Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - J_Smithy

Pages: [1]
1
Money / Re: On the practical defintion of Ideal Money
« on: January 05, 2017, 02:58:22 PM »

On your first point, yes I agree that we must be careful when comparing price vs value. Value is subjective and different for every consumer. Price however, is explicit and determined by the seller.
ah here it is.  what I came here to say.  Its not longer subjective, we now have a objective stable value metric-Ideal Money.  It is comparable to an optimally selected basket of commodity prices.

Quote
In terms of fiat improving, we must understand that there are many different streams of fiat money in the world. Some may improve, most I think will not.
Yes I make the point that they CAN adjust. and so there is a survival of the fittest game we will see.  I would suggest, as my opinion, that all fiat will adjust and increase in quality or at least rather I don't believe "hyperbitcoinization" that we will wake up one day and all fiat will cease to be used (perhaps "eventually) but through evolution over time).
Quote
It seems in this day and age, with the negative interest rates we are seeing, central banks are losing their ability to manage the money supply in ways they did so previously.
Yes and i think they could do worse if we didn't have an option, but now with the option I think they will be forced to provide better fiat.  Their new goal will need to be to print money that is stable in relation to what WOULD BE Ideal Money, and to do this they will use the market valuation as their barometer.  Fiats that fail will go down in respective prices.

Quote
I no longer pay much attention to fiat currenies outside of the effect they will have on bitcoin and other digital currencies.
It depends what problem we are trying to solve.  If we want the "best" money and we define the characteristics of it then I can understand, but society is trying to decide the optimal distribution of commodities and for this we would like to have a stable metric for value.  For this money COULD evolve to provide it, but there is nothing to suggest that it can be designed to do so ( I think rather it has been shown through strong argument it cannot).

But if our fiats begin to tend towards strength in the nashian sense (ie against an ideal currency) then I think it could be said that our global currency systems are finally "tuned" to solve this problem of needing a stable metric of value.

creating the best money doesn't solve a useful problem in this sense, rather money could be used to solve a very special problem, scaling and idealizing bitcoin doesn't address this problem.

2
Money / Re: On the practical defintion of Ideal Money
« on: December 22, 2016, 01:06:18 PM »
Quote
I think the idea of gold retaining its value describes its usefullness for purchasing general goods and services.
Now this doesn't speak to the reason WHY gold would retain its value tho, but it does suggest that there is a retention of value in relation to a basket of good/commodities etc. 

Quote
This is why bitcoin will continue to stabilize and become more stable than all fiat currencies - the method in which the money supply is regulated.
Now this is where we have to be careful and I think we can introduce words and have caution towards their shared meaning.

bitcoin will "stabilize" means different things if we are thinking of "price" or "value" right?  What does it mean to be stable in price vs stable in value?  What does it mean to be stable in value (ie in relation to what?)?

In regard to fiat, most fiat is targeted at a certain inflation rate, targeting a purchasing power, and allegedly determining its value.

So fiat COULD be used to target stability like bitcoin, in the supply of money sense, so we can think of the relationship between the competition of all of these currencies and their policies (ie if bitcoin gains popularity, central banks might not want to continue to devalue the currencies they are responsible for)

Do we see this could play out, that the quality of fiat might improve?


3
Money / On the practical defintion of Ideal Money
« on: December 21, 2016, 11:22:37 AM »
I see that all players are locked in their understanding and approach to understanding and optimizing our currency systems and global economies. But I also see with passion and sincerity, and since I have a better understanding of that which I wish to express, we can come together under a shared meaning of what is Ideal Money and what is the significance of it (after all a really really smart man spent 20 years expressing the subject to us through various lectures and writings).

So we can be simple about this, because me and Travis have talked before and exchange some articles and ideas etc....

And because we have a similar understanding of many related subjects...

We understand that gold has a traditional value based on our use of it as an inflation hedge and a good quality money in the sense of not losing its value.

If we can think of this type of value, that golds purchasing power might remain decently steady over time, what are we comparing "steady" too?

Purchasing power yes, but what does it mean for something to be stable in "value"?

What is "value" as a unit and what can it be comparable too?

What is the problem of creating a currency that is stable in value?

