0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The utility and purpose of a condom can vary from person to person and is not universal. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Purpose and Utility are both PERCEPTIONS that are unique to every individual. Hence, they are not a property of the item but of a person's judgement. Purpose and utility can cause people to perceive value, but they are clearly part of the perception and not the item.
To prove my point ask what purpose or utility it has absent humans. Without humans the balloon has no one to give it purpose. Take it back in time 1000 years and ask a native what it's purpose or utility is. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is no such thing as "society", just individuals. There is no absolute value, only relative value placed on it by individuals. Price is nothing more than the least value placed on item by everyone who holds the item compared to the least value placed on another item by everyone who holds that item. In other words, price is an emergent property from the "LACK OF TRADE". Purpose and Utility are both PERCEPTIONS that are unique to every individual. Hence, they are not a property of the item but of a person's judgement. Purpose and utility can cause people to perceive value, but they are clearly part of the perception and not the item.
Quote from: roadscape on August 05, 2015, 04:57:15 pmThe byline: 'So-called “alternatives” to Proof-of-Work “waste” just as much “work”.'Part of his criticism of DPOS is voting in general. He also says the amount of resources "wasted" to political campaigning (among other voting inefficiencies) will equal the resources wasted to mining. Even if it was true, wouldn't such campaigns be more beneficial/productive for their blockchains than mining? He compares it to the "democracies" of today and assumes anyone can get voted in based on how much they spend. I don't think it's a fair comparison.Parts of his criticism are parenthetical:"Is vote-buying a bad thing? Who really knows (considering the long-run coordination problems facing this species…)? For today’s post, who cares?"The article is long-winded and I admittedly skimmed a lot.Also, I don't believe he addressed the centralization of POW, which would make the rest moot."Rational ignorance occurs when the cost of educating oneself on an issue exceeds the potential benefit that the knowledge would provide."This thread is a highly interesting convo that will take me more time to fully digest in order to offer substantive comments on the merits. However, I do feel compelled to comment, more from an abstract philosophical perspective on the basis of voting vs. mining.It was easy for me to see the benefits of DPoS over PoS based solely on a DAC / balance sheet perspective. My view in that regard has not changed. However, I now have doubts concerning the political influences of both systems which I cannot easily evaluate as to which influences the free market nature of a crypto-currency the least. There is no disputing that both systems are influenced by politics. PoW by the ever increasing costs of the mechanics of mining drive increasing centralization to save costs, which increase the chances that mining will be influenced more and more by those wealthy enough to buy a bigger share of mining hardware or control over it. Even the cost of power generation is an influential factor.I don't see any magic bullet to eliminate similar issues in DPoS either. Look at the power of so called "whales" in our ecosystem over who gets elected to produce blocks. It's not currently decentralized and whether it will become sufficiently decentralized such that healthy competition can emerge and the free market qualities of the ecosystem can be maintained remains to be seen. Then there is the issue of voter apathy, and how that tends to put more influence in the hands of "whales who care" to vote. I'm not convinced it's fair to extrapolate our current experience with DPoS with what it will look like with orders of magnitude greater adoption we all hope will happen. Who knew that mining would lead to centralization? How can we rely on "game theory" and presume to know how people will be swayed to elect (or not elect through apathy or personal preferences) quality "overseers" in the form of workers and delegates? I left out witnesses b/c they are more or less a binary check & balance mechanism, tho if push came to shove and a code controversy splits witnesses into factions that support various versions they too will be influenced by politics.My doubts about any crypto-currency will always be focused on the philosophical basis and people politics involved. I can't imagine how that perspective could be changed.
The byline: 'So-called “alternatives” to Proof-of-Work “waste” just as much “work”.'Part of his criticism of DPOS is voting in general. He also says the amount of resources "wasted" to political campaigning (among other voting inefficiencies) will equal the resources wasted to mining. Even if it was true, wouldn't such campaigns be more beneficial/productive for their blockchains than mining? He compares it to the "democracies" of today and assumes anyone can get voted in based on how much they spend. I don't think it's a fair comparison.Parts of his criticism are parenthetical:"Is vote-buying a bad thing? Who really knows (considering the long-run coordination problems facing this species…)? For today’s post, who cares?"The article is long-winded and I admittedly skimmed a lot.Also, I don't believe he addressed the centralization of POW, which would make the rest moot."Rational ignorance occurs when the cost of educating oneself on an issue exceeds the potential benefit that the knowledge would provide."
Quote from: bytemaster on August 06, 2015, 12:04:21 pmAll value is perceived value. Trades do not create nor destroy value, only reallocate it.Mining reallocates value from current coin holders to the producers of electricity via the issuance of new coins. Best-case, mining reallocates value from those who are making a transaction to those who convert electricity into computational cycles. So if you remove the illusion of the printing press which socializes costs, and ask the pro-mining community to pay for the full cost of their transactions as $12 per transaction to the miners then things become real clear real fast.The amount of mining that can be performed is proportional to the value of the coin relative to the value of electricity. The value of the coin must come first so that it can purchase electricity.The assumption that 100% of dilution ends up being used to cover the cost of political campaigning is laughable. People are going to campaign for changes regardless and the stakeholders would never vote for people that don't do significant real work in exchange for the funds they receive. DPOS does not require dilution and he completely misses that. Dilution is an OPTION to fund growth, not a requirement. Under POW dilution isn't an option because the network would be too insecure if it relied only on fees! Appreciate the brevity here. Although value is not entirely perceived, moreover it is ultimately defined by usefulness (utility) and purpose. Just writing USD on a piece of paper doesn't make it valuable to society just because one person perceives it as worth as much as a Benjamin. An asset has value because certain groups of individuals believe that it is useful to them. "People forget already how much utility they get out of the Internet - how much utility they get out of e-mail, how much utility they get out of even simple things like brochureware online." Jeff BezosYes if "Trades nonetheless do not create nor destroy value, only reallocate it." This reads like the law of matter and thermodynamics, where energy and matter are neither destroyed or created. This would mean that then bankers aren't entirely value add to the services they bring? Really?!
