Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?

[AnonyMint]

This is a hamster wheel, and you will not win Risto. They will fleece you.

I am doing what feels good to me, you are doing what feels good to you. We are both winning. Every day.

"1984" ends with the notion that you will love big brother after enough brainwash (and torture). So the masses will also feel good. I don't know how to interact with you because you think everyone desires your lifestyle, which honestly is quite extreme, and unsuitable for most.

Maybe true. If I am not mistaken, I am thinking that you have no choice because technology has shifted. There is only so much debt the existing system can pile up to prop up the old paradigm.

Yes I think we are headed into a very extreme shift and there will be war or strife. Most will not accept it. Oxford study say 45% of all existing jobs will be replaced by automation.

I can't stop technology, so much better I am aligned with it. I starting aligning myself 36 years ago. I made a choice to bet on the software at age 13. I speculated with my capital meaning my life and my mind and forming my interests and personality.

Am I now supposed to forsake my capital (my life investment in myself) any more than I shouldn't ask you to give me your BTC balance for free.

[blablahblah]

Your fundamental premise is flawed.

a) You're equating coin distribution with wealth distribution, and not even bothering to define wealth in real terms.

b) You're looking at the numbers as a static system, not one with flows and velocities.

First prove that large stakeholders who control, say, 5% of the money base, do indeed have 1000 times more usable 'mojo' compared to stakeholders with only 0.005%, and then we can talk.

[AnonyMint]

Your fundamental premise is flawed.

a) You're equating coin distribution with wealth distribution, and not even bothering to define wealth in real terms.

No I am equating it with transaction distribution (velocity), which is wealth generation (proportional to ~GDP) in the QTM.

b) You're looking at the numbers as a static system, not one with flows and velocities.

How so? I think you are the one is not looking at that.

First prove that large stakeholders who control, say, 5% of the money base, do indeed have 1000 times more usable 'mojo' compared to stakeholders with only 0.005%, and then we can talk.

I don't understand. Appears you are inferring a premise on me that I have not made. Perhaps I think the opposite of what you wrote, if I understand what you might be trying to say. Seems to me the 0.005% have 1000 times more usable 'mojo' than the 5%, because they comprise 1000 times more unique brains.

Read this to understand why I think plethora of unique brains are more valuable than a few very smart brains (when we are outside the 3% in the power-law):

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html

[AnonyMint]

Household consumables. Food and drink, bathroom and kitchen items. Light bulbs. Furniture. Clothing has some representation, but nothing like enough variety.

Light bulbs are available at CVS, Kmart, and Lowe's via Gyft.

That is not quite as convenient as paying at the POS.

Yet that is encouraging.

So maybe it is only the concentrated distribution of Bitcoin that is holding us back.

[blablahblah]

Your fundamental premise is flawed.

a) You're equating coin distribution with wealth distribution, and not even bothering to define wealth in real terms.

No I am equating it with transaction distribution (velocity), which is wealth generation (proportional to ~GDP) in the QTM.

b) You're looking at the numbers as a static system, not one with flows and velocities.

How so? I think you are the one is not looking at that.

First prove that large stakeholders who control, say, 5% of the money base, do indeed have 1000 times more usable 'mojo' compared to stakeholders with only 0.005%, and then we can talk.

I don't understand. Appears you are inferring a premise on me that I have not made. Perhaps I think the opposite of what you wrote, if I understand what you might be trying to say. Seems to me the 0.005% have 1000 times more usable 'mojo' than the 5%, because they comprise 1000 times more unique brains.

Ahh. I meant in the sense of diminishing returns. E.g.: one person with $1B vs one person with $1M. The first million can really kickstart someone's dream life, whether it's repayment of house or car debts, purchasing lots of items, funding a hobby and/or business, or travelling to exotic places. On average, each subsequent million has a drastically smaller effect on overall "quality of life" than the previous million.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your original complaint about the power law distribution. In a previous thread you basically alleged that a large stakeholder, Joe, would not be able to redeem his bitcoins without crashing the system. That's a closely related issue. If a large batch of bitcoins are dumped on the market because the owner wants to "cash out their wealth", each subsequent bitcoin they sell nets a smaller amount of goods.

If anything, it could be said that political power fills the gap left by the invisible wealth. One could argue that rational actors don't want to harm their own values, so they would only speculate and manipulate the masses in ways that seem beneficial. Whether that's always the case, I don't know.

[AnonyMint]

I no longer think #2 and #3 will work.