Do we have thoughts on these questions?

4
Money / Re: A General Summary for John Nash’s Proposal: Ideal Money
« on: July 23, 2015, 01:26:05 PM »
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3dyvs9/block_size_debate_is_insignificant_and_a_red/

Quote
I do think much of the debate is truly just peoples throwing out "attacks" on consensus and that much of the intelligent elite really just want to test the social cohesion. What seems obvious to me is the more significant the proposed change, and the more consensus there is for that change, the less stability bitcoin has. And I would like to suggest stability (of a special kind) is exactly what bitcoins' utility is and should be.

There are a plethora of peoples here, mostly probably new to bitcoin, as I was and still am, who want bitcoin to be their own personal money. Alas this is not its intended primary use, nor should it be. Please allow me to explain why.

Money is a social tool, its favorable purpose is to facilitate trade so that both parties might make favorable gain. It is necessary for a society to flourish. If one was alone, money could have no use. What I mean to say is that the utility of an optimal money is about the group, not the individuals wishes.

How many peoples here, have a very strong opinion on what bitcoin should be, but have not deeply inquired into what ideal money is!? Isn't this the real question here? What is ideal money, for society, NOT for yourself!

Everyone is not thinking, but simply answering the question in terms of their own want to purchase "coffee". But there is a real world out there, that already exists with extensive and convoluted banking systems. Whole nations and international coalitions.

Your coffee money doesn't even come close to addressing reality. Not even close.

The question of how do I want bitcoin to work is the selfish unintelligent viewpoint. And it doesn't even serve the self. Money is a very special thing, it is a very peculiar question to ask how can I design a money so that is serves "me", because the purpose of money is to aid the individual by facilitating THE GROUP!

Reducing bitcoin to something we make massive changes to in order to suit the ignorant individual is an incredibly small and short sighted vision for bitcoin. One could make a new currency every second to do that and one would wonder why your favorite coffee shop wouldn't make their own currency (hint they have!).

Bitcoin's greatest utility is stability. Something the collective mass can psychologically rely on in the same why they THINK they can rely on gold.

This subject has already been written about extensively, well into the future: http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf

I don't take people serious who haven't at least read the argument proposed. If you don't know the lecture "Ideal Money" I don't think you should be debating block size.

5
Money / Re: A General Summary for John Nash’s Proposal: Ideal Money
« on: July 23, 2015, 01:10:05 PM »
What is your belief into the block size debate Smithy?

Should we continue to increase it for functionality purposes, or are you alluding to this as a 'slippery slope'?
I suspect that block size is best where it is, which causes it to function like gold rather than a coffee type currency.  I suspect that there can be no consensus for significant change and that "satoshi" envisioned it.

Everyone wants block size to facilitate there own individual want, but money is that peculiar thing that's purpose is to facilitate a kind of cooperative gain.

I've been writing a ton trying to put together an argument that change is impossible because to many people have incentive to disagree, but it's quite a big "proof" to show.

All in all, and especially if Szabo is satoshi or part of "satoshi", I suspect the scientific way is too say, "We don't know what everyone will choose, we know what is ideal but the future is not determined" :)

6
Money / A General Summary for John Nash’s Proposal: Ideal Money
« on: July 12, 2015, 10:51:08 PM »
Trav tells me to post my thoughts in here and this is at the cusp of my writing and understanding on the subject of bitcoin. A short summary (and the full writing):

Quote
The suggestion here is the ICPI, that John Nash spoke of and wrote of as a possible ideal basis for backing a currency, is truly only a theoretical side street used to abstract a solution he proposed and referred to as 'Ideal Money'."

"A General Summary for John Nash’s Proposal: Ideal Money":

Quote
Since only the markets can properly price commodities, and ideal money functions in relation to an ideal basket of commodities, then only the markets can determine optimal currency supply.

 It stands to reason then, in order to rein in the suppliers of each respective (Keynesian/central bank) currency towards an ideal policy standard, one must simple create a competitive pricing market for the currencies.

 The conclusion outlined in this writing is that the new standard of “ideal-ness” whether solely theoretical or not, isn’t bitcoin per se, but rather a theoretical (or future!) money who’s supply and monetary policies functions in a stable and predictable relation to its’ underlying ICPI.

