BitTorrent inventor announces eco-friendly Bitcoin competitor Chia

Post by alexasmyths » Fri, Nov 10, 2017, 5:26 PM UTC

fvdessen wrote: post #294

boomboomsubban wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said, someone else brought up the wine example and I just continued it despite finding it clumsy. Price is value plus profit, thats the only reason to distinguish between the two.

I think my original point about wine was misunderstood. Good wine is not good because it is scarce, it is good because it is good, but it is more expensive because it is scarce. If you could produce infinite quantities of Chateau-Petrus, it would be extremely cheap. But since it depends on being produced at a specific location, with a specific know-how, the quantities are limited. In this case, the amount of labour i…

Post by alexasmyths » Fri, Nov 10, 2017, 10:20 PM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #302

alexasmyths wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Good wine is not good because it is scarce, it is good because it is good, but it is more expensive because it is scarce." No - not at all. Good wine can be 'more expensive' simply because it is better! There's more willingness to pay, i.e. better demand curve! Doesn't need to be less supply! Point being: not all labour is equal, ergo, the idea of something being valued upon the 'amount of labour' put into it is re…

I am not doing a strong job explaining this subject, but you are dismissing it out of hand without an understanding of it. I recommend taking codemac's advice and reading some of Marx's work. Even if you disagree with him it provides a greater understanding of how the economy works.

Post by jsmthrowaway » Sat, Nov 11, 2017, 3:33 AM UTC

keymone wrote: post #296

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wrong question. It implies energy can only be used exclusively for single purpose. No. Both computers did hard work, and earned credit toward proof of work in my example. I’m rather repeatedly saying energy can be used for two purposes (securing a ledger with a difficult computation that also means something ), and I have no idea how else to explain this. I’m not sure why your incentive would drop to zero. Say I sw…

> earned credit toward proof of work in my example they both did work, they didn't yield any proof of it. > Say I swap in a universal simulation from the Big Bang instead of SHA2 if you have an idea - express it in pseudocode. what is your `f(candidate)` here? what is the return value? how does return value ties in "is candidate valid" and "simulation data" in a way that prohibits modifying source code to only do "is…

Post by keymone » Sat, Nov 11, 2017, 3:15 PM UTC

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #305

keymone wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> earned credit toward proof of work in my example they both did work, they didn't yield any proof of it. > Say I swap in a universal simulation from the Big Bang instead of SHA2 if you have an idea - express it in pseudocode. what is your `f(candidate)` here? what is the return value? how does return value ties in "is candidate valid" and "simulation data" in a way that prohibits modifying source code to only do "is…

> your opinion is that distributed ledger isn't one of them. your opinion is wrong. How many times do I have to say in a single thread that this is not, and will never be, my opinion?

Post by snarfybarfy » Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 11:01 AM UTC

alexasmyths wrote: post #228

snarfybarfy wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The product you seem to be talking about is not part of 'the market'. Otherwise competition would drive the price down to intrinsic cost + small profit (remember the 'invisible hand'?) 10 years and 1000's of lawyers to find out whether Microsoft is a monopoly? Give me a break! Just look at their income statement! Profit margins of 30% and more for 30 or more years? Do you seriously believe nobody would or could do th…

"tax away most of the excess profits" How do you define 'excess profits'. And BTW - yes - I really do believe 'nobody can compete with Microsoft'. Do you realize how sophisticated those products are? And for every MS product, there are tons of competitors. MS doesn't just make a 'widget' - they depend upon the talent (and ability to evolve that), deep value chain integration, R&D - it's a constantly moving team.