Bitcoins Lost

[barbarousrelic]

The coercion that a slave is subject to (whips, beatings, torture) is entirely different than the coercion that employer-employee financial exchanges supposedly entail (the need to work the sort of job you want in order to afford the standard of living you want). The difference is drastic enough to make the comparison ludicrous.

[1713556811]

1713556811

[1713556811]

1713556811

[1713556811]

1713556811

[1713556811]

1713556811

[FatherMcGruder]

The coercion that a slave is subject to (whips, beatings, torture) is entirely different than the coercion that employer-employee financial exchanges supposedly entail (the need to work the sort of job you want in order to afford the standard of living you want). The difference is drastic enough to make the comparison ludicrous.

Today's workers obviously enjoy more comfort than slaves historically have, at least in the US. My point isn't to compare living conditions or the types of coercion that slaves and workers endure. Rather, that they both participate in coercive relationships and we should not tolerate either.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

The coercion that a slave is subject to (whips, beatings, torture) is entirely different than the coercion that employer-employee financial exchanges supposedly entail (the need to work the sort of job you want in order to afford the standard of living you want). The difference is drastic enough to make the comparison ludicrous.

Today's workers obviously enjoy more comfort than slaves historically have, at least in the US. My point isn't to compare living conditions or the types of coercion that slaves and workers endure. Rather, that they both participate in coercive relationships and we should not tolerate either.

I want to sell my services doing X for a certain amount of money (or more!) Y. If I can get Y for X, then it is not a coercive deal as I WANT THIS TO HAPPEN, and, presumably the other party does as well.

FatherMcGruder, your arguments make no sense.

[FatherMcGruder]

I want to sell my services doing X for a certain amount of money (or more!) Y. If I can get Y for X, then it is not a coercive deal as I WANT THIS TO HAPPEN, and, presumably the other party does as well.

Even if you desire such a relationship, you don't have a choice other than poverty, and that's not really a choice. You can become an employer, if you're lucky enough to control the means to do so or, more likely, you submit to an exploitive loan. In that case, you will have become a pimp, a monger, an exploiter yourself. At least you can dull the misery of that role by coddling yourself with petty luxuries.

FatherMcGruder, your arguments make no sense.

Show me the flaw then.

[friendsofkim]

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

That's a bit naive - if you were starving to death, I think you would work in my sweatshop for a piece of bread, water and a cell.

If I were a decent person, I would pay you what your work was actually worth, regardless of the fact that you have no choice but to work for with me.

[kiba]

If I were a decent person, I would pay you what your work was actually worth, regardless of the fact that you have no choice but to work for with me.

What you're actually worth is based on supply and demand, what you can negotiate, and no more.

[ryepdx]

21 quadrillion is enough.

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

Okay, I realize I'm probably being pedantic, but you realize that 20,999,999.9~ rounded up to 21,000,000 is 21 million, not 21 quadrillion, right? 1 quadrillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000. 21 quadrillion would be 21,000,000,000,000,000. Just thought I should make that clear.

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.

Yeah, absolutely. Keeping the bitcoins locked at a finite amount is analogous to having a gold standard. And it would ruin the whole p2p, decentralized aspect of our currency to have a central issuing authority.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

To those who think adding decimal places is adding coins - it's not. There is still the same amount of things, we can just break it down more.

And FatherMcGruder - If you can't see the flaw in your argument, I can't show you. You think that a voluntary contract is exploitation. I think that's silly, because it's voluntary. We're spinning our wheels here.

[FatherMcGruder]

What you're actually worth is based on supply and demand, what you can negotiate, and no more.

Supply and demand determines what one can trade for with that which he produces. If one gets traded on the market, he is livestock. Workers deserve better than the likes of livestock. If you negotiate for anything less than the value of that which you produce and the decision making power over it, you have been coerced into such an arrangement, are ignorant or delusional, or deliberately giving your labor and self-determination away for far less than you deserve.

