Author Topic: Blog Post Suggestions for BM & Co  (Read 8744 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline hpenvy2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
I think you should add Stans "Origins of BitShares" post to the blog.

 +5% +5%

Offline VoR0220

I would like to know Bytemaster's vision for health care.

Please excuse my ignorance on the matter but the US's health care system makes me think of it as a third world country. Barbaric.

I don't know of any Canadian who would prefer us style health care to the system we have. I'm pretty sure Canada spends a lot less on health care, for much better service. Cuba spends way less per capita and still is right up there for quality of service.

Taxes may be violence to a libertarian but isn't letting somebody die, or even just get more sick, because of money, kind of like violence?

I can't figure out how to do health care better than a government, though I do feel like governments could do a much better job of it with a little transparency and common sense. The wasteful spending I see locally makes me sick.

I assume the fix would be blockchain based insurance providers and hospitals. But what happens to the poor?  Is the libertarian thing to do just let them die off?

Does the free market work with health care? Isn't there an incentive to keep you sick or even make you sick?

It is a complicated topic that has kept me from considering myself a libertarian for years.

I personally kind of like Obamacare (queue the boos) but not because of what it is, but what I think it can become if we smartly deregulate it. Personally my dream healthcare system looks like a combination of Singapore, Switzerland and the Netherlands.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline LRENZ

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: enz
I think you should add Stans "Origins of BitShares" post to the blog.
Revolution is inevitable.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
What about a teaser for entrepreneurs on the benefits of establishing their businesses as decentralised semi-autonomous networks, with some examples, and how they might be able to use the BitShares platform to do it. (I'm coming to a personal view that this is the biggest capability that BitShares can potentially sell, not bitUSD, nor even the decentralised exchange, which are merely components of the entrepreneur's toolkit and ecosystem.)

Good idea. An easy read striking at the right level of generality on this topic would be awesome.  +5%

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
What about a teaser for entrepreneurs on the benefits of establishing their businesses as decentralised semi-autonomous networks, with some examples, and how they might be able to use the BitShares platform to do it. (I'm coming to a personal view that this is the biggest capability that BitShares can potentially sell, not bitUSD, nor even the decentralised exchange, which are merely components of the entrepreneur's toolkit and ecosystem.)

Offline clayop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Korea
  • BitShares: clayop
How about a blog post on how bitshares solves all the problems that Bill Gates perceives digital currencies to have?
+5% +5% +5%
Bitshares Korea - http://www.bitshares.kr
Vote for me and see Korean Bitshares community grows
delegate-clayop

clout

  • Guest
How about a blog post on how bitshares solves all the problems that Bill Gates perceives digital currencies to have?

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
1. BitShares value proposition (overview)

2. BitAssets properties and rough mechanics

3. Blockchain is hiring / BitShares core dev team introduction, see: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12693.0

I'd like to see blog posts and/or videos for 1. and a video for 2. and 3.

Offline leroy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Recently the Winklevoss twins said that Bitcoin could easily skyrocket to a 400 billion market cap.
And that a 1 trillion market cap, was also a possibility.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/27/investing/bitcoin-winklevoss-twins-gold/

I'm not taking it to serious but it got me wondering:

What would such a market cap mean, in terms of hash power, and electricity consumption?
Not even sure what the electricity consumption of BTC equals to today.
A small/medium/large sized city?
Would such a market cap lead to equal power consumption of a small country?
What would the computing power needed for such a market cap, equal to?

The last thing we need now is a bitcoin bashing, but it would be an interesting blogpost.

Satoshi once said:
“When Bitcoins start having real exchange value, the competition for coin creation will drive the price of electricity needed for generating a coin close to the value of the coin.”

After the next block halving:
12.5 btc/block X 6 blocks per hour X 24 hours per day X 365 days = 656,000 btc a year

Let's say there are 15 million btc by then, so a $1 trillion market cap means about $65k/btc

$65,000 X 656,000 = $42.6 billion a year worth of electricity.

My electricity costs about $0.15/kWh but let's say bitcoins are mined in a places with cheaper power, $0.10/kWh. That's 426 billion kWh or 426,000 gWh.

So, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production, that would fall between the electricity production of the United Kingdom and South Korea.

As a side note, with a limit of 3 transactions per second, or 1800 per block, 12.5btc ÷ 1800 = 0.007 btc and at $65k/btc that is $451 per transaction to keep the network secure.

