We technologists have looked deeply for an alternative to Bitcoin, that would eliminate its 51% attack vulnerability, and have concluded with the 51% Rule of Decentralized Agreement, which implies that no decentralized digital currency will ever be able to (sustain an) escape from the desires of the majority of society.
There will never exist a form of highly fungible money (not gold, fiat, nor digital currencies) that will escape from the desires of the majority of society.
There will never exist a form of highly fungible money (not gold, fiat, nor digital currencies) that will escape from the desires of the majority of society.
It seems to me as if you are agreeing with my point about currency clones and how if they are incentivized with a pyramid-like distribution, they can only be the norm rather than the exception. Even with perpetual debasement, no algorithm or fixed measure can determine the needs of the "51%".
Quote
The desires of the majority of society will always migrate towards boom and bust socialism.
I disagree with this point. Booming and busting is a factor that I believe is heavily exacerbated by a manipulated economy. While the technology cycle may be at the heart of the matter, it is the bankers and/or governments that extract a vast amount of the new wealth and freedom derived from technological/knowledge advancement primarily for themselves. Then they redistribute it in ways that centralize power within the government and wealthy.
Quote
The only way to fund everything is widespread debt and unfunded future promises, i.e. funding by obfuscating mutual self-destruction in debt and misallocation (causing destruction) of human capital.
I have at a few different times mentioned how I believe a currency that disincentivizes creating debt or accepting debt-notes would allow for new types of power structures to emerge. For example, an Open Business where new knowledge acquisition is funded by the people who want the knowledge. The easiest example is Open Pharmaceuticals--where people pay to have research done for targeted diseases. Then the Open Business recoups its costs and repays investors, perhaps saving some for new directions of research (or to help pay for failures), and then releases the knowledge for all. No scientists have been made billionaires by contributing to pharmaceutical research and development, so their effect on this equation would remain relatively unchanged. The knowledge-producers are rarely the ones that see the benefit. You seem to have proposed a similar idea but in regards to software.
Quote
Thus what gold standard proponents don't understand is that the insoluble political power vacuum that gives rise to booms and busts does not exist nor derive from the form of money used, but rather exists naturally in every society as explained above. The malfeasance of the leaders is not the source of the problem either, rather exist as a manifestation of the insoluble political power vacuum described above. So changing the form of money used or regulating or removing the corrupt leaders won't fix the fundamental driver of the phenomenon, and the insoluble outcome will occur again as exhibited over and over again throughout human history. The power elite are not even in control.
You conflate government-mandated co-opted production with monetary systems that are controlled by the same people. What significant monetary systems have been controlled by the people instead of the wealthy or the government? There aren't any of note. Gold provided it some times, temporarily throughout history, but it always eventually lost its "decentralization" due to the properties of FRB and the several mass confiscations.
Quote
It must be the case that savings in fungible money can not be a perfect perpetual claim on future human productivity, because otherwise past innovation eventually owns all future innovation.
This is a very apt statement.
Quote
Money and socialism are intertwined and this will never change.
We have to get to a Star Trekkian utopia at some point, don't we?
In the mean time, a system must be devised to separate the control and creation of money from the elected or unelected leaders. Any system that does not allow for the "51% attack" on the money supply is simply going to get replaced now that the cryptocurrency paradigm exists. It seems as if again you are agreeing with me here, though we clashed on this point in the decrits thread. Co-opted production (government socialism) is not the same as co-opted money creation. I do believe my design has the blueprint to make much smoother transitions through the bust periods, and perhaps slow the boom periods simply because money is not created from nothing. Once money is no longer tied to debt-notes or to strictly limited supplies controlled by a few, how different could the cycles be? There is only one way to find out.