And FatherMcGruder - If you can't see the flaw in your argument, I can't show you. You think that a voluntary contract is exploitation. I think that's silly, because it's voluntary. We're spinning our wheels here.

Why do you think that voluntary contracts always signify a lack of coercion or exploitation? I can easily think of examples where they do not.

[wb3]

Okay, I realize I'm probably being pedantic, but you realize that 20,999,999.9~ rounded up to 21,000,000 is 21 million, not 21 quadrillion, right? 1 quadrillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000. 21 quadrillion would be 21,000,000,000,000,000. Just thought I should make that clear.

No, I think the misconception is what is the base BitCoin.  

In USD the base the foundation is the penny 1¢.  

The misconception is the the base BitCoin is 0.01, it is not; the base BitCoin is 0.00000001  

So technically your 0.01 BitCoin is actually 1 Million BitCoin's  

Now take 0.00000001 and divide that into 21 Million.  That is how many BitCoins there will be.

People are already trading in the fractional amounts that get left over.

The starting point is the 0.01

[Garrett Burgwardt]

What you're actually worth is based on supply and demand, what you can negotiate, and no more.

Supply and demand determines what one can trade for with that which he produces. If one gets traded on the market, he is livestock. Workers deserve better than the likes of livestock. If you negotiate for anything less than the value of that which you produce and the decision making power over it, you have been coerced into such an arrangement, are ignorant or delusional, or deliberately giving your labor and self-determination away for far less than you deserve.

And FatherMcGruder - If you can't see the flaw in your argument, I can't show you. You think that a voluntary contract is exploitation. I think that's silly, because it's voluntary. We're spinning our wheels here.

Why do you think that voluntary contracts always signify a lack of coercion or exploitation? I can easily think of examples where they do not.

Yes yes the old 'work for me for pennies or don't and starve'. Not a valid argument - someone else will come along who needs labor and offer a better deal, the hypothetical worker can start his own business, or do contract work if there is enough demand.

[BitterTea]

Yes yes the old 'work for me for pennies or don't and starve'. Not a valid argument - someone else will come along who needs labor and offer a better deal, the hypothetical worker can start his own business, or do contract work if there is enough demand.

There is at least one case when this argument is valid - when you're talking about state capitalism (rather than free market capitalism). In state capitalism, the capitalists pay the politicians for favors, which they redeem to tilt the labor market more in their favor. Minimum wage laws, licensing regulations, tax except employer health care... all of these things sound good, but put up barriers to entry to the market. This means that the "exploited" employee must remain exploited, because it costs too much to start a competing business.

[ryepdx]

Wow, this discussion's gotten rather heated!

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

But if he doesn't want an actual house, if he only wants a month's stay, then what? You're going to end up having a landlord/renter situation no matter what, unless Bob gives away his basement. Whether he gives it away or not, it's Bob's choice and I cannot assign morality to his decision to rent unless I know more facts about the situation. Is Bob putting himself and his possessions in peril by housing Adam? Then I couldn't blame him for charging a fee. If he suffers damage and Adam flees without helping repair the damage, then at least Bob has his fee. But will Adam die for want of shelter, and has Adam come to a want of shelter through no fault of his own, and will housing Adam do no harm to Bob? Then I would say it would be right for Bob to offer his basement on more lenient terms, perhaps for free. It would be wrong of Bob to leave Adam to die.

But you argue that the landlord arrangement itself is exploitative. You argue about straw men and abstractions that have little to do with reality. In a certain situation, yes, Bob's charging of Adam would be exploitative. If he raised his rent simply because he knew Adam needed it badly, and especially if his hike in rent locks Adam into his impoverished state, then yes, that is certainly exploitative. It is wrong in the same way that stealing from a baby is wrong. It is the gratuitous taking of what I do not need from someone who cannot afford to lose what I am taking and who is powerless to stop me. That is exploitation.

