Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?

[thezerg]

I think in #1 I'm hearing you state that you think you have an algorithm that is CPU-only.  I think you are probably well aware of the principle of specialization so I am having a hard time imagining an algorithm that can be run on a CPU that cannot be specialized to an FPGA or ASIC -- or in the worst case, simply a custom circuit board with 32 physical 100-core tilera CPUs and the minimum required RAM and accessories.  Or a custom circuit-board with 1Tbyte of RAM and just one CPU if you are going that way.

Secondly:  You don't mention whether you want a better static (initial) distribution or a trying to create a permanent distribution curve... of course the second is much harder because the typical distribution tends to a exponential or a normal curve.  Which are you trying?

Third: I can think of two ways to create a system that results in an initial distribution that is more widely dispersed.  But honestly I don't feel like sharing b/c I think you suffer tremendously from "not-invented-here" syndrome and also as many others have stated are managing to alienate most people you interact with on this forum. 


tl;dr; I'd recommend that you post your algorithm and let us tear it to shreds to save yourself a lot of work.  Although, the last person I helped offered a 10BTC bounty, something you might consider -- but smaller due to BTC price appreciation.

tl;dr#2; First, see yourself.

Best! 

[Impaler]

Freicoin plans to use a combination of three distribution systems

Traditional mining for 20% of initial distribution and the ongoing recycling of demurrage their after, mining rewards started at 255 per block and decline smoothly each block to 100 at the end of a 3 year period.

Foundation funds are the other 80% of initial money, two methods are being developed that keep the foundation members from exerting undue influence on the process.  First the traditional faucet distribution method using a Captcha, unlike BTC these will not be mere token give aways but a way for potentially millions to access coins on a roughly per-capita basis.  Second a method of charitable contribution matching in which charities and kick-starter type funds that receive donations of BTC or FRC though a tabulating website will see thouse coins match up to a monthly cap.

While I stand behind these means as a reasonable best effort that can be made with given technology I am genuinly interested in seeing any technological solution that could improve on this.  Unlike Mint I see no reason that coins should not be given out to everyone on Earth in near equal amounts, arguing that some people will waste them is immaterial nothing could ever be distributed to a wide audiance if everyone had to be a saint. 

Further more we should not see the distribution of CASH as having a significant effect on social wealth distributions (either to heighten them or flatten them), the vast majority of wealth is in real assets, land, real estate, factories, cars, etc etc.  The amount of Cash the world actually needs to do it's commerce in SHOULD be tiny, it is only when we have this kind of deflationary hyper-gold with exceedingly low velocity that cash becomes large in comparison to the rest of our wealth, but it is an illusion, the cash will crash in value if it ever comes into circulation.  This is how we have the absurdity of Billion dollar 'market caps' holding up commerce of only a few tens of thousands of dollars a year.  Only in a system where all the money circulates consistently will prices be stabilized because their will be no lurking cash ready to pounce on the market.

[AnonyMint]

What you really want to look at is the PROFIT of mining.  High profitability mining most certainly causes a price increase and it evidently so because the two largest most sustained run-ups in BTC price have both come about immediately following the introduction of newer generation of mining technology (GPU, ASIC).

The mechanism of price increase is as follows.  Miners new hardware turns a huge profit compared to old equipment that could only just cover electrical costs, miners do not need to sell many or sometimes any coins to cover newly reduced costs.  Profitability generates media hype, hype brings in buyers and starts price increase.  Miners hoard most coin production and cause a shortage in the market, price bubble goes exponential as coin liquidity dries up.

Thank you for that insight!

[AnonyMint]

While I stand behind these means as a reasonable best effort that can be made with given technology I am genuinly interested in seeing any technological solution that could improve on this.  Unlike Mint I see no reason that coins should not be given out to everyone on Earth in near equal amounts, arguing that some people will waste them is immaterial nothing could ever be distributed to a wide audiance if everyone had to be a saint.  

Simply because those in the developing world can't yet transact in crypto-coin, thus this will be useless for them at this time.

But I won't discourage you from trying, perhaps you can build a critical mass this way. But in the developing world you are fighting against inertia of lack of infrastructure and educational level.

Further more we should not see the distribution of CASH as having a significant effect on social wealth distributions (either to heighten them or flatten them), the vast majority of wealth is in real assets, land, real estate, factories, cars, etc etc.  The amount of Cash the world actually needs to do it's commerce in SHOULD be tiny, it is only when we have this kind of deflationary hyper-gold with exceedingly low velocity that cash becomes large in comparison to the rest of our wealth, but it is an illusion, the cash will crash in value if it ever comes into circulation.  This is how we have the absurdity of Billion dollar 'market caps' holding up commerce of only a few tens of thousands of dollars a year.  Only in a system where all the money circulates consistently will prices be stabilized because their will be no lurking cash ready to pounce on the market.

[CoinCube]

It does not have to be CPU based. If the coin was rolled out simultaneously with
Some type of ASIC heater who's primary role was to generate heat in winter it would discourage
centralization. Cost of large mines would be prohibitive as they would have no use for the heat.
Small homes would mine as a way to get subsidized heating.