 This theoretical Ideal has been shown as impossible to reach in design yet effectively and naturally achievable with the implementation of a universally exchangeable money that has a truly competitive predictable and stable nature in the “Nashian” sense (ie bitcoin).

As the man himself said:
Quote
Then the limiting or “asymptotic” result of such an evolutionary trend would be in effect “ideal money” but this as a result achieved without the adoption of anything like an ICPI index as a basis for the standard of value.

Then am able to begin work on a proof that block size consensus for change should not and cannot be reached.

7
Money / Re: A Key Insight
« on: July 03, 2015, 09:17:43 PM »
Here is a key and relevant tweet from szabo:

Labor may or may not be valuable, but in context can be a good proxy measure of value: http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2011/06/of-wages-and-money-cost-as-proxy.html

I don't have time to go into it and pick it chop it up and glue it together, but we have laid out here a perfect bridge for bitcoin as a standard I think.

Basically you need to have a standard for printing money that is both somewhat predictable in price and incorruptible.  Nash outlines all the reason why the popular choices are good and why they are bad, and goes on to discuss exactly what is needed and why.

So explainable when you look at the pyramids and think about the "cost of labor" but also the precision and speed.

Anyways I'll be around to add more to this, soon :)

8
Politics & Society / Re: The Zero Marginal Cost Society
« on: June 25, 2015, 09:10:11 PM »

Thanks for this video. I had never heard of Jeremy Rifkin, but his talk here is highly relevant and interesting.
Yup, me neither, and I thought so too!

9
Money / Re: A Key Insight
« on: June 24, 2015, 02:39:54 AM »
Quote
If hashing power could be seen as the key factor behind the industrial consumption index
^This occurs to me that this is something completely describable by math.

Nash also talks about the different casual effects of different paradigms of "consumption" vs production:
Quote
    It is a coincidental fact that the inherent nature of mining and mining technology makes it possible for the prices of certain commodities that are produced as a result of the devotion of labor and capital to the effort of mining to increase less (or decrease more) than might be expected.  There is a “dimension paradox”: Agricultural products are produced by using the two-dimensional resource of the earth surface, so the “disappearing frontier” creates a limitation. In contrast, some mining, particularly for elemental metals, can essentially be done in three dimensions, although, of course, there are increasing costs for deep digging.

The above too, can be formalized into maths, this time by Szabo:
http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2014/10/transportation-divergence-and.html#links
Quote
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).

Quote
and a bitcoin node can be run from essentially anywhere in the world,...
Its interesting and relevant that Nash' points out:
Quote
    If we then consider which commodities would be optimally suitable for providing a basis for a means of transferring utility, and if we specifically consider the possibility that the trading partners may be located in different nations and perhaps on different continents, than the suitability of such commodities with regard to the ideal function of facilitating utility transfer depends on the extent to which such a commodity seems to have a value independent of its geographical location.

Then there really seems to be a solid connection to be pointed out here, and something quite describable as maths.




10
Politics & Society / Re: The Zero Marginal Cost Society
« on: June 23, 2015, 02:56:34 PM »
This paper Szabo just tweeted about Smart Contracts, perfectly explains all that: http://www.erights.org/talks/pisa/paper/index.html

Its an awesome read!

Quote
"Why the Third World First? Why may the third world lead the first in the transition to smart contract mediated global commerce? Because of differences in the nature of legitimacy in these two worlds. Because the first world has already paid the homogenization costs -- it has already lost the diversity the digital path could have preserved. And because the third world lacks a working installed base of law and property, which could lead to the leapfrogging seen with cell phones in Eastern Europe."

"The architecture of the Net has dramatically turned this around, creating actual freedom of speech more absolutely than even the best constitutions. "

" once technology costs become inconsequential, we expect the third world to overtake and then lead the first in making this transition. Why?"

"The costs of rule homogenization discussed above, to be paid on the governmental path, is a cost that has already been paid and largely forgotten in the first world. The first world has already lost this great source of diversity, so the digital path's option to avoid paying these costs is not a selling point there."

