Re: Big Bang Thought Experiment
jamesdWhile issue of a purely fiat digital currency without state backing would be an interesting experiment, such a currency could never gain value, never become useful as a medium of exchange. If it started as one unit of barter value that was level with the dollar and floated with it,then its scalable and could and should overtake the dollar at some point.(phase transition or slow fade of D?) Any interference punishable by APster,certain death.Many details remain but you seem mistaken on this,if its hopeless,why bother? However the niche market where most people expect the introduction of digital cash is internet transactions, where breaking the defaulter's neck is not a viable option You must have APster justice.You have all the horsemen loose so there must be a rein or the masses will support the corrupt,rancid state's crackdown.Not that the crackdown will succeed entirely,new attempts will surely follow. Huge bombproof remailers,APster backup of contract law and e-cash based on what you know best.The value of your labor. Four hundred billionaires now possess wealth equal to that of the 3 billion poorest people on the planet. This capitalist system is inherently violent, oppressive and exploitative. Capitalism cannot be reformed, and that's why we need to abolish it.
Re: Big Bang Thought Experiment,
The Big Bang was a fizzle.Like the 1st ashes series of cricket and the first flight by harry Houdini,it happened near Sunbury ,victoria,au.People began a system of barter.Bob would do a few hours work for alice and earn Barter Units of Money at the rate pegged to the dollar.This system grew organically and exponentially to the point where the treasurer,Peter fuckface costello stepped in and ruled that these BUMs (I forget what they where called) would be taxed at the rate of 1 to the dollar. Thus nipping the experiment,that directly threatened the state, in the bud.Since then we have APster so I believe we should try again.Ryan sounds like he might be the forth manto do this.I wish him well.Use the force,ryan,the APster force. No complex system was ever written from scratch. It always started out as a simple system that was patched incrementally. chairman jamesd.
Re: Big Bang Thought Experiment
On Tuesday, December 25, 2001, at 01:50 PM, Adam Shostack wrote: Many posts have talked about a both a 'fixed level' of money, and a commission. I find this odd, especially as there will be no way to add funds to the system. If you have a commission on every exchange, the money essentially deflates (there will be less of it tomorow than there is today, making it more scarce, and thus more valuable.) Thus it makes sense to hold onto it, making it illiquid, which is a bad thing for a currency. Since this is magic money, why not issue more of it now and again? For all intents and purposes, the total supply of gold has been relatively constant for decades. A fraction of the total is mined and brought to market each year, but only a small fraction of the total. And yet the assay and marking cost (several percent) has not crippled gold. Further, the fee for assaying and marking (melting, minting, stamping gold bars, etc.) is a fee for a service, and goes back into circulation. I expect the operators of a money changing operation would similarly aggregate their 1% or whatever and use the aggregated fee as their compensation for providing a service. Even if the money deflates, so? If it encourages people to hang on to their money, so? (I made most of my money by _not_ spending what I earned.) In any case, let's see how the experiment turns out. Let anyone try any approach they wish, ranging from the total amount of money is 1 to I generate 30% more money in the system every year. As I said, I expect multiple tries, multiple experiments. Right now we are more limited by the notion that Some Big Startup has to Get it Right the First Time. --Tim May Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. --Patrick Henry
Re: Big Bang Thought Experiment
On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, Tim May wrote: On Tuesday, December 25, 2001, at 01:50 PM, Adam Shostack wrote: Many posts have talked about a both a 'fixed level' of money, and a commission. I find this odd, especially as there will be no way to add funds to the system. If you have a commission on every exchange, the money essentially deflates (there will be less of it tomorow than there is today, making it more scarce, and thus more valuable.) Thus it makes sense to hold onto it, making it illiquid, which is a bad thing for a currency. Since this is magic money, why not issue more of it now and again? For all intents and purposes, the total supply of gold has been relatively constant for decades. A fraction of the total is mined and brought to market each year, but only a small fraction of the total. And yet the assay and marking cost (several percent) has not crippled gold. But gold is, at least for this sort of discussion, illiquid. How many gold coins do you have in your pocket right now? I'll wager asymptotic to nill. Further, the fee for assaying and marking (melting, minting, stamping gold bars, etc.) is a fee for a service, and goes back into circulation. Actually the payment for the fee for the assayist and the mint aren't likely to come out of the metal they are processing today. Now if we were talking of a 'frontier' sort of situation then you wouldn't have those fees going back into circulation, at least not immediately. In that case the 'cut' would be collected over some suitable period of time and then sold. Or the assayist could simply take their cut on the upstream broker payment (this assumes of course they have sufficient liquid capital in hand). I expect the operators of a money changing operation would similarly aggregate their 1% or whatever and use the aggregated fee as their compensation for providing a service. But these examples, at least from the perspective of the money changer are dealing with effectively 'unlimited' cash pools to draw from. Your objections to Adams points don't hold. -- Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Big Bang Thought Experiment
-- James A. Donald: One could of course have a pile of gold, and physically and in person exchange coins for physical gold On 25 Dec 2001, at 9:44, Tim May wrote: 1. Must money be tied to intrinsic stores of value? I think the answer is clearly No. The U.S. dollar is not in any direct way tied to anything except _other dollars_. Obviously. True, there are already many things already valued in dollars--land, things, houses, loans, taxes, salaries--so there is a somewhat circular argument that echoes what Danny DeVito said in the recent movie Heist: Money is money, that's why they call it money! (paraphrased) I fully agree that a server sustaining play money is a good start, but I see no prospect that e-cash could be introduced without convertibility. Cato recently had an article discussing the same matter as Danny DeVito, at somewhat greater length. The point that they made was that even if everyone was better off for adopting some arbitrary form of fiat money as money, it would not be adopted, because of the critical mass problem. With all existing examples of fiat money, this critical mass problem was overcome by first issuing it as convertible, non fiat money, then later suspending convertibility. Suspension of convertibility was accompanied by some other form of free lance confiscation, in the form of legal tender laws that guaranteed that debts contracted for silver could be paid by paper, even though the value of the paper had fallen well below the value of the silver, with the result that creditors suffered dramatic losses, and debtors dramatic gains. While issue of a purely fiat digital currency without state backing would be an interesting experiment, such a currency could never gain value, never become useful as a medium of exchange. Comment: I'm not trying to trivialize the issues. There are issues with dealing with double-spending (first to redeem is a good fix), transfer deadlock (when Alice and Bob exchange something for some token...what if one walks away? A deadlock issue with real money, as with exchanging suitcases of cocaine for suitcases of dollars), and other issues. With an in person transaction, this is not a problem. If either party defaults, violence will ensue, and the cost of the violence will greatly exceed the value to be stolen. E-gold now supports this capability. Since one can now do e-gold transfer's through one's sprint cell phone, one can now exchange e-gold for suitcases of cocaine, though because e-gold is somewhat traceable, one would be unwise to do this. However the niche market where most people expect the introduction of digital cash is internet transactions, where breaking the defaulter's neck is not a viable option. e-cash will be most useful for sales of information, especially pornography in its more controversial forms, and sales of rights over assets that do not involve any accompanying physical movement of assets. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 7becawq45A8LcVWWvnNM2lGVWddDFI27K+uRGxOr 4VUXQD+RQrS5MrS5aIXPY7VPkoRmgA1vEu1KpX64u