If Adam, however, is simply a wanderer by choice and wishes to lodge in Bob's basement for a time, and if Bob chooses to charge him for that, and if Adam accepts, then I see no wrong. From a certain perspective this is akin to charging Adam for shelter without which he would die: in both cases I am putting a barrier in the way of what he wants. And I think this is what you mean by exploitation, Father McGruder: putting a barrier between a person and what they want. Perhaps you would add the qualifier "needless" to the word "barrier," but I would have to stop you there. Because who is to say that Bob's need to accumulate capital by renting out his basement is any lesser than Adam's need to accumulate experience and contacts by wandering from town to town?

Your arguments work in the clean-room of idealism, but they cannot stand when they meet reality. Yes, it would be nice if everyone worked according to their ability and received according to their need. Unfortunately we live in a world of scarcity. Once that scarcity is gone, or far enough removed so as to be unknown to anyone first-hand, then we may begin talking about the even distribution of wealth. Even now we might be at the cusp of being able to talk about the even distribution of life's necessities.

But really, I would rather human labor be removed from the equation before we start spreading the fruits of that labor. Once we automate farming and have food coming from fields where no human need ever have set foot, once by the simple motion of the sun and machinery we find food on our tables, then let the distribution be equal.

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.

No no, he said work or die, not be employed or die. Though I guess he did imply the latter, didn't he? But really, usually there's nothing to stop a person from becoming their own employer or from banding together with other workers to make a living. Sure, it'll take a lot of work, and sure, you might have to work at something you don't really care about, but at least nobody's employing you, right?

Even if you desire such a relationship, you don't have a choice other than poverty, and that's not really a choice. You can become an employer, if you're lucky enough to control the means to do so or, more likely, you submit to an exploitive loan. In that case, you will have become a pimp, a monger, an exploiter yourself. At least you can dull the misery of that role by coddling yourself with petty luxuries.

Um... actually, poverty is a choice. And it's not the only one. We can always become our own employers. If you desire emancipation from a regular paycheck, then learn a skill people will pay you for directly, or make something you can sell. Software is the best thing to sell, since you only have to make it once and can then sell it many times. (Bill Gates was smart about that one.)

And hiring people? How's that exploitative? If you pay fair wages, or if you give what you can give at the very least, then I can't find fault. The cooperation of a group to bring in greater wealth is still cooperation, even if the leader is somewhat autocratic.

Anyway, sorry about the dissertation! I get carried away sometimes, once I start typing.

[ryepdx]

Okay, I realize I'm probably being pedantic, but you realize that 20,999,999.9~ rounded up to 21,000,000 is 21 million, not 21 quadrillion, right? 1 quadrillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000. 21 quadrillion would be 21,000,000,000,000,000. Just thought I should make that clear.

No, I think the misconception is what is the base BitCoin.  

In USD the base the foundation is the penny 1¢.  

The misconception is the the base BitCoin is 0.01, it is not; the base BitCoin is 0.00000001  

So technically your 0.01 BitCoin is actually 1 Million BitCoin's  

Now take 0.00000001 and divide that into 21 Million.  That is how many BitCoins there will be.

People are already trading in the fractional amounts that get left over.

The starting point is the 0.01

That... really doesn't sound right. I don't think you can say that 0.01 bitcoin is one bitcoin. Because to say 0.01 bitcoin is one bitcoin is the same as saying that 0.01 bitcoin is 1 bitcoin. That doesn't hold, logically.

0.01 != 1

Any time I see the number 0.01, I don't think "one." I think "zero point zero one," or "one hundredth."

Just to back me up, here's a quote from the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin) on bitcoins:

The amount of bitcoins created per batch is never more than 50 BTC, and the awards are programmed to decrease over time down to zero, such that no more than 21 million will ever exist.

A Google search also shows that most people agree with the terminology. It's 21 million, not 21 quadrillion.

[wb3]

Ok,

I can see how people misconceive the concept. But lets look at it logically.

Lets just take the U.S. population not the world.

There are 300 Million people. Let assume BitCoin becomes a whopping success....

