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.

Topics - J_Smithy

Pages: [1]
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?

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):

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":

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:
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.

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.

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.”

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”

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]