Now imagine a few million coloured coins representing cars or stocks are added on top of that. You need more hashrate to protect that as well or somebody will double spend your car. But you can't reward miners with colored coins...

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Recently the Winklevoss twins said that Bitcoin could easily skyrocket to a 400 billion market cap.
And that a 1 trillion market cap, was also a possibility.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/27/investing/bitcoin-winklevoss-twins-gold/

I'm not taking it to serious but it got me wondering:

What would such a market cap mean, in terms of hash power, and electricity consumption?
Not even sure what the electricity consumption of BTC equals to today.
A small/medium/large sized city?
Would such a market cap lead to equal power consumption of a small country?
What would the computing power needed for such a market cap, equal to?

The last thing we need now is a bitcoin bashing, but it would be an interesting blogpost.

He may be right about the market while missing the mark on the implementation it takes to tap it.
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline graffenwalder

Recently the Winklevoss twins said that Bitcoin could easily skyrocket to a 400 billion market cap.
And that a 1 trillion market cap, was also a possibility.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/27/investing/bitcoin-winklevoss-twins-gold/

I'm not taking it to serious but it got me wondering:

What would such a market cap mean, in terms of hash power, and electricity consumption?
Not even sure what the electricity consumption of BTC equals to today.
A small/medium/large sized city?
Would such a market cap lead to equal power consumption of a small country?
What would the computing power needed for such a market cap, equal to?

The last thing we need now is a bitcoin bashing, but it would be an interesting blogpost.

Offline bytemaster

I'd love to see your thoughts about basic income.

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/26/The-basics-of-Basic-Income/

Interesting read. 

Thing is, over half of all money is thought to evade the tax system with corporate giants and the 1% barely paying any tax using offshore accounts etc, so if that could be captured it would double tax right away. 

Add to that approximately half of US federal tax is spent on the military budget, most of which is not needed at all and has served to decrease national security by making the world more dangerous (making enemies).

Add to that subsidies to fossil fuel companies and other industries.  Cut those and focus on environmental sustainability and energy independence through clean means, which doesn't poison the population and saves medial costs.

There are lots of ways to increase the government budget by making society genuinely richer.  Preserve the environmental wealth, make good relations with other countries, increase tourism, cut the budget of the spy agencies, instead of sending people to war have them do something useful that brings a net positive result.  These are just a few off the top of my head.

Basic income can be done using BitShares.  Steps to do it:

- Use future VOTE features to identify unique individuals as BitShares citizens.
- Issue UIA token, registered citizens sign up to collect their token.
- BTS holders vote in at least 1 100% delegate who's pay goes to basic income for the citizens (or citizens could even vote on what they want to do with it in a direct democracy, but lets say here that it's evenly distributed as basic income to all BitShares citizens).
-  BTS holders want more bitasset users, so they vote in dilution to pay for basic income to attract new users
- Citizens want more basic income (gov budget), so to increase their gov budget they use bitassets.

So new BTS would be created to pay for the basic income while at the same time BTS is locked up as bitasset collateral.  As long as the citizens convert more money into bitassets than the inflation, which they would do to increase their basic income then it would keep working.  The citizens wouldn't ever want to sell their basic income into something outside of BitShares as that would decrease their basic income by reducing their governments budget.  So everyone is incentivised to stay entirely within BitShares.  They have no taxes to pay yet receive basic income/direct democracy voting rights. 

The problem is, who would by the inflationary backing asset (BTS)?  Well, if the backing asset had other uses and income sources like BTS does along with stakeholder voting power to influence the direction company people would (and do already) buy it.  Maybe BTS could be the voting token, instead of a UIA, to participate in the direct democracy as a citizen where you only need a fraction of a single BTS to vote.

It would be like a Google distributing a portion of their profits to their users, it builds a positive brand image, its marketing while serving humanity.  Would shareholders ever vote for such a thing?  I guess we'll find out.  Once one company starts doing it others may compete to be the most friendly company. 

This is just a rough idea... I'm not convinced (by my own ideas) that inflating the backing asset solves the problem long term, it could just be moving/hiding it.  Even so it would be great marketing and a fascinating experiment.

