Bitcoins Lost

[eMansipater]

Wow, this thread was going crazy while I was away.

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 !!!

Lol--nice try, but you're about 7 years too late to snipe me on bogus compression schemes.  Have fun writing your Universal Formula though .  Regarding "does the Math fit the People or the People fit the Math?" I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Surely you're not arguing that descriptions of "the way things are" should be considered normative!  Because if you are....well.....entropy.  Hope you didn't just commit suicide there.  Or go all Agent Smith trying to take down the planet.  Order of any kind is an aberration.

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.

+1

Incidentally, if one wants to live without employing, lending, renting, or otherwise exploiting others, he will have to work.

Not sure where you get the idea that all employing, lending, renting, etc. is exploitation.  Power/knowledge asymmetries provide the opportunity for exploitation, but definitely don't necessitate it.  Just like I can continue being smarter than the general population and still act morally I can be in roles of leadership and responsibility, genuinely working away providing real value for myself and others.  Sameness and fairness are very different.  I just have to face my own conscience for how I discharge myself in those situations.  And my presence in the market as a leader helps to destroy the competitiveness of unethical power-holders.  I just need to be wary of my own desire to exploit my position for personal gain, like any other leader.  When you realise that CEO's, etc. are just social leaders like any other power holders, you begin to be scared that we have a tendency to select heavily for narcissism in those roles.

As an aside, I'm a business owner.  But there are definitely differences amongst my peers for those who try to make their businesses' operations mutually beneficial, and those who are ultimately just exploitative.

[1714009448]

1714009448

[1714009448]

1714009448

[1714009448]

1714009448

[1714009448]

1714009448

[1714009448]

1714009448

[wb3]

 

Surely you're not arguing that descriptions of "the way things are" should be considered normative!  Because if you are....well.....entropy.  Hope you didn't just commit suicide there.  Or go all Agent Smith trying to take down the planet.  Order of any kind is an aberration.

Point Being - Since I sincerely feel there are no certainties, but only the probability of occurrence with in a defined set, your application of Game Theory was presented as a proof. But all theories have their exception. Game Theory is the Prisoner's Dilemma. Now did the math match the study or did the mathematician apply the theory to the expected outcome.

Order of any kind is an aberration, is an order.  But assume no order and only random occurrence (which in reality is only a construct), the absolute randomness of everything would be an order but an impossible one. Everything reacts, that reaction will alway prevent randomness. The closest we come is in the Quantum world, but even there since we can predict the possibilities suggest that although we don't know what are causing the reactions, something is. Maybe the Higgs Boson, the observer effect, etc...

One can most definitely see a pattern in random data depending on the size and placement of the data set. So, in order to determine true randomness, you would have to see the whole data set in order to determine that it is random.  

  1234 is it random, 23949394293841234329892839283912839283 is it random, 2394939429384123432989283928391283928323949394293841234329892839283912839283 is it random now.

Point being in order to declare true randomness you would have to put the brackets around [∞].

On the compression, curious and SVG file can be shown as a 72x72 or a ∞x∞ and still be the same size. hmm, possible for graphic but not 0's and 1's. I guess that I have to give up the ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) algorithm for the Navy. Oh, well.

BTW, Do you happen to have any Ternary computer parts hanging around, they are hard to come by these days.  


Curiously, Hashes are judged by not having collisions. Basically no two alike with a given data set.  PseudoRandom. Which is funny, a true Random hash would have collisions everywhere. I propose any hash will have collisions in the algorithm, we just need a bigger data set. And when we have enough collisions, well there goes that hash system.  MD5, Sha1, 256, 512, etc... It won't matter.

[eMansipater]

Silk Road order just came in, huh?

[wb3]

Define: Misconstrue -  Reading stories and putting assumptions into them. 

What did you get out of Catcher and the Rye?    Or my favorite: Sid Hartha

[eMansipater]

Define: Misconstrue -  Reading stories and putting assumptions into them. 

What did you get out of Catcher and the Rye?    Or my favorite: Sid Hartha

You may very well be on to something incredible, my friend, but these disparate phrases are not coalescing into communication for me.  They end up as apparently just a stream of consciousness.  Which is cool and everything, but just thought I'd let you know there's no particular image or concept being formed in my mind by them.

[wb3]

Bummer, Oh well...

If I am onto something, unfortunately I like many others won't get any credit. Not our money, Not our reward. But the knowledge can't be destroyed.

Sad, that no image of either negative or positive could be formed. Some of the greatest things come from the image of the possible or not possible. For me, I love win some one says: Impossible, Can't be done, etc....  Makes me think of the how it can be done, if even having to take different routes to accomplish the task.

To many believe in the static laws, when there are none. Or belief in purposely mis-stated laws to make things seem simpler but leads many down the wrong path because of the simply stated law.

