Quote from: mortified on February 11, 2015, 09:58:54 AM
That’s not what I mean at all. Bitcoin will create entirely new industries that don’t currently exist like the internet has only begun to do. There will be plenty of incentives for operating nodes and resourceful ways to expand Bitcoin’s pipelines. It’s not just about Moore’s Law, it’s about a New Industrial Revolution, not some armchair philosophy. Your x-y financial charts will require a z-axis with Bitcoin.
This is an important clip from one of Szabo recent blogs, the significance is that it bridges all our current economic knowledge in the physical world with the software world in a very tight package:
Quote from: N.szabo
Metcalfe’s Law states that a value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of its nodes. In an area where good soils, mines, and forests are randomly distributed, the number of nodes valuable to an industrial economy is proportional to the area encompassed. The number of such nodes that can be economically accessed is an inverse square of the cost per mile of transportation. Combine this with Metcalfe’s Law and we reach a dramatic but solid mathematical conclusion: the potential value of a land transportation network is the inverse fourth power of the cost of that transportation. A reduction in transportation costs in a trade network by a factor of two increases the potential value of that network by a factor of sixteen. While a power of exactly 4.0 will usually be too high, due to redundancies, this does show how the cost of transportation can have a radical nonlinear impact on the value of the trade networks it enables. This formalizes Adam Smith’s observations: the division of labor (and thus value of an economy) increases with the extent of the market, and the extent of the market is heavily influenced by transportation costs (as he extensively discussed in his Wealth of Nations).
Now speaking of transportation costs and especially in relation to software Adam Smith makes some interesting observations that aren’t necessary against bitcoin DEPENDING on the parameters set for it:
Quote from: Smith
The gold and silver money which circulates in any country, and by means of which, the produce of its land and labour is annually circulated and distributed to the proper consumers, is, in the same manner as the ready money of the dealer, all dead stock. It is a very valuable part of the capital of the country, which produces nothing to the country. The judicious operations of banking, by substituting paper in the room of a great part of this gold and silver, enable the country to convert a great part of this dead stock into active and productive stock; into stock which produces something to the country. The gold and silver money which circulates in any country may very properly be compared to a highway, which, while it circulates and carries to market all the grass and corn of the country, produces itself not a single pile of either. The judicious operations of banking, by providing, if I may be allowed so violent a metaphor, a sort of waggon-way through the air, enable the country to convert, as it were, a great part of its highways into good pastures, and corn fields, and thereby to increase, very considerably, the annual produce of its land and labour.
Smith seemingly isn’t disliking gold and silver but rather makes observations on them and their relation to types of money that might fly freer than the physical metals (which act like highways?). And also when thinking about optimizing currencies and especially in relation to market equilibrium and voting etc, it might be helpful to consult Dr. Nash and the lectures on “Ideal Money”:
Quote from: Dr. Nash
Illustrating the principle of these optional choices, the people of Sweden recently had the opportunity of voting in a referendum on whether or not Sweden should join the eruoc-currency bloc and replace the kronor by the euro and thus use the same currency as Finland. The people voted against that, for various reasons. But it cannot be irrelevant whether or not the future quality of a currency is really assured or whether instead that it depends on the shifting sands of political decisions or the possibly arbitrary actions of a bureaucracy of officials.
It should say, or could say, a sustainable economy must necessarily be stable, stability must necessarily be secure. And these things might not necessarily have a finite-ness to them, but we might agree that stability must be achieved as a movement in time. Meaning there is no static solution. (which is how I was relevated to this dialogue/discussion https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/securing-decentralization-through-nash-equilibria/)
We understand that shells (and/or even more archaically stone tools) may arise as the foundation of a civilizations economy. but that certain metelogical expansions or discoveries may have overtaken the use of these things. Or for example there maybe have been a new discovery of more shells or metals as two civilizations collide or clash (which don’t share the same standard or in others might have plenty of shells). Such an instantaneous “rocking” of the economic standard would not be favorable for the evolution of man. But would necessarily occur over and over again until a certain point.
Having a pyramid scheme akin to the monetary supply of bitcoin (such as the decreasing blocks on the steps of a pyramid), would certainly be a great bedrock up until either the monetary standard comes to an end or a new metal standard completely takes over (ie gold becomes mined/discovered at the ideal rate, in tandem with no new collisions of continents of civilizations). Each successive bedrock technology becomes a kind of incentive for the arisal of the next. But you need a certain momentum in order to economically over come certain boundaries.