  How in the world can you support the economy on 21 Million BitCoins.  You Can't 

But the Genius behind it is the increase in value is built into the BitCoin. It is divisible because of the 8 places to the right of the decimal.

So lets take an example; lets assume there are currently 21 Million in existence.

21,000,000.00000000 would be the proper representation.

But the 21 Million are controlled by only 100 Million people but there is increasing demand, but you literally can't produce more. How do you meet demand. Just like this. Watch:

21,000,000.00000000 -> 210,000,000.0000000  The people that have 21 Million still have 21 Million but now there is another 189 Million to supply for the increased demand.  Basic example but you should get the idea.


Did you actually think 21 Million BitCoin could run an economy? There are over 800 Billion Physical Dollars in circulation just for our economy, and that doesn't include the electronic dollars that get sent everywhere.

[N12]

Did you actually think 21 Million BitCoin could run an economy?

No. That’s excactly why they are divisible. And this does NOT mean inflation, as the Bitcoins I hold will be divisible into as many parts as there are for everyone.

Seriously, I don’t see your problem.

[eMansipater]

I want to sell my services doing X for a certain amount of money (or more!) Y. If I can get Y for X, then it is not a coercive deal as I WANT THIS TO HAPPEN, and, presumably the other party does as well.

The mathematics on this is pretty simple to measure from a perspective of game theory.  If you have information and power symmetries all exchanges will tend toward mutual benefit.  As information or power asymmetries are introduced, the exchanger who is "upstream" of the asymmetry will tend to end up as the "more equal" partner, all other things being equal.

Information and power asymmetries are easy to measure and not even the most naive economist would pretend modern market scenarios are free of them, except as a simplifying assumption to perform large-scale simulation.  If you're familiar with game theory sitting down and modeling your "best guess" on many real-world situations might surprise you.

Given that we live in a real world where information and power asymmetries do exist, the natural conclusion is that without an intentional decision on the part of the "more equal" person many exchanges will not be mutually beneficial.  This can be hard to fit into human psychology, which is fair, and to be expected.  Many people don't seem to realise that a lot of "good people" on the upside of slavery, absent a careful re-examination, would have by default thought that things were as they should be.  Basic human psychology.  Food for thought.

Pretty much the only remaining route if the above paragraph is uncomfortable is to convert the asymmetries themselves into a "right" to profit by virtue of being smarter/stronger/etc.  I have a pretty massive IQ, and I find that difficult to stomach since I am very well aware that did not choose to be who or where I am, and my life has been pretty damn easy.

At the end of the day, no outside force is going to make the "more equal" behave one way or another.  But if they want to face their own consciences there's really no avoiding that they have to be the ones working to keep exchanges mutually beneficial.

FatherMcGruder, your arguments make no sense.

I'd give him a little more credit than that.  If the answers to these questions were as obvious as many people seem to think, there would be a lot more unanimity on these issues.

Um... actually, poverty is a choice.

Categorical assertions like this seem pretty ridiculous given the extensive data available to us.  For example, in my comparatively wealthy country children are disproportionately poor compared to the general population, and minority children even more so.  If everyone "chose" to be poor such segments would be affected with equal probability, or possibly even less considering the fact that most societies invest heavily in their children.  Clearly other factors are at play.


sincerely,
eMansipater

[wb3]

Did you actually think 21 Million BitCoin could run an economy?

No. That’s excactly why they are divisible. And this does NOT mean inflation, as the Bitcoins I hold will be divisible into as many parts as there are for everyone.

Seriously, I don’t see your problem.

I was just trying to point out the absolute minimum amount is 0.00000001 not 0.01

If you are part of a mining group, you can better understand the fractional.  The problem comes in because any amount is called the same.

100 x 1 Cent =  $1 Dollar

100 x 0.01 BitCoin = 1 BitCoin 

There exist nothing less the 1¢ in our currency so it is the foundation from which we work. The same exists in every other currency.

The foundation of the BitCoin is not 0.01 but 0.00000001  That is the starting point. Jeez if people forget that, i want all the fractional money left over everywhere. I could start a new Wall Street. 