"Cell phones first became society-wide hits in poor countries with terrible telecommunication, not in rich high-tech societies. (My own observations of Prague vs. Silicon Valley in 1998 corroborate this -- cell phones were everywhere in Prague.) "

"Formal laws in the first world do change under political pressure. One of the more effective sources of pressure are those who stand to gain from large scale commerce with the rest of the world. Once a significant part of the world's economy is occurring in the digital path, first world businesses would then face a choice -- trade with these networks or stay legal-legitimate. This is an unpleasant choice both for them and their governments. The pressures will be great to legalize trade with these jurisdiction-free networks of commerce. Once such unregulatable trade is made legal, the dam will have burst. What will be the character of the resulting world?"

Two large ideas come to me mind here.  In my city there is a certain type of back ally system set up from the old setup when the city was quite smaller.  I highly suspect that a small program where transient peoples could pick up certain bottles and recyclables and bring the to an exchange could benefit from a crypto/smart contract program.  There is a lot to address but the idea of incentivizing even a few homeless peoples to learn basic automated cell phone systems which would give them and idea and a bank account of some sort.  There is a great cost savings I think to the social system if all of a sudden transient people can be "dealt with" by using technology.  The solution here then should involves maths akin to networking and traffic. 

The other thought is from the poker world, transitioning from a system where 3rd party centralized models (poker stars etc.) own the bulk of the game and the profits from it, to a decentralized player owned system.  I believe this could be some form of a lesser dimensional version proposed in the above paper.  Very simple put, you issue shares to control the entire poker network, and create a system that incentives players to cooperate against the current centralized model.

  I'm going to be spending time meditating on these two possibilities and studying around them.  The paper above likens smart contracts to games, or uses games to explain them.  This is something I have been thinking and writing about and I believe that a true solution to poker as a game of hidden information will have significant effects on contracts and therefore our global markets. We are close to brute force solutions in some ways, but truly I think a solution to complex games like poker can only happen through a free market (which is necessarily decentralized).





11
Bitcoin / Re: Bitcoin Leading to a Collapse of the Nation State?
« on: June 23, 2015, 02:35:19 PM »

It is particularly interesting that Satoshi would describe bitcoin as a collectible because one of the few people who could possibly implement bitcoin, Nick Szabo, also describes money as a collectible in his Shelling Out: The Origins of Money.

Satoshi's white paper explicitly leaves out Nick's contributions to internet currency but mentioned smaller and less important contributions, it would seem perhaps to distance himself as an obvious candidate.

From Ideal Money, "The special commodity or medium that we call money has a long and interesting history." and "...money itself is merely an artifact of practical usefulness in human societies and/or civilization." I still think its amazing how perfectly Szabo's writings explain the details of this.  Seemingly just great minds think a like.

https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/multiple-cryptographers-interested-in-ideal-money-and-baskets-of-commodities/
Quote
The original wiki and the concept of ideal money was to peg a currency to a specific basket of commodities:

Quote
    He proposed that international exchange rates be fixed by pegging the value of each currency to a standardized basket of commodities, called the industrial consumption price index. Such a policy would curtail the ability of central banks to make monetary policy.

This is why peoples don’t make a connection between the two. However we then must relevate Wei Dai (http://lesswrong.com/lw/kk5/look_for_the_next_tech_gold_rush/#comments):

Quote
    …my monetary policy views were firmly mainstream, which considers rapid unpredictable changes in prices, in either direction, to be a really bad thing for a currency. So I designed b-money to have a stable value relative to a basket of commodities, and until Bitcoin came along, never thought anyone might deliberately design a currency to have a fixed total supply.

It is quite amazing this connection between Ideal Money and Szabo and Dai. 

It might then beg the question, is Szabo Dai?

Basically and especially to Travis, but also anyone that is following this, wtf is going on lol!!!!???

12
Money / Re: A Key Insight
« on: June 23, 2015, 02:27:46 PM »
To me its as if Nash teaches and lays the ground for the suggestion and invention of exactly what you point out:

These particular quotes from ideal money:
Quote
    The long-term trend of the value of any index of prices will depend, sometimes predictably on the choice of the composition of that index.