Huge logistical and cost issues with this approach. It would probably never be as distributed as a true CPU only
coin but might be a fallback option if CPU only cannot be achieved

[deisik]

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.

How come? I know what the second law of thermodynamics is about (the entropy of an isolated system never decreases), but why is it applicable here (please don't say it's applicable to anything)?

[rpietila]

Sorry, but after stepping aside for a moment, this discussion increasingly resembles that of the idealist-socialist-collectivist altcoins, see Devcoin for example. There is currently no opportunity window for such a coin, despite my earlier belief that there was.

[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

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.

Gödel's theorems are a kind of critique of the language of mathematics:

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

Therefore, any mathematically described "theory of everything" is going to face the above problem with the underlying maths. Try explaining the "hard problem of consciousness", or belief, or the 'delusion' of free will, or qualia, or just the mere existence of any observer... using the empirically observed laws of entropy. Circular reasoning.

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.

No, that's an empirical interpretation of what creativity appears like, in hindsight no less.


You're still not giving any material to suggest that objective value judgements on the creativity of different brains is even plausible.

[Sindelar1938]

Remember wealth creation comes before its redistribution

Governments tend to forget or ignore this

[AnonyMint]

Sorry, but after stepping aside for a moment, this discussion increasingly resembles that of the idealist-socialist-collectivist altcoins, see Devcoin for example. There is currently no opportunity window for such a coin, despite my earlier belief that there was.

I knew Devcoin would fail and I had a very specific reason for thinking that.

Well I am quite pleased that the failure of competition-to-date has contributed to what I believe to be the dumbness (myopia, lack of economy-of-scale in and thus to justify the continued study of small things) of large capital.

[AnonyMint]

What's wrong with a highly concentrated coin distribution?

It violates the trend of the universe towards maximum entropy.

I think the universe will solve that problem itself.

Actually that is quite astute. Coase's Theorem teaches us that nature eventually will route around roadblocks to the progression of maximum entropy (2nd law of thermo).

[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

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.

Gödel's theorems are a kind of critique of the language of mathematics:

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

Therefore, any mathematically described "theory of everything" is going to face the above problem with the underlying maths. Try explaining the "hard problem of consciousness", or belief, or the 'delusion' of free will, or qualia, or just the mere existence of any observer... using the empirically observed laws of entropy. Circular reasoning.

Incompleteness is explained by my conceptualization of matter as a continuum. Try reading it. Here is the link again:

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

I have already alluded to the explanation of all those phenomena. I guess I will need to write a treatise to expound for those who can't/won't extrapolate from the generative essence I have presented.

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.

No, that's an empirical interpretation of what creativity appears like, in hindsight no less.


You're still not giving any material to suggest that objective value judgements on the creativity of different brains is even plausible.

It is my belief that you are missing the salient point. Nothing is absolute, dynamic inertia (gravity) is all relative. Objectivity is just a side-effect (aliasing error) of limited sampling (limited perception, nothing is omniscient).

OMG, the dopamine spikes from the get-rich-quick-fever are running so high that the new religion is finding information in aliasing error[1].

Nice catch, but I carefully picked the image from dozens to not refer to aliasing error.

Generally speaking only if the alignment of the overlapping circles is not randomly chosen.

See the fundamental point of the Shannon-Nyquist theorem (and yes I had to argue with the Wikipedia editors to get this language in their summary) is that a signal can not be both band-limited and time-limited (e.g. if time-limited you have infinite frequencies at the start and stop points).

In short, we can't know what is random and what is not. We can only base our expectations of those fixed points which are only fixed relative to the world we perceive (shared amongst those who share the common perception). I get deeper into the math in my blog article about what the universe really is made of:

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

So therefor you make your assumptions then you place your bets on those assumptions holding for the duration of your bets.

You won't be able to rule out serendipity ever. Long-tail distributions lurk, which is the point of Taleb's Antifragility taken with the inertia of concentration of mass.

Cheers Nice to talk with someone who can (I assume) understand what I wrote above.

@gcinc

I enjoyed your analysis. Group behavior is definately measurable.  Applied to financial instruments esp.  Speculation on potential adoption can obv render the spec line inflated for the time, until adoption ensues...find rptiela's work interesting, and slippery slope's log model convincing.

Obv it's a gamble, obv it's risky, and obv it's about making money, so what...that's how markets work and innovations come to life.

Indeed, serendipity for example an altcoin comes along which allows you to exit BTC without it being a ponzi scheme, by gradually sucking value out while increasing distribution to the masses.

But in this case it isn't random relative to our shared perception, because I just told you what will happen

That is unless it disappears from your consciousness, which is quite likely I presume because you are not privy to everything I can see at the moment.

[blablahblah]

Incompleteness is explained by my conceptualization of matter as a continuum. Try reading it. Here is the link again:

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

Also Gödel's incompleteness theorems which state that no theory of computation can be both complete and consistent, as there will always exist another truth which can't be proven by the existing theory.

Yes, and I'm trying to explain that this applies to your theory as well. Yet you seem to think that your particular theory is all encompassing -- internally consistent and complete.

