Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: DAOs, DACs, DAs ... nice blog post @ ethereum  (Read 990 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12337
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
DAOs, DACs, DAs ... nice blog post @ ethereum
« on: May 08, 2014, 07:02:44 AM »

FYI:

DAOs, DACs, DAs and More: An Incomplete Terminology Guide
http://blog.ethereum.org/2014/05/06/daos-dacs-das-and-more-an-incomplete-terminology-guide/
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline bytemaster

Re: DAOs, DACs, DAs ... nice blog post @ ethereum
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2014, 01:50:50 PM »
Quote
Decentralized autonomous corporations/companies are a smaller topic, because they are basically a subclass of DAOs, but they are worth mentioning. Since the main exponent of DAC as terminology is Daniel Larimer, we will borrow as a definition the point that he himself consistently promotes: a DAC pays dividends. That is, there is a concept of shares in a DAC which are purchaseable and tradeable in some fashion, and those shares potentially entitle their holders to continual receipts based on the DAC’s success. A DAO is non-profit; though you can make money in a DAO, the way to do that is by participating in its ecosystem and not by providing investment into the DAO itself. Obviously, this distinction is a murky one; all DAOs contain internal capital that can be owned, and the value of that internal capital can easily go up as the DAO becomes more powerful/popular, so a large portion of DAOs are inevitably going to be DAC-like to some extent.

Thus, the distinction is more of a fluid one and hinges on emphasis: to what extent are dividends the main point, and to what extent is it about earning tokens by participation? Also, to what extent does the concept of a “share” exist as opposed to simple virtual property? For example, a membership on a nonprofit board is not really a share, because membership frequently gets granted and confiscated at will, something which would be unacceptable for something classified as investable property, and a bitcoin is not a share because a bitcoin does not entitle you to any claim on profits or decision-making ability inside the system, whereas a share in a corporation definitely is a share. In the end, perhaps the distinction might ultimately be the surprisingly obscure point of whether or not the profit mechanism and the consensus mechanism are the same thing.

The above definitions are still not close to complete; there will likely be gray areas and holes in them, and exactly what kind of automation a DO must have before it becomes a DAO is a very hard question to answer. Additionally, there is also the question of how all of these things should be built. An AI, for example, should likely exist as a network of private servers, each one running often proprietary local code, whereas a DO should be fully open source and blockchain-based. Between those two extremes, there is a large number of different paradigms to pursue. How much of the intelligence should be in the core code? Should genetic algorithms be used for updating code, or should it be futarchy or some voting or vetting mechanism based on individuals? Should membership be corporate-style, with sellable and transferable shares, or nonprofit-style, where members can vote other members in and out? Should blockchains be proof of work, proof of stake, or reputation-based? Should DAOs try to maintain balances in other currencies, or should they only reward behavior by issuing their own internal token? These are all hard problems and we have only just begun scratching the surface of them.


This section attempts to be fair, but is clearly missing the point:

1)  Assumption that equity gains are the same thing as profitability, after all it could just mean the dollar is falling in value.
2)  whether you call it an organization or a company, it must produce more value than it consumes
3)  How can you measure whether it is producing more value than it is consuming?   This statement is telling  "to what extent are dividends the main point, and to what extent is it about earning tokens by participation?"    The question that must be asked is *who* is paying people for participation and what value did they provide for participating?   It comes down to the organization issuing tokens that are supposed to have VALUE and then constantly transferring value from those who they have already issued tokens to new users.    You can call them tokens, take the perspective of the miners as 'earners' but it still ignores the reality that someone must pay so others may earn.

Quote
Should DAOs try to maintain balances in other currencies, or should they only reward behavior by issuing their own internal token? These are all hard problems and we have only just begun scratching the surface of them.

This is an example of failure to understand the first principle of DACs/DAOs... they cannot hold secrets (private keys in foreign chains).  Only individuals (centralized) can hold secrets on behalf of a DAO... the DAO cannot be sovereign over foreign currencies.

 





« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 03:33:15 PM by bytemaster »
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 Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BTS: benjojo
Re: DAOs, DACs, DAs ... nice blog post @ ethereum
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2014, 03:29:34 PM »
 +5% we're all gradually breaking free of our conditioning.