    It is a coincidental fact that the inherent nature of mining and mining technology makes it possible for the prices of certain commodities that are produced as a result of the devotion of labor and capital to the effort of mining to increase less (or decrease more) than might be expected.  There is a “dimension paradox”: Agricultural products are produced by using the two-dimensional resource of the earth surface, so the “disappearing frontier” creates a limitation. In contrast, some mining, particularly for elemental metals, can essentially be done in three dimensions, although, of course, there are increasing costs for deep digging.

    If we then consider which commodities would be optimally suitable for providing a basis for a means of transferring utility, and if we specifically consider the possibility that the trading partners may be located in different nations and perhaps on different continents, than the suitability of such commodities with regard to the ideal function of facilitating utility transfer depends on the extent to which such a commodity seems to have a value independent of its geographical location.

    Clearly, in terms of this geographical perspective, gold has historically been optimal, largely because the labor cost of moving it over great distances is so small relative to the value of what is being transported.  Thus, gold formed a very efficiently movable medium for the transportation of a value exchangeable for other values, ultimately deriving, in one way or another, from human labor (with the achievements of warriors here also being viewed as involving labor).

    Nowadays, however, few would propose a return to the actual use of simply the metal gold as a standard, for the following reasons.
    (i) The cost of mining gold effectively does depend on the technology. Recent cyanide leaching techniques have made it possible again to profitability mind gold at formerly abandoned sites in the U.S. so that it is now a big producer.  However, the unpredictability of the cost is a negative factor.
    (ii) The location of potential gold-mining locations may not be “politically appealing.” so it would seem undesirable to make a political choice to enhance the economic importance of those particular areas.
    (iii) There is some negative psychology about gold such tat even if it were the most logical choice after all, the unpopularity of the idea could be very obstructive.

    However, right now platinum would be even better than gold, because it has more value per unit of weight.

    Crude petroleum could also be used for barter transactions, and in view of the present state of the global economy it would seem a proper component of an index of prices of internationally traded commodities that enter into the costs of industrial consumption.

I think you have brought about the need for a 2nd prt, and I don't think it should suggest that bitcoin solves the Triffin dilemma but rather "Does bitcoin solve the triffin dilemma?" should be the theme. Truly I think in the end we will understand that bitcoin is the "asymptotic" solution, or the implementation of how to get from a not ideal economy with not ideal money, to an ever increasingly more  ideal economy and ideal money.

It's a terrible way I am wording it, but the above quotes mixed with how you are phrasing things, to me is the most significant revelation/revolution going on today.

On a side note, people brush and breeze through Nash's words as if he doesn't have a history of genius and creative solutions that take years and years to understand.  Here in the above quotes he hasn't proposed anything intelligible yet, but rather he perfectly outlines something that COULD fit around his description of what could or couldn't be.  We have the advantage here of me piecing together the relevant clips from different lectures and papers titled "ideal money".

13
Money / Re: A Key Insight
« on: June 18, 2015, 07:49:02 PM »
I have in the past felt that this quote, and a especially the bold:

Quote
    So here is the possibility of “asymptotically ideal money”. Starting with the idea of value stabilization in relation to a domestic price index associated with the territory of one state, beyond that there is the natural and logical concept of internationally based value comparisons.
    The currencies being compared, like now the euro, the dollar, the yen, the pound, the swiss franc, the swedish kronor, etc. can be viewed with critical eyes by their users and by those who maybe have the option of whether or not or how to use one of them. This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened rate of inflationary deprecation in value.
...refered to bitcoin's price in relation to the USD possibly because it is the world currency reserve. But with the insight from Travis' article is suggests rather the true stabilization is in relation to the mining costs of production vs the demand...

This observation seems quite significant.

14
Money / Re: A Key Insight
« on: June 16, 2015, 05:10:36 PM »
The meeting of the minds comes from Travis' observation...:

Quote
Given that the bitcoin network is inherently regulated by an algorithm which adjusts the consumption index to an average of 10 minutes, could it be argued that the standard unit of measurement is time itself?

