There is this false statement that bitcoin has an inflation rate differs with halving. There is no inflation rate in bitcoin. There is a distribution rate. There are 21 million bitcoin ( approximately ) of which there are 100 million tokens per bitcoin unit. These 21 million bitcoin units existed on the launch of bitcoin in January 2009. These 21 million bitcoin are not being created but were rather created all the one instant.
Each bitcoin is distributed. The issue of bitcoin was conducted in its totality when bitcoin was launched.
Each bitcoin exists and is available but are not distributed until a predefined event in time. Consequently, there is no inflation to bitcoin. There are exactly the same number of bitcoin at all times. There are different amounts available to the marketplace. The amount that is released through a distributed agreement under a unilateral contract that was constructed in 2009 was preset. The entirety of all bitcoin that will ever exist was set to be released under that agreement.
This contract cannot be said to exist in BTC. BTC is merely a copy of bitcoin that is passing off. There is a reason why bitcoin are set in stone and it is not because code cannot be changed.
You can issue in any manner, I did not need to distribute all tokens nor evenset the manner as I did
PoW is a signal.
The ownership is transferred under a contract.
A unilateral offer to act each block. To enforce the set rules.
CSW
May 29, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1590750924330100
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2540
Each bitcoin is distributed. The issue of bitcoin was conducted in its totality when bitcoin was launched.
Each bitcoin exists and is available but are not distributed until a predefined event in time. Consequently, there is no inflation to bitcoin. There are exactly the same number of bitcoin at all times. There are different amounts available to the marketplace. The amount that is released through a distributed agreement under a unilateral contract that was constructed in 2009 was preset. The entirety of all bitcoin that will ever exist was set to be released under that agreement.
This contract cannot be said to exist in BTC. BTC is merely a copy of bitcoin that is passing off. There is a reason why bitcoin are set in stone and it is not because code cannot be changed.
You can issue in any manner, I did not need to distribute all tokens nor evenset the manner as I did
PoW is a signal.
The ownership is transferred under a contract.
A unilateral offer to act each block. To enforce the set rules.
CSW
May 29, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1590750924330100
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2540
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
May 29, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1590750924330100 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2540
May 29, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1590750924330100 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2540
1/2 I think the biggest takeaway I’m getting from all of my studies concerns innovation. The financial frameworks in place all have a terrible flaw. They assume that the dynamics of a system are static over time. Schumpeter (Nicholas, 2003) found a pessimistic view of capitalism the nature of creative destruction. This line of thought solidified the thinking of Nietzsche and Schumpeter (Reinert & Reinert, 2006) in economic theory. Unfortunately, the works of Samuelson in formulating a theory of Keynes’s economics (Backhouse, 2015) treated economic theory and hence the field of finance is a zero-sum game. In ignoring the long-term, the short-term focus was solidified in financial thought.
In all of this, the underlying fallacy of expecting the same results no matter how you change the environment leads to larger and larger problems. For instance, where Samuelson (1988, p. 4) stated Keynes’s idea that “the need for ‘widening of capital’ to keep the same per capital intensity would thereby drop by one-half - leading if there were no change in the propensity to consume to a big increase in average percentage underemployment” both Samuelson and Keynes have effectively taken the economic output as stable. In this, changing the population from 1 million to 500,000 individuals needs to no structural differences at all. Yet this is easy to discredit.
When you have the ability for a limited number of people to leverage their productivity using machines, halving the number of people does not merely change the output in equal proportion. For instance, the amount of agriculture required increases. As you increase the population, the amount of primary production decreases.
Letters take this as a small-scale thought experiment.
