[ExI] [mta] Re: "Crypto Coin Law" vs "Law of the Crypto Coin"?
brent.allsop at canonizer.com
Wed Aug 7 02:04:29 UTC 2013
On 8/6/2013 7:22 AM, James Carroll wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Brent Allsop
> <brent.allsop at canonizer.com <mailto:brent.allsop at canonizer.com>> wrote:
> 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?
> 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?
> Also remember, this prediction is about whatever is the leading
> crypto currency, not just Bitcoin.
> 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.
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
> Anyone else out there in Gordon's camp?
Good to know. In my opinion, the history of Bitcoin, as shown in the
graph in the camp:
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"?
> 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?
> 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"?
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat