Bitcoins Lost

[ribuck]

If I were a capitalist, I would then keep as much of the bitcoins for myself and give my employees as little as possible.

This problem solves itself in anarchism because barriers to becoming the capitalist employer are removed. Therefore the capitalist pig can't pay his workers too little or they set up in competition to him. Employee exploitation is only a problem in statist systems.

[1714011738]

1714011738

[1714011738]

1714011738

[1714011738]

1714011738

[1714011738]

1714011738

[1714011738]

1714011738

[FatherMcGruder]

I don't see how it can be considered exploitation if both parties enter willingly, no matter how much the cost.

It doesn't matter that either party entered the agreement willing if one party only had a selection of exploiters to choose from.

Nefario is paying me to develop the software for his bitcoin corporation. I know he will try to make a profit off of it. Meanwhile, I will get paid 120 BTC a week. That's an actual agreement in real life.

Is that exploitation? No. I like the arrangement in question.

This is after all, an amicable agreement between two moral agents. You, the outsider, is just an observer, who have nothing to do with the exchange. Whatever you think is exploitation is completely irrelevant to what I thought is a good deal, or what is moral.

Just because someone is unaware that that others exploit him, doesn't mean that he isn't subject to exploitation. For the record, I don't think your relationship with Nefario qualifies as an exploitive one. You still have the the product of your labor, the software.

If Adam wishes not to exploit Bob, he should offer his basement at no greater cost than the expenses Bob would incur, like heat, water, and general maintenance. Providing Bob with a dwelling is incentive enough for Adam to allow Bob to live in his basement. Taking more than that is exploitation.

I presume you mean 'no greater cost than the expenses Adam would incur' ?

Yeah.

If this is the case, you don't account for the expense to Adam of not having use of his basement. This is exploitative of Adam. He's losing something valuable and not getting it back from Bob.

There is no such expense. Adam ought to get enough satisfaction out of simply housing Bob.

Of course, if Adam agrees that providing Bob with a dwelling is incentive enough to allow him to live in the basement for free, than that's fine. If he does not think this is the case, then such an arrangement would be exploitative of Adam.

If Adam doesn't get enough satisfaction out of housing Bob, he needs to do something else with his basement.

I'm not sure what you mean. Say Bob wants to borrow that money to pay his heating bill while he's in college, and he wants to pay it off a year later when he's got a high paying job. What would you say is fair interest?

Adam ought to enjoy that Bob has heat and can afford college. If not, he needs to do something else with his money.

[Anonymous]

I don't think you have any say in what Adam "ought" to do with his basement and property.

If not, he needs to do something else with his money.

*sigh*

Whose money is it again?

[FatherMcGruder]

This problem solves itself in anarchism because barriers to becoming the capitalist employer are removed. Therefore the capitalist pig can't pay his workers too little or they set up in competition to him. Employee exploitation is only a problem in statist systems.

It's in the capital holders' self-interest to create barriers to keep wages low and prevent the working class from revolting.

I don't think you have any say in what Adam "ought" to do with his basement and property.

If not, he needs to do something else with his money.

*sigh*

Whose money is it again?

Adam's, of course. And with it he can chose to exploit, cooperate, or keep to himself. I encourage the hypothetical Adam, and everyone, especially us bitcoin pioneers, to avoid exploitation and cooperate.

[Anonymous]

This problem solves itself in anarchism because barriers to becoming the capitalist employer are removed. Therefore the capitalist pig can't pay his workers too little or they set up in competition to him. Employee exploitation is only a problem in statist systems.

It's in the capital holders' self-interest to create barriers to keep wages low and prevent the working class from revolting.

I don't think you have any say in what Adam "ought" to do with his basement and property.

If not, he needs to do something else with his money.

*sigh*

Whose money is it again?

Adam's, of course. And with it he can chose to exploit, cooperate, or keep to himself. I encourage the hypothetical Adam, and everyone, especially us bitcoin pioneers, to avoid exploitation and cooperate.

I simply cannot comprehend how letting somebody use your property at both parties consent could be considered exploitation in any way, despite all ignorance on either side. Your logic dictates that every individual is morally obligated to fix all ignorance they come about; however, that requires them to not be entitled to their own time.

