Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?

[Adrian-x]

Nope. It just means they still have confidence in the system, plain and simple. If they didn't, it would mean the money completely lost its exchange value, i.e. ceased to be money, so no more sense to work. Direct inference from your assertion ("intrinsic value of fiat relies on society maintaining confidence in its government and financial system")...

and we are not there yet?

Unemployment figures tell us that we haven't yet even started...

Speak for yourself, when you no longer qualify as unemployed they don't count you anymore.

Anyway, just been skimming these posts and realised I've been hanging out a lot in the speculation threads for so long I forgot it's not just about Bitcoin but ego. Anyway carry on as you were I'm sure no one is missing me.

Just a friendly observation though not directed at anyone, Bitcoin is working, despite all the reasons it shouldn't.
I think the high price really ups the ante when making an argument.

I'm sure if this quote below is true; Ill look more favorably on Christians, when I no longer feel enslaved. Thanks Bitcoin. 

You do know the Bible condones slavery as necessary form of rehabilitation of those who were not wise.

[CoinCube]

They are not actually that strong, but this is just my opinion and your choice indeed. Also he is known for deleting posts (his own and the replies to them) where he had been proven flat-out wrong. I guess that's why he has a high ignore score...

Focus on the message rather then the messenger.
At the very least AnonyMints arguments are novel and interesting.
The possibility exists that (although most of us would hate to admit it) that he is correct.

[deisik]

Unemployment figures tell us that we haven't yet even started...

Speak for yourself, when you no longer qualify as unemployed they don't count you anymore.

You seem to be missing the whole thing we're talking about. It doesn't matter whether you qualify as unemployed or not, what matters here is your conscious reluctance or unwillingness to work since you are being paid with what you don't consider any longer as money. If so, you wouldn't give a damn if they counted you or not. That was the point we were discussing. Involuntary unemployment is beyond the scope of this discussion...

But if you personally think dollars have already become trash, I don't mind you sending them all to me!

[deisik]

They are not actually that strong, but this is just my opinion and your choice indeed. Also he is known for deleting posts (his own and the replies to them) where he had been proven flat-out wrong. I guess that's why he has a high ignore score...

Focus on the message rather then the messenger.
At the very least AnonyMints arguments are novel and interesting.
The possibility exists that (although most of us would hate to admit it) that he is correct.

I don't think you would love your messages being deleted...

[AnonyMint]

They are not actually that strong, but this is just my opinion and your choice indeed. Also he is known for deleting posts (his own and the replies to them) where he had been proven flat-out wrong. I guess that's why he has a high ignore score...

Focus on the message rather then the messenger.
At the very least AnonyMints arguments are novel and interesting.
The possibility exists that (although most of us would hate to admit it) that he is correct.

I don't think you would love your messages being deleted...

I only deleted one message in this thread accidentally from someone who in the prior post had said he was taunting me. Thus I thought his one sentence quip was off-topic. After I clicked, I realized he had a valid point and so I wrote a post acknowledging his point, which he confirmed in another post.

I deleted many messages in the ponzi thread, for the valid reason I stated in the last post of the thread, which provides a link to the alternative thread of the same title, where all can repost their deleted messages (deleted messages are sent to your PM inbox so easy to copy+paste).

I blast my mouth because I am extremely (99+%) confident about my insight. I am slightly less confident about my ability to implement my insights, yet on the order of 80% confidence.

I'm sure if this quote below is true; Ill look more favorably on Christians, when I no longer feel enslaved. Thanks Bitcoin.  

You do know the Bible condones slavery as necessary form of rehabilitation of those who were not wise.

My point is the people clicking ignore on me are going to eat humble pie.

And I mean that literally, as this is not going to some symbolic victory, but a tangible one I will hold in my hands.

I consider it the most noble thing to do is to tell everyone roughly how I am going to defeat and give them every opportunity to benefit, and watch them do exactly the opposite because their ego is bigger than mine and blinds them.