So lets start the Naming of the amounts.

0.00000001 =  1 pence or maybe a bit
0.00000010 =  1 fallow or whatever

0.10000000 = 1 byte    0.20000000 is 2 bytes   

and the all important 1.00000000  will equal the BitCoin

but until that is done, 0.00000001 will be the BitCoin unless no one wants them, then I will take them.

[wb3]

The mathematics on this is pretty simple to measure from a perspective of game theory.  If you have information and power symmetries all exchanges will tend toward mutual benefit.  As information or power asymmetries are introduced, the exchanger who is "upstream" of the asymmetry will tend to end up as the "more equal" partner, all other things being equal.

Math?  That is Business 101

Let me ask; does the Math fit the People or the People fit the Math ?

On another matter you sound versed in high order math. I have been working on a formula compression algorithm in ternary logic where the resulting answer from a given formula is a large number resulting in 1's and 0's.  But the logic handles 3 states +0- for the calculations.

The concept is to reduce extremely large numbers to a basic formula of  x^y^z with each having 256 possibilities. And with encoding the meta data for a file and looping at each stage and keeping track of the loops and metadata while encoding such into the original binary file: to end up with a extremely small file <1000 Kb that represents the variables to be put into a Universal Formula that when decompress represents the original file.

I have achieved a 98% compression on a 1 MB randomly generated file. Most of the remaining 2% is metadata for the program.  Scaling is the issue, if versed in complexity theory (which is what most people quote to prove a flaw in the logic) I state that because the resulting answer will "Always" be consist of 1's and 0's that theory does not apply.

I need to prove the algorithm with large files, the down side is on decompression the file must expand to 8-10 times its original size.
Thats fine with relatively small files but in order to add to the Complexity Theory, I need to prove extremely large numbers. That is where thine problem lie.

Any thoughts?   

The cool thing so far, is a 1 Gb file can be compress to the 1Mb or less. The bandwidth savings will be a fortune for lots of people. Not to mention say good bye to file sharing. My ultimate goal is to be able to print out a single sheet with the variable and meta data that can be physically entered into a program to be decompressed to the original file. 

Track That !!! 

[Garrett Burgwardt]

Ok,

I can see how people misconceive the concept. But lets look at it logically.

Lets just take the U.S. population not the world.

There are 300 Million people. Let assume BitCoin becomes a whopping success....

  How in the world can you support the economy on 21 Million BitCoins.  You Can't 

But the Genius behind it is the increase in value is built into the BitCoin. It is divisible because of the 8 places to the right of the decimal.

So lets take an example; lets assume there are currently 21 Million in existence.

21,000,000.00000000 would be the proper representation.

But the 21 Million are controlled by only 100 Million people but there is increasing demand, but you literally can't produce more. How do you meet demand. Just like this. Watch:

21,000,000.00000000 -> 210,000,000.0000000  The people that have 21 Million still have 21 Million but now there is another 189 Million to supply for the increased demand.  Basic example but you should get the idea.


Did you actually think 21 Million BitCoin could run an economy? There are over 800 Billion Physical Dollars in circulation just for our economy, and that doesn't include the electronic dollars that get sent everywhere.

I'm reading your posts as you arguing that the moving of the decimal point is creating more bitcoins. Please correct me if I'm wrong - the rest of my post is in this context.



Okay. Say you have an block of gold. For whatever reason it is the only block of gold in existence, and more gold cannot be created. Trades will start off with you spending a large shaving of that block for a certain amount of work. Eventually, as the entire economy turns to running on gold, you will pay for that same amount of work with a smaller piece of gold.

The same is happening with bitcoins - the base value of a bitcoin is too much for smaller transactions because a bitcoin will be worth too much. To solve this problem, people will trade 'pieces' of a bitcoin, eg nanobitcoins, microbitcoins, etc. You aren't making more bitcoins, you simply trade fewer bitcoins for a given service.