Your patient and persistent clarity will help these other brilliant minds (not mine, mostly I have belief in I3) to fully comprehend your concepts......then everyone will be in the same rocket to civilization
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 03:31:07 PM by Ben Mason »

Offline luckybit

Re: DAOs, DACs, DAs ... nice blog post @ ethereum
« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2014, 12:28:03 AM »
FYI:

DAOs, DACs, DAs and More: An Incomplete Terminology Guide
http://blog.ethereum.org/2014/05/06/daos-dacs-das-and-more-an-incomplete-terminology-guide/

So far the most accurate description of the terminology that I've read. Excellent work.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline puppies

Re: DAOs, DACs, DAs ... nice blog post @ ethereum
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2014, 03:23:09 PM »
Quote
Decentralized autonomous corporations/companies are a smaller topic, because they are basically a subclass of DAOs, but they are worth mentioning. Since the main exponent of DAC as terminology is Daniel Larimer, we will borrow as a definition the point that he himself consistently promotes: a DAC pays dividends. That is, there is a concept of shares in a DAC which are purchaseable and tradeable in some fashion, and those shares potentially entitle their holders to continual receipts based on the DAC’s success. A DAO is non-profit; though you can make money in a DAO, the way to do that is by participating in its ecosystem and not by providing investment into the DAO itself. Obviously, this distinction is a murky one; all DAOs contain internal capital that can be owned, and the value of that internal capital can easily go up as the DAO becomes more powerful/popular, so a large portion of DAOs are inevitably going to be DAC-like to some extent.

Thus, the distinction is more of a fluid one and hinges on emphasis: to what extent are dividends the main point, and to what extent is it about earning tokens by participation? Also, to what extent does the concept of a “share” exist as opposed to simple virtual property? For example, a membership on a nonprofit board is not really a share, because membership frequently gets granted and confiscated at will, something which would be unacceptable for something classified as investable property, and a bitcoin is not a share because a bitcoin does not entitle you to any claim on profits or decision-making ability inside the system, whereas a share in a corporation definitely is a share. In the end, perhaps the distinction might ultimately be the surprisingly obscure point of whether or not the profit mechanism and the consensus mechanism are the same thing.

The above definitions are still not close to complete; there will likely be gray areas and holes in them, and exactly what kind of automation a DO must have before it becomes a DAO is a very hard question to answer. Additionally, there is also the question of how all of these things should be built. An AI, for example, should likely exist as a network of private servers, each one running often proprietary local code, whereas a DO should be fully open source and blockchain-based. Between those two extremes, there is a large number of different paradigms to pursue. How much of the intelligence should be in the core code? Should genetic algorithms be used for updating code, or should it be futarchy or some voting or vetting mechanism based on individuals? Should membership be corporate-style, with sellable and transferable shares, or nonprofit-style, where members can vote other members in and out? Should blockchains be proof of work, proof of stake, or reputation-based? Should DAOs try to maintain balances in other currencies, or should they only reward behavior by issuing their own internal token? These are all hard problems and we have only just begun scratching the surface of them.


This section attempts to be fair, but is clearly missing the point:

1)  Assumption that equity gains are the same thing as profitability, after all it could just mean the dollar is falling in value.
2)  whether you call it an organization or a company, it must produce more value than it consumes
3)  How can you measure whether it is producing more value than it is consuming?   This statement is telling  "to what extent are dividends the main point, and to what extent is it about earning tokens by participation?"    The question that must be asked is *who* is paying people for participation and what value did they provide for participating?   It comes down to the organization issuing tokens that are supposed to have VALUE and then constantly transferring value from those who they have already issued tokens to new users.    You can call them tokens, take the perspective of the miners as 'earners' but it still ignores the reality that someone must pay so others may earn.

Quote
Should DAOs try to maintain balances in other currencies, or should they only reward behavior by issuing their own internal token? These are all hard problems and we have only just begun scratching the surface of them.

This is an example of failure to understand the first principle of DACs/DAOs... they cannot hold secrets (private keys in foreign chains).  Only individuals (centralized) can hold secrets on behalf of a DAO... the DAO cannot be sovereign over foreign currencies.

I greatly appreciate point 1.  Too many people forget to factor in the price of the commodity they are using as currency.

For 2 and 3, I'm not quite sure what you mean by value.   I consider value to always be a subjective thing.   What theory of value are you referring to?   Or are you speaking of an aggregate value as measured by price?