There is no point in distributing the coins to the developing world, because they don't spend on the internet. They don't have credit cards, they buy everything with cash. It wouldn't be feasible to move these masses of people to electronic money at the early stage of the coin. There is way too much that would have to change. We couldn't make a dent in it in short-term.

#1 is the only one that works. Put the mining coins in the hands of the technology people. That is fast moving, they can adopt it very quickly. The capitalists can still mine and so can the individuals. That is an improvement over Bitcoin. And the technology enthusiasts are exactly the market I envision using a decentralized money.

[farfiman]

I no longer think #2 and #3 will work.

There is no point in distributing the coins to the developing world, because they don't spend on the internet. They don't have credit cards, they buy everything with cash. It wouldn't be feasible to move these masses of people to electronic money at the early stage of the coin. There is way too much that would have to change. We couldn't make a dent in it in short-term.

#1 is the only one that works. Put the mining coins in the hands of the technology people. That is fast moving, they can adopt it very quickly. The capitalists can still mine and so can the individuals. That is an improvement over Bitcoin. And the technology enthusiasts are exactly the market I envision using a decentralized money.

To me this sounds EXACTLY like a description of the people that have been mining bitcoin.

[AnonyMint]

I no longer think #2 and #3 will work.

There is no point in distributing the coins to the developing world, because they don't spend on the internet. They don't have credit cards, they buy everything with cash. It wouldn't be feasible to move these masses of people to electronic money at the early stage of the coin. There is way too much that would have to change. We couldn't make a dent in it in short-term.

#1 is the only one that works. Put the mining coins in the hands of the technology people. That is fast moving, they can adopt it very quickly. The capitalists can still mine and so can the individuals. That is an improvement over Bitcoin. And the technology enthusiasts are exactly the market I envision using a decentralized money.

To me this sounds EXACTLY like a description of the people that have been mining bitcoin.

What is your estimate of the ratio of "technology enthusiasts (TE) with Intel Core PC" to "TE with ASICs"?

I can't buy an ASIC where I am.

[farfiman]

I no longer think #2 and #3 will work.

There is no point in distributing the coins to the developing world, because they don't spend on the internet. They don't have credit cards, they buy everything with cash. It wouldn't be feasible to move these masses of people to electronic money at the early stage of the coin. There is way too much that would have to change. We couldn't make a dent in it in short-term.

#1 is the only one that works. Put the mining coins in the hands of the technology people. That is fast moving, they can adopt it very quickly. The capitalists can still mine and so can the individuals. That is an improvement over Bitcoin. And the technology enthusiasts are exactly the market I envision using a decentralized money.

To me this sounds EXACTLY like a description of the people that have been mining bitcoin.

What is your estimate of the ratio of "technology enthusiasts (TE) with Intel Core PC" to "TE with ASICs"?

I can't buy an ASIC where I am.

I believe you. But like I stated ( I think in a PM)  - even a new coin that is "CPU only" will stay that way for a short time. You will see development on other hardware that will once again make CPU mining irrelevant.  Human ingenuity and greed will make it happen.

[AnonyMint]

I no longer think #2 and #3 will work.

There is no point in distributing the coins to the developing world, because they don't spend on the internet. They don't have credit cards, they buy everything with cash. It wouldn't be feasible to move these masses of people to electronic money at the early stage of the coin. There is way too much that would have to change. We couldn't make a dent in it in short-term.

#1 is the only one that works. Put the mining coins in the hands of the technology people. That is fast moving, they can adopt it very quickly. The capitalists can still mine and so can the individuals. That is an improvement over Bitcoin. And the technology enthusiasts are exactly the market I envision using a decentralized money.

To me this sounds EXACTLY like a description of the people that have been mining bitcoin.

What is your estimate of the ratio of "technology enthusiasts (TE) with Intel Core PC" to "TE with ASICs"?

I can't buy an ASIC where I am.

I believe you. But like I stated ( I think in a PM)  - even a new coin that is "CPU only" will stay that way for a short time. You will see development on other hardware that will once again make CPU mining irrelevant.  Human ingenuity and greed will make it happen.

If I say CPU only, then it means I am sure. I know what I am doing. I know exactly why it is CPU only. And you will know too when you see the proof. I know what Percival did not address in his conceptualization.

[AnonyMint]

Risto I am deleting your and my personal stories posts. Isn't relevant to the topic. I also redacted two offending words from my post which spawned that exchange between us.

[blablahblah]

Read this to understand why I think plethora of unique brains are more valuable than a few very smart brains (when we are outside the 3% in the power-law):

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html

I suggest reading some Roger Penrose and looking into Kurt Gödel, and also catch up on some of the atheism/god discussions in the politics forum while you're at it.

