DACs vs. Firms (Are DACs useless?)

[santaclause102]

As for the morality aspect of it: That was a bit confusing. I should have said: If someone goes ahead and states that Bitcoin SHOULD

Well I don't say that. In fact I never use the word "should" ever, if I can help it.

Right, you didn't say that. Many, for example in the discussion about side chains, understand digital scarcity in a moral sense guided probably by their investment bias. I was wrong to imply that.

Right, a fork of Bitcoin doesn't create new Bitcoins.

Maybe a different term than "digital scarcity" is more appropriate for what can be measured if the network effect of a DAC is multiplied by (it's features + efficiency (efficiency as security per cost)). It could be called "pre market valuation of a DAC". I attributed it to digital scarcity though because if digital scarcity is defined as

a] its digital (not existing outside computers/the internet), and b] its scarce (there is a limited supply, in Bitcoin's case 21 million units)

how does this definition help us to evaluate and understand the nature of open source software based tx ledgers with native tokens? Intuitively it would make sense to assume that digital scarcity is what gives Bitcoin it's value. but if the evaluation stops there people miss halve the picture and might be turned off as soon as they discover "altcoins".

Would you agree that it makes sense to say that chain xy has "Digital Scarcity" insofar it performs well in terms of (1) and (2) - respectively will have dig. scarc. in the future when the market confirms that it performs well with respect to (1) and (2)?

No. Plenty of things are "good enough" (1) and "have network effects" (2), gmail, facebook, IRC, alternating current, writing-from-left-to-right. Its irrelevant. For value-storage, only scarcity matters.

Consider that my formula is relative. You could say: 5 x [combined measure for network effect: Market cap, accepting merchants, mind share, marketing to be deployed]) x 1 x [measure for efficiency (security per cost to the overall network)]  - left out "features" (e.g. integrated shareholder voting to control and incentive further development/marketing) because that complicates the to be compared DACs.
This is so general that is also applies to Facebook, IRC etc. The question is just how much does the network effect matter and how much does the quality of the service matter which is difficult to predict. If DACs / "service providing consensus networks" can be analyzed the same way, then having digital scarcity (definition limited to Bitcoin / one DAC only) as a measure is not wrong (as anything can be instrumentally defined as anything) but isn't a meaningful measure.

Maybe you never implied anything contradictory in the first place and probably I wrongly interpreted your use of the term "digital scarcity" without a good reason. In the end it sparked of a good discussion  

Edit: Another way of saying it: It is easy to create digital scarcity (given your definition; just fork Bitcoin and the bitcoin-2 tokens are as digitally scarce as bitcoins). What gives any token that is required to make use of a specific tx ledger value can be described by the formula above (roughly).

[AsymmetricInformation]

As for the morality aspect of it: That was a bit confusing. I should have said: If someone goes ahead and states that Bitcoin SHOULD

Well I don't say that. In fact I never use the word "should" ever, if I can help it.

Digital Scarcity means that a] its digital (not existing outside computers/the internet), and b] its scarce (there is a limited supply, in Bitcoin's case 21 million units). One can copy Bitcoin's code, but as the protocol Bitcoin is using the longest-valid-chain, so doing that does not "copy" Bitcoins themselves, or alter b.

What your definition of digital scarcity refers to is relative: As a fact you can copy the code and release a new chain (and maybe change an few symbolic parameters; altcoins). The Problem is that this has no advantages (equal regarding efficiency/features, see (1) above) but only downsides (worse in terms of network effect, see (2)).
Therefore I think the two parameters above [(1) and (2)] are a better analytical tool to analyze whether the analyzed chain has the potential to create "perceived digital scarcity"

"New chain" does mean "new something", but by defintion it does NOT mean "new Bitcoins".

than to assume that Bitcoin defines digital scarcity.

I don't.

Would you agree that it makes sense to say that chain xy has "Digital Scarcity" insofar it performs well in terms of (1) and (2) - respectively will have dig. scarc. in the future when the market confirms that it performs well with respect to (1) and (2)?