In the end, it is not even realistic to enforce against such "exploitation".

[barbarousrelic]

If Adam doesn't get enough satisfaction out of housing Bob, he needs to do something else with his basement.

Adam ought to enjoy that Bob has heat and can afford college. If not, he needs to do something else with his money.

So Adam should either give these things away for free or not sell them at all. With only these choices, the world is going to be significantly more miserable. In an attempt to keep Bob from being 'exploited,' Bob is going to end up cold and homeless.

[Anonymous]

If Adam doesn't get enough satisfaction out of housing Bob, he needs to do something else with his basement.

Adam ought to enjoy that Bob has heat and can afford college. If not, he needs to do something else with his money.

So Adam should either give these things away for free or not sell them at all. With only these choices, the world is going to be significantly more miserable. In an attempt to keep Bob from being 'exploited,' Bob is going to end up cold and homeless.

Property with terms and conditions isn't really property at all. I've only seen this ideal work in reality within hippy communes.

[FatherMcGruder]

I simply cannot comprehend how letting somebody use your property at both parties consent could be considered exploitation in any way, despite all ignorance on either side.

It's exploitation when you don't have a free choice. Sure, we can choose our exploiters, but what kind of choice is that?

Your logic dictates that every individual is entitled to fix all ignorance they come about; however, that requires them to not be entitled to their own time.

In the end, it is not even realistic to enforce against such "exploitation".

The idea isn't to enforce against exploitation, but become aware and stop tolerating it.

So Adam should either give these things away for free or not sell them at all.

No. If you own that which your labor produces, you can sell it. Adam doesn't have anything to charge Bob for except maintenance. Merely letting Bob live in his basement doesn't require labor from Adam. So, charging rent means getting money for nothing.

With only these choices, the world is going to be significantly more miserable.

Why? You and I would control the products of our labor instead of having to hand over that control to our choice of a selection of exploiters.

In an attempt to keep Bob from being 'exploited,' Bob is going to end up cold and homeless.

No. In a world free of exploitation, Bob could construct his own shelter or share one with others, like Adam, and contribute his labor to its upkeep. Sounds pretty okay to me.

Property with terms and conditions isn't really property at all. I've only seen this ideal work in reality within hippy communes.

What terms and conditions?

[kiba]

Tt's exploitation when you don't have a free choice. Sure, we can choose our exploiters, but what kind of choice is that?

Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?

There's two choice, really: work or die.

At that point, the notion of exploitation is irrelevant. The capitalist is saving my ass. In return, I have to work in his sweatshop.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

Tt's exploitation when you don't have a free choice. Sure, we can choose our exploiters, but what kind of choice is that?

Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?

There's two choice, really: Work or die.

And if you don't like the other potential bosses, be your own!

[barbarousrelic]

No. If you own that which your labor produces, you can sell it. Adam doesn't have anything to charge Bob for except maintenance. Merely letting Bob live in his basement doesn't require labor from Adam. So, charging rent means getting money for nothing.

How do you know Adam didn't put any labor into his basement? What if Adam built this home including the finished basement? May he then rent it out?

What if he paid someone else for building and finishing the basement, with money he earned through his labor?

"Money for nothing" as you describe this situation, would be infinitely better than nothing for nothing, where Bob doesn't get to rent out the basement and he is forced to be cold and homeless or to build his own shelter.

Perhaps Adam is great at building houses, but Bob is very bad at building houses. Instead, Bob is great at growing food, which he can exchange for shelter (indirectly, through money.) You'd take away his ability to have a nice home through your attempts at avoiding 'exploitation.'

[wb3]

The numbers are hard to calculate base on varying ways of losing money but lets assume the following from 2003:

There was 630 Billion dollars in circulation. 7.3 Billion was burned up in fires. This seems a fair ratio for the BitCoin question, since some will back up, some will die, some will corrupt the file, etc..., etc....  

IRL:

Money can be replace by printing more. But it looks like just over 1% is lost each year. So the math would be easy, it will take 100 years to run out of money if you couldn't replace it. But the effects would be felt well before hand due to a lack of flow.