This is not different than the realization that if the great pyramids did not exist, we would today be lost to our true origins (I know some here disagree and should speak up). So then of course among other things, they attract the “sea peoples’ which is a natural evolution pointed out by Smith (https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/twon-in-relation-to-egypt-and-the-block-chain-excerpts/) in relation to what arises a foreign commerced based nation (that sea peoples necessarily are but alas the Egyptians necessarily were not).
This simply then means, that we needed to discover the entire planet, before we could stop wiping each others bedrocks out. And so rocks evolve to structures, and this might arise shells as highly transactable money, and then pyramids evolve, with certain “tally” practices, to be wiped out by metals and coins, and then soon to arise a new gold standard upon which “cash” and keynesian standards are birthed from. And then bitcoin as a new currency might move to be a gold standard to which new “currencies” technologies might arise…The key change sirs and madame’s….is simply that will not be conquering any new foreign lands of civilizations on this planet (and of course a realization our gold reserves are not at all finite).
Or in other words, the birth of “space commerce” must necessarily be secured with a stable global civilization (excerpts from Ideal Money):
Ah, I think you’ve missed my perspective! and possibly the very nature of this problem. First in relation to money and what is considered “ideal”, we should definitely consider 20 years of lectures on the subject: http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf
And then of course we must consider what it is, in fact, that does create the wealth of the wealthiest “nations” http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-h/3300-h.htm (AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. By Adam Smith)
It might be helpful as well, if you would be so kind to stand atop the great pyramid whilst we discuss this important matter:
And so truly we end up with the realization that CANNOT in fact have the ideal case, that by discovering a method or measurement then we might be able to choose what is ideal. Because we are simultaneously asking the question of what that method should be. Or in other words, because of a shit ton of backwards reverse engineering type maths, there has been a realization that there can be no consensus on the ideal. Consensus will only come on some that is not ideal.
In other words there MUST be a single static consensus and it cannot then therefore be ideal…and so in light of such insanity the only logical solution would be to take the architects advice, and I simply point out the relation of his specific advice to the royal cubit. We will tell the masses it is related perfectly to the pyramids, and that will make sense to them:
To me, and I come from a completely different paradigm, which is the obvious arising of a universal poker coin which cannot be said to be unrelated. The ideal poker markets that are eventually created by having a near instant and near costless means of exchange creates a cradle for a solution basically that is “quixcoin” (I “think” Szabo mentioned it recently and is Sergio L’s coin). I am far from technical, but to me this is the birth of the actual implementation of “mental poker”. But I instantly get confronted with the question or assertion about why one would not just use bitcoin. This is of course in relation to many skilled type games, and the markets that support them. Thats a mutibillion dollar industry that could snap over the bitcoin nearly over night which is contingent on bitcoin having some form or amount of limitations (transition from fiat to bitcoin, but ultimately to separate value from the game with separate “coins” protocols, or networks, however we view it all) . This is an incredibly interesting conversation. I am almost sad I will not be able to share the contents and meaning with many people I know irl. Someone accuses someone of being a thief, but I think rather we must all think like thieves in order to create the ultra secure platform.
I think I do see an inevitable “test” or experiment, and so then there is a democratic choice, you can vote for change or not for change, you can try to be malicious or try to be cooperative.
Here is the outline:
Here are notes on “dialogue” which may be useful:
Now, that would be the ideal situation. I’ve painted the ideal picture.
And so that is the ideal and we perhaps have the possibility for the truth of this, although somewhat shocking about how far back certain “protocol” technology may have gone:
With respect to TWON it might simply have been the outgrowing (or sinking ;p) of continents and especially in relation to the sea or “other lands” and the feasibility/economics of conquering/discovering them that caused us to “lose” this ‘technology’ bohm speaks of.
Very related vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRn23dQ_uJA
And then an auspicious comparison by bohm:
If the possibility of the choice of two coins arises, there might be some helpful strategy here: http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2008/03/logical-emergence-of-money-from-barter.html#links
So, Mr. “Registered: 27 May 2014”, where did you come from, and who exactly do you mean by “we”?
