Quote from: Etlase2 on June 08, 2013, 05:40:57 PM

As far as qualifications, I've been programming since I was about 12, but only as a hobbyist. After learning about bitcoin I went on a two year study of economics, cryptography, network protocols, byzantine fault tolerance, and so on...

I started studying the economics of the world intensely in 2005, when I read a book by Harry Dent that led me down the rabbit hole. I finally ended up realizing that one man understands it all better than all others:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog/

He and I think almost identically, except I probably disagree on the (at least uninterrupted) rise of China. If the Yuan will rise significantly in value, then China would move from an exporter to an importer and consumer which could coincide with the collapse of Communist Party system, then China would continue rising after such turmoil. See my comments at http://mpettis.com under my real name Shelby.

I started programming commercially in 1986 when I created one of the world's first WYSIWYG word processors with full functionality (e.g. multi-columns) for a PC (specially the Atari ST which was a contender to the Mac and Windows 3.1 at the time).

Quote from: Etlase2 on June 11, 2013, 03:23:41 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on June 11, 2013, 10:48:06 AM

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.

Bullshit. Switching to a digital currency requires dramatically changing the status quo in regards to money. Don't sit here and tell me that after that status quo is changed it could never be affected again. There is also *nothing* that precludes ongoing currency competition.

I understand marketing. Apparently you don't. I have done it in real life. If digital currencies become widely adopted, it will be because there is some need that is addressed. Once that need is addressed, people will want to use that branded solution, unless there is some other need that could be better addressed.

Unfortunately I think you will find that the needs that are important enough to get people to radically alter the way they conduct their lives is are few and far between.

You get basically one shot at being THE digital currency. That window is rapidly closing, except to the extent that Bitcoin has a fatal flaw that it requires 10 min delay before surety that a transaction won't be doubly-spent. That provides a window of opportunity for the moment. That window of opportunity will closed (taken) by the first currency to fix that. We will discuss that over in your Decrits thread.

Quote from: Etlase2 on June 11, 2013, 03:23:41 PM

Quote

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

And who does debt make humans beholden to? Can we just completely eliminate that from the equation and lay the blame "on the numbers" rather than "on the system"? Seems awfully short-sighted to not even consider the latter.

You entirely missed the point in the OP about the source of the power vacuum. The system you speak of is actually embedded in the power vacuum. You have to address that power vacuum if you want to alter the system.

Quote from: Etlase2 on June 11, 2013, 03:23:41 PM

Quote

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.

Arguments that are completely rooted in the idea of debt-based currencies. "The only option to maintain participation in the economy is debt, therefore people like debt." That is a non sequitur. Such simple logical fallacies cast doubt on any further conclusions.

There was no circular logic. You missed the point that the demand for debt is not due to the existence or non-existence of debt-based money systems. It is exists because it is exists. You can't eliminate it unless you can make all humans equal all the time.