Economic Devastation

[TPTB_need_war]

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/metcalfes-law-is-wrong

There are common-sense arguments that suggest Metcalfe's and Reed's laws are incorrect.

If you quote bullshit academic ivory tower armchair cathedrals with no evidence and no real world experience, I can quote actual real world evidence that Bitcoin is tracking Metcalf's law:

First a math point about relating adoption rate to price. Peter R confirmed upthread with a chart that proxies for adoption, N, are tracking price = N x N.

I suppose you forgot the basic tenet that the scientific method requires real world verification.

[1715245995]

1715245995

[TPTB_need_war]

This so called law is obviously and intuitively wrong. It fails to acknowledge limits on the number of inbound and outbound connections a member in a group-forming network can manage. The actual maximum-value structure is much sparser than Reed's guesstimate would suggest.

Hey technological dunce, servers don't have a Dunbar limit. Even users of P2P don't have to be limited by their Dunbar limit, because P2P is automated (which is probably why Bitcoin is tracking Metcalf's law).

My server for new website is accepting all connection requests to it and doesn't need to ask me first. Duh!

While it is true that Reed's law doesn't apply to all the users on the internet because they don't all connect with each other over the internet (i.e. P2P is not used yet by all users, although I plan to change that!), the article you cited admits that Reed stipulated that his law only applied to groups wherein all the users did interact with each other.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/metcalfes-law-is-wrong

At the other extreme, exponential--that is, 2ⁿ--growth, has been called Reed's Law, in honor of computer networking and software pioneer David P. Reed. Reed proposed that the value of networks that allow the formation of groups, such as AOL's chat rooms or Yahoo's mailing lists, grows proportionally with 2ⁿ.

If we limit my proof to only servers, we still find that my math about relative complexity applies — the costs of the connections is growing slower than the complexity value of the virtual IP network. This is because the network self-organizes into a hierarchical hub-and-spoke topology that is more efficient than a fully connected mesh. Thus the entropy is grower faster than the potential energy can according to the Conservation of Energy, and this gain is coming from efficiency of topology. You can quibble about the exact model of the growth of the virtual IP network, but you will never be able to argue that is not growing at a greater complexity scale than the cost of the physical network.

Although you won't admit it you are essentially trying to prove the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. You have no chance of success.  If you insist on trying you need to make the argument using the math of thermodynamics not business school guesswork.

Don't flatter yourself. I was already well aware that you would think that and it is obvious why you would think that. Really I have your thinking all mapped out already. I know why you are wrong. I was going to address that fundamental math in the more abstract essay. Nevertheless the math above is irrefutable.

Start searching now for your mistake instead of assuming incorrectly and egotistically presuming that my thought process was not exhaustive (when have I ever demonstrated myopia?! never!), and see if you can figure it out before I tell you.

You were correct before when you agreed with me that some top down constraints are needed to ensure convergence. You should return to your prior and correct insight.

The network is free market, self-organizing into a plurarity of top-down managed mesh or bus connected hubs which multifurcate (spoke topology) to the network ends.

I am arguing against a monopoly on (force) top-down management, because it has an entropy approaching 0. Someday you will get this distinction into your hard head.

AnonyMint I can tell you only spent 5 minutes on this.

It is clear you do not have the time currently to do this topic justice. I am content to leave the matter in dispute. Let's return to it later when you can give it more attention.

Flattering your ignorance with platitudes is noise. You'd be wiser to stop interjecting those incorrect barbs and stick to futilely, incorrectly arguing the facts.

In your stubborn ignorance, you are going to miss a huge opportunity to become a $billionaire. You are like the politically correct, mainstream educated fools who told Columbus not to sail because the world is flat.