...and the end of my writing where the quote from Ideal Money lies:

https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/securing-decentralization-through-nash-equilibria/

Quote
It might be difficult to project beyond this but one can expect a certain form of standardized unit of currency in the near future as well as a new formula for a type of “economic velocity”.

With Time and Velocity being part of the same function in this sense everything becomes quite relatable and I do believe a new type of metric arises.  Their are ramification, but without going into them it seems that this is only the beginning of a new perspective which only a select few seem to have shared for some time in this world/society.

15
Money / A Key Insight
« on: June 16, 2015, 05:05:19 PM »
Not sure where to put this but not only do I think Travis did a good job on this article but I think it brings up a key insight of Nash's that I was unable to explain but certain observed.

http://www.coindesk.com/did-john-nash-help-invent-bitcoin/
https://diginomics.com/did-john-nash-help-invent-bitcoin/

Quote
In a paper published in the Southern Economic Journal, Nash described a nonpolitical value standard for comparisons of value, asserting that an industrial consumption price index could be “appropriately readjusted depending on how patterns of international trade would actually evolve”. Moreover, Nash described how actors that were in control of this standard could corrupt this continuity, yet the probability of damages through corruption would be as small as politicians who alter the measurements of meters and kilometers.

Within the bitcoin network, the mining difficulty index, which can be viewed as a type of consumption index, is intelligently adjusted based on a regulatory algorithm which assigns the difficulty at a rate where new blocks are mined every 10 minutes, on average. Further, authorities of the bitcoin network (51% mining pools) could corrupt the standard of non-double spending, yet doing so would be an attempt to alter the calculation of transactions while not honoring their own incentive to remain an honest mining participant.

The bitcoin whitepaper itself describes how such an authority would choose to ensure the integrity of this transaction standard as doing otherwise would devalue their own authority position in the mining network.

The nonpolitical industrial consumption price index Nash described in his 2002 paper is represented by the bitcoin network’s intelligent design towards regulating mining consumption power and readjusting the difficulty and block rewards accordingly.

Given that the bitcoin network is inherently regulated by an algorithm which adjusts the consumption index to an average of 10 minutes, could it be argued that the standard unit of measurement is time itself?

The above observation is interesting when compared to some obscure paragraphs from a different version of "Ideal Money":

Quote from: Ideal Money
“It seems possible and not unlikely, however, that if two states evolve towards having currencies or more stable value as measured locally by national CPI indices that then also these distinct currencies would tend to evolve towards more stable comparative relations of value.

Then the limiting or “asymptotic” result of such an evolutionary trend would be in effect “ideal money” but this as a result achieved without the adoption of anything like an ICPI index as a basis for the standard of value.”


16
Bitcoin / Re: Bitcoin Leading to a Collapse of the Nation State?
« on: June 16, 2015, 03:48:32 PM »
I think our faith in nation state will definitely change but there is another view we might think about in relation to a complete dissolution. If we think of "nations" and their boundaries as the product of equilibria it might be that after a little bit more shifting all nations end up in an equilibrium and it is other paradigms that evolve and change. 

In this we can think of "nations" and their borders as necessary for peace and expansion but only once all lands are discovered and sufficient time has for enough decentralization and balance to form.

This becomes comparable imo to Satoshi's comments on bitcoin possibly becoming a collectible one day, less relevant, but possibly taking quite a long time to truly fade away.  I suspect he gets this concept when thinking about fiat and older types of monies. 

This is all relevant I think to the generalization of the kula ring conjecture: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/06/13/the-generalization-of-the-kula-ring-conjecture/

17
Politics & Society / The Zero Marginal Cost Society
« on: June 16, 2015, 02:13:51 PM »
This reminded me of what I thought Diginomics might be about:

Jeremy Rifkin at the #CGC15: “The Zero Marginal Cost Society”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75yiRvi48RQ

I suspect a lot of us realize this is where we are headed.  A society that has the capacity to take care of itself.  Competition and striving to be the best are still important, but because of advancements we become able to connected the unconnected peoples and harness the efficiency of doing so.

More mathematically I suspect diginomics can be seen as a generalization of the bitcoin project.  This video seems to describe such a generalization. It suggests all groups and systems could be "fixed" and arranged like bitcoin.



Pages: [1]