2nd Law of Thermo

All such irrational and unjustified fears are inconsistent with the trend of maximization of entropy guaranteed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics which governs our universe. Such fears include erroneous Malthusian apocalyptic predictions of overpopulation, man-made (anthropogenic) global warming, peak energy, and other resource scarcity delusions of the masses. Entropy is the level of independent possibilities, i.e. diversity. During the 1800s, the Luddites thought technology and mass production would replace all human work, because they couldn't foresee the new independent possibilities of knowledge work that employ us now.

It can be argued that the universe, within which the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies, is just a subset within our whole existence. Reasonable arguments can be put forward that we can operate beyond the rules of our physical reality, and that's what gives rise to things like free will and creativity.

Re: Algorithms=/=Entropy

However, the speed of the computing hardware and the sophistication of the software has no relevance because creativity can't be expressed in an algorithm. Every possible model of the brain will lack the fundamental cause of human creativity— every human brain is unique. Thus each of billions of brains is able to contemplate possibilities and scenarios differently enough so that it is more likely at least one brain will contemplate some unique idea that fits each set of possibilities at each point in time.

His reasoning for "a cause of creativity" is illogical and does not follow from his otherwise sensible intuition that an algorithm surely doesn't cause it.

For a start, the word creativity is self-explanatory: it refers to an act of creation. Nothing comes before creativity in order to somehow cause it, because then that would be the real creative source instead. He could argue that creativity is not real, just an illusion. However, that would just reaffirm what I said earlier: we act upon and alter our illusion of reality, and thus we operate outside of it.

His theorising further down is interesting, but still relies on the same causal premise.

For example, we could think of DNA like an extremely advanced, organic von Neumann universal constructor. A Turing-complete state machine that operates within the physical laws of its substrate: various chemical interactions and so on. It replicates, evolves, has error correction for self-repair. Then we skip a few steps and say that complex organisms evolved from this DNA and formed brains.

Then we make a big (MOAFU) assumption: brains and networks of brains seem creative and extremely complex, therefore it must be all that complexity and variation that causes creativity. No, it's a bit like that Russian joke where the world seems upside down. Stuff doesn't cause creativity. Creativity causes stuff. I would suggest that maybe it's an ongoing process of creativity that allows complexity to arise in the first place. It may seem ridiculous, but I would also speculate that creative choices might occur at all levels in nature, resulting in what appears, in hindsight, to be the second law of thermodynamics.

[deisik]

It is mathematically impossible for large capital to always accumulate. Eventually you would own everything and there would be nobody to transact with.

This is why periodically there are debt-writedowns and the millionaires are fleeced by the $trillionaires who control this world. The $trillionaires then make sure they issue debt to the masses so the masses can transact so the $millionaires can rise again.

If what you say is true, are those $trillionaires doing this for fun? What is the final goal, keeping the masses on the leash?

[deisik]

Ahh. I meant in the sense of diminishing returns. E.g.: one person with $1B vs one person with $1M. The first million can really kickstart someone's dream life, whether it's repayment of house or car debts, purchasing lots of items, funding a hobby and/or business, or travelling to exotic places. On average, each subsequent million has a drastically smaller effect on overall "quality of life" than the previous million

It is called the law of diminishing marginal utility that you refer to. Diminishing returns are about the decrease in the output of a production process...

Sorry for nitpicking...   

[blablahblah]

It is called the law of diminishing marginal utility that you refer to. Diminishing returns are about the decrease in the output of a production process...

Sorry for nitpicking...   

I stand corrected

[AnonyMint]

Read this to understand why I think plethora of unique brains are more valuable than a few very smart brains (when we are outside the 3% in the power-law):

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html

I suggest reading some Roger Penrose and looking into Kurt Gödel, and also catch up on some of the atheism/god discussions in the politics forum while you're at it.

2nd Law of Thermo

All such irrational and unjustified fears are inconsistent with the trend of maximization of entropy guaranteed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics which governs our universe. Such fears include erroneous Malthusian apocalyptic predictions of overpopulation, man-made (anthropogenic) global warming, peak energy, and other resource scarcity delusions of the masses. Entropy is the level of independent possibilities, i.e. diversity. During the 1800s, the Luddites thought technology and mass production would replace all human work, because they couldn't foresee the new independent possibilities of knowledge work that employ us now.

It can be argued that the universe, within which the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies, is just a subset within our whole existence. Reasonable arguments can be put forward that we can operate beyond the rules of our physical reality, and that's what gives rise to things like free will and creativity.