Let us assume a community of 10 people. In this community, we have four members involved in agriculture. The other eight provide other services. There is an agricultural excess. The four individuals together are capable of producing 12 units which are enough to satisfy everybody and allow external trade. Because of specialisation, the four people produce in total more than the cumulative amount which individuals create on their own. A way of looking at this would be to say that each individual without working as a team produces 1.5 units. So if the four people were individually working, we would only have six units produced. If there are two teams of two people, each team can produce two units for a total production of eight units for the two teams:
Individual production 1.5/person x 4 groups 6 unit output
Small group production 2 units/person (x 2) x 2 groups 8 unit output
Large group 3 units/person (x4) x 1 group 12 unit output
If we now halve the population, we have the possibility of either producing through the small or large group. There are now five people available. Our small group production can produce 12 units allowing us to trade some produce but taking four people of our total population. If we reduce this to 3 people, we end up with a production that is from a small and an individual group as follows:
Individual production 1.5/person x 1 groups 1.5 unit output
Small group production 2 units/person (x 2) x 1 group 4 unit output
Total 5.5 output
So, we can feed everybody, but now we have very little left to trade or to save for something going wrong. So we have two other people in society working. Before this, we had six.
Even in the case where three of the five people in agriculture, the comparison of other goods has changed: 1/2 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2542
In all of this, the underlying fallacy of expecting the same results no matter how you change the environment leads to larger and larger problems. For instance, where Samuelson (1988, p. 4) stated Keynes’s idea that “the need for ‘widening of capital’ to keep the same per capital intensity would thereby drop by one-half - leading if there were no change in the propensity to consume to a big increase in average percentage underemployment” both Samuelson and Keynes have effectively taken the economic output as stable. In this, changing the population from 1 million to 500,000 individuals needs to no structural differences at all. Yet this is easy to discredit.
When you have the ability for a limited number of people to leverage their productivity using machines, halving the number of people does not merely change the output in equal proportion. For instance, the amount of agriculture required increases. As you increase the population, the amount of primary production decreases.
Letters take this as a small-scale thought experiment.
Let us assume a community of 10 people. In this community, we have four members involved in agriculture. The other eight provide other services. There is an agricultural excess. The four individuals together are capable of producing 12 units which are enough to satisfy everybody and allow external trade. Because of specialisation, the four people produce in total more than the cumulative amount which individuals create on their own. A way of looking at this would be to say that each individual without working as a team produces 1.5 units. So if the four people were individually working, we would only have six units produced. If there are two teams of two people, each team can produce two units for a total production of eight units for the two teams:
Individual production 1.5/person x 4 groups 6 unit output
Small group production 2 units/person (x 2) x 2 groups 8 unit output
Large group 3 units/person (x4) x 1 group 12 unit output
If we now halve the population, we have the possibility of either producing through the small or large group. There are now five people available. Our small group production can produce 12 units allowing us to trade some produce but taking four people of our total population. If we reduce this to 3 people, we end up with a production that is from a small and an individual group as follows:
Individual production 1.5/person x 1 groups 1.5 unit output
Small group production 2 units/person (x 2) x 1 group 4 unit output
Total 5.5 output
So, we can feed everybody, but now we have very little left to trade or to save for something going wrong. So we have two other people in society working. Before this, we had six.
Even in the case where three of the five people in agriculture, the comparison of other goods has changed: 1/2 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2542
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
2/2 Agriculture Other goods
Case – 10 people 12 units/10 people 6 output / 10 people
1.2 units each 0.6 each Case – 5 people 5.5 units/ 5 people 2 units / 5 people
1.1 units each 0.4 each
So, it is not a static economy. The error is placing everything in a stable monetary value. This change is not able to lead to a valid direct calculation of outcome. When we halve the population, we don’t have everyone equally satisfied. You will see from the thought experiment above, the earning rate of each individual is now completely lessened. When you halve the number of people, you do not halve the production leaving everyone in the same place. The overall impact of how society works changes.
This same problem occurs in companies as well. When we reduce the amount of innovation, the short-term gains are consumed by long-term losses.
References:
Backhouse, R. E. (2015). Samuelson, Keynes and the search for a general theory of economics. Italian Economic Journal, 1(1), 139-153.