I can tell you off-hand that a theory that basically says the universe is "a multi-dimensional holographic 'doughnut' made of vibrating tines and lots of standing waves", still doesn't explain any of these things:
illusions
consciousness/ego/self
qualia
and of course creativity. Oh wait, those last 3 are all just illusions. Explain illusions then.

I have already alluded to the explanation of all those phenomena. I guess I will need to write a treatise to expound for those who can't/won't extrapolate from the generative essence I have presented.

You'll burn yourself out. Why not do something useful?

[wachtwoord]

Can you present a cogent argument that they haven't been rewarded already for those 1000s of hours many times in excess of any normal return on investment for programmers?

Ever since Mt.Gox started, every early adopter had an actual chance to sell any % of their coins and receive dollars in return. So from that point on, they can be treated as investors, since the early adopter phase (in the strictest sense) was over. Every day that they decided to not sell their early-mined coins, they rejected the other investment/consumption opportunities in favor of holding the coins. This puts them at exactly the same level as me, who never mined or even installed the software.

Or much easier. The market continues to reward them. As long as this is the case they haven't been fully rewarded. (Remember that the market consists of people voluntarily exchanging fiat money for Bitcoins).

They'll have been fully rewarded when they have access to all the value they have helped to create. This is still a long way off.

[rpietila]

Or much easier. The market continues to reward them. As long as this is the case they haven't been fully rewarded. (Remember that the market consists of people voluntarily exchanging fiat money for Bitcoins).

They'll have been fully rewarded when they have access to all the value they have helped to create. This is still a long way off.

That proves that in essence, Bitcoin is not a technology. Its market cap was <$100,000 when Gox was opened and the "technology-phase" ended. All the subsequent gains have been possible because of the collective action of all the market participants.

[AnonyMint]

Incompleteness is explained by my conceptualization of matter as a continuum. Try reading it. Here is the link again:

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

Also Gödel's incompleteness theorems which state that no theory of computation can be both complete and consistent, as there will always exist another truth which can't be proven by the existing theory.

Yes, and I'm trying to explain that this applies to your theory as well. Yet you seem to think that your particular theory is all encompassing -- internally consistent and complete.

I can tell you off-hand that a theory that basically says the universe is "a multi-dimensional holographic 'doughnut' made of vibrating tines and lots of standing waves", still doesn't explain any of these things:
illusions
consciousness/ego/self
qualia
and of course creativity. Oh wait, those last 3 are all just illusions. Explain illusions then.

You haven't understood what I've presented. My theory explains why and is congruent with that no theory that requires a countable logic can be universally consistent. You failed to remember that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to countable (i.e. empirical) axioms.

[AnonyMint]

Can you present a cogent argument that they haven't been rewarded already for those 1000s of hours many times in excess of any normal return on investment for programmers?

Ever since Mt.Gox started, every early adopter had an actual chance to sell any % of their coins and receive dollars in return. So from that point on, they can be treated as investors, since the early adopter phase (in the strictest sense) was over. Every day that they decided to not sell their early-mined coins, they rejected the other investment/consumption opportunities in favor of holding the coins. This puts them at exactly the same level as me, who never mined or even installed the software.

Or much easier. The market continues to reward them. As long as this is the case they haven't been fully rewarded. (Remember that the market consists of people voluntarily exchanging fiat money for Bitcoins).

They'll have been fully rewarded when they have access to all the value they have helped to create. This is still a long way off.

That proves that in essence, Bitcoin is not a technology. Its market cap was <$100,000 when Gox was opened and the "technology-phase" ended. All the subsequent gains have been possible because of the collective action of all the market participants.

All correct, except "value" is meaningless until you cash out. I see signs that in my opinion the the window for large capital to cash out is rapidly closing.

[AnonyMint]

All correct, except "value" is meaningless until you cash out. I see signs that in my opinion the the window for large capital to cash out is rapidly closing.

Bullshit. With cashing out you mean converting to fiat. That's retarded and I'll never do that. So you're saying I hold no value? LOL

Argument by slander is not an argument. To support your slander, you would need to include at least one logical reason.

I can only assume that you think Bitcoin will become a currency and thus that its value will never permanently precipitously decline, thus you think the valuation is the number of coins you hold relative to the proportion of the transactions (currency) market share that Bitcoin will ultimately garnish.

My retort to that is that your fantasy is impossible.

There is no way for me to argue with a Bitard, because it is analogous to arguing about religion. The fantasy can't be falsified in the present. We have to actually wait a while before we can point at you and say "I warned you fool". At least the fantasy isn't forever unfalsifiable as is the case with religion and the afterlife.

[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.

[wachtwoord]

All correct, except "value" is meaningless until you cash out. I see signs that in my opinion the the window for large capital to cash out is rapidly closing.

Bullshit. With cashing out you mean converting to fiat. That's retarded and I'll never do that. So you're saying I hold no value? LOL

Argument by slander is not an argument. To support your slander, you would need to include at least one logical reason.

I wasn't arguing, merely mocking. When you start a normal argument I'll respond in kind