I also couldn't agree more on your last point.   Try telling the goon robbing you that you have a right to your property because the blockchain says you do.   Alternatively,  Try claiming your property external to the blockchain.  What do you do if the authority that should release it to you refuses.   

While there are solutions to both of these problems, they don't exist on the blockchain, and are the result of the centralization inherent in attempting to trade in off blockchain assets directly.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 03:49:11 PM by puppies »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline neotheone

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: DAOs, DACs, DAs ... nice blog post @ ethereum
« Reply #5 on: May 10, 2014, 07:05:52 PM »
Quote
Decentralized autonomous corporations/companies are a smaller topic, because they are basically a subclass of DAOs, but they are worth mentioning. Since the main exponent of DAC as terminology is Daniel Larimer, we will borrow as a definition the point that he himself consistently promotes: a DAC pays dividends. That is, there is a concept of shares in a DAC which are purchaseable and tradeable in some fashion, and those shares potentially entitle their holders to continual receipts based on the DAC’s success. A DAO is non-profit; though you can make money in a DAO, the way to do that is by participating in its ecosystem and not by providing investment into the DAO itself. Obviously, this distinction is a murky one; all DAOs contain internal capital that can be owned, and the value of that internal capital can easily go up as the DAO becomes more powerful/popular, so a large portion of DAOs are inevitably going to be DAC-like to some extent.

Thus, the distinction is more of a fluid one and hinges on emphasis: to what extent are dividends the main point, and to what extent is it about earning tokens by participation? Also, to what extent does the concept of a “share” exist as opposed to simple virtual property? For example, a membership on a nonprofit board is not really a share, because membership frequently gets granted and confiscated at will, something which would be unacceptable for something classified as investable property, and a bitcoin is not a share because a bitcoin does not entitle you to any claim on profits or decision-making ability inside the system, whereas a share in a corporation definitely is a share. In the end, perhaps the distinction might ultimately be the surprisingly obscure point of whether or not the profit mechanism and the consensus mechanism are the same thing.

The above definitions are still not close to complete; there will likely be gray areas and holes in them, and exactly what kind of automation a DO must have before it becomes a DAO is a very hard question to answer. Additionally, there is also the question of how all of these things should be built. An AI, for example, should likely exist as a network of private servers, each one running often proprietary local code, whereas a DO should be fully open source and blockchain-based. Between those two extremes, there is a large number of different paradigms to pursue. How much of the intelligence should be in the core code? Should genetic algorithms be used for updating code, or should it be futarchy or some voting or vetting mechanism based on individuals? Should membership be corporate-style, with sellable and transferable shares, or nonprofit-style, where members can vote other members in and out? Should blockchains be proof of work, proof of stake, or reputation-based? Should DAOs try to maintain balances in other currencies, or should they only reward behavior by issuing their own internal token? These are all hard problems and we have only just begun scratching the surface of them.


This section attempts to be fair, but is clearly missing the point:

1)  Assumption that equity gains are the same thing as profitability, after all it could just mean the dollar is falling in value.
While I am in agreement with other of your statements, this one just ruined it for me. Are you being serious? Dollar falling in value = increase in prices is true only for commodities or commodity currencies  --- not for equity gains.

One of the holes in ethereum explanation is all shares have voting powers (if we were to refer bitcoin as shares). I guess they have never heard of the term "preferred stocks".  So I believe your definition of bitcoin existing as a share to be pretty true.

That all said, this whole DAO, DAC, DA etc was a bit silly. I felt ethereum should stick to their nomenclature -- no is stopping them from doing so. Instead of trying to initiate an unnecessary debate

Offline Count of La Mancha

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: DAOs, DACs, DAs ... nice blog post @ ethereum
« Reply #6 on: May 10, 2014, 07:41:12 PM »
Quote
While I am in agreement with other of your statements, this one just ruined it for me. Are you being serious? Dollar falling in value = increase in prices is true only for commodities or commodity currencies  --- not for equity gains.

Sir... you are clearly wrong.     If the dollar went to 0 in hyperinflation to price of the equities in terms of dollars would go to infinity.   An increase in the supply of money means there is more money to bid up the value of equities. 

You cannot pick and choose commodities, services, equities, etc for the purposes of inflation.  Anything that can be exchanged with dollars has its price affected due to changes in dollar valuation.