No. Plenty of things are "good enough" (1) and "have network effects" (2), gmail, facebook, IRC, alternating current, writing-from-left-to-right. Its irrelevant. For value-storage, only scarcity matters.

"digital scarcity" if the word is understood in a traditional sense (= assumption that there can only be one DAC/chain to provide one type of a service which as a fact is not the case).

Again, this isn't the definition I'm using. Bitcoin and Litecoin both have digital scarcity, but Bitcoin has a larger network effect, and is better designed.

[santaclause102]

Digital scarcity is not a feature it can be the consequence of:
1) The usefulness of a service a DAC provides (compared to the usefulness of a service that uses a centralized ledger). The advantages over a centralized solution could be: Potentially cheaper fees (eg. lower rake with a gambling/poker service), anonymity, no corruption/transparent.
2) The network effect of one particular DAC (there may be many DACs providing a similar service). This network effect might in the first place be initiated by successful mass market marketing.

The Bitcoin blockchain (the unique longest valid chain starting with Satoshi's genesis block), had digital scarcity (by this, I mean a controllable quantity, with an unalterable limit of 21 million). Nothing like this had ever existed before without a centralized server, and this p2p scarcity existed before Bitcoin was useful (1) and even before it had an economic network at all, let alone network effects (2).

So I don't see how you can be right about those.

But saying other DACs are not legitimate because Bitcoin (or any other DAC) provides digital scarcity is wishful and moralized thinking.

How is it wishful or moralized? Its unambiguously pessimistic, and (I think) makes no reference to morality at all.

As for the morality aspect of it: That was a bit confusing. I should have said: If someone goes ahead and states that Bitcoin SHOULD be the only chain to provides the service "transfer of tokens" (which becomes the transfer of value because this service is perceived as (potentially) useful (in the future) and the Bitcoin tokens are necessary to use this service) because it was the first one out there. Then this statement is wishful thinking and a moral statement.
It is obvious that it is moral, see the word "should".
It is wishful thinking in case Bitcoin doesn't perform well in terms of paramter (1) and (2), see below. 
Overall the statement isn't based on market forces (aka everyone does what is in his/her best interest). Instead of assuming Bitcoin defines "digital scarcity" I would propose to analyze the system based on the assumption that all individuals do what is in their best interest. I suggested that individuals are guided by two things when trying to maximize their interest here:
(1) Use the chain/DAC that has the best features/is most cost effective/is the most secure
(2) Use the chain/DAC that has the biggest network effect. More specifically: Use the DAC/chain that has the biggest volume (less price volatility), the chain/DAC that most merchants accept and so on. 

had digital scarcity (by this, I mean a controllable quantity, with an unalterable limit of 21 million)

What your definition of digital scarcity refers to is relative: As a fact you can copy the code and release a new chain (and maybe change an few symbolic parameters; altcoins). The Problem is that this has no advantages (equal regarding efficiency/features, see (1) above) but only downsides (worse in terms of network effect, see (2)).
Therefore I think the two parameters above [(1) and (2)] are a better analytical tool to analyze whether the analyzed chain has the potential to create "perceived digital scarcity" than to assume that Bitcoin defines digital scarcity. I said "perceived digital scarcity" because my definition of a network with valuable tokens (one could call this "digital scarcity") is relative to parameters (1) and (2). You can also say "digital scarcity" is a result of (1) and (2).

Would you agree that it makes sense to say that chain xy has "Digital Scarcity" insofar it performs well in terms of (1) and (2) - respectively will have dig. scarc. in the future when the market confirms that it performs well with respect to (1) and (2)?

P.S.: We can leave out the "SHOULD" and say "Bitcoin defines digital scarcity in terms of the service 'transfer of tokens'". Then, based on what was said above, the statement is misleading or potentially wrong and wishful thinking in case Bitcoin doesn't perform well in terms of (1) and (2).   