I came from the same place we all came from, we just seem to have forgotten. But to be clear I am only extrapolating the past from current knowledge (like pyramid archeology), as well as help from Szabo’s concise article’s and interesting lectures about “ideal money” and how it might come about.
I think though, we can take all this further and begin to take a look at what the market mechanism, voting system, or bargain might look like. First we need to verify we see the problem correctly (I say “we”, because I cannot self verify myself). It seems that the Architect (Gav), is suggesting after some initial pyramid data that there may in fact be an optimal “cubit” size. There are those that recognize this and will support such a change and those that have their own ideas on what is optimal. Since it must be some form of mass consensus only the popular ideas can win, and in fact it seems then we are left with the possibility of only the strongest (or well supported) concept in order to change, where as any amount of significant disagreement will necessarily produce “no change”.
We can start to ask silly questions, such as how much will the change side be willing to pay the no change side, and what form of payments will they take? In other words what is the market equilibrium in which you could offer enough incentive for those that do not support the most popular change to adopt/enact it?
If enough players voted they would not accept any amount of incentive in order to make this change (especially to the royal cubit sized blocks), then it could be shown that no change could in fact take place. What happens then if it can in fact be shown that there is some how enough incentive to transfer to those that could in fact be “bought”?
So then assuming we don’t believe the story of a random ghost person posting a 9 page solution that radically changes the world nearly overnight…
It seems then that we could think about different ways to implement bitcoin from the get go. And especially if we think in terms of building pyramids, there must then be successive iterations of such “structures”. Other types of digital currencies that may have been useful only up and until a certain point (ie hash cash). Knowing then that over history many such structures have been rebuilt using at least some remnants of old or “conquered” structures, we should expect then some extrapolations from past attempts projecting foreknowleagabe about how this iteration (bitcoin) may or may not work…
Putting a small limit on bitcoin initially then would be useful perhaps to reducing spam attacks (?), whereas at that stage a larger (but albeit) limit would possibly function the same as “no limit” (making adoption and price stabilization near impossible or impossible or more costly etc.). And so it may have been (or must have been) foreseen that in the future upon some x amount of acceptance (ie probably decentralized exchanges locking into equilibrium) that there would in fact need to be a consensus amongst the users (which should have the most political influence or at least enough vs the mining pools). If we waited too long to have this discussion, such a discussion and an intelligent (or most or more useful) consensus, would be difficult, near impossible, or impossible to arrive at.
What is interesting is seemingly all major currencies in the world have been stabilizing vs bitocin in the last few weeks:
This does in fact seem to imply that the problem is really simply only consensus. And such a problem could seemingly be solved with reason rather than conflict. In other words, it is possibly that when viewed from the correct perspective, the consensus becomes immediate and obvious. Sending the world into economic shock.
For example, is there a decision, that makes each of us bitcoin holders the richest fastest? I’m sure the collective masses will “agree” to it.
Or in other words, I’m not sure reason is the reasonable course of action here.
(all this while we watch live as euro decides the fate of the ancient nation that helped us get here, and whether or not the euro currency might dissolve itself completely http://video.consilium.europa.eu/webcast.aspx?ticket=775-983-15407)
(I just picked up 5 euros with “bitreserve” just to make it fun and interesting
“Sources are saying that #Eurogroup statement is ready but #Greek minister is on the phone trying to get a yay or nay from #Athens.”)
It would be quite helpful if we could collectively realize the direct significance of the lecture ideal money but I will continue to post clips that are related/prophetic:
Illustrating the principle of these optional choices, the people of Sweden recently had the opportunity of voting in a referendum on whether or not Sweden should join the euro-currency bloc and replace the kronor by the euro and thus use the same currency as Finland. The people voted against that, for various reasons. But it cannot be irrelevant whether or not the future quality of a currency is really assured or whether instead that it depends on the shifting sands of political decisions or the possibly arbitrary actions of a bureaucracy of officials.
I do not at all mean to suggest the consensus must be 100%, but rest assured there is some amount of “political” popularity the consensus must have because ultimately bitcoin is simply a bunch of people that have gotten together to agree…
If an important decision fragments the community too much then nothing really matters, you dissolve the entire movement. We shouldn’t need to show the maths or computations for that. I’m not sure if we realize this is the difficulty, and the only difficulty. Those that are arguing clear points, from clearly sides, do not seem to fully grasp the difficulty of the issue. In short, the trade offs do not permit “ideal-ness”, and the logical argument is not necessarily going to align a large enough consensus.