Offline bytemaster

Re: DAOs, DACs, DAs ... nice blog post @ ethereum
« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2014, 07:42:24 PM »
Quote
While I am in agreement with other of your statements, this one just ruined it for me. Are you being serious? Dollar falling in value = increase in prices is true only for commodities or commodity currencies  --- not for equity gains.

Sir... you are clearly wrong.     If the dollar went to 0 in hyperinflation to price of the equities in terms of dollars would go to infinity.   An increase in the supply of money means there is more money to bid up the value of equities. 

You cannot pick and choose commodities, services, equities, etc for the purposes of inflation.  Anything that can be exchanged with dollars has its price affected due to changes in dollar valuation.

+1
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 neotheone

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: DAOs, DACs, DAs ... nice blog post @ ethereum
« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2014, 08:10:06 AM »


Sir... you are clearly wrong.     If the dollar went to 0 in hyperinflation to price of the equities in terms of dollars would go to infinity.   An increase in the supply of money means there is more money to bid up the value of equities. 

You cannot pick and choose commodities, services, equities, etc for the purposes of inflation.  Anything that can be exchanged with dollars has its price affected due to changes in dollar valuation.
And this is why I think most of the crypto equities stuff is doomed. Lack of understanding practical economies is so painfully missing. Mixing two concepts together - inflation and falling dollar value.

Lets just deal with what BM said- falling dollar value, it will actually cause equity gains to be wiped . A $100 stock worth at $110 (increase in value) is actually same as $100 or $90 -- there is no real (even if there is a nominal one) increase if we were to say dollar value has fallen. In case of commodities, it will be a real increase not only a nominal one -- thats the difference.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 08:27:55 AM by neotheone »

Offline bytemaster

Re: DAOs, DACs, DAs ... nice blog post @ ethereum
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2014, 03:04:16 PM »
Separating out the concepts of value vs price is key.   Changes in the value of the dollar changes the dollar-price of stocks but not their value. 

With respect to the OP claims regarding equity gains being the same thing as profitability I was merely pointing out that you need a point of reference when calculating profitability.   In the case above the 'point of reference' for profitability was outside the system, ie: dollars or or other goods.   In this particular instance the profit and loss is obscured by price fluctuations.   This is very similar to how many people think they are earning a profit in the stock market, paying taxes on a profit, but in reality are losing value to inflation.  Without a stable reference point profitability is hard to calculate.

Another example of how profitability is hard to calculate is with Bitcoin mining rigs.   Suppose you paid $1000 for the rig and over the course of its life it mined 4 BTC which are now worth $2000.   Was this a profitable move or did they take a loss?    If BTC was $100 when they bought the rig then they could have purchased 10 BTC and the result is that instead of a 2x gain they had a 60% loss.   Why should we use BTC vs dollars for measuring ROI?      Because your income is in BTC so you need to measure your expenses in terms of BTC.

A DAC has its income in the form of transaction fees measured in shares, so its expenses and profit should also be accounted for in shares.   This kind of accounting is measuring profitability entirely independent of any outside forces.   It factors out everything that is irrelevant and focuses on one simple question, "all else being equal, do I own more or less percent of the DAC". 

Inflation (defined as an increase in the money supply) does not solely determine the value of the dollar but it does contribute to it.   The value of the dollar is based upon supply and demand like everything else and thus increasing demand for the dollar could result in falling prices even as there is monetary inflation.    So conventional economists would be running around claiming the sky is falling due to 'deflation' (defined as falling prices) even though  Austrian economists will be warning of the dangers of 'inflation' (increasing money supply) which is misallocating resources.

So before you start throwing around claims like 'practical economies is so painfully missing' I would suggest you hang out a bit and ask some harder questions. 
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 Count of La Mancha

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: DAOs, DACs, DAs ... nice blog post @ ethereum
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2014, 03:35:41 PM »
Lack of understanding practical economies is so painfully missing. .

Abbe Faria: Define Economics.
Edmond: Economics is a science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.
Abbe Faria: Translation?
Edmond: Code first, money later.

Offline neotheone

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: DAOs, DACs, DAs ... nice blog post @ ethereum
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2014, 06:30:02 PM »
Separating out the concepts of value vs price is key.   Changes in the value of the dollar changes the dollar-price of stocks but not their value. 

