<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
Hi Anders,<br>
<br>
I'm trying to tell if you think 'law' is not a good name for the
camp <a href="http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/154/2">http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/154/2</a>,
but I can't yet tell.<br>
<br>
On 8/6/2013 6:12 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5200E835.6070207@aleph.se" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013-08-06 12:10, Brent Allsop
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5200D9C3.9030909@canonizer.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
What do you think about the certainty of economic growth? Do
you think this is as reliable as something like "Moore's law"
and/or "Kurzweil's law of accelerating returns"?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Empirically, a 2% growth rate is what economists call a "stylized
fact" - it seems to be roughly true, although the details are
bedevilled. When I looked at long term historical data like Angus
Maddison's data set they seemed to back it up over at least a
millennial, possibly multimillennial timescale.</blockquote>
<br>
Exactly. Gordon, would you also agree?<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5200E835.6070207@aleph.se" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:5200D9C3.9030909@canonizer.com" type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> If you think economic growth is
deserving of the term 'law', then is it not, then, a
mathematical certainty that, if the economy grows
exponentially, then the demand for any limited currency in
that economy must accelerate, exponentially? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Demand for a limited resource does not always grow with the
economy and population. Consider the collapse of the stamp market
as the hobby fell out of fashion. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
To me, this is just more mistaken noise, and you are not yet fully
understanding what our camp is talking about. This certainly
doesn't yet convince me of anything. Primitively, economies used
managed fiat currencies as a method of value exchange. In general,
the managers of these currencies, to the benefit of their
government, expended the supply to keep up with the demand of an
exponentially growing economy, so the fiat currencies tended towards
inflation, sometimes badly.<br>
<br>
Now we have the technolodgy so that people can free themselves from
this 'tax' on their holding of such. So what we are predicting is
that because we can, from now on, people will use fixed quantity
cryptographic assets as both a method and exchange in assets and
store of value. Our prediction is that whatever this turns out to
be, whether Bitcoin, Lite coin, or whatever, the total market
capitalization of whichever is the leading one, will grow at least
exponentially. And we are predicting, in a law like way, that the
leading currency will be one that is fixed in it's supply. So, in
our opinion, it is law like that the total market capitalized value
of these fixed units, whatever they are, will increase in value, at
least exponentually, for the foreseeable future, keeping up with the
exponentially growing economy. This will be true far more reliably
than something like "Moore's law", and so on. Something like
collectors stamps, maybe tulips, or what is currently in fashion,
has nothing to do with any of what our camp is talking about.<br>
<br>
So, Anders, as one of my most trusted experts, do you think "law" is
not appropriate for the name of the best camp about the future
valuation of the leading crypto currency?<br>
<br>
Brent Allsop<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>