BitCoins.

At full implementation there would be 24 Quadrillion BitCoins. If the 1% hold true for lost BitCoins, the same amount of time. 100 years until Zero and failure since you can't replace them. It will actually be a little longer since we are still actually creating BitCoins. Probably another 15 years.

I think I have a solution that will keep the anonymity going.

When the statistical percentage based on probability reaches 50% of the BitCoins are lost. Start BitCoin v2 give everyone 2-3 years to transfer the BitCoins to v2.  Any lost or forgotten coins will be reclaimed and the process starts over. If you fail to transfer your money in 2-3 years worth of notice, to bad so sad.

[Anonymous]

No. If you own that which your labor produces, you can sell it. Adam doesn't have anything to charge Bob for except maintenance. Merely letting Bob live in his basement doesn't require labor from Adam. So, charging rent means getting money for nothing.

How do you know Adam didn't put any labor into his basement? What if Adam built this home including the finished basement? May he then rent it out?

What if he paid someone else for building and finishing the basement?

"Money for nothing" as you describe this situation, would be infinitely better than nothing for nothing, where Bob doesn't get to rent out the basement and he is forced to be cold and homeless or to build his own shelter.

Perhaps Adam is great at building houses, but Bob is very bad at building houses. Instead, Bob is great at growing food, which he can exchange for shelter (indirectly, through money.) You'd take away his ability to have a nice home through your attempts at avoiding 'exploitation.'

He also neglects to place any value over time.

Also, check your PMs, Mr. Relic.

[ryepdx]

At full implementation there would be 24 Quadrillion BitCoins. If the 1% hold true for lost BitCoins, the same amount of time. 100 years until Zero and failure since you can't replace them. It will actually be a little longer since we are still actually creating BitCoins. Probably another 15 years.

Technically there will be 21 million at full implementation. Technically if the 1% lost a year rate holds, it'll be much longer than 100 years before we run out of bitcoins. Never, if we have infinite decimals at our disposal.

When the statistical percentage based on probability reaches 50% of the BitCoins are lost. Start BitCoin v2 give everyone 2-3 years to transfer the BitCoins to v2.  Any lost or forgotten coins will be reclaimed and the process starts over. If you fail to transfer your money in 2-3 years worth of notice, to bad so sad.

Not a bad idea, though it seems like a bit of a hassle, especially considering the computing power it's going to take to get to our 21 million.

[wb3]

At full implementation there would be 24 Quadrillion BitCoins. If the 1% hold true for lost BitCoins, the same amount of time. 100 years until Zero and failure since you can't replace them. It will actually be a little longer since we are still actually creating BitCoins. Probably another 15 years.

Technically there will be 21 million at full implementation. Technically if the 1% lost a year rate holds, it'll be much longer than 100 years before we run out of bitcoins. Never, if we have infinite decimals at our disposal.

When the statistical percentage based on probability reaches 50% of the BitCoins are lost. Start BitCoin v2 give everyone 2-3 years to transfer the BitCoins to v2.  Any lost or forgotten coins will be reclaimed and the process starts over. If you fail to transfer your money in 2-3 years worth of notice, to bad so sad.

Not a bad idea, though it seems like a bit of a hassle, especially considering the computing power it's going to take to get to our 21 million.

yea, I think that would work.

From my understand by Steve Gibson, although you don't see it yet. It is 24 or maybe 21 but that is to the left of the decimal places. There are 8 spots to the right of the decimal place. That would mean the founding BitCoin would be 0.00000001, our equivalent to the penny.

The reason you don't see it is the supply demand issue. He was a real genius to solve this problem by the mining concept. If it works correctly the supply should meet demand proportionately. If supply falls behind demand then the BitCoins become more valuable which will bring more people into the system to cash in by Mining. The added CPU will quickly create the supply to meet demand. Profits made in the interim.  The cool thing is your .05 BitCoins could actually be worth alot of money down the road. You won't know until full implementation but it could be worth 500 dollars. I read someone bought 2000 BitCoins for $15. That would a 1000% increase in investment in less than 2 years.

I check the PDF to see if I am correct.