With respect to the OP claims regarding equity gains being the same thing as profitability I was merely pointing out that you need a point of reference when calculating profitability.   In the case above the 'point of reference' for profitability was outside the system, ie: dollars or or other goods.   In this particular instance the profit and loss is obscured by price fluctuations.   This is very similar to how many people think they are earning a profit in the stock market, paying taxes on a profit, but in reality are losing value to inflation.  Without a stable reference point profitability is hard to calculate.

Another example of how profitability is hard to calculate is with Bitcoin mining rigs.   Suppose you paid $1000 for the rig and over the course of its life it mined 4 BTC which are now worth $2000.   Was this a profitable move or did they take a loss?    If BTC was $100 when they bought the rig then they could have purchased 10 BTC and the result is that instead of a 2x gain they had a 60% loss.   Why should we use BTC vs dollars for measuring ROI?      Because your income is in BTC so you need to measure your expenses in terms of BTC.

A DAC has its income in the form of transaction fees measured in shares, so its expenses and profit should also be accounted for in shares.   This kind of accounting is measuring profitability entirely independent of any outside forces.   It factors out everything that is irrelevant and focuses on one simple question, "all else being equal, do I own more or less percent of the DAC". 

Inflation (defined as an increase in the money supply) does not solely determine the value of the dollar but it does contribute to it.   The value of the dollar is based upon supply and demand like everything else and thus increasing demand for the dollar could result in falling prices even as there is monetary inflation.    So conventional economists would be running around claiming the sky is falling due to 'deflation' (defined as falling prices) even though  Austrian economists will be warning of the dangers of 'inflation' (increasing money supply) which is misallocating resources.

So before you start throwing around claims like 'practical economies is so painfully missing' I would suggest you hang out a bit and ask some harder questions.


Now was that hard? Instead of doing +5% to an obvious flawed argument which mixed inflation and valuation together wasn't really helpful. It did put a doubt in my mind whether you actually understood obvious price ramifications vis-a-vis valuation vs inflation. In a similar way, BTC/USD price climbing - was it due to inflation or was it due to value increase of BTC (or future valuation potential) or was it USD falling in value ? There is no way to tell, is it? Though from a finite point of view it might seem increase in BTC valuation might be same as USD valuation decreasing, it certainly is not. Now you might argue it does produce same result, there is an underlying cause which is different.
If you do understand valuation then its fine by me.

That said, inflation is defined as "defined as an increase in the money supply"? Are you again being serious now? It is not so simple...inflation is - "Inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time" (yeah from wiki). What this means is in true terms inflation can be onset by say increasing oil prices too and it has done in the past.  So lets stick to conventional definitions instead of singularly expressed definitions.

Though what I said was directed at the Count and not at you; I see you have taken it pretty offensive. So let me clarify, I own over 5k in PTS and donated around 2 BTC in AGS so been here long. I have my doubts regarding BTS - specially the pricing -- it is still an experiment for me , I don't have many "hard questions" cause if it works, its great, if it doesn't then meh! I have already written down the expenses (yeah I have made loads on earning a profit in the stock market, paying taxes on a profit ;) )
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 06:37:51 PM by neotheone »

Offline bytemaster

Re: DAOs, DACs, DAs ... nice blog post @ ethereum
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2014, 07:42:15 PM »
Separating out the concepts of value vs price is key.   Changes in the value of the dollar changes the dollar-price of stocks but not their value. 

With respect to the OP claims regarding equity gains being the same thing as profitability I was merely pointing out that you need a point of reference when calculating profitability.   In the case above the 'point of reference' for profitability was outside the system, ie: dollars or or other goods.   In this particular instance the profit and loss is obscured by price fluctuations.   This is very similar to how many people think they are earning a profit in the stock market, paying taxes on a profit, but in reality are losing value to inflation.  Without a stable reference point profitability is hard to calculate.

Another example of how profitability is hard to calculate is with Bitcoin mining rigs.   Suppose you paid $1000 for the rig and over the course of its life it mined 4 BTC which are now worth $2000.   Was this a profitable move or did they take a loss?    If BTC was $100 when they bought the rig then they could have purchased 10 BTC and the result is that instead of a 2x gain they had a 60% loss.   Why should we use BTC vs dollars for measuring ROI?      Because your income is in BTC so you need to measure your expenses in terms of BTC.