For Example:

An object at rest, tends to stay at rest unless acted upon. Should be: An objects vector tends to stay the same unless acted upon, etc...

There is not one object ever found in the macro or micro at rest. In fact the primal force of everything is motion.

Perspectives matter, Time itself is just a matter of perspective.

Imagine the amount of public keys that would be generated if the BTC indeed becomes a global currency. Collisions should occur.

But I digress, sorry to have bothered.  I bow, and bid adieu, til next time.

[myrkul]

Wow... You got the good stuff, Didn't ya?

Or.. Maybe there are some drugs you SHOULD be taking?

Either way, Thanks for sharing, but it still doesn't make much sense.

[wb3]

yea, I re-read it, sound way off and out there.

Been working on this thing for 2 days now straight, you know how it goes sometimes, I guess its time for a nap. Getting goofy, been using the forum for breaks.

Nighty, Night.

[myrkul]

yea, I re-read it, sound way off and out there.

Been working on this thing for 2 days now straight, you know how it goes sometimes, I guess its time for a nap. Getting goofy, been using the forum for breaks.

Nighty, Night.

Ah! Sleep-dep. Yeah, that will do it. Sleep well, and awaken.

[FatherMcGruder]

Please explain to me exactly how exploitation is inherent in each of these situations:

Employment

rental property

charging interest

because I don't see how, in the absence of coercion, any of these things is bad.

An employer takes advantage of his employees' lack of capital in order to direct them has he pleases and take the products of their labor for relatively little in return.

A landlord takes advantage of his tenants' lack of capital in order to take what little they get from their employers in exchange for the use of shelter on his terms.

A lender takes advantage of his borrowers' lack of capital by charging them for the privilege to use his.

[kiba]

An employer takes advantage of his employees' lack of capital in order to direct them has he pleases and take the products of their labor for relatively little in return.

A landlord takes advantage of his tenants' lack of capital in order to take what little they get from their employers in exchange for the use of shelter on his terms.

A lender takes advantage of his borrowers' lack of capital by charging them for the privilege to use his.

You see, it just doesn't resonate with me.

[Anonymous]

The default human condition is nothing. Absolute poverty. I see nothing wrong with that. I certainly don't see a problem with the occasional ignorance that is exploited that may deduct from the exploitees upgrade, that we subjectively consider the hospitable standard of living. Honestly, I don't see why anyone gives a fuck.

[eMansipater]

Please explain to me exactly how exploitation is inherent in each of these situations:

Employment

rental property

charging interest

because I don't see how, in the absence of coercion, any of these things is bad.

An employer sometimes takes advantage of his employees' lack of capital or market positioning or opportunity or vision or leadership in order to direct them as he pleases and take the products of their labor for relatively little in return.

A landlord often takes advantage of his tenants' lack of capital or connections or desire/ability to manage a property in order to take what little they get from their employers in exchange for the use of shelter on his terms.

A common type of lender takes advantage of his borrowers' lack of capital by overcharging them for the privilege to use his.

I genuinely think that exploitation is much easier and common in the heart of business than anyone these days seems to want to admit, but that conclusion only means something if you're willing to engage the complexity of the real world when you're coming to it.  None of these issues are black and white--often only the actual person in the position of power truly knows whether exploitation is going on.  I am pretty confident, though, that making blanket categorisations like this is totally ineffective at calling anyone to a higher standard--mostly because it's wrong.  In the sense of being inaccurate, that is--I'm sure you mean well.  But when you sit back and consider the lives that you've impacted, are there a lot of people in the business world on that list?  Because if so, I could be completely off base.  But if not, maybe this is why.  We do need a much higher standard in the marketplace, especially for those that hold the reins more often than not.  People who are going home saying to themselves, "that's just business" or even "that's just good business" need to know that they're lying to themselves so they can actually deal with what they're doing to themselves and others.  But you can't get there by painting the whole canvas with one giant brush, because that's not how art is done unless you're Kazimir Malevich.  And accountability is an art, make no mistake.  Anyone benefiting from an exploitative situation is going to have built themselves some pretty big psychological defenses.  And those things can blow holes in overgeneralisations from miles away.  Trust me, I would know.  My two cents.


eMansipater

[eMansipater]

The default human condition is nothing. Absolute poverty. I see nothing wrong with that. I certainly don't see a problem with the occasional ignorance that is exploited that may deduct from the exploitees upgrade, that we subjectively consider the hospitable standard of living. Honestly, I don't see why anyone gives a fuck.

Actually I think the second law of thermodynamics shows pretty clearly that the default human condition is nonexistence, or death if you prefer.  But since all of us are trying to avoid that by swimming upstream in the entropy flow, maybe defaults don't have anything to do with that.  The reason I see something wrong with that is that I've seen someone I love die simply because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time; for lack of something you could afford with your pocket change.  Our experience as the wealthy and secure of the world teaches us to ignore that because the weight of other human beings' suffering, if we actually dared to allow it into our minds, is too much for an unprepared mind to process.  Same underlying psychological issue as survivor's guilt--we wouldn't be able to handle it if we truly had to justify our lives to someone, so we find ways to avoid it (especially if that someone is ourself).