I eat ignores as motivation. Please give me the ignore championship. I am going to work even harder to win.

It is not easy to see yourself, but your ignore button has reached its maximum color

AnonyMint is the first person I have seen get ignored for posting annoyingly strong arguments in an arrogant manner. Lots of people have thin skins.

Personally I make an effort to seek out his posts.

I post arrogantly because I am so sick of the disrespect such as when I was trying to be unemotional in the Problem with Altcoins thread and received this comment from Rassah:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279650.msg3525396#msg3525396

My apologies, I did not realize that you were a crazy person. Cary on.

I realized what some of those who are silent think about me. So I figured if they are going to think that about me, might as well tell them what I think about them = Bitard.

My arrogance is not directed at CoinCube, nor anyone else who is reasonable.

People who know me, know me as a jovial and caring person, almost to the point of seeming to be female.

But I have a competitive fire like Michael Jordan. If you incite my fire, I won't sleep until I win.

Congrats you have turned on my fire. Thank you. It is the best gift I could receive from this forum.

What you are reading as arrogance, is my testosterone climbing through the roof. I literally had to go to the basketball court and play at 2pm in 35C and 90% humidity to calm myself down.

[AnonyMint]

AnonyMint is the first person I have seen get ignored for posting annoyingly strong arguments in an arrogant manner. Lots of people have thin skins.

Personally I make an effort to seek out his posts.

They are not actually that strong, but this is just my opinion and your choice indeed. Also he is known for deleting posts (his own and the replies to them) where he had been proven flat-out wrong. I guess that's why he has a high ignore score...

I deleted my own posts either because they were not on topic, or more importantly I've deleted them because they contained evidence and technical clues of what I am working on!  

[Cryddit]

If you want efficient distribution of money in an altcoin, do the following:

1.  Use a mining algorithm that doesn't reward specialized equipment, because that makes mining a specialized business that only rich people will do.  

2.  Abandon the idea of a fixed finite amount of eventual coin.  Instead, increase mining rewards by 5% every year.  In the very long run, you can build a very healthy economy with 5% inflation.  Value will fluctuate wildly in the adoption phase, but eventually you get 5% inflation.

3.  Fix it so mining rewards are not so concentrated.  Every block should reward hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people with small awards.  Not by making "pools" but directly.  Make mining reward "near misses."

4.  5% inflation, when finally achieved, progressively devalues any money that is just hoarded.  That includes the highly disproportionate rewards held by the very early adopters.  There's a motive to spend it, possibly to capitalize new businesses.


Now, if you do this, you will *still* get a wealthy elite.  But it'll be a wealthy elite who have to get that way by managing their money and investing wisely, rather than just buying in early.

[AnonyMint]

The idea of bitcoin distribution is not to hand them out as broadly as possible. It is a system to reward people who run their computers to help secure and operate the network. It is not a free lunch program. Miners do work and are paid for it.

1. Distribution of coin rewards is halving every 4 years, thus diminishing towards 0. Half of all coins went to adopters in first 4 years.

2. ASICs means PC owners can't leverage their existing assets. Thus not a widely distribution coin.

3. PC mining need not be a free lunch, could also secure the network.

1. True. Those who act first are more greatly rewarded. Welcome to economics.
In the future fees will replace block rewards. They will also go to those who work hardest and smartest.

"Welcome to economics" is 0 information content comment. Many things are economics, including perpetual coin rewards, which have all the advantages and none of the disadvantages. I have covered this extensively in my posts over the past weeks, and I am not going to re-summarize. It is up to you if you want to research them or not. Transaction fees are failure due to Transaction Withholding Attack, Spiraling Transactions Fees, and because the coin isn't distributed to the 97% for spending and the 3% power-law hoarders aren't continually debased (as it must be for a society to not hit gridlock).