Your disingenuous behavior is causing me to not ever want to be your friend in future, even after you finally realize I am correct. All the apologies you could make won't erase the memory I will have of how you prefer disingenuous ego (you appear to be so worried about your reputation as if that is your productive value in society whereas I shred my reputation every damn day because my value to society is actual production and pursuit of truth, ego be damned!) over intellectual pursuit of truth. If you were sincere, you would have at least explored the point I make above. It is certainly obvious to someone of your intellect. Or are you really that myopic? Well I have had a few indications that you are that myopic, such as the rash investment decision, etc.. So perhaps this isn't insincerety but rather just a mental handicap? Then I guess I should be empathetic.

[TPTB_need_war]

People flash crash Bitcoin all the time and that seems to be cheered on by lots of the bears on the boards, how come if you do it to a stock market it is illegal?

Because he is a Marxist fool who wants to hand the keys to a monopoly on force to a collective enforcement authority.

Then he wonders why the result he gets is corrupted.

It is like those in Hawaii who built their homes next to an active volcano and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

Sheeople are so amusing like a dog who attacks his own tail and doesn't realize it.

[TPTB_need_war]

Although you won't admit it you are essentially trying to prove the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. You have no chance of success.  If you insist on trying you need to make the argument using the math of thermodynamics not business school guesswork.

Don't flatter yourself. I was already well aware that you would think that and it is obvious why you would think that. Really I have your thinking all mapped out already. I know why you are wrong. I was going to address that fundamental math in the more abstract essay. Nevertheless the math above is irrefutable.

Start searching now for your mistake instead of assuming incorrectly and egotistically presuming that my thought process was not exhaustive (when have I ever demonstrated myopia?! never!), and see if you can figure it out before I tell you.

Your mistake is you are conflating energy and entropy.

It is true that a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is not possible to attain 100% efficiency in a thermal transfer process because we would need an infinite reservoir (heat sink) of absolute 0 temperature internally and an infinite external ambient environment (heat source) of infinite temperature.

What is being considered with the Conservation of Energy in the First Law of Thermodynamics and the transfer of Heat in the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the fact that the matter of the universe is constant. I was going to go more abstractly into what the matter of the universe is, because I have unifying theory on that which I think will be breakthrough. But suffice it to say that the matter of the universe does not increase nor decrease. Btw, my future elucidation will explain why this is required else the universe would need to have a fixed, absolute origin and edge and thus could not exist (would collapse into an infinitesimal point), but that is not elucidation is not necessary for the point we need to discuss now.

Whereas the entropy, i.e. the probabilistic degrees-of-freedom organization of the matter, of the universe is not constant and is always increasing. This is the entropic force and the other forces and macroscopic effects emerge from it, e.g. gravity emerges from the entropic force. See the matter of the universe is uninteresting. It doesn't cause any thing to happen. It is the organization of the matter that defines the various macroscopic effects, such as potential energy, kinetic energy, heat, etc..

The Second Law tells us that entropy is always created by any thermodynamic process (except for idealized reversible processes which never occur in nature).

Thus the entropy created by the internet which exceeds the potential energy that can be created by the work done of building the physical internet, is an increase in efficiency above 100%. But that > 100% efficiency is not in terms of energy, but rather in terms of entropy. Thus it does not violate the Conservation of Energy.

Measuring efficiency in terms of energy is myopic, because for example I can achieve near to 100% efficiency for transferring energy from reservoir (e.g. battery) to another but that hasn't achieved anything useful.

The useful work as far as nature is concerned are the increases in entropy. Nature's entire holistic motivation is increasing entropy.

Thus the only definition for efficiency which has any consistently, holistic meaning is the ratio of entropy increase.

Thus (entropic) perpetual motions machines do exist! They are called Life a.k.a. nature.

Think of the thyroid gland.

First scientists said it was a trivial side organ.

Then it was sort of important.

Now almost every biochemical process can be traced back to some influence from the thyroid and related organs.

The body is stunningly complex, and even most general practitioners are only scratching the surface.

Your subordination of entropy to a 2nd class citizen of physics and nature is abomination and travesty of science and philosophical inquiry.

[CoinCube]

You'd be wiser to stop interjecting those incorrect barbs and stick to futilely, incorrectly arguing the facts.