Re: Algorithms=/=Entropy

However, the speed of the computing hardware and the sophistication of the software has no relevance because creativity can't be expressed in an algorithm. Every possible model of the brain will lack the fundamental cause of human creativity— every human brain is unique. Thus each of billions of brains is able to contemplate possibilities and scenarios differently enough so that it is more likely at least one brain will contemplate some unique idea that fits each set of possibilities at each point in time.

His reasoning for "a cause of creativity" is illogical and does not follow from his otherwise sensible intuition that an algorithm surely doesn't cause it.

For a start, the word creativity is self-explanatory: it refers to an act of creation. Nothing comes before creativity in order to somehow cause it, because then that would be the real creative source instead. He could argue that creativity is not real, just an illusion. However, that would just reaffirm what I said earlier: we act upon and alter our illusion of reality, and thus we operate outside of it.

His theorising further down is interesting, but still relies on the same causal premise.

For example, we could think of DNA like an extremely advanced, organic von Neumann universal constructor. A Turing-complete state machine that operates within the physical laws of its substrate: various chemical interactions and so on. It replicates, evolves, has error correction for self-repair. Then we skip a few steps and say that complex organisms evolved from this DNA and formed brains.

Then we make a big (MOAFU) assumption: brains and networks of brains seem creative and extremely complex, therefore it must be all that complexity and variation that causes creativity. No, it's a bit like that Russian joke where the world seems upside down. Stuff doesn't cause creativity. Creativity causes stuff. I would suggest that maybe it's an ongoing process of creativity that allows complexity to arise in the first place. It may seem ridiculous, but I would also speculate that creative choices might occur at all levels in nature, resulting in what appears, in hindsight, to be the second law of thermodynamics.

The math of the entropy applies even to phenomena which are not tangible, e.g. Shannon Entropy for information.

Cite for me anything written by Penrose or Gödel which disagrees. I actually incorporated Gödel's completeness theorem into my analysis.

I already figured out what constitutes all dimensions of the universe. I am ahead of them now. It may be over your head.

You appear to have missed the point of the Information Is Alive! article. Specifically that diversity emerges from granularity, which is clear from any application of entropy to any domain, whether it be thermodynamics, biology, gravity, inertia, or intangible information. Creativity is merely the congruence with diversity in dynamic time, i.e. matching the dynamic configurations of the system as opportunities for fitness of each unique mind.

I believe this is congruent with where the Bible states, "go forth and multiply".

[AnonyMint]

It is mathematically impossible for large capital to always accumulate. Eventually you would own everything and there would be nobody to transact with.

This is why periodically there are debt-writedowns and the millionaires are fleeced by the $trillionaires who control this world. The $trillionaires then make sure they issue debt to the masses so the masses can transact so the $millionaires can rise again.

If what you say is true, are those $trillionaires doing this for fun? What is the final goal, keeping the masses on the leash?

Prevent their capital from being redistributed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

They can do this because of the power vacuum given by Some Iron Laws of Political Economics.

I am trying to find a technological means of eliminating that power vacuum.

[AnonyMint]

How can we improve upon Bitcoin's highly concentrated coin distribution?

Tax and spend, baby!</sarcasm>

Exactly that is how it is done now. And the $trillionaires fight against the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The $millionaires are just pawns which are regularly sacrificed to the cycle.

What's wrong with a highly concentrated coin distribution?

It violates the trend of the universe towards maximum entropy.

In other words, it is less prosperous and efficient. It retards the creativity of the human mind.

Thus it appears to me that it is incompatible with the fledgling Knowledge Age and appears to me to be only an effect of the Industrial Age, which I assert is dying.

[Tirapon]

Stuff doesn't cause creativity. Creativity causes stuff. I would suggest that maybe it's an ongoing process of creativity that allows complexity to arise in the first place. It may seem ridiculous, but I would also speculate that creative choices might occur at all levels in nature, resulting in what appears, in hindsight, to be the second law of thermodynamics.

Would you say this ties in nicely with the implications of certain interpretations of quantum physics, which suggest that the physical world is a result of conscious observation and not the other way around?

[AnonyMint]

Stuff doesn't cause creativity. Creativity causes stuff. I would suggest that maybe it's an ongoing process of creativity that allows complexity to arise in the first place. It may seem ridiculous, but I would also speculate that creative choices might occur at all levels in nature, resulting in what appears, in hindsight, to be the second law of thermodynamics.

Would you say this ties in nicely with the implications of certain interpretations of quantum physics, which suggest that the physical world is a result of conscious observation and not the other way around?

I explain this empirically, not just a pile of mumbo-jumbo talk:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum