Ideas for more efficient distribution of money?

[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 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.

Clever and true. But it doesn't matter because per my prior post on this page, the government exists to make sure the masses are contented with the redistribution (whether they are 1984 zombies or not is another issue, which you also explained they get accustomed to).

Unfortunately are the occasional megadeaths that occur along the way with that paradigm.

Edit: Also Bitcoin has no intrinsic value either, so actually not as clever as I initially thought.

[1713273139]

1713273139

[1713273139]

1713273139

[1713273139]

1713273139

[1713273139]

1713273139

[1713273139]

1713273139

[deisik]

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!  

I remember, yesterday you posted a message in reply to one of my posts regarding a Ponzi scheme where you stated some sheer nonsense about fractional reserve banking being a Ponzi (which was along the line of the discussion then). And just as I wanted to submit my reply and hit the Post button, your post suddenly disappeared!

[AnonyMint]

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!  

I remember, yesterday you posted a message in reply to one of my posts regarding a Ponzi scheme where you stated some sheer nonsense about fractional reserve banking being a Ponzi (which was along the line of the discussion then). And just as I wanted to submit my reply and hit the Post button, your post suddenly disappeared!

If I deleted something quickly, it might have meant I realized it was incorrect. I really don't remember writing what you claim.

When I delete my own posts, they don't go to my PM, so there is no way for me to check your claim. I would have been willing to explain what I was thinking and why I deleted if I could find the post you are referring to.

Do you remember any of what I allegedly wrote?

[deisik]

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 time are inseparable. These are the sort of deep insights on my blog:

And now you say there is some inertia in the system. Before that, you said they might not have had another job offer... What will your next dodge be?

[AnonyMint]

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 time are inseparable. These are the sort of deep insights on my blog:

And now you say there is some inertia in the system. Before that, you said they might not have had another job offer... What will your next dodge be?

I hope you will realize that is not a logical retort.

When I present an argument, it doesn't mean I have to write every implied fact which you don't realize. I can't read your mind as to what misassumptions the reader has.

If you are asserting that inertia in the system and they did not leave because they did not have another job offer are mutually exclusive, then that is illogical.

It is fairly simple to understand. Hyperinflation doesn't go to infinity

1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000..................

in the blink of an eye. Real humans have to deal with real limitations on how fast they can transact to dump money they don't trust.

Losing trust in the system doesn't mean everyone can instantly find a way to survive outside the system.

[deisik]

I remember, yesterday you posted a message in reply to one of my posts regarding a Ponzi scheme where you stated some sheer nonsense about fractional reserve banking being a Ponzi (which was along the line of the discussion then). And just as I wanted to submit my reply and hit the Post button, your post suddenly disappeared!

If I deleted something quickly, it might have meant I realized it was incorrect. I really don't remember writing what you claim.

When I delete my own posts, they don't go to my PM, so there is no way for me to check your claim. I would have been willing to explain what I was thinking and why I deleted if I could find the post you are referring to.

So now you come up with memory lapses... Splendid!

[AnonyMint]

I remember, yesterday you posted a message in reply to one of my posts regarding a Ponzi scheme where you stated some sheer nonsense about fractional reserve banking being a Ponzi (which was along the line of the discussion then). And just as I wanted to submit my reply and hit the Post button, your post suddenly disappeared!

If I deleted something quickly, it might have meant I realized it was incorrect. I really don't remember writing what you claim.

When I delete my own posts, they don't go to my PM, so there is no way for me to check your claim. I would have been willing to explain what I was thinking and why I deleted if I could find the post you are referring to.

So now you come up with memory lapses... Splendid!

And you? You remember what you claim was written obviously since you are accusing me?

[deisik]

So now you come up with memory lapses... Splendid!

Any you? You remember what you claim was written obviously since you are accusing me?

What me? You wrote a post answering me and someone else, you quoted this sentence "Whereas in a Ponzi scheme no real component in the underlying "asset" is present..." from my previous post, saying in reply that "fractional reserve banking is also a Ponzi scheme because banks create credit out of nothing and if there is a bank-run the system would crash"...

It seems that I remember what you wrote better than you yourself do!

[AnonyMint]

So now you come up with memory lapses... Splendid!

Any you? You remember what you claim was written obviously since you are accusing me?

What me? You wrote a post answering me and someone else, you quoted this sentence "Whereas in a Ponzi scheme no real component in the underlying "asset" is present..." from my previous post, saying in reply that "fractional reserve banking is also a Ponzi scheme because banks create credit out of nothing and if there is a bank-run the system would crash"...

It seems that I remember what you wrote better than you yourself do!

Sorry I did not write that. The only point I wrote in this thread was fiat is ponzi because it is based on the people's confidence (consent) to be governed.

[AnonyMint]

"Talk is cheap, show me the code"-- Linus Torvalds.

[deisik]

Sorry I did not write that. The only point I wrote in this thread was fiat is ponzi because it is based on the people's confidence (consent) to be governed.

Ok then, what about the inference from your own logic showing that fiat can't be ponzi which I wrote in one of my posts that you successfully ignored?

[User705]

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.  

Efficiency in the context of this thread is the rate (relative to the maximum possible rate) of adoption of the currency as a currency and not as an investment asset. Very few people in normal times (before sovereign debt crisis safe haven demand) considered holding dollars long-term (in your mattress, i.e paying no interest) as an investment. A hallmark feature of a currency is you rarely concern yourself with its exchange value.

I am asserting that the challenge is to design an upstart crypto-currency which has enough near-term investment appeal to drive excitement and investment adoption, while simultaneously driving synergistic adoption for spending which eventually subsumes the investment gains.

Some here are challenging my assertion.

So you want both a currency that has the hallmark feature of not being concerned with exchange rate and a currency that has investment appeal?  Are you sure you aren't mixing up currency as a unit of exchange and wealth/savings/investments as saved capital surplus?

[AnonyMint]

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.  

Efficiency in the context of this thread is the rate (relative to the maximum possible rate) of adoption of the currency as a currency and not as an investment asset. Very few people in normal times (before sovereign debt crisis safe haven demand) considered holding dollars long-term (in your mattress, i.e paying no interest) as an investment. A hallmark feature of a currency is you rarely concern yourself with its exchange value.

I am asserting that the challenge is to design an upstart crypto-currency which has enough near-term investment appeal to drive excitement and investment adoption, while simultaneously driving synergistic adoption for spending which eventually subsumes the investment gains.

Some here are challenging my assertion.

So you want both a currency that has the hallmark feature of not being concerned with exchange rate (B) and a currency that has investment appeal (A)?  Are you sure you aren't mixing up currency as a unit of exchange and wealth/savings/investments as saved capital surplus?

Realize that A comes before B. B is the goal, where at which time A cashes out without ponzi crash, because B supplies demand. This is accomplished by raising transactions to a very high level early with PC mining.

[AnonyMint]

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.

Counterarguments:

Premature optimization.
Musical chairs.

A simple, unoptimised hashing algorithm gave Bitcoin's early developers an opportunity to compete for additional rewards based on merit, neutralising the possibility of early "dumb money" that thought a supercomputer could net them all the bitcoins. Admittedly, a state of the art algorithm that is tuned for generic PCs could still present various clever opportunities, but part of the original game-plan was clearly an insurance plan against big money trying to buy their way in (too soon, that is).

Big money is going to be debased every year.

Medium-to-long-term if the debasement rate isn't high enough, someone will create a clone with a higher rate of debasement. Consumers will move to the coin that has the most stable value, so the hoarders are not going to be able to win strategically. The only gain is for early adopters as it ramps up to a currency.

Think bimetallic standard of gold and silver. Arbitrage can stabilize their relative values. Well this didn't work out because fiat (fractional reserves of gold receipts) is the measuring stick and then the supply/price can be manipulated, partially because there isn't the threat of a 3rd and 4th option (Russia cornered Pd and Pt).

The free market is taking over money now. Technology can eliminate the power vacuum. I hope.

[User705]

...

So you want both a currency that has the hallmark feature of not being concerned with exchange rate (B) and a currency that has investment appeal (A)?  Are you sure you aren't mixing up currency as a unit of exchange and wealth/savings/investments as saved capital surplus?

Realize that A comes before B. B is the goal, where at which time A cashes out without ponzi crash, because B supplies demand. This is accomplished by raising transactions to a very high level early with PC mining.

You can't have high level of transactions at an early stage because it's an early stage.  So you've arrived back at bitcoin.  Currently it is in stage A.  Possibly it will get to stage B.

[AnonyMint]

Transaction fees appear to be the major Achilles heal of Bitcoin.

[AnonyMint]

...

So you want both a currency that has the hallmark feature of not being concerned with exchange rate (B) and a currency that has investment appeal (A)?  Are you sure you aren't mixing up currency as a unit of exchange and wealth/savings/investments as saved capital surplus?

Realize that A comes before B. B is the goal, where at which time A cashes out without ponzi crash, because B supplies demand. This is accomplished by raising transactions to a very high level early with PC mining.

You can't have high level of transactions at an early stage because it's an early stage.  So you've arrived back at bitcoin.  Currently it is in stage A.  Possibly it will get to stage B.

The early adopters are always being diluted by coin rewards which are going to PC mining, which is thus deconcentrating (dispersing in smaller morsels) the coin and developing a spending demand. Imagine two curves and at some point they cross, the hoarders on the way down and the spenders on the way up. Gradually the speculative gain function declines relative to the spending function.

The 3% power-law distributed most wealthy, do not hold their net worth in currency. They hold many forms of assets.

Bitcoin can't do this, because there isn't any trend to spending which doesn't bankrupt the middle class. Thus the only way for Bitcoiners to exit is via "rake", i.e. not spending (nor investing as BTC) rather converting back to fiat.

[AnonyMint]

Try reading the links I provided, as it is explained there why your logic is incorrect. In short, the masses don't have BTC yet, they have fiat, so the relative value does impact their net worth.

You could make an argument that most people are in debt or are subsistence laborers, thus they have no net worth any way. So all they care about is receiving BTC in payment for their ongoing labor.

However, it is the middle class which still has net worth that makes that decision because only they can buy and obtain Bitcoin (unless the rich hoarders spend all on labor, but that again is chicken and egg problem because the laborers can't accept BTC because they can't spend it).

[AnonyMint]

grab a graph of gold mining costs for the last 150 years. then overlay gold prices. do you see a pattern. now thats been said i think you can guess the next task i ask you to do.

go grab a graph of mining costs/difficulty/electric costs and over lay the bitcoin price. see the pattern.

Oooh that is good. Thank you very much.

Now note how Bitcoin kills itself on funding mining.

You've just elevated my confidence substantially. Thank you. This is the most important post I've read in while.

[CoinCube]

AnonyMint I agree with your fundamental critique of finance and its consequences. What you have yet to prove in my opinion is the need of anonymity in such a currency. Should you succeed in your goals of creating a truly anonymous distributed currency that was debased over time and used world wide you would see the following benefits/consequences.

Consequences:
Starvation/shrinkage of government: Tax revenues will decline resulting in collapse of most government services
Loss of governmental ability to redistribute wealth
Government assault: Government would combat any such currency probably by trying to outlaw it and by supporting a non anonymous alternative
Increase in illegal activity: The ability to receive and spend funds over the net with complete anonymity will open the door to a wave of new and difficult to stop criminal activity.

Benefits:
Government can not tax people -> Less collectivism -> Higher degrees of freedom in the economy and thus more productivity

Given the tremendous consequences of an anonymous coin in terms of social instability/crime/government collapse why is your solution better then the status quo?

It seems to me that over time we are on a track to achieve your knowledge economy without an anonymous coin. True there will be repeated cycles of finance induced booms and busts over time but as the knowledge component of the economy grows these should get smaller and less relevant with time.

Essentially I am asking you to defend your thesis that Keynesian redistribution (partially controlled by vested interests) is worse then redistribution by anonymous coin algorithm.