PPS: The above referred to "digital scarcity" which for me implies comparing chains that all provide the same service and therefore dissolve "digital scarcity" if the word is understood in a traditional sense (= assumption that there can only be one DAC/chain to provide one type of a service which as a fact is not the case).
Now to evaluate whether a chain / DAC is to prefer over a centrally kept ledger those can be criteria:

Potentially cheaper fees (eg. lower rake with a gambling/poker service), anonymity, no corruption/transparent.

There are also disadvantages but that is another topic again...

[AsymmetricInformation]

Digital scarcity is not a feature it can be the consequence of:
1) The usefulness of a service a DAC provides (compared to the usefulness of a service that uses a centralized ledger). The advantages over a centralized solution could be: Potentially cheaper fees (eg. lower rake with a gambling/poker service), anonymity, no corruption/transparent.
2) The network effect of one particular DAC (there may be many DACs providing a similar service). This network effect might in the first place be initiated by successful mass market marketing.

The Bitcoin blockchain (the unique longest valid chain starting with Satoshi's genesis block), had digital scarcity (by this, I mean a controllable quantity, with an unalterable limit of 21 million). Nothing like this had ever existed before without a centralized server, and this p2p scarcity existed before Bitcoin was useful (1) and even before it had an economic network at all, let alone network effects (2).

So I don't see how you can be right about those.

But saying other DACs are not legitimate because Bitcoin (or any other DAC) provides digital scarcity is wishful and moralized thinking.

How is it wishful or moralized? Its unambiguously pessimistic, and (I think) makes no reference to morality at all.

[santaclause102]

Digital scarcity is not a feature it can be the consequence of:
1) The usefulness of a service a DAC provides (compared to the usefulness of a service that uses a centralized ledger). The advantages over a centralized solution could be: Potentially cheaper fees (eg. lower rake with a gambling/poker service), anonymity, no corruption/transparent.
2) The network effect of one particular DAC (there may be many DACs providing a similar service). This network effect might in the first place be initiated by successful mass market marketing.

Once the network effect is strong enough and there is no other DAC that provides the service at least one magnitude better (better as: more security, cheaper fees, more feature with a real world demand) there is no advantage for customers to change to another DAC. This then can be called "digital scarcity".
But saying other DACs are not legitimate because Bitcoin (or any other DAC) provides digital scarcity is wishful and moralized thinking.

It is an interesting question whether there ever will be one DAC for a specific service that is able to build a strong enough network effect around it in a situation where there are several DACs providing the same service from the beginning (as opposed to Bitcoin in 2009). 

[AsymmetricInformation]

I repeat yet again: illegal does not necessarily imply DAC. SilkRoad was a Firm, not a DAC. Bitcoin was illegal, but it also was spelled with 7 letters, debuted in 2009 and chose the coin-limit-number to be x="21 million", and those features had nothing to do with why it was successful.

Was Bitcoin's legal status....

I found it quite bizarre that Invictus would preach DACs, yet they have 2 legal entities and complain about "regulatory issues around making AGS liquid".

Nothing is completely decentralized. Not even bitcoin. Yes, the protocols intent is to be decentralized within itself, but outside itself it is completely beholden to the governments wishes depending on where you live. For example, a government may not be able to stop the protocol from running but they can make it illegal to: use bitcoins, sell bitcoins, allow your ISP to interact with the blockchain, trade bitcoins, and so on.

Making a bitcoin useful and tangible unfortunately causes bitcoin to be centralized.

Bitcoin protocol is decentralized, it's usability and products are centralized.

It's a system within a system. Unfortunately Invictus is beholden to the same restraints as a newly minted bitcoin. They have to operate within the laws of the land where they reside.

Very good answer!  While DACs are sovereign in Free Space, we find ourselves still living in Fiat Space.

So the engineering problem is similar in each case.

When we are engineering DACs, we use decentralization as a tool to achieve incorruptibility and freedom from coercion.

When we are engineering an industry, we use decentralization the same way.  From independent delegates to independent developers.