2. True. They must buy ASICs. Just as the last generation of miners needed to buy GPU's and before that, powerful CPUs. Miners must spend money on equipment and electricity. You can't pan for gold anymore either, now you must invest in expensive equipment.

And it doesn't have to be that way. Soon they will only need to buy DRAM, if they don't already have enough. A powerful CPU will help, but not having one won't prevent one from mining something.

DRAM is for sale every where, unlike ASICs which are difficult to obtain. I can't buy an ASIC at my local electronics or computer store.

The high DRAM requirement is necessary to eliminate the threat of Botnets. It also means that any zombie bots will freeze up for their user or the proof-of-work output of the bot will be so incredibly low so as to render the few such bots the botnet has (percentage wise) to be insignificant to the network hashrate.

You may have noticed I purposely ignored a post upthread about (Sparc and) Tilera CPUs.

3. PC mining was fine for protecting a market cap in the millions, but it is far to weak for the billions we are at now. This scaling acts against the profitability of a 51% attack.

It is not the hashrate that indicates the security, but rather the cost of attaining 50+% (51% is technically incorrect) of the hashrate. Much more plausible for a deep pocketed entity person to corner the market on ASICs than to corner the market on PCs.

Bitcoin is market driven. It rewards hard work, capital investment and greed, but nothing else.

P.S. I'm glad you are a contrarian. We need more than one uni-brain here.  

And competition against Bitcoin. Which I think will be increasing.

And the above is not the only "ace up the sleeve" secret that is lurking and coming against Bitcoin.

All who want to work on such an altcoin and be paid well for doing so will get that chance. This will not remain closed-source for long.

[AnonyMint]

If you want efficient distribution of money in an altcoin, do the following:

1.  Use a mining algorithm that doesn't reward specialized equipment, because that makes mining a specialized business that only rich people will do.  

2.  Abandon the idea of a fixed finite amount of eventual coin.  Instead, increase mining rewards by 5% every year.  In the very long run, you can build a very healthy economy with 5% inflation.  Value will fluctuate wildly in the adoption phase, but eventually you get 5% inflation.

3.  Fix it so mining rewards are not so concentrated.  Every block should reward hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people with small awards.  Not by making "pools" but directly.  Make mining reward "near misses."

4.  5% inflation, when finally achieved, progressively devalues any money that is just hoarded.  That includes the highly disproportionate rewards held by the very early adopters.  There's a motive to spend it, possibly to capitalize new businesses.


Now, if you do this, you will *still* get a wealthy elite.  But it'll be a wealthy elite who have to get that way by managing their money and investing wisely, rather than just buying in early.

Why are you telling them our altcoin design? You agreed to keep it secret until release, or did you forget! <- joke

[AnonyMint]

Wherever they ran, they paid and were paid with money. They didn't quit their jobs, so we have to admit they didn't lose confidence, right?

They may have no other job offer.

Nope. It just means they still have confidence in the system (at least some of them), plain and simple. If they didn't, it would mean the money completely had lost its exchange value, i.e. ceased to be money, so no more sense to work. Direct inference from your assertion ("intrinsic value of fiat relies on society maintaining confidence in its government and financial system")...

You assume a world of 0 friction where change happens instantly. If change happened instantly there would be no change, the end game would already be the present and the past. Friction (inertia) and (the existence of) time are inseparable. Without friction there would be no past, present, or future. These are the sort of deep insights on my blog:

http://unheresy.com/

[AnonyMint]

Eat humble pie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value

"This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed"

There were many economic theories throughout history of human thought. The prevailing theory and most researched one in economics nowadays is the subjective theory of value where the notion of "intrinsic value" has no meaning...

Economists are like antithesis-of-assholes, everyone thinks they have one.

The concept of subjective value is dubious or incomplete, because economists can't even holistically incorporate marginal, market price in a universal model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics)

In short, trust those who do, not those who pontificate. So finance wins over (inconsistent) theory.