This is true. Any barbs should be looked at as friendly gibes rather than wounding attacks. Perhaps in the spirit of competition I have been taking things too far? Fair point I will pull back from the gibes.

Don't flatter yourself. I was already well aware that you would think that and it is obvious why you would think that. Really I have your thinking all mapped out already. I know why you are wrong. I was going to address that fundamental math in the more abstract essay.

We agree on what is needed to further this discussion. On current trajectory is not one of convergence. So lets put this debate back on hold (pause) as we discussed earlier. There is no rush we can return to it later when you have time.  

Your subordination of entropy to a 2nd class citizen of physics and nature is abomination and travesty of science and philosophical inquiry.

Ah we are getting back to the philosophical now. In this area (as in so many areas it seems) we appear to be natural opponents  

[TPTB_need_war]

Your subordination of entropy to a 2nd class citizen of physics and nature is abomination and travesty of science and philosophical inquiry.

Ah we are getting back to the philosophical now. In this area (as in so many areas it seems) we appear to be natural opponents  

Free markets increase entropy. Monopolies don't. There is no argument.

If you don't want entropy increase, then you have to kill nature, because nature demands entropy increase per the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I have no more time for your nonsense. Whether it is ego (passive aggressive shit that Marxists are expert at) or not, is irrelevant.

Make some kind of argument that isn't just more obfuscation such as your mutation analogy.

Do you realize how much of my valuable time you have wasted on this nonsense of yours?

[CoinCube]

Make some kind of argument that isn't just more obfuscation such as your mutation analogy.

I have made my argument in my post on entropy upthread you have not adequately refuted it although I know you think you have.

Maybe you can do so with that essay you are talking about above maybe not. I look forward to reading it when it is done. For now like I said let's move on.

[l3552]

Google's Plan to "Estimate Web Sources' Trustworthiness"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1W32qQy_k

We are losing the war for the update of the civilization signalling system. They are pushing even more the branding of reputation with all its devils.

As we saw this solution got its momentum over the flaws on information management of prior human society.

1) The reputation tracking problem, a.k.a. the storage problem, justified an increase on investments of force. The fear of the whip granting minimum level of reputation. Flock Economics.

2) The air gaped awareness problem, a.k.a. the circulation problem, justified the commoditization of human awareness, in a way that customer acceptance is not necessary when he have no option nor contacts. Infant Economics.

3) The low aggregation problem, a.k.a. the processing problem, when miserably educated mankind justified the rise of representation in economics by marks and in politics by parties. Electoral Economics

Force, Commoditization and Representation allowed values to escalate and won against the groups of solutions that didn't, turning it on a worldwide practice. Not by conspiracy every major country acts by these methods...

They were great solutions for a world defined by the lack of pen, paper and horsepower. If the environment changed this it doesn't mean we have to go all the way back to anarchical technological tribalism it only means that we have to review what were the problems solved by the last system, the problems we face now and think about new solutions.

With rep tracking, there is no need for the use of force; with instant communication, there is no need to oversimplify human evaluation; with broadly education, there is no need for permanent eunuch dinosaurs institutions aka “over commitment to egregious error”.

But again. If your solution, or any other, can't maintain the present levels of wealthy nor solve the previous problems human society already fought to scale-up you can be sure as hell they will do more of the same because it is what they can do without enough mind dragging power. MORE FORCE FOR MORE REPUTATION UNTIL WAR IS PEACE. MORE COMMODITIZATION RESTRICTIONS ON YOUR MONEY SUPPLY AND PROPRIETY UNTIL YOU DO NOT HAVE CHOICES. MORE REPRESENTATION UNTIL FREE SPEECH IS FINALLY OUTLAWED AND EVERY HUMAN BEING IS PERMANENTLY ON NARCOTICS(OR EVEN WORSE SOLUTIONS).

[TPTB_need_war]

Make some kind of argument that isn't just more obfuscation such as your mutation analogy.

I have made my argument in my post on entropy upthread you have not adequately refuted it although I know you think you have.