Thus it should be no surprise that we have two legal entities.  You should expect us to incubate many more!

And we have, are, and will.  We have said from the beginning we want to decentralize and help start other completely independent entrepreneurs at the individual and company level in many jurisdictions.  This will continue.  BitShares Music, BitShares Lotto, Lotto Shares, BitShares DNS, even BitShares PTS, are all independent entities that we are supporting whatever way we can.  We will do the same with BitShares X and ME.  This is not a problem, its a long-standing strategic promise!

If we have enough independent companies in enough independent jurisdictions each coordinating with their own authorities and doing what is perfectly legal where they live, the whole will be much greater than the sum of the parts. 

And we all benefit from whatever freedoms we are able to share with each other.

We are, above all, laying out a blueprint and creating dozens of worldwide opportunities for entrepreneurs to fill in whatever missing pieces they are able to do where they live.

...actually important, or was it digital (programmable) scarcity that was in demand? Do people use Bitcoin because it is illegal, or instead are they excited about the lack of inflation?

I have serious concerns that the public just doesn't want to buy what this organization is selling (which I see as "blockchains with no useful digital scarcity"), and I'm surprised that people don't want to discuss that more. If I were a layperson, why should I use a DAC, and trust its logic/code, trust it will be updated, when I can get actual customer service? Why use Bitshares music when I can just keep a centralized database of supporters, issue my own colored coins, sell merchandise the traditional way?

[Stan]

I found it quite bizarre that Invictus would preach DACs, yet they have 2 legal entities and complain about "regulatory issues around making AGS liquid".

Nothing is completely decentralized. Not even bitcoin. Yes, the protocols intent is to be decentralized within itself, but outside itself it is completely beholden to the governments wishes depending on where you live. For example, a government may not be able to stop the protocol from running but they can make it illegal to: use bitcoins, sell bitcoins, allow your ISP to interact with the blockchain, trade bitcoins, and so on.

Making a bitcoin useful and tangible unfortunately causes bitcoin to be centralized.

Bitcoin protocol is decentralized, it's usability and products are centralized.

It's a system within a system. Unfortunately Invictus is beholden to the same restraints as a newly minted bitcoin. They have to operate within the laws of the land where they reside.

Very good answer!  While DACs are sovereign in Free Space, we find ourselves still living in Fiat Space.

So the engineering problem is similar in each case.

When we are engineering DACs, we use decentralization as a tool to achieve incorruptibility and freedom from coercion.

When we are engineering an industry, we use decentralization the same way.  From independent delegates to independent developers.

Thus it should be no surprise that we have two legal entities.  You should expect us to incubate many more!

And we have, are, and will.  We have said from the beginning we want to decentralize and help start other completely independent entrepreneurs at the individual and company level in many jurisdictions.  This will continue.  BitShares Music, BitShares Lotto, Lotto Shares, BitShares DNS, even BitShares PTS, are all independent entities that we are supporting whatever way we can.  We will do the same with BitShares X and ME.  This is not a problem, its a long-standing strategic promise!

If we have enough independent companies in enough independent jurisdictions each coordinating with their own authorities and doing what is perfectly legal where they live, the whole will be much greater than the sum of the parts. 

And we all benefit from whatever freedoms we are able to share with each other.

We are, above all, laying out a blueprint and creating dozens of worldwide opportunities for entrepreneurs to fill in whatever missing pieces they are able to do where they live.

This revolution will be decentralized!

[NewMine]

I found it quite bizarre that Invictus would preach DACs, yet they have 2 legal entities and complain about "regulatory issues around making AGS liquid".

Nothing is completely decentralized. Not even bitcoin. Yes, the protocols intent is to be decentralized within itself, but outside itself it is completely beholden to the governments wishes depending on where you live. For example, a government may not be able to stop the protocol from running but they can make it illegal to: use bitcoins, sell bitcoins, allow your ISP to interact with the blockchain, trade bitcoins, and so on.

Making a bitcoin useful and tangible unfortunately causes bitcoin to be centralized.

