 0.001 coins by downloading a client, they are a spender, not an investor.

So it ain't hard to guess what the "ace-up-the-sleeve" is. I have stated it many times already.

[npl]

To distribute money more efficiently all you need to do is ensure that 'mining' (the process itself, not its results) has a net positive effect (involves expenditure on renewable goods and services) instead of a net negative one (energy waste). It's simple as that.

(quoting myself here...)

OK it's not quite as simple as that, because you have to factor in time horizons and the early adoption phase, in which coin production costs are marginal (thus not allowing for efficient distribution). With BTC the design was such that a great deal of coins were produced during the early phase for a very low cost (the first 1,000,000 BTC were mined for a cost of what it would take to mine less than 1 BTC today, roughly speaking).

More efficient distribution would thus require (aside from finding a way to make mining a net positive process) a shorter early adoption phase in which production costs are trivial, so that we could arrive at the point where mining produces tangible positive effects more quickly. However, the early adoption phase should still last long enough and be lucrative enough for the coin to gain popularity.  

[deisik]

I cannot follow the rest of your argumentation. I do not advocate "cashing out" because you mean buying fiat with your Bitcoins. Why would you choose to hold such a lousy form value preservation for anything but a very short time? I also don't understand how anyone can see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme to have ever existed.

I beg to differ. As long as a fiat currency can be used for buying goods and services, it is not a Ponzi scheme. What makes a Ponzi scheme different from a bubble lies in the fact that its value token (certificate, share, whatever) can't be used for anything but investing in itself, directly or by some intermediary (to make it less evident). In a bubble an underlying asset can be either used directly (e.g. real estate), or for other purposes not related to investing. The latter holds true for Bitcoin (that's why it's not a Ponzi scheme either) and in this aspect it's not widely different from other fiats...

[farfiman]

I cannot follow the rest of your argumentation. I do not advocate "cashing out" because you mean buying fiat with your Bitcoins. Why would you choose to hold such a lousy form value preservation for anything but a very short time? I also don't understand how anyone can see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme to have ever existed.

I beg to differ. As long as a fiat currency can be used for buying goods and services, it is not a Ponzi scheme. What makes a Ponzi scheme different from a bubble lies in the fact that its value token (certificate, share, whatever) can't be used for anything but investing in itself, directly or by some intermediary (to make it less evident). In a bubble an underlying asset can be either used directly (e.g. real estate), or for other purposes not related to investing. The latter holds true for Bitcoin (that's why it's not a Ponzi scheme either) and in this aspect it's not widely different from other fiats...

A debt based fiat system IS a ponzi. New debt has to be created continually or it all collapses. We just happen to live in an age where the end is in sight.

[deisik]

I cannot follow the rest of your argumentation. I do not advocate "cashing out" because you mean buying fiat with your Bitcoins. Why would you choose to hold such a lousy form value preservation for anything but a very short time? I also don't understand how anyone can see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme to have ever existed.

I beg to differ. As long as a fiat currency can be used for buying goods and services, it is not a Ponzi scheme. What makes a Ponzi scheme different from a bubble lies in the fact that its value token (certificate, share, whatever) can't be used for anything but investing in itself, directly or by some intermediary (to make it less evident). In a bubble an underlying asset can be either used directly (e.g. real estate), or for other purposes not related to investing. The latter holds true for Bitcoin (that's why it's not a Ponzi scheme either) and in this aspect it's not widely different from other fiats...

A debt based fiat system IS a ponzi. New debt has to be created continually or it all collapses. We just happen to live in an age where the end is in sight.

Nope. In a housing bubble an incessant inflow of new buyers is required to enter the market lest the bubble should burst, but this doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme. New debt being created continually makes a debt bubble. The debt bubble popping may actually cause an economic collapse, but the possibility of it doesn't make a debt based fiat system a Ponzi either. You're just using the wrong term here...

[AnonyMint]

I cannot follow the rest of your argumentation. I do not advocate "cashing out" because you mean buying fiat with your Bitcoins. Why would you choose to hold such a lousy form value preservation for anything but a very short time? I also don't understand how anyone can see Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, fiat currencies are the biggest Ponzi scheme to have ever existed.

I beg to differ. As long as a fiat currency can be used for buying goods and services, it is not a Ponzi scheme. What makes a Ponzi scheme different from a bubble lies in the fact that its value token (certificate, share, whatever) can't be used for anything but investing in itself, directly or by some intermediary (to make it less evident). In a bubble an underlying asset can be either used directly (e.g. real estate), or for other purposes not related to investing. The latter holds true for Bitcoin (that's why it's not a Ponzi scheme either) and in this aspect it's not widely different from other fiats...

A debt based fiat system IS a ponzi. New debt has to be created continually or it all collapses. We just happen to live in an age where the end is in sight.

Nope. In a housing bubble new buyers are required to continually enter the market and buy new homes lest the bubble should burst, but this doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme. New debt being created continually makes it a debt bubble. The debt bubble popping may actually cause an economic collapse, but the possibility of it doesn't make a debt based fiat system a Ponzi either. You're just using the wrong term here...

I had taken this position recently, but I said "yes" upthread because I was remembering the notion (is it true?) that all fiat currencies have returned to their intrinsic value of 0 on long enough time scales.

[farfiman]

Nope. In a housing bubble new buyers are required to continually enter the market and buy new homes lest the bubble should burst, but this doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme. What you refer to as a Ponzi scheme is correctly called a debt bubble. The debt bubble popping may actually cause an economic collapse but the possibility of it doesn't make a debt based fiat system a Ponzi either. You're just using the wrong term here...

Maybe the term is inaccurate but not sure.  What happens if no new debt is created and even is paid back?
In a ponzi if people start pulling out and nothing new flows in... same thing.

[deisik]

Maybe the term is inaccurate but not sure.  What happens if no new debt is created and even is paid back?
In a ponzi if people start pulling out and nothing new flows in... same thing.

When a real estate bubble pops prices are falling but they don't drop to zero (as in a Ponzi) because real estate has utility beside mere speculation and it can be used according to its intended purpose, i.e. for living. In the case of a fiat currency its utility consists in the goods and services which you can exchange for it. So if a debt bubble pops you will see the currency purchasing power diminish in proportion with its commodity content just like the real estate loses its value after burst down to its real non-speculative demand. Bubble popping strips the asset price of its speculative part

Whereas in a Ponzi scheme no real component in the underlying "asset" is present...