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

Knowledge Anneals

Unsophisticated thinkers have an incorrect understanding of knowledge creation, idolizing a well-structured top-down sparkling academic cathedral of vastly superior theoretical minds. Rather knowledge primary spawns from accretive learning due to unexpected random chaotic fitness created from multitudes of random path dependencies that can only exist in the bottom-up free market. Top-down systems are inherently fragile because they overcommit to egregious error (link to Taleb's simplest summary of the math).

[Impaler]

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.

At Freicoin we hope to stir up some righteous fervor over Usury, it is after all the one sin condemned by Moses, Jesus, Mohammad and Buddha.

[Rassah]

All fiat started out being extremely centralized, first going to the central bankers, and then to private bankers, before finally getting down to the users. How was USD initially distributed and dispersed? Maybe you can follow that model.

[AnonyMint]

There was a hypothetical question in my PM which is basically am I going to put all my effort in one altcoin. And my answer is I would support and help any coin that I feel has promise in stopping the bad outcomes I fear. I might even use gains I achieved by investing in one coin to fund development on and invest in other coin. Any one who produces good stuff, I am in. I am trying to incite more quality competition. Systems that have a single point of failure are not resilient, e.g. one crypto-currency for the world.

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

Top-down systems are inherently fragile because they overcommit to egregious error (link to Taleb's simplest summary of the math).

[AnonyMint]

Competition and greed are not the problem, rather it is the power vacuum that enables centralizing power. The government bureaucrat doesn't know how to compete in a granular market.

Governments, cartels, and monopolies exist because there is a power vacuum that can't be dominated by more granular competition. (Will write another time about why granular yields better fitness and less waste)

Those vested interests will always squash or co-opt any decentralization (movement or technology) which threatens to make granular competition dominant.

Perhaps, but in focusing on granular competition, aren't you forgetting the pecking order that they're also fighting over? If the US+UK don't want Bitcoin interfering with their banking system, then what about Russia, China, or other major players like the EU/Germany or Japan? Out of some kind of fear that the other will start to dominate, they sometimes seem to compete over who can incubate and nurture new technology the fastest.

As the dominant player, the US seems to face problems on 2 fronts: attack the Bitcoin up-start in any manner that is too obvious, and it also puts their "law and order" ponzi under pressure.

The idea of competition between nations is amusing to me, since all are dependent on the dollar. The tail doesn't wag the dog.

Fiat is centralizing, and the top dog wags the puppies. Until China leaves fiat (which ain't gonna happen by choice of the controllers of China), the overall game hasn't changed just moving some pieces around the board.

China's (and East Asia in general) controllers want to run their economies as top-down, productive businesses (seeks to increase the productivity of the people), whereas the West is run as a non-productive, rent seeking collective (discourages the productivity of the people). I postulate that this at least partially derives from the innate submissive/cooperative (at least on the face of it) culture of the Asian. Or for at least as long as they are export economies with trade surpluses and small government share of GDP, instead of consuming economies with trade deficits and government with majority share of GDP.

They will free up the Yuan FX rate, because they have no other pathway towards future business growth, since they exhausted the state-owned enterprises model of top-down export and fixed capital investment growth at the suppression of the consumer (home) share of the GDP, e.g. suppressing imports and international purchasing power of the Yuan. I believe they calculate that they can ramp up the consumer sector while stagnating the aforementioned sector by 2020 (as stated in recent news) so as to avoid implosion. I think they will partially fail to contain a slump due to global contagion coming which will severely impact their export sector, and the high level of NPL debt that has to be absorbed. China will come out of that severe slump as a fledgling consumer giant.

But they are not giving up central bank control.

Consider relative size.

Crypto-currencies are a small fast moving thing that could disrupt their slow moving thing. The taipans can't play in our tiny market and we can't play in the huge slower growth one (of centralized control).

