Quote from: BadBitcoin (James Sutton) on June 09, 2013, 01:36:16 AM

plastics are nothing for manufacturing, metal/ceramics combinations with existing manufacturing lines is where the future is going.

3D printing does metal with sintering. The material strength and smoothness is roughly as good as cast, but not yet as smooth or strong as forged or machined (although the 3D printed cars proves that better geometry obtainable with 3D printing can compensate for material strength).

Also I think there may be advances on the granularity of the sintering. At nanoscale, it might surpass forged and machined.

Quote from: Etlase2 on June 08, 2013, 05:16:08 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on June 05, 2013, 11:41:34 AM

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%".

That doesn't logically follow. Early adopters and greater fools is inherent in all investing, but that doesn't mean that one digital currency won't gain sufficient installed mass, to make competition impossible.

Regardless, it has logically nothing to do with the political power of the 51%.

Quote from: Etlase2 on June 08, 2013, 05:16:08 PM

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,

Booms and busts are caused by the fact that humans love (or feel they need) debt. I doubt this will ever change. See below...

Quote from: Etlase2 on June 08, 2013, 05:16:08 PM

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.

Ah yes we've been talking about the impacts of crowdfunding:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4867 (my pseudonym is JustSaying there)

However, the reason demand for debt will always be around is because not all the humans can compete and participate in the new technologies perfectly well. They use debt to compensate. And the majority is always behind the technological curve.

Thus you won't be able to prevent debt with a currency design, because debt is desired by the 51%. The political power will route around your attempts.

Quote from: Etlase2 on June 08, 2013, 05:16:08 PM

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.

Please re-read the OP more carefully.

Quote from: Etlase2 on June 08, 2013, 05:16:08 PM

What significant monetary systems have been controlled by the people instead of the wealthy or the government?

Money can't be controlled by the majority because of the power vacuum described in the OP. Money is not the root of the power structure, so money can't displace the power vacuum.

Quote from: Etlase2 on June 08, 2013, 05:16:08 PM

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? Wink

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.

If it is different, I personally don't believe society will adopt it, because the money we get is what is desired by the outcome of the power vacuum.

In short, the majority will always demand that the government can fund itself out of debt and debasement (thus future taxes, confiscation, and pestilence).