Nicholas, T. (2003). Why Schumpeter was right: innovation, market power, and creative destruction in 1920s America. Journal of Economic History, 1023-1058.
Reinert, H., & Reinert, E. S. (2006). Creative destruction in economics: Nietzsche, Sombart, schumpeter. In Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) (pp. 55-85). Springer, Boston, MA.
Samuelson, P. A. (1988). The Keynes-Hansen-Samuelson multiplier-accelerator model of secular stagnation. Japan and the world economy, 1(1), 3-19.
To tie this back to my point on innovation, certain aspects of life and society require significant capital investment and that we have individuals who are outside of the provision of day-to-day consumption goods, including agriculture. Right now, agriculture is a tiny part of the economy. So are the aspects of life for other primary production goods such as mined materials et cetera.
Through all of this, what we see is that the larger the production levels we create become, the more free time and available accesses we have to allow individuals to pursue other activities including innovation and to invest in new designs or products. There is less need to work on primary production and just satisfying our basic needs allowing us to expand into new offerings. Through history, the growth of both population and production has allowed us to increase the amount of time and effort placed in technology research and other pursuits, including the arts. This has created exponential growth levels. Not because we are consuming more, but because we have developed better ways of doing things. Today we use less energy per unit of delivered output then we did 100 years ago, and every generation becomes more efficient.
So, the more we allow growth, the more we provide an opportunity for innovation, which provide more efficient outcomes. The existing financial frameworks have no way of handling this. They assume a static environment which does not exist and produces radically wrong answers.
CSW
Nov 26, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1606389769058800 2/2 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2542
Case – 10 people 12 units/10 people 6 output / 10 people
1.2 units each 0.6 each Case – 5 people 5.5 units/ 5 people 2 units / 5 people
1.1 units each 0.4 each
So, it is not a static economy. The error is placing everything in a stable monetary value. This change is not able to lead to a valid direct calculation of outcome. When we halve the population, we don’t have everyone equally satisfied. You will see from the thought experiment above, the earning rate of each individual is now completely lessened. When you halve the number of people, you do not halve the production leaving everyone in the same place. The overall impact of how society works changes.
This same problem occurs in companies as well. When we reduce the amount of innovation, the short-term gains are consumed by long-term losses.
References:
Backhouse, R. E. (2015). Samuelson, Keynes and the search for a general theory of economics. Italian Economic Journal, 1(1), 139-153.
Nicholas, T. (2003). Why Schumpeter was right: innovation, market power, and creative destruction in 1920s America. Journal of Economic History, 1023-1058.
Reinert, H., & Reinert, E. S. (2006). Creative destruction in economics: Nietzsche, Sombart, schumpeter. In Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) (pp. 55-85). Springer, Boston, MA.
Samuelson, P. A. (1988). The Keynes-Hansen-Samuelson multiplier-accelerator model of secular stagnation. Japan and the world economy, 1(1), 3-19.
To tie this back to my point on innovation, certain aspects of life and society require significant capital investment and that we have individuals who are outside of the provision of day-to-day consumption goods, including agriculture. Right now, agriculture is a tiny part of the economy. So are the aspects of life for other primary production goods such as mined materials et cetera.
Through all of this, what we see is that the larger the production levels we create become, the more free time and available accesses we have to allow individuals to pursue other activities including innovation and to invest in new designs or products. There is less need to work on primary production and just satisfying our basic needs allowing us to expand into new offerings. Through history, the growth of both population and production has allowed us to increase the amount of time and effort placed in technology research and other pursuits, including the arts. This has created exponential growth levels. Not because we are consuming more, but because we have developed better ways of doing things. Today we use less energy per unit of delivered output then we did 100 years ago, and every generation becomes more efficient.
So, the more we allow growth, the more we provide an opportunity for innovation, which provide more efficient outcomes. The existing financial frameworks have no way of handling this. They assume a static environment which does not exist and produces radically wrong answers.