A DAC has its income in the form of transaction fees measured in shares, so its expenses and profit should also be accounted for in shares.   This kind of accounting is measuring profitability entirely independent of any outside forces.   It factors out everything that is irrelevant and focuses on one simple question, "all else being equal, do I own more or less percent of the DAC". 

Inflation (defined as an increase in the money supply) does not solely determine the value of the dollar but it does contribute to it.   The value of the dollar is based upon supply and demand like everything else and thus increasing demand for the dollar could result in falling prices even as there is monetary inflation.    So conventional economists would be running around claiming the sky is falling due to 'deflation' (defined as falling prices) even though  Austrian economists will be warning of the dangers of 'inflation' (increasing money supply) which is misallocating resources.

So before you start throwing around claims like 'practical economies is so painfully missing' I would suggest you hang out a bit and ask some harder questions.


Now was that hard? Instead of doing +5% to an obvious flawed argument which mixed inflation and valuation together wasn't really helpful. It did put a doubt in my mind whether you actually understood obvious price ramifications vis-a-vis valuation vs inflation. In a similar way, BTC/USD price climbing - was it due to inflation or was it due to value increase of BTC (or future valuation potential) or was it USD falling in value ? There is no way to tell, is it? Though from a finite point of view it might seem increase in BTC valuation might be same as USD valuation decreasing, it certainly is not. Now you might argue it does produce same result, there is an underlying cause which is different.
If you do understand valuation then its fine by me.

That said, inflation is defined as "defined as an increase in the money supply"? Are you again being serious now? It is not so simple...inflation is - "Inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time" (yeah from wiki). What this means is in true terms inflation can be onset by say increasing oil prices too and it has done in the past.  So lets stick to conventional definitions instead of singularly expressed definitions.

Though what I said was directed at the Count and not at you; I see you have taken it pretty offensive. So let me clarify, I own over 5k in PTS and donated around 2 BTC in AGS so been here long. I have my doubts regarding BTS - specially the pricing -- it is still an experiment for me , I don't have many "hard questions" cause if it works, its great, if it doesn't then meh! I have already written down the expenses (yeah I have made loads on earning a profit in the stock market, paying taxes on a profit ;) )

Considering I gave the Count a +5 I thought I should explain how I interpreted his comments.   

There are two conventional definitions of inflation and it is important to clarify which one you are using.   Therefore I tend to refer to things as monetary inflation vs price inflation to account for the different meanings they clearly have.   It is pointless to argue about what the 'true' definition of inflation is when the only point is to convey an idea.  In one case the idea is an increase in the money supply and the other it is an decrease in the value of dollar relative to other goods and services.    Monetary inflation can contribute to price inflation; however, price inflation is such a poor metric because it is effected by everything from oil prices, to technological innovations, interest rates, to fear in the economy.   So in my opinion price inflation is far less interesting because it is almost meaningless by itself.

Holy crap the wikipedia entry on inflation is a load of Keynesian Malarky...  hopefully we can understand that appeals to authority are not productive and focus on clear communication of ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_inflation

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 tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
    • View Profile
Re: DAOs, DACs, DAs ... nice blog post @ ethereum
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2014, 10:08:25 PM »
The confusion exists because almost all discussion on Wall Street about inflation or deflation occurs in a demand-side model. Demand-side monetarists (Friedmanites) insist that inflation (or deflation) is a monetary phenomenon. Demand-side fiscalists (Keynesians) usually argue that inflation (or deflation) is a problem of the real economy, not the money economy. Supply-siders (classical economists) agree with both. Inflations and deflations can be monetary or real or both at the same time.

Think of a balloon as it inflates or deflates. In the monetarist model, the economy first expands as the Federal Reserve adds money to the banking system. If it adds too much, the banks will make bad loans that inflate the balloon past its productive capacity. The balloon will deflate when the Fed takes too much money out of the banking system in order to fight the inflation. This is why monetarists focus on a slow, steady increase in the money supply.

Keynesians argue that the balloon inflates when government tax and spending policies cause aggregate demand to increase. To expand the balloon, the government should lower interest rates or lower taxes or increase spending. If too much is done, and prices and wages appear to be rising at a faster clip, the balloon should be deflated by raising interest rates and taxes or cutting spending, in some combination.

In the supply model, there are two types of inflations and deflations.


My 2 bips are that - something being mainstream does not: 1.make it right; 2. Does not make all other definitions “singularly expressed definitions”
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

 

Google+