All value is perceived value. Trades do not create nor destroy value, only reallocate it.Mining reallocates value from current coin holders to the producers of electricity via the issuance of new coins. Best-case, mining reallocates value from those who are making a transaction to those who convert electricity into computational cycles. So if you remove the illusion of the printing press which socializes costs, and ask the pro-mining community to pay for the full cost of their transactions as $12 per transaction to the miners then things become real clear real fast.The amount of mining that can be performed is proportional to the value of the coin relative to the value of electricity. The value of the coin must come first so that it can purchase electricity.The assumption that 100% of dilution ends up being used to cover the cost of political campaigning is laughable. People are going to campaign for changes regardless and the stakeholders would never vote for people that don't do significant real work in exchange for the funds they receive. DPOS does not require dilution and he completely misses that. Dilution is an OPTION to fund growth, not a requirement. Under POW dilution isn't an option because the network would be too insecure if it relied only on fees!
This article abstracts most of the relevant issues into "externalities" and then ignores them.
Quote from: Pheonike on August 05, 2015, 10:56:29 pmWhat happens when the cost of energy goes to zero(or near zero). As we begin using more and more renewable energy, the cost of energy becomes marginal.The cost of energy will not reach even close to zero unles a "free energy devise" is invented, and then somehow slips by "the powers that be", and then reaches global commercial manufacturing. In other words, extremely unlikely by today's standards. ...Unless things are radically changed.Renewable energy is not free either, but it has reached "grid parity", which means it costs the same (over time) as other forms of energy (on a level playing field where all incentives are stripped away). So at best, RE is as expensive as, or a little cheaper, than "fossil fuel". Both require large up-front costs.
What happens when the cost of energy goes to zero(or near zero). As we begin using more and more renewable energy, the cost of energy becomes marginal.
So the idea is that value is whatever someone is willing to trade for something else? If so then value and flow of value is orthogonal to the creation and destruction of value. The equal and opposite force of buying coins with burning is buying burning with coins, and while this increases the flow of value strictly defined, it destroys value in the proper sense.
Quote from: Stan on August 05, 2015, 12:24:44 pmIn either case, the price is determined by market demand, not your costs.If you remove all the inefficiencies from the process, the amount you burn on energy is exactly equivalent to value. Therefore, you are turning electricity into coins in a very real sense.
In either case, the price is determined by market demand, not your costs.
People willing to exchange one thing for another aren't giving it value, they're chasing it.
Quote from: Stan on August 05, 2015, 12:15:32 pmA little less than what I could turn around and sell the reward for in the market....and therefore the amount you burnt was very close to the value of the coins?
A little less than what I could turn around and sell the reward for in the market.
Quote from: Stan on August 05, 2015, 12:03:34 pm* Coins are not worth what it cost to produce them. Most of the bitcoins circulating right now cost very little to produce. Miners sell them for what they can get in the market - independent of the cost to produce them. Coins that have no new supply being introduced still have value that is solely dependent on supply vs. demand - Economics 101.Here is an easy way to understand this:* Replace miners by burners* Burners take part in a action to win the block reward by burning currencyHow much currency would you burn in order to win the reward?
* Coins are not worth what it cost to produce them. Most of the bitcoins circulating right now cost very little to produce. Miners sell them for what they can get in the market - independent of the cost to produce them. Coins that have no new supply being introduced still have value that is solely dependent on supply vs. demand - Economics 101.
* Only the demographic known as "alpha-geek" gets the coins at first, then within days it switches to the demographic known as "professional equipment operators". Either one of these groups then sells them to every one else. Much more rationale to have the developers sell to everyone else directly and thereby raise funds to develop and promote the coin.
* It is completely upside down logic to call an unnecessary expense (electricity) a "revenue stream." Spend that money on development and promotion - don't waste it contributing to "global warming".
The number of economic fallacies being promoted by the bitcoin mining cartel are mind boggling.
This does not represent value flowing into the system. Every coin mined must be sold to cover costs in a perfectly competitive system. This means that mining represents nothing but sell pressure: money flowing out of the system.
Quote from: speedy on August 05, 2015, 12:21:27 amI agree its a waste of time.Like Bytemaster says, there are mind viruses that convince you that mining is good.Mining has a couple of qualities which DPOS does not: * Anyone can get into the coin simply by turning on their miners (at least initially)* There is a constant revenue stream of electricity getting turned into coins
I agree its a waste of time.Like Bytemaster says, there are mind viruses that convince you that mining is good.
Quote from: speedy on August 05, 2015, 08:37:09 amYes the only argument for it is that it can be a useful & fair initial method of distrubution. We already did that with Protoshares.Not only. The constant conversion of electrical power into coins is a stream of value flowing into the system, which doesn't rely on other crypto-currencies or going through fiat.
Yes the only argument for it is that it can be a useful & fair initial method of distrubution. We already did that with Protoshares.
Quote from: CLains on August 05, 2015, 09:34:30 amIs the nature of this value the computational irreversibility as more and more solutions add up, or something more?The electricity cost is on average equal to the coin value.
Is the nature of this value the computational irreversibility as more and more solutions add up, or something more?
* Anyone can get into the coin simply by turning on their miners (at least initially)
* There is a constant revenue stream of electricity getting turned into coins
It's really not worth it...