[AnonyMint]

All fiat started out being extremely centralized, first going to the central bankers, and then to private bankers, before finally getting down to the users. How was USD initially distributed and dispersed? Maybe you can follow that model.

Actually wasn't it more like the masses held some barter commodities and they traded these for more efficient (i.e. fungible, divisible) forms of medium-of-exchange, which ended up being fractionally debased (e.g. shaving coins) by intermediaries or fractional reserves by private banks, which ended up in failures, which caused larger protection (against failure, ahem) rackets to form, which is what we today call government and central banks.

That is why I wrote upthread that the fundamental issue is the power vacuum that society needs debased money (to continually flow from the usury hoarders back to the producers). Either the government provides this, or we decentralize the mechanism. In the former case, the government will slowly turn the people into 1984 zombies as I believe it is the top-down outcome. Thus not resilient and towards failure of the human race, e.g. Ted Turner's Georgia Guidestones goal.

P.S. I often hear the story of natives trading their land for a mirror to a European colonist or mestizo offspring. In my opinion, analogously (expected gains from) Bitcoin is the mirror and our collective freedom is the land.

Ted Turner what a hypocrite. He has I think 5 kids, yet he thinks from now on we should only be allowed 1 or 2. He thinks Buffalo are more important than the diversity of human knowledge, which can only grow exponentially by growing the population exponentially. Like most elite, he is socially and macro-economically insane, although rational on business profit. He got warped by his money or something and fell in love with the Buffalo or something. And now thinks he is smarter than nature and wants to enforce his warped priorities on the entire freaking world.

[AnonyMint]

Consider relative size.

Crypto-currencies are a small fast moving thing that could disrupt their slow moving thing. The taipans can't play in our tiny market and we can't play in the huge slower growth one (of centralized control).

Expounded in our microcosm:

Since one can't predict which copy wins out in the end large holders must continuously diversify into new coins.  This is OT and obviously implies greater bitcoin growth for this to even become an issue.

Shows absolutely no understanding of large holders.

Large holders can't diversify. If they put a few % in an altcoin, they can't on a risk-weighted basis catch up to their 9x% even if it grows slower. If they diversify too much percent, they are not being risk-adverse.

Big capital is always blind to smaller opportunities (what I figuratively referred to as "dumb"), because it has to be. This is why won't see Richard Branson investing seriously in Bitcoin.

That is why large hoarders must be diluted by perpetual debasement. Otherwise they would enslave humanity in their vested interest. Society fights back, which is why government is compelled to redistribute. But government is captured by the elite. What a racket! All because we don't have a technology to dilute decentralized.

But we do! We just are not using it!

Note 5% per year is a very small tax to a fast growing smaller enterprise, yet it is naturally limiting the size of large holdings, because very large capital can do nearly nothing but lend at prevailing usury rates.

P.S. If you become rich, forget about growing your wealth. Invest (risk) it on venture capitalism. You will always have enough to eat. In fact, you will probably become as wealthy as King Solomon both materially, in compassion, and in wisdom. I wish this on you.

[DoomDumas]

BTC are less concentrated than fiat !

Do you research instead of being jealous and crying !

[AnonyMint]

BTC are less concentrated than fiat !

Do you research instead of being jealous and crying !

Mathematically myopic mistake.

BTC are not distributed to even 1 / 1000 of all those who have fiat.

Why do butt hurt Bitards always assume I am jealous or crying? When I am getting ready to kick your ass, it doesn't mean I am jealous or weak, it means I see low hanging fruit.

[rpietila]

BTC are less concentrated than fiat !

Do you research instead of being jealous and crying !

Mathematically myopic mistake.

BTC are not distributed to even 1 / 1000 of all those who have fiat.

Why do butt hurt Bitards always assume I am crying?

Hmm... how many % are actually short fiat (mortgages, credit cards)?

It may be that 100% of fiat is concentrated to 0.1% of people, if we really dig deeper into numbers.