What we seem to have gents (and ladies!), is a very clear game, possibly only akin to a complex PD, and what we are seemingly about to realize, is a new type of solution that brings about a new social paradigm. But what I am seeing, and my gift is only solutions and never to explain them…is many of the variables of this game cancel each other out…leaving only a SINGLE POSSIBLE FAVORABLE clear path forward…
We might continue
So isn’t the really question here, in another form, whether or not Satoshi is an Alchemist? Or whether or not they have turned something that is not gold into gold? And that this is not so true unless there is some limited block size that means bitcoin wouldn’t be the highly transactable good some expect it to be. Interesting this “religion” or “myth” about what we call “alchemy” that certain peoples might be so knowledgeable they could do such an impossible task. Much like the solution to the byzantine generals problem.
“Technology – The dawn of Western alchemy is sometimes associated with that of metallurgy, extending back to 3500 BCE. Many writings were lost when the emperor Diocletian ordered the burning of alchemical books after suppressing a revolt in Alexandria (292 CE). Few original Egyptian documents on alchemy have survived, most notable among them the Stockholm papyrus and the Leyden papyrus X. Dating from 300 to 500 CE, they contained recipes for dyeing and making artificial gemstones, cleaning and fabricating pearls, and manufacturing of imitation gold and silver. These writings lack the mystical, philosophical elements of alchemy, but do contain the works of Bolus of Mendes (or Pseudo-Democritus) which aligned these recipes with theoretical knowledge of astrology and the Classical elements. Between the time of Bolus and Zosimos, the change took place that transformed this metallurgy into a Hermetic art.”
And this is interesting I think in relation to what is called the philosophers stone, “sometimes believed to be an elixir of life”, in relation to what the ramifications might be of a single global currency standard (if the community came to a consensus that bitcoin should be a “gold”).
“Mention of the philosophers’ stone in writing can be found as far back as Cheirokmeta by Zosimos of Panopolis (c. 300 AD). Alchemical writers assign a longer history. Elias Ashmole and the anonymous author of Gloria Mundi (1620) claim that its history goes back to Adam who acquired the knowledge of the stone directly from God. This knowledge was said to be passed down through biblical patriarchs, giving them their longevity. The legend of the stone was also compared to the biblical history of the Temple of Solomon and the rejected cornerstone described in Psalm 118.”
Many religions seem to have this lore:
I do have an interesting insight into the squaring of the circle as well, but I should save it for a later post, and reference it here:
Gold can actually be synthesized (interesting word “syn-thesis), apparently it is costly (for now):
Very small amounts of gold can be created artificially with particle accelerators or nuclear reactors, see Gold in synthesis. However, these methods produce radioactive isotopes and are extremely costly, requiring rare precursor isotopes and expensive product separation and purification. Thus, synthesis of gold by nuclear reaction does not appear commercially viable.”
Particle accelerators have sparked another insight, in relation to our mastery of circles/squares (specifically Pi) and in relation to building the pyramids:
Gold was synthesized from mercury by neutron bombardment in 1941, but the isotopes of gold produced were all radioactive. In 1924, a Japanese physicist, Hantaro Nagaoka, accomplished the same feat.
Gold can currently be manufactured in a nuclear reactor by irradiation either of platinum or mercury. Only the mercury isotope 196Hg, which occurs with a frequency of 0.15% in natural mercury, can be converted to gold by neutron capture, and following electron capture-decay into 197Au with slow neutrons. Other mercury isotopes are converted when irradiated with slow neutrons into one another, or formed mercury isotopes which beta decay into thallium.
Using fast neutrons, the mercury isotope 198Hg, which composes 9.97% of natural mercury, can be converted by splitting off a neutron and becoming 197Hg, which then disintegrates to stable gold. This reaction, however, possesses a smaller activation cross-section and is feasible only with un-moderated reactors. It is also possible to eject several neutrons with very high energy into the other mercury isotopes in order to form 197Hg. However such high-energy neutrons can be produced only by particle accelerators.[clarification needed]
It is in fact quite the impossible feat and therefore dubbed the mark of a madman to suggest one could in fact square a circle (Nash to the NSA):
It has been a significant problem over the history of man:
Its seems likely that our ability to more accurately calculate Pi, is very related to the macro scale evolution of our civilization in relation to the cosmos (ie our understanding of circles and how they relate to squares is crucial for the next “age”). Or in other words and in relation to the pyramids, our knowledge of the relationship of Pi and circles to squares (or that which we could measure or define) was also that which allowed such a great structure to arise and carry the back bone of our civilization.
