Why I think the 21Million hard limit will never be reached - deflationary spiral

[Crypt_Current]

"Technological Progress Grows Exponentially and Reaches Infinity in Finite Time". This is a contradiction. The exponential curve reaches y=infinity @ x=infinity. So the referenced page fails to define exponential growth.

You can't have "infinite progress in finite time". I agree that this is impossible.

Alright then.
Keep in mind that the site just quotes the book on the subject. So this is an "official" position.

Lets define the singularity as "technology growth reaches the rate of x2 per day.". Do you think that this is impossible?

I can't tell if it is possible.
It also could 12233x per month or 0.12x per second or whatever.

But that's irrelevant hence the above definition of it. What you are proposing is something else, just a point on a slope not a singularity (hence the name (!) )

Well... a few weeks after that point, it will be x2 per second. So, close enough. It's just a trend line, not an exact mathematical exponential function.

I don't think "singularity" is meant to be taken literally. The idea is that growth, at some point, will be so absurdly fast that it will represent an unimaginably profound shift in society/human existence. Think of it in terms of "paradigm shifting events". See this resource to get an impression of this:
http://www.singularity.com/charts/page17.html

All it's really saying is that the next "event" is coming within our lifetime. Considering the exponential nature of technological growth (growth is proportional to size. f(x) = df/dx), it seems pretty inevitable to me.

Sorry for being so off topic.

Off-topic posts serve purposes...
I was racking my brain attempting to come up with the explanation you just put forth.  DUR; Kurzweil's "singularity" is not meant to be a singularity in the strict physics sense

[1714122077]

1714122077

[1714122077]

1714122077

[1714122077]

1714122077

[1714122077]

1714122077

[Dalkore]

I don't think there is anything in the bitcoin protocol that states on exactly 21Million bitcoin will ever be made.  No just that the block reward will keep half'ing.  So if bitcoins value goes up and more decimal places are and keep getting added as the value of bitcoin goes up then the block reward can keep getting paid.  Even if the block reward gets really small as long as the value of bitcoin keeps rising and more decimal places are added then a valuable block reward can keep being paid.  At some point in the future the amount of newly created bitcoins entering the market will be similar to the amount of gold entering the gold market.  As where we are at now with such a high block reward is like a gold-rush.

It may or may not be, but I believe the sheer amount of computing that will be required to get that last BTC out of the system will be impressive.

[Dabs]

I don't see it mentioned or I may have missed it, but don't forget the transaction fees. They may one day be more than the mining block reward.

[hashman]

"Technological Progress Grows Exponentially and Reaches Infinity in Finite Time". This is a contradiction. The exponential curve reaches y=infinity @ x=infinity. So the referenced page fails to define exponential growth.

You can't have "infinite progress in finite time". I agree that this is impossible.

Alright then.
Keep in mind that the site just quotes the book on the subject. So this is an "official" position.

Lets define the singularity as "technology growth reaches the rate of x2 per day.". Do you think that this is impossible?

I can't tell if it is possible.
It also could 12233x per month or 0.12x per second or whatever.

But that's irrelevant hence the above definition of it. What you are proposing is something else, just a point on a slope not a singularity (hence the name (!) )

Well... a few weeks after that point, it will be x2 per second. So, close enough. It's just a trend line, not an exact mathematical exponential function.

I don't think "singularity" is meant to be taken literally. The idea is that growth, at some point, will be so absurdly fast that it will represent an unimaginably profound shift in society/human existence. Think of it in terms of "paradigm shifting events". See this resource to get an impression of this:
http://www.singularity.com/charts/page17.html

All it's really saying is that the next "event" is coming within our lifetime. Considering the exponential nature of technological growth (growth is proportional to size. f(x) = df/dx), it seems pretty inevitable to me.

Sorry for being so off topic.

Wow that is a lot of hand waving.  Maybe we can fly soon.

What do you mean by "technological growth"?  it looks like you are using a scalar quantity "f" in your equation.  What does it represent? 

[matthewh3]

"Technological Progress Grows Exponentially and Reaches Infinity in Finite Time". This is a contradiction. The exponential curve reaches y=infinity @ x=infinity. So the referenced page fails to define exponential growth.

You can't have "infinite progress in finite time". I agree that this is impossible.

Alright then.
Keep in mind that the site just quotes the book on the subject. So this is an "official" position.

Lets define the singularity as "technology growth reaches the rate of x2 per day.". Do you think that this is impossible?

I can't tell if it is possible.
It also could 12233x per month or 0.12x per second or whatever.

But that's irrelevant hence the above definition of it. What you are proposing is something else, just a point on a slope not a singularity (hence the name (!) )

Well... a few weeks after that point, it will be x2 per second. So, close enough. It's just a trend line, not an exact mathematical exponential function.

I don't think "singularity" is meant to be taken literally. The idea is that growth, at some point, will be so absurdly fast that it will represent an unimaginably profound shift in society/human existence. Think of it in terms of "paradigm shifting events". See this resource to get an impression of this:
http://www.singularity.com/charts/page17.html

All it's really saying is that the next "event" is coming within our lifetime. Considering the exponential nature of technological growth (growth is proportional to size. f(x) = df/dx), it seems pretty inevitable to me.

Sorry for being so off topic.

Wow that is a lot of hand waving.  Maybe we can fly soon.