Maybe you can do so with that essay you are talking about above maybe not. I look forward to reading it when it is done. For now like I said let's move on.

In what way have I not refuted it?

The mutation analogy only proved that a top-down controller can't exist, because there is no a priori metric on the optimum rate of mutation. Nature obviously converges without a pre-chosen top-down structure. Any structure created is known only after the fact of the free market creating it, not a priori.

You Marxists academics just can't accept that nature doesn't need your "superior intelligence" to manage and control it. You all are jealous of nature.

Sorry man you are really pissing me off with your nonsense. Are you really this obtuse?

(if you cause me to lose this lady because I've been ignoring her communications in order to balance my work with all this communication with you, then I will never forgive you!!)

You can had better get to the fucking point!

[TPTB_need_war]

Google's Plan to "Estimate Web Sources' Trustworthiness"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1W32qQy_k

We are losing the war for the update of the civilization signalling system. They are pushing even more the branding of reputation with all its devils.

I already know how I will route around that for the Knowledge Age economy. The masses (and CoinCube) can go into that negative entropy production system and perish.

[CoinCube]

Make some kind of argument that isn't just more obfuscation such as your mutation analogy.

I have made my argument in my post on entropy upthread you have not adequately refuted it although I know you think you have.

Maybe you can do so with that essay you are talking about above maybe not. I look forward to reading it when it is done. For now like I said let's move on.

In what way have I not refuted it?

...

(if you cause me to lose this lady because I've been ignoring her communications in order to balance my work with all this communication with you, then I will never forgive you!!)

Ha ha well I certainly do not want to be responsible for that.

I worry you are assigning suboptimal amounts of personal resources to this debate.
I will answer your question but will wait to do so until exactly one week from today.

Spend some time with your lady friend. That is more important.  

[l3552]

Let me say something CoinCube will not say to you by respect you don't deserve, again, in less holistic words.

You are in internal denial. I don't know why or with what this process is relating to and it is apparent because you are always psychologically leaking trough labeling. Like, when I first told about RepCoin you summarily labeled it of Marxist. who said that? You.

Who said it will be perennial? You.
Who said it will be coercive? You.
Who said it will be non-voluntary? You.
Who said there will be only one system? You.
Who said charity will be left out of it? You. And that one I know why. You do not know social value in your own life and fail to acknowledge social capital. You should be doing some serious charity to take the chance of learning it.


But know what? It is already at work. There are plenty districts and islands doing it with the wrong tools, but soon it gonna be a thriving city on the swamp of world economics, maybe a city-state. Could be a strong tool for a Florenza like republic. Could put social distinction and titles where it deserves to exist. BUT NOoooo!

It does not matter if there will be no full representation and UN-vote system. Its Marxism!
It does not matter if the group budget will be fully transparent and completely subject to each individual approval. Its Marxism for Christ sake!
It does not matter if it kills the "public" straw man cause Its fucking Marxism!
It does not matter if it subjects justice to local law and peer evaluation. DON'T YOU SEE IT IS MARXISM?!
It does not matter if it can remove the boundaries and renew the dying system of bankruptcy and prescription. OH MY GOD THIS IS MARXGASM!

[TPTB_need_war]

Who said it will be perennial? You.
Who said it will be coercive? You.

You stated that with the non-anonymous blockchain.

Who said it will be non-voluntary? You.

That is implied by the implication by you that there can only be one system.

Who said there will be only one system? You.

For the reputation to be non-violable as you appeared to require then it would have to be only one system.

Who said charity will be left out of it? You.

I never said that. You are hallucinating.

And that one I know why. You do not know social value in your own life and fail to acknowledge social capital. You should be doing some serious charity to take the chance of learning it.

You obviously haven't read my posts in my former usernames. I doing $100s of charity every month in the Philippines and this is difficult for someone who is nearly bankrupt.

...

Do you really expect sufficient readers for a discussion about your gibberish when you don't even communicate clearly in English.