This in relation to Mochizuki’s work is important (although on the surface seemingly unrelated):
It’s interesting (as if out of a movie), that all of these geniuses (if we include gavin the architect) seem to have converged somehow/sometime, at Princeton uni (einstin, von nueman, bohm, nash, gavin, mochizuki).
And in specific regards to Shinichi’s works (and in his own words) we do in fact have “relevance”:
The reason this is all important, and I believe should be relevated, is not only TN’s belief that Shinichi is in fact Satoshi, but also that seemingly inter-universal geometry, should allow us to Square the Circle, or in other words, I suspect Mochizuki is a “circle-squarer”, and this should then have relevance in the quantum physics field. (And more importantly but more difficult to relate, is that Mochizuki among other things seems to be laying down the formalization of the “field of consciousness” mathematically.
Here, again we recall from the discussion of Remark 3.6.2, (i), (ii), that it is only by working with such correspondences that may be described by means of set-theoretic formulas that one may obtain descriptions that allow one to calculate the operations performed in one universe from the point of view of an alien universe
No I should think not, but I should be allowed to relevate side tangents, especially since no one can match me on these interrelating subjects, and nor their interelation.
So tying this all together (getting to the points), and in relation to for example newton:
Seemingly these masters of the broad view, have some form of a break through that allows them to progress in many fields, more relevantly here we see newton had developed calculus (certainly mastering the measuring of a circle), generalized binomials, and eventually began to “quantize gravity”. Why the relation of all these things, and especially to alchemy and pegging the pound to gold? Why does one fear publishing calculus?
Newton had been reluctant to publish his calculus because he feared controversy and criticism.
In 1679, Newton returned to his work on (celestial) mechanics by considering gravitation and its effect on the orbits of planets with reference to Kepler’s laws of planetary motion.
Sir Isaac Newton is generally credited with the generalised binomial theorem, valid for any rational exponent.
I must bring forth what may at first seem not at all related, but we must trust the possibility that it is not at all unrelated:
I remember reading, some time ago, in a few places, that a Lagrangian having metric curvature terms in quadratic combinations would give rise to a “re-normalizable” theory while the regular Lagrangian (which involves simply R) of the standard GR theory does not give a “re-normalizable” theory. And this was considered by the writers to be very important in connection with attempts to form a theory of quantum gravitation.
But I don’t myself understand either re-normalization or the general theory of quantization. (To me it seems like “quantum theory” is in a sense like a transitional herbal medicine used by “witch doctors”. We don’t REALLY understand what is happening, what the ultimate truth really is, but we have a “cook book” of procedures and ritual that can bused to obtain useful and practical calculations (independent of fundamental truth).)
So it seems of some interest, indeed, that a tensor equation of fourth order may have some possible eventual connection with some conceivable theoretical concept of quantized gravity but it is for me need to find other reason for justifying the study of an equation such as that given here.
My understanding is this: I suspect then, that the problem of actually physically building a large(er and larger) pyramid truly boils down to the “geometric” problem of circling a square. Or in other words the question we face today is identical to the measurement problems the Egyptians faced. Those that call for a more accurate projection of what block size should be do not understand the problem. And this is interesting because if we think of this in relation to what should be the bedrock of our universe, or some form of standardized or uniform field energy or force, then we might understand for example gravity and its uniform relation to a sphere (ie earth). In other words if gravity were not uniform in an archaic simple thought experiment then naturally a “circle” (sphere or ellipsoid in cosmic reality) would not be the product of that uniform measurement. Furthermore then the way that gravity effects the stability of the pyramid in relation to block size, would necessarily restrict both the “economic possibility” of the size/magnitude of the largest pyramid standard that we might finally leave through a new digital gold standard.
It means we are capable of not only defining our universe, but in relation to other universes, hence “inter-universal” geometry.