Bitcoin protocol is decentralized, it's usability and products are centralized.

It's a system within a system. Unfortunately Invictus is beholden to the same restraints as a newly minted bitcoin. They have to operate within the laws of the land where they reside.

[tonyk]

Again on ‘this piece of nonsense':

“I have completely explained "what I am trying to prove" (one big purpose of which is to directly challenge academia), and the software is as decentralized as Bitcoin (completely so). These points have been very clear to 100's of people who contacted me, and have only confused tonyk.
These behaviors only bother me to a very small degree, because it is obvious that he is reacting defensively, which he would only do if he felt that I was correct. I interpret it as a very confused "I agree".


You know what… I did listen to the podcast and lost more time of mine with your idiocy.
 and I stand behind what I said in my previous post!


All you are saying is:


PMs are great and they must work!

My idea will work on the blockchain because I want it to do so!

[toast]

These seem like you could melt and re-cast them as smart-contracts.

How about this: DACs are smart contracts designed for performance.

[tonyk]

Let me start with the fact that your answer sounds totally non-defensive, totally non-elitist, and definitely not coming from a hot air balloon person, totally not full of himself.



‘have only confused tonyk.’

Do not worry I am often the only one confused – I am the potato (kind of plant).

For not getting what  truthcoin is - you got it right. But there is a simple explanation for that – you switched which of the 2 coins will be the truthcoin, so even your buddy Zack-the-Truth –Coin-expert was still not clear which is which.

From the link provided - I learned that you have discovered the Prediction Markets, or did I get it wrong – You figured out that money can be used for payments - in both cases the Nobel Prize is coming soon.

It cannot be to prove that public ledger is public and can be used as a ledger? – it is a goal even below your standards but on a second thought one of the great advantages of your system is that when money are subtracted from someone’s account he ends up with less money, so I do not know…

 From what I have gathered you must be teaching economics… it is the only current field of academic ‘science’ engaged in one and only one activity – Proving the necessity of its own existence.

[AsymmetricInformation]

More like "firms", Useful because the industry needs transparent public ledgers
Voting:  Again not a "pure" DAC and semi-centralized, but solving a serious problem.
Music:  not a "pure DAC" in my opinion, but the music guys' model is pretty clever and they are pretty much their own separate team so I won't argue.
"Insurance":  More like "decentralized frats", lol

I will search their forum sections and the internet for why these might need transparent public ledgers. If you can point me to any reading I'll take a look at it. My initial thoughts are that these industries are changing rapidly (bad for fixed blockchain model), and/or that colored coins can serve many investment-type functions.

DACs that can stay competitive because it lives "outside" of any jurisdiction:
Mental Poker on blockchain: If the only goal is that online poker is made legal and the DACs are out-competed then I'm ok with this.
Lotto:  cheaper as a DAC because of regulation. 0% (or small constant) house edge is possible and attractive.
ME: "social" version of counterparty. What's not to love?

These seem like you could melt and re-cast them as smart-contracts. Remember: SilkRoad was a firm, not a DAC. Illegal doesn't necessarily imply DAC.

Looks like we agree that digital scarcity is important, implying finance/smart-contracts, and that software can make services cheaper, implying possibility of DACs where services are long-term-programmable.


Now, for this piece of nonsense:

Excuse my non-ivy league education but what is really your point? Of course, truthcoun will work just fine if you make centralized entity with 2 kind of account: ‘voter account’ and ‘better account’… having public ledger would be nice but you are the one testing something on a blockchain (BTC being the one of the 2 blockchians necessary at all, according to you).

What are you  exactly trying to prove/find with truthcoin, is pure mystery to me.  Your disregard for any questions asked in non-ivy form definitely does not help and your paper does not address the issue.


PS
Your Idea is generally Bitshares Music – great as centralized entity, possibly doing even better as a DAC.

PPS
Do not get me wrong, as I have said before this is pretty doable DAC and I do not mind owning part of it; but you have an academic purpose with this project that is very foggy to me.