[TPTB_need_war]

CoinCube,

Indeed there is no convergence if entropy creation outstrips the rate at which the system can anneal. This is true whether there is a top-down controller or not. I don't need to deny that in order to be correct in my argument against collectivized top-down monopolies.

And that is why the free market forms a plurality of (sometimes decentralized, autononomous) top-down hierarchies as it anneals.

Are there cases of free market failure? Of course there are! The existence of the massive collectives we have now are an example of free market failure. The masses were free to choose and they chose democracy (and I assert they did because the Industrial Age gave them no better options).

The economic incentives (constraints) in the free market determine whether the free market will anneal or not. In the case of the Industrial Age, it was like a relapsing Multiple Sclerosis, in that the incentives lead to massive concentration of productive (monetary) capital and massive collectives as the only way humans could cope (it as a lose-lose structure for all involved including the capitalists!). So the system periodically relapses into collapse and resets again into the same malaise because the economic incentives haven't changed.

But the Knowledge Age changes the economic incentives, and so it doesn't matter what you or I prefer philosophically. The free market will determine the outcome and I am confident that the economic incentives are now such that the collectives will be destroyed. Those who can't adapt will huddle into the one-world reserve NWO and perish with it. Those who can adapt will prosper in a glorious (not "repulsive") decentralized, anonymous Knowledge Age.

There is nothing factual you can write that is contrary.

The mutation analogy you wrote about is reinforcing my point! There is no one in control of evolution. Species with the wrong parameters perish. Let them go gracefully. Accept that nature is in control the parameters, not us.

We can avail of opportunities to change those parameters, e.g. the technology is recently available for us to do the work necessary to enable the Knowledge Age. But none of us planned that. It was just the natural progression of entropy (technology).

Marxists are so self-important.

What matters is what the free market will do now. It's ALWAYS in control.

P.S. I hope you realize I just wrote that Marxism was created by the free market, because of the technological limitations of the Industrial Age (and prior).

[l3552]

And that one I know why. You do not know social value in your own life and fail to acknowledge social capital. You should be doing some serious charity to take the chance of learning it.

You obviously haven't read my posts in my former usernames. I doing $100s of charity every month in the Philippines...

Am I the only one who can see it for what it is? The man is asked about social value and he says he pays it! HE PAYS!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7EpSirtf_E

Hello?
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me.
Is there anyone home?
Come on, Come on, Come on, now,
I hear you're feeling down.
Well, I can ease your pain
Get you on your feet again.
Relax.
I'll need some information first.
Just the basic facts.
Can you show me where it hurts?

There is no pain you are receding
A distant ship's smoke on the horizon.
You are only coming through in waves.
Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying.
When I was a child I had a FEVER My hands felt just like two balloons.
Now I've got that feeling once again
I can't explain, you would not understand
This is not how I am.

I have become comfortably numb.
(solo)
I have become comfortably numb.

O.K.
Just a little pin prick.
There'll be no more aaaaaaaaah!
But you may feel a little sick.
Can you stand up?
I do believe it's working, good.
That'll keep you going through the show
Come on it's time to go.

There is no pain you are receding
A distant ship's smoke on the horizon.
You are only coming through in waves.
Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying.
When I was a child
I caught a fleeting glimpse
Out of the corner of my eye.
I turned to look but it was gone
I cannot put my finger on it now
The child is grown,
The dream is gone.
but I have become comfortably numb.

[mrhelpful]

Heres what I learned in the course of living on this shitty ass rock that I`m stuck on.

You dont like your situation, reshuffle your damn cards to play a better hand. Why play a shitty hand, is the same choices you make in this 1 life to live philosophy.

The financial situation sucks, so become a better player in another market that isnt saturated. Or become one of another choice taking market share of that business.

None of this is all easy, so prepare yourself to work.

[TPTB_need_war]

And that one I know why. You do not know social value in your own life and fail to acknowledge social capital. You should be doing some serious charity to take the chance of learning it.

You obviously haven't read my posts in my former usernames. I doing $100s of charity every month in the Philippines...