Yea, Here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ

How divisible are Bitcoins?
Technically, a Bitcoin can be divided down to 8 decimals using existing data structures, so 0.00000001 BTC is the smallest amount currently possible. Discussions about and ideas for ways to provide for even smaller quantities of Bitcoins may be created in the future if the need for them ever arises. For convenience, the program currently accepts only 2 decimal places as quantities smaller than 0.01 BTC are considered of trivial value and are usually used only to attack the network.


If you had infinite decimals at your disposal the money would be worthless. 21 quadrillion is enough. If you could just arbitrarily add money without a policy, you could devalue the whole market. Quantitative Easing. And who, gets to decide? A Federal Reserve?, a programmer?, India, Russia, China. No there needs to be a finite amount of sufficient quantity.

And you were write on the amount it is : 20999999.999999999496 BitCoins under the algorithm.

[FatherMcGruder]

Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?

There's two choice, really: work or die.

At that point, the notion of exploitation is irrelevant. The capitalist is saving my ass. In return, I have to work in his sweatshop.

Sounds like a justification for slavery.

And if you don't like the other potential bosses, be your own!

That's kind of the idea. The employee-employer relationship is exploitive and no good for employers and employees alike. Let's abandon it and form cooperative associations instead, where we, the workers, own the means of production and the products of our labor.

How do you know Adam didn't put any labor into his basement? What if Adam built this home including the finished basement? May he then rent it out?

What if he paid someone else for building and finishing the basement, with money he earned through his labor?

We can assume that Adam owns the house through his labor. Either he built it or bought it with the products of his labor. The landlord-renter relationship is still exploitive.

"Money for nothing" as you describe this situation, would be infinitely better than nothing for nothing, where Bob doesn't get to rent out the basement and he is forced to be cold and homeless or to build his own shelter.

No. Adam can also sell Bob a share of a house. Of course, Bob would then have the associated decision making power over that basement share.

Perhaps Adam is great at building houses, but Bob is very bad at building houses. Instead, Bob is great at growing food, which he can exchange for shelter (indirectly, through money.) You'd take away his ability to have a nice home through your attempts at avoiding 'exploitation.'

No. He could trade his produce for an actual house from Adam, not for a month's stay in one of Adam's houses.

[kiba]

Sounds like a justification for slavery.

What is slavery?

[FatherMcGruder]

What is slavery?

According to the Wiktionary, slavery is a condition of servitude that a slave endures. A slave is a person who is the property of another person and whose labor and also whose life often is subject to the owner's volition.

Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?

There's two choice, really: work or die.

At that point, the notion of exploitation is irrelevant. The capitalist is saving my ass. In return, I have to work in his sweatshop.

Sounds like your life is at the mercy of your employer. Your labor belongs to him, too. You are a slave, and he is your master. We should not tolerate such relationships.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

What is slavery?

According to the Wiktionary, slavery is a condition of servitude that a slave endures. A slave is a person who is the property of another person and whose labor and also whose life often is subject to the owner's volition.

Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?

There's two choice, really: work or die.

At that point, the notion of exploitation is irrelevant. The capitalist is saving my ass. In return, I have to work in his sweatshop.

Sounds like your life is at the mercy of your employer. Your labor belongs to him, too. You are a slave, and he is your master. We should not tolerate such relationships.

Many have no problem with these 'exploitative relationships'. Likely because there is nothing wrong with them. As long as all relationships are voluntary however, why does it matter? Without force or threat thereof, there is no slavery.

[FatherMcGruder]

Many have no problem with these 'exploitative relationships'. Likely because there is nothing wrong with them.

Or, they simply aren't aware of the situation. They could even be convinced that they live under the best possible conditions. Slaveholders work hard to convince their slaves, and themselves, of such false realities. For example, they basked in the notion that slavery was their burden, that they toiled to save the poor Negros. Rebellious slaves were just ungrateful. Now we have wage slavery.

As long as all relationships are voluntary however, why does it matter? Without force or threat thereof, there is no slavery.

Via flight, revolt, or purchasing their freedom, couldn't slaves voluntarily chose to emancipate themselves? Slavery is a condition in which you have limited choices due to coercion, just like how the worker finds himself under capitalism.