Search Ideas

Yes. But again, because it solves certain problems with existing money. There could similarly be good and bad explanations why certain religions would spread in the future.

I agree that it would be optimal if Zcash and Bitcoin had such price floors. But couldn't it still be the best alternative in certain jurisdictions, e.g. where it's impossible/impractical to own gold, and the local currency gets inflated away?

Between two abstractions (ambiguous statements made by us, and perfectly precise propositions).

It is the same as arguing for a specific god because the god you like has specific features. The god itself is still easy to vary.

I could still see someone with knowledge of psychology and theology provide a good explanation as to why certain gods and religions have spread in favour of others. All ideas are solutions to some problem.

The part that is easy to vary is that an arbitrary amount of different cryptos can be made with the same features.

There's never an arbitrary amount of solutions to a specific problem. In this case, the problems are the centralisation and the lack of privacy of our current money. They may not be problems for you specifically (e.g. if you live in a high-trust jurisdiction), but I'd like to hear arguments as to why nobody in the world would consider them problems.

Value comes from solving a problem.

Money solves (among other things) the problem of barter by being a medium of exchange. Different media solve this problem better than others. That determines its value.

I still don't see why there has to be a price floor set by the commodity's utility (for other things than being money)? Also, the value could still go to zero if that utility was no longer needed: Gold isn't guaranteed to be valued in industry or jewellry in the future.

Yes #2494 may have been slightly better as a criticism of #2411, though this still works IMO. But good to know for next time :)

Is "it contains bitcoin's solutions to fiat, and also solves bitcoin's lack of privacy" easy to vary? Could be made harder to vary by explaining the technicals of zero-knowledge proofs as well (though I'm not konwledgeable enough to do that here).

Thanks for the criticism. New argument: Utility (besides usefulness as money) is not strictly necessary, although it may be nice to have. The value of a currency is set by supply and demand.

Supply: A limited supply (scarcity) may increase the value.

Demand: Demand is set determined by how well people percieve the currency's features as a store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account. Important factors include: Durability, Portability, Divisibility, Fungibility, and Stability. Gold has had most of these features (importantly scarcity, only 2% inflation from mining). However, it severely lacks in portability due to being a metal, compared to hard digital assets.

So the value of a currency is mostly determined by its perceived usefulness as money, not its utility for other things.

Thanks. Do you think the aim in abstract fields (such as mathematics) is correspondence as well? (As Deutsch seems to argue with the idea of perfect propositions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ-opI-jghs).

The reason to back a currency with gold or some other commodity is that the commodity has other utility aside from being used as money. This sets a floor on the price, making it a store of value.

Utility is not a necessary aspect of money. Only 5-10% of gold's value is tied to its industrial use (https://www.statista.com/statistics/299609/gold-demand-by-industry-sectorshare/#:~:text=The%20jewelry%20industry%20accounted%20for,China%2C%20Russia%2C%20and%20Australia). Another 40% is used for jewellery.

This floor is not so reassuring if the asset were to plummet 50%. Other commodities, such as silver, have a greater industrial utility. That makes it less suitable as money since its value becomes tied to commodity cycles.

The reason to back a currency with gold or some other commodity is mainly due to its scarcity, which puts a limit on money creation (done through fractional reserve banking).

In a gold standard society, gold doesn't need to be backed by anything. The same would be true for Bitcoin and Zcash. The US Federal Reserve Notes used to be backed by gold to prevent excessive money creation, gold itself, Bitcoin and ZCash won't need to be backed by anything due to their inherent scarcity.

The reason to back a currency with gold or some other commodity is that the commodity has other utility aside from being used as money. This sets a floor on the price, making it a store of value.

• Utility is not a necessary aspect of money. Only 5-10% of gold's value is tied to its industrial use (per chatgpt). This floor is not so reassuring then if the asset would plummet 90-95%. Other commodities, such as silver, have a greater industrial utility. That makes it less suitable as money since its value becomes tied to commodity cycles.

The reason to back a currency with gold or some other commodity is mainly due to its scarcity, which puts a limit on money creation (done through fractional reserve bankning).

Thanks. Do you think there's correspondence for abstractions as well (such as mathematics, as DD seems to suggest)? As I understood, you only think we need it to explain progress in science.

In a gold standard society, gold doesn't need to be backed by anything. The same would be true for Bitcoin and Zcash.

Sure it's hard to see. But I don't think it's impossible. For example, life could spread beyond the biosphere by asteroids, or aviating organisms slowly ascending upwards to eventually set off to space. Unlikely for sure, but again, why would it be impossible?

Zcash will become the next money. That's because it contains bitcoin's solutions to fiat, and also solves bitcoin's lack of privacy.

They are the same knowledge in terms of encoding knowledge about the environment, and possible transformations based on that. That knowledge can differ in reach (context independence/how fundamental it is).

Their mode of replication differs, as each new guess in genes must be neutral or positive for the vehicle. This makes genes slower, but that's IMO a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. Pure genetic knowledge could colonise the galaxy, it'd take much longer than with memes.

They are the same knowledge in terms of encoding knowledge about the environment, and possible transformations based on that. That knowledge can differ in reach (context independence/how fundamental it is).

Their mode of replication differ, as each new guess in genes must be neutral or positive for the vehicle. This makes genes slower, but that's IMO a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. Pure genetic konwledge could colonize the galaxy, it'd take much longer than with memes.

Guess: All those "facts about reality" are just knowledge about regularities in the gene's environment. Some regularities are more context-independent than others, but we can't draw a firm line between parochial knowledge of its niche and knowledge corresponding to the facts.

Memes and genes are the same type of knowledge. Since we can "let our theories die in our place", we can make faster iterations and expand the environment to which the idea is adapted (including potentially the whole universe). There's no need for correspondance, just more reach and adaptation across contexts.

Would you say there's correspondence for some knowledge in genes as well?

Memes and genes are the same type of knowledge. Since we can "let ideas die in their place", we can make faster iterations and expand the environment to which the idea is adapted (including potentially the whole universe). There's no need for correspondance, just more reach and adaptation across contexts.

Most people (except in Alzheimer's, etc.) don't run out of memory in the brain. The reason most people don’t (permanently) run out memory (of either kind) isn’t that memory isn’t scarce, but that there’s a pruning mechanism in the mind. And there’s competition.

Thanks for clarifying