Am I the only one who can see it for what it is? The man is asked about social value and he says he pays it! HE PAYS!

You are quite a judgmental, presumptive snot (and you are going to lead us to more sane reputational based outcomes  ).

I am personally involved in the circumstances and helping to organize better outcomes. I am involved in the social capital.

That society is trading fungible monetary units and not some non-fungible reputation hogwash you are advocating is another deep topic and my subsequent post to CoinCube applies in spades.

You are an annoyingly noisy drag on my time.

[TPTB_need_war]

CoinCube,

The implicit economic incentives in the free market drive the outcome ALWAYS.

You are correct that free market "failure" (divergent outcomes) result from too high or too low of entropy w.r.t. to the rate at which the system can iterate (anneal). Your myopia is on the fact that no one can put their hand on the entropy production and regulate it (Adam Smith's Invisible Hand is doing it). We get the entropy production that naturally fits the implicit constraints in the system. A top-down constraint only sustains because it is the most economic.

We humans can work on technology that alters those implicit constraints. That is about all we can do to effect change. Education is a total waste of time, because people will naturally anneal to the implicit constraints (humans are very adaptable).

In the Industrial Age, the most economic meant aggregation of capital (factories and labor) because production required large economies-of-scale. Thus the Theory of the Firm (top-down management) applied. As well, capture of the State by the capitalists applied, because these were all the most economic outcomes. The people were fed the delusion of democracy because this was the most economic (for them and for the capitalists). But I tell you even the capitalists know they are trapped by the one-world NWO and they don't like it. Their ROI is diminishing and they know it.

My point all along has been the Knowledge Age alters the implicit economic constraints, because it removes those requirements (benefits) for economy-of-scale beyond the groupsize of the individual. The larger entities will be less agile and thus a liability in the Knowledge Age.

The monetary system we got was the one that fit the implicit economic constraints.

What will get in the Knowledge Age is what is most economic in the new paradigm of implicit economic constraints.

It would be much more productive use of your time to analyze what the implicit constraints are and model the free market outcome, than waste your time being repulsed by your ingrained preferences (which frankly I think are just FUD any way). And yes your beloved Statism was a free market outcome of the Industrial Age (and prior). And that is why socialism thrives at this end game, because people correctly blame the free market, but without realizing that it all is changing in the Knowledge Age if they would only adapt (but their ears and eyes are covered).

The Knowledge Age threatens to alter the implicit economic constraints radically.

[OROBTC]

...

CoinCube does have one indisputable number on ya, TPTB, you DO need to spend more time with the lady in your life.

In fact, his suggestion applies even moar to me as well, our daughter will be married here in Peru in a few short days.  In a way, I am lucky because my wife & daughter have already a large part of my time well-controlled for the next few days, smile,,,  

And, no, we do NOT need any more "entropy" (chaos) here now, things are complex enough even when things are going right in this build-up to her marriage, I would guess Peru and The Philippines share that certain characteristic.

So, my comment count will decline some until I am back in the USA.

*   *   *

I3552 merits a "Zero Hedge Style" green up arrow for quoting and linking Pink Floyd...  

Music for dinosaurs like me!

[techgeek]

And that one I know why. You do not know social value in your own life and fail to acknowledge social capital. You should be doing some serious charity to take the chance of learning it.

You obviously haven't read my posts in my former usernames. I doing $100s of charity every month in the Philippines...

Am I the only one who can see it for what it is? The man is asked about social value and he says he pays it! HE PAYS!

You are quite a judgmental, presumptive snot (and you are going to lead us to more sane reputational based outcomes  ).

I am personally involved in the circumstances and helping to organize better outcomes. I am involved in the social capital.

That society is trading fungible monetary units and not some non-fungible reputation hogwash you are advocating is another deep topic and my subsequent post to CoinCube applies in spades.

You are an annoyingly noisy drag on my time.

You need to factor most people are judgmental.

Even asking genuine advice on this forum people attack you for no reason. Or your views, so I think its best to keep every insight you have to others who appreciate your time.

Just ignore that user.