Re: [ox-en] There IS