CSW
Nov 26, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1606389769058800 2/2 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2542
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
No digital signature needed...
Segwit alters it
Digital signature law....
Yes. Digital signature law is robust
Law is law
Code is evidence
More, but a signature is essential
CSW
May 7, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1525698698000464?thread_ts=1525675677.000169&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2546
Segwit alters it
Digital signature law....
Yes. Digital signature law is robust
Law is law
Code is evidence
More, but a signature is essential
CSW
May 7, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1525698698000464?thread_ts=1525675677.000169&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2546
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
May 7, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1525698698000464?thread_ts=1525675677.000169&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2546
May 7, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1525698698000464?thread_ts=1525675677.000169&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2546
Satoshi...
Well, he created this system that allows a security to be formed.
The SEC has provisions for the Liability of the Conduct of others.
I estimate around 200 years consecutive sentence all up.. before you add the currency laws.
If he knows the law, and internationally flaunted it...
Double
Only if it is proven
Like a digital signature
Published
Public
The ESIGN Act: Provides that any law with a requirement for a signature may be satisfied by an electronic signature.
Allows electronically executed agreements to be presented as evidence in court.
Estoppel: having signed, Satoshi would be precluded from attesting evidence of the contrary and has in effect waived the right to not self incriminate
Fucking dumbass stupid thing to do publicly
(I have done)
LLM (international law)
Diplomas in
Banking law
Finace law
Criminal law
Securities law
IP law
Technology law
...
And doing a DL
Doctor of Law
So.. Yes I should
And I can say Satoshi would be a ripe ass muncher if he signed leaving evidence in the public domain
Bitcoin is a security, but one excluded from the SEC rules. However, there remain provisions that were strengthened in Sarbanes Oxley
So. Bit coin is safe
It's creator is not
CSW
Jun 17, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1529189742000077?thread_ts=1529189742.000077&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2548
Well, he created this system that allows a security to be formed.
The SEC has provisions for the Liability of the Conduct of others.
I estimate around 200 years consecutive sentence all up.. before you add the currency laws.
If he knows the law, and internationally flaunted it...
Double
Only if it is proven
Like a digital signature
Published
Public
The ESIGN Act: Provides that any law with a requirement for a signature may be satisfied by an electronic signature.
Allows electronically executed agreements to be presented as evidence in court.
Estoppel: having signed, Satoshi would be precluded from attesting evidence of the contrary and has in effect waived the right to not self incriminate
Fucking dumbass stupid thing to do publicly
(I have done)
LLM (international law)
Diplomas in
Banking law
Finace law
Criminal law
Securities law
IP law
Technology law
...
And doing a DL
Doctor of Law
So.. Yes I should
And I can say Satoshi would be a ripe ass muncher if he signed leaving evidence in the public domain
Bitcoin is a security, but one excluded from the SEC rules. However, there remain provisions that were strengthened in Sarbanes Oxley
So. Bit coin is safe
It's creator is not
CSW
Jun 17, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1529189742000077?thread_ts=1529189742.000077&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2548
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Jun 17, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1529189742000077?thread_ts=1529189742.000077&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2548
Jun 17, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1529189742000077?thread_ts=1529189742.000077&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2548
BIP66 did not fix issues that result in chain splits
And
This was NEVER needed
You can check signatures in script
(R,S) is in the data that a script can check
The BIPs and the idea of malleability is an attack on the concept of 1st seen
Idiots on Twitter
But, we needed BIP66 or there would be a chain split
That crap
No more
No less
CSW
Sep 5, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1536165695000200
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2550
And
This was NEVER needed
You can check signatures in script
(R,S) is in the data that a script can check
The BIPs and the idea of malleability is an attack on the concept of 1st seen
Idiots on Twitter
But, we needed BIP66 or there would be a chain split
That crap
No more
No less
CSW
Sep 5, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1536165695000200
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2550
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Sep 5, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1536165695000200
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2550
Sep 5, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1536165695000200
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2550