One does not simply "collect" taxes by trying to capture black market activity.  Black market activity would slow significantly if they found a way to tax it because many transactions would no longer be profitable.  Thus the only thing you could gain by successfully extracting taxes from black market (untaxed activity) is to reduce the overall size of the economy.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline bytemaster

I'd love to see your thoughts about basic income.

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/26/The-basics-of-Basic-Income/

Quote
If you assume the Basic Income budget is set at a level that would replace existing spending on safety net programs then we could probably get everyone a $400 Basic Income.

Not sure how you calculated that. Looking at the US spending budget for 2014, I calculate approximately $700 billion for OASI Benefits (old age social security), $140 billion for DI Benefits (disability insurance component of social security), $455 billion for Medicaid (healthcare subsidies for the poor which I assume basic income should make irrelevant; I will leave Medicare for seniors alone for now), and another $500 billion in other welfare (food stamps, earned income tax credits, child tax credits, unemployment insurance, housing subsidies, etc.). So that is approximately $1.8 trillion dollars in government spending on welfare that could instead be used for a basic income (I am assuming you keep taxes the same, meaning don't cut the payroll taxes even though social security and Medicaid would be gone).

If we decide to distribute this money equally to all adult US residents (let's not count children for now), then that means $1.8 trillion dollars needs to be divided equally to approximately 235 million people. This gives $7660 per year, or approximately $636 per month (more than 50% higher than what you claimed). Still, it's not that great. It is only a little bit higher than half of minimum wage. And paying for it requires getting rid of the focused assistance that could potentially provide more bang for the buck. On the other hand, it does simplify things beautifully and it solves the welfare trap issue that you mentioned in the blog post.

What if we want to include children in the calculation as well? Well let's assume $280/month (the median child support payment that you claimed in the blog post) is allocated for each child (paid to the parents/legal guardians of course). There are 74 million children in the US, so the costs of the basic income for the children would be $250 billion per year. This leaves $1.55 trillion dollars for the basic income for adults, or $550/month. The typical family of four would receive 2x $280/month for the two kids, and 2x $550/month for the two parents, summing to a total of $1660/month for the household, or $19,920/year.

By the way, I don't think it is fair to say $1000/month basic income for each adult would provide a "middle class" lifestyle in the first world. The median household income is $53,000 per year (median is what I would consider "middle class"). If you have two adults living together (typical household) their collective basic income would be $24,000 per year which is less than half of the median household income. Even if we only focus on states with lower costs of living, for example Mississippi with a median household income of approximately $39,000 per year, $1000/month would still not cut it. This isn't to say that I think the basic income should cover what is today a median household income in the US, just that I wouldn't call it a "middle class" lifestyle.

Edit: I think I see how you can get the $400/month figure. If you keep social security as it is (old age and disability) as well as Medicare, and only get rid of Medicaid ($455 billion) and other welfare ($500 billion), then you have $955 billion per year to distribute to 195 million adults in the US between the ages of 18 and 64 (seniors aged 65 and above can rely on social security and Medicare as they do today). This gives a monthly basic income to the non-senior adults of $407/month. If you want to include the $280/month basic income per child, then that leaves only $300/month for each non-senior adults.

I just used total population of 320M people (adults and children counted equally).   
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Add to that approximately half of US federal tax is spent on the military budget, most of which is not needed at all and has served to decrease national security by making the world more dangerous (making enemies).

While I think the US military budget is way overinflated, your claim is just not true. In 2014, the US federal government spent a total of 3.5 trillion dollars and $800 billion dollars of that was in defense (which include foreign economic/military aid and veterans expenses). So that is 800/3500 = 23% of the federal budget.

So new BTS would be created to pay for the basic income while at the same time BTS is locked up as bitasset collateral.  As long as the citizens convert more money into bitassets than the inflation, which they would do to increase their basic income then it would keep working.

There is a limit to how many BitAssets there will be in circulation in the saturation stage. If the BitAsset is supposed to be price stable, forcing an increase of the supply beyond that limit to pay for the basic income will just cause inflation of the BitAsset. At that point it shouldn't be much different than holding the inflationary BTS. Also, why would someone short against a price stable BitAsset with an inflationary BTS in the saturation stage. They are pretty much guaranteed to lose.