I have completely explained "what I am trying to prove" (one big purpose of which is to directly challenge academia), and the software is as decentralized as Bitcoin (completely so). These points have been very clear to 100's of people who contacted me, and have only confused tonyk.

If you'll visit his post on my forum, you'll see that he misunderstands the project to such a degree (not even knowing what Truthcoins are), and is so disrespectful to those who tried to help, that it was almost impossible for the conversation to continue. His claim that I "disregard any questions in non-ivy form" is false (I have generously taken time out of my day to answer all of everyone's standing questions, regardless of plant form), and (as always) extremely offensive as it insinuates elitism on my part.

These behaviors only bother me to a very small degree, because it is obvious that he is reacting defensively, which he would only do if he felt that I was correct. I interpret it as a very confused "I agree".

[tonyk]

toast, I am confused about something. I had assumed (wrongly it seems) that, as you worked for I3, you endorsed all of the current I3 DAC ideas.

Instead, it seems that, like me, you think that most of them won't work (only BTS [if market peg works], .p2p, and [possibly] lotto). Is that a fair statement?

For example, "Insurance" and "Music" seem completely ridiculous.

I know you're very busy with BitsharesXT lanuch, but this just seems like "news", that such a key player at I3 doesn't believe in some of what is going on there. Or have I misunderstood?

Excuse my non-ivy league education but what is really your point? Of course, truthcoun will work just fine if you make centralized entity with 2 kind of account: ‘voter account’ and ‘better account’… having public ledger would be nice but you are the one testing something on a blockchain (BTC being the one of the 2 blockchians necessary at all, according to you).

What are you  exactly trying to prove/find with truthcoin, is pure mystery to me.  Your disregard for any questions asked in non-ivy form definitely does not help and your paper does not address the issue.


PS
Your Idea is generally Bitshares Music – great as centralized entity, possibly doing even better as a DAC.

PPS
Do not get me wrong, as I have said before this is pretty doable DAC and I do not mind owning part of it; but you have an academic purpose with this project that is very foggy to me.

[santaclause102]

ME: "social" version of counterparty. What's not to love?

social?

[toast]

toast, I am confused about something. I had assumed (wrongly it seems) that, as you worked for I3, you endorsed all of the current I3 DAC ideas.

Instead, it seems that, like me, you think that most of them won't work (only BTS [if market peg works], .p2p, and [possibly] lotto). Is that a fair statement?

For example, "Insurance" and "Music" seem completely ridiculous.

I know you're very busy with BitsharesXT lanuch, but this just seems like "news", that such a key player at I3 doesn't believe in some of what is going on there. Or have I misunderstood?

Technically I am an "independent DAC developer" and so I can work on and endorse whatever subset I want.

It depends on what you mean by "won't work" - my personal preference is towards "pure" DACs like I have been describing, but that doesn't mean I think the others won't make lots of $$ as semi-centralized operations. Transparent public ledgers are useful even for "firms". BitShares appears to be doing a bit of both.

To summarize:

"pure" DACs:
x
.p2p
PM dac
smart contact DAC

More like "firms", Useful because the industry needs transparent public ledgers
Voting:  Again not a "pure" DAC and semi-centralized, but solving a serious problem.
Music:  not a "pure DAC" in my opinion, but the music guys' model is pretty clever and they are pretty much their own separate team so I won't argue.
"Insurance":  More like "decentralized frats", lol

DACs that can stay competitive because it lives "outside" of any jurisdiction:
Mental Poker on blockchain: If the only goal is that online poker is made legal and the DACs are out-competed then I'm ok with this.
Lotto:  cheaper as a DAC because of regulation. 0% (or small constant) house edge is possible and attractive.
ME: "social" version of counterparty. What's not to love?


edit: So to be clear, I mostly agree with what you're saying - I just think there's there's room for more than just one (ethereum) or two (bitcoin+truthcoin) consensus platforms, as scarcity is not the only factor behind what makes a token/platform valuable.