<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 James,<br>
<br>
On 8/6/2013 7:22 AM, James Carroll wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALbjWndQs=4v_K+dPNfbJVfkgpnX0ihvqeTbV+-xX2vkaz4A=w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Brent
Allsop <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:brent.allsop@canonizer.com" target="_blank">brent.allsop@canonizer.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>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? </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="">ANY limited currency? So if I print ONE dolar
of "carroll bucks", and limit that currency to one, then
it will increase in value exponentially as the economy
grows exponentially?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>Also remember, this prediction is about whatever is
the leading crypto currency, not just Bitcoin.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="">That may be a more reasonable assumption, but
it is incompatible with the "any" you used in your above
sentence, so you are contradicting yourself here. Please
make up your mind.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sorry, I probably should have done something like clarify that "any"
with "any leading". Also, the more restricted the currency is (i.e.
the faster it will increase in value), the better chance it will
have of becoming the leading currency, but of course, this is not
all that is required to become the leader. Currently Gold is
expanding much faster than Bitcoins, and why I am predicting that
Gold's days are completely numbered, and will soon be completely
replaced by Bitcoin, this being the most important reason. The 100%
line camp is predicting all Bitcions will be worth more than all
gold <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALbjWndQs=4v_K+dPNfbJVfkgpnX0ihvqeTbV+-xX2vkaz4A=w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div> Anyone else out there in Gordon's camp? </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="">Yes</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Good to know. In my opinion, the history of Bitcoin, as shown in
the graph in the camp:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/154/2">http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/154/2</a><br>
<br>
is already more consistent than "More's law" ever actually
achieved. If you don't agree, how much more of that kind of growth
would be required, before you would give this kind of "law" as much
respect as it has in a term like "Moore's law"?<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALbjWndQs=4v_K+dPNfbJVfkgpnX0ihvqeTbV+-xX2vkaz4A=w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style=""> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>Any other camp out there,with enough supporters
willing to help amplify the wisdom of the crowd and
help accelerate us toward the singularity in ways
other than just making noise?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
So, anyone who finds canonizer's user interface prohibitive
or annoying, or who thinks that their time is better spent
elsewhere is "just making noise" and "not contributing to
the singularity"?<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That's what I think, yes. I think we are always in agreement with
the facts, I'm obviously just spinning the fact one way, and in my
mind you are spinning them another way, and I see the truth
somewhere in the middle. It is a fact that at least some people get
so tired of the wasteful, repetative, bleating noise, posting things
in forums, over and over again, and so desperately both want to know
what all that noise is trying to say and what it thinks, concicely
and quantitatively, along with wanting to comunicate what they
believe they know, they are willing to spend their life doing
everything they can to create something like Canonizer.com, to
facilitate that. One person can't do it all! Thankfully, there are
at least a few others, you included, willing to at least help with
that effort, for the same reason. While others seem to care less,
especially about what others think, and would rather completely
sensor and destroy it, than try to do anything to make any effort to
improve it in any way or do something like canonize it. And yes, it
seems to me that the better and more important the camp, the more
people there tend to be that are willing to do whatever is required
to work to build consensus around it, including help to improve the
system to make it easier for both themselves, and everyone else.<br>
<br>
Brent Allsop<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>