So that reduces the problem to people holding an inflationary currency (either BTS directly or an inflationary BitAsset backed by BTS). The amount of the inflation needs to be large enough to support the basic income. And as bytemaster already mentioned in the blog post, in a true free market, no one would bother holding the inflationary asset when there are other competing assets with no inflation or little inflation. More specifically, the rich asset holders would flee because they are at a disadvantage and then without them to subsidize the rest, the basic income system would collapse for the poor as well. Therefore, to implement a basic income, you cannot have a true free market.

The only way the basic income works is through a forceful redistribution of wealth (a tax). This can be an inflationary tax (within reason) if people could be forced to use the inflationary currency. As cryptocurrency is demonstrating, we have the freedom to create our own currencies that cannot realistically be stopped (actually this ability has existed for a long time, e.g. gold, it is just that the cryptocurrency alternative is finally becoming more convenient to securely store and transact with than digital dollars), which kills the idea of the inflationary tax to fund the basic income.

What remains is a more typical tax. What is required is an entity (or even a decentralized mechanism) given the authority by a society to value how much each person can afford to contribute to the collective pot that is then redistributed equally to each unique human being in the society. Those that can afford to pay more would need to pay more than the ones who cannot afford to pay as much, or else the basic income will not work. You can think of various ways of implementing the taxes, but at the end of the day it requires demanding people to pay (with price discrimination) for a service (the service being that they continue to live in the society and aren't banished). Identity is very important here because you ultimately need to identify the human beings who did not pay their full amount in order to appropriately punish them (first fines, then banishment if necessary) so that they have the motivation to pay honestly in the first place. But what is also very important is accurate information that cannot be easily falsified in order for the price discrimination to work appropriately. This unfortunately requires some breach of privacy to properly determine the amount that needs to be paid by each person and to check that it is accurate.

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
I'd love to see your thoughts about basic income.

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/26/The-basics-of-Basic-Income/

Interesting read. 

Thing is, over half of all money is thought to evade the tax system with corporate giants and the 1% barely paying any tax using offshore accounts etc, so if that could be captured it would double tax right away. 

Add to that approximately half of US federal tax is spent on the military budget, most of which is not needed at all and has served to decrease national security by making the world more dangerous (making enemies).

Add to that subsidies to fossil fuel companies and other industries.  Cut those and focus on environmental sustainability and energy independence through clean means, which doesn't poison the population and saves medial costs.

There are lots of ways to increase the government budget by making society genuinely richer.  Preserve the environmental wealth, make good relations with other countries, increase tourism, cut the budget of the spy agencies, instead of sending people to war have them do something useful that brings a net positive result.  These are just a few off the top of my head.

Basic income can be done using BitShares.  Steps to do it:

- Use future VOTE features to identify unique individuals as BitShares citizens.
- Issue UIA token, registered citizens sign up to collect their token.
- BTS holders vote in at least 1 100% delegate who's pay goes to basic income for the citizens (or citizens could even vote on what they want to do with it in a direct democracy, but lets say here that it's evenly distributed as basic income to all BitShares citizens).
-  BTS holders want more bitasset users, so they vote in dilution to pay for basic income to attract new users
- Citizens want more basic income (gov budget), so to increase their gov budget they use bitassets.

So new BTS would be created to pay for the basic income while at the same time BTS is locked up as bitasset collateral.  As long as the citizens convert more money into bitassets than the inflation, which they would do to increase their basic income then it would keep working.  The citizens wouldn't ever want to sell their basic income into something outside of BitShares as that would decrease their basic income by reducing their governments budget.  So everyone is incentivised to stay entirely within BitShares.  They have no taxes to pay yet receive basic income/direct democracy voting rights. 

The problem is, who would by the inflationary backing asset (BTS)?  Well, if the backing asset had other uses and income sources like BTS does along with stakeholder voting power to influence the direction company people would (and do already) buy it.  Maybe BTS could be the voting token, instead of a UIA, to participate in the direct democracy as a citizen where you only need a fraction of a single BTS to vote.

It would be like a Google distributing a portion of their profits to their users, it builds a positive brand image, its marketing while serving humanity.  Would shareholders ever vote for such a thing?  I guess we'll find out.  Once one company starts doing it others may compete to be the most friendly company. 

This is just a rough idea... I'm not convinced (by my own ideas) that inflating the backing asset solves the problem long term, it could just be moving/hiding it.  Even so it would be great marketing and a fascinating experiment.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2015, 05:10:56 pm by matt608 »