What do you mean by "technological growth"?  it looks like you are using a scalar quantity "f" in your equation.  What does it represent? 

The basic idea is a self aware concious A.I more intelligent than humans will be created within the next forty years.  Which could invent a superior version of its self which in turn will invent an even cleverer version and so on.  An intelligence explosion and event horizon for mankind.  Just as Moore's law is predicted to fall off the singularity will kick in.

[asdf]

Well... a few weeks after that point, it will be x2 per second. So, close enough. It's just a trend line, not an exact mathematical exponential function.

I don't think "singularity" is meant to be taken literally. The idea is that growth, at some point, will be so absurdly fast that it will represent an unimaginably profound shift in society/human existence. Think of it in terms of "paradigm shifting events". See this resource to get an impression of this:
http://www.singularity.com/charts/page17.html

All it's really saying is that the next "event" is coming within our lifetime. Considering the exponential nature of technological growth (growth is proportional to size. f(x) = df/dx), it seems pretty inevitable to me.

Sorry for being so off topic.

Wow that is a lot of hand waving.  Maybe we can fly soon.

What do you mean by "technological growth"?  it looks like you are using a scalar quantity "f" in your equation.  What does it represent? 

I'm just referencing an already documented theory.

technological growth can be measured in a few ways, for example: computational capacity per $. The interesting thing is, whichever metric you use, the growth is exponential.

[mp420]

I think there's a theoretical reason to add bits to the protocol but it isn't at all related to the block reward.

Think of the following:

A: There's a hard limit on the total amount of atomary value units in the bitcoin system.
B: Every year some bitcoins are lost forever.
C: It's very likely that the proportion of all bitcoins left that are lost in a time unit (eg. one year) has a lower limit.

If A & B & C, eventually all bitcoins will be lost.

Of course, this will take a long time. And by adding bits the lifetime of bitcoin can be expanded indefinitely. So, we need to add one bit per "half of all bitcoins lost" time.

[hashman]

The basic idea is a self aware concious A.I more intelligent than humans will be created within the next forty years.  Which could invent a superior version of its self which in turn will invent an even cleverer version and so on.  An intelligence explosion and event horizon for mankind.  Just as Moore's law is predicted to fall off the singularity will kick in.

One could easily argue that an A.I. more intelligent than humans was created 40 years ago.  Certainly multiplication of large numbers was handled much faster by machines 40 years ago.  And yes, we use computers to design the next generation of computers.  So does this mean the singularity already happened?  What explosion or event horizon did we see? 

[hashman]

Wow that is a lot of hand waving.  Maybe we can fly soon.

What do you mean by "technological growth"?  it looks like you are using a scalar quantity "f" in your equation.  What does it represent? 

I'm just referencing an already documented theory.

technological growth can be measured in a few ways, for example: computational capacity per $. The interesting thing is, whichever metric you use, the growth is exponential.

Well I think a lot of people in this forum expect flops per USD to eventually go down, as USDs in circulation grow faster than transistors per square mm.  There are some physical limits to the number of transistors one can build with a few atoms.. whereas there is no physical limit to the amount of USD in your bank account. 

Perhaps the singularity you refer to is best represented by the amount of memory used by my music player.  Soon my MP3 player, with decreased functionality, will use terabytes of ram.  Great!  Technological progress!  Oh, did I mention the music will also be at best the same? 

[matthewh3]

The basic idea is a self aware concious A.I more intelligent than humans will be created within the next forty years.  Which could invent a superior version of its self which in turn will invent an even cleverer version and so on.  An intelligence explosion and event horizon for mankind.  Just as Moore's law is predicted to fall off the singularity will kick in.

One could easily argue that an A.I. more intelligent than humans was created 40 years ago.  Certainly multiplication of large numbers was handled much faster by machines 40 years ago.  And yes, we use computers to design the next generation of computers.  So does this mean the singularity already happened?  What explosion or event horizon did we see? 

[MoonShadow]

The basic idea is a self aware concious A.I more intelligent than humans will be created within the next forty years.  Which could invent a superior version of its self which in turn will invent an even cleverer version and so on.  An intelligence explosion and event horizon for mankind.  Just as Moore's law is predicted to fall off the singularity will kick in.

One could easily argue that an A.I. more intelligent than humans was created 40 years ago.  Certainly multiplication of large numbers was handled much faster by machines 40 years ago.  And yes, we use computers to design the next generation of computers.  So does this mean the singularity already happened?  What explosion or event horizon did we see? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec's_paradox

Creating an AI capable of exceeding human limits of intelligence is almost trivial, particularly when confined to particular definitions of intelligence such as aptitude at the game of Chess.  But until we understand ourselves, we can't hope to teach a computer to do things that come naturally to an infant.

http://cvdazzle.com/

Therefore, the architect is as doomed by smart computer systems as the Disney animator, but the skilled laborer is irreplacable.

[hashman]

Sure, if we equate intelligence with the speed at which a dead machine can follow instructions. But if we define intelligence as "humane self-awareness" / consciousness, then A.I. would be one hell of a breakthrough. How tricky is it to create something that we can't understand?

Yeah, if we define AI as human, then the only AIs are humans.  Pretty cheap to make and also pass the Turing test.

BTW phototropism implies consciousness in plants. 
A rock does a pretty good job at sensing its environment and doing just what it wants to do.  For example the moon can sense the local space-time metric and wants to orbit the earth.