But don't kid yourself, Atlas.  Everyone gives a fuck.  Human to human attachment is so deeply wired into our psychology that those who differ even slightly in that regard (say, along the autistic spectrum) are clearly and noticeably different from the neurotypical.  It may be the hip thing in our day and age to pretend that you, or I, or any of us is somehow not human, not having to play by those rules.  To cool for it.  Above it.  But if you look deeper I think you'll find that the only reason it's important to post your not-give-a-fuckness on an internet forum in the first place is because you already do.  Our differentiated experiences as people is definitely a hard thing to understand--I can tell you that as someone who's spent a lot of time trying.  But if you want any kind of real justification you're probably going to have to work on that yourself.  Hit me up if you're curious though--I've had my life dump a fair bit of perspective in my lap from time to time.  There's plenty to go around.

eMansipater

[kiba]

Our experience as the wealthy and secure of the world teaches us to ignore that because the weight of other human beings' suffering, if we actually dared to allow it into our minds, is too much for an unprepared mind to process.  Same underlying psychological issue as survivor's guilt--we wouldn't be able to handle it if we truly had to justify our lives to someone, so we find ways to avoid it (especially if that someone is ourself).

Than our job is to push against human suffering is it not?

[eMansipater]

Our experience as the wealthy and secure of the world teaches us to ignore that because the weight of other human beings' suffering, if we actually dared to allow it into our minds, is too much for an unprepared mind to process.  Same underlying psychological issue as survivor's guilt--we wouldn't be able to handle it if we truly had to justify our lives to someone, so we find ways to avoid it (especially if that someone is ourself).

Than our job is to push against human suffering is it not?

Well, once you take a good square look at things that's pretty much the only route to a sound sleep at night, imho.

[myrkul]

An employer takes advantage of his employees' lack of capital in order to direct them has he pleases and take the products of their labor for relatively little in return.

A landlord takes advantage of his tenants' lack of capital in order to take what little they get from their employers in exchange for the use of shelter on his terms.

A lender takes advantage of his borrowers' lack of capital by charging them for the privilege to use his.

Um... No.

An employee takes advantage of an employer's abundance of capital in order to receive a regular paycheck in exchange for a little bit of his time.

A tenant takes advantage of his landlord's abundance of capital in order to receive a roof over his head (as well as potentially appliances and furniture) in exchange for an affordable amount of his capital.

A borrower takes advantage of his lender's abundance of capital to achieve goals that would be beyond his reach on his own.

So, you see, both parties benefit. If it were not so, the "exploited" people wouldn't enter into the deal without a gun to their head.

[eMansipater]

So, you see, both parties benefit. If it were not so, the "exploited" people wouldn't enter into the deal without a gun to their head.

Again, with the across the boards.  The idea that the lack of a gun guarantees non-exploitation is about as ridiculous as the idea that the existence of a business negates it.  Just stick it in a context you're familiar with for half a second--haven't you ever had a relationship that became manipulative, whether with parent, sibling, or significant other?  People exploit their power over each other up and down.  The fact that there's not firearms involved (usually) doesn't make it any less exploitative.  Let's have at least a minimal complexity of perspective here, if we're to advance opinions intended as relevant or useful.

[error]

So, you see, both parties benefit. If it were not so, the "exploited" people wouldn't enter into the deal without a gun to their head.

Again, with the across the boards.  The idea that the lack of a gun guarantees non-exploitation is about as ridiculous as the idea that the existence of a business negates it.  Just stick it in a context you're familiar with for half a second--haven't you ever had a relationship that became manipulative, whether with parent, sibling, or significant other?  People exploit their power over each other up and down.  The fact that there's not firearms involved (usually) doesn't make it any less exploitative.  Let's have at least a minimal complexity of perspective here, if we're to advance opinions intended as relevant or useful.

And who held a gun to your head to stay in such a relationship?

[FatherMcGruder]

Um... No.

An employee takes advantage of an employer's abundance of capital in order to receive a regular paycheck in exchange for a little bit of his time.

A tenant takes advantage of his landlord's abundance of capital in order to receive a roof over his head (as well as potentially appliances and furniture) in exchange for an affordable amount of his capital.

A borrower takes advantage of his lender's abundance of capital to achieve goals that would be beyond his reach on his own.

So, you see, both parties benefit. If it were not so, the "exploited" people wouldn't enter into the deal without a gun to their head.

Both parties benefit, but one much more than the other, because one has more capitalist power than the other. If employees, tenants, and borrowers had an even playing field, they would own their workplaces, their homes, and wouldn't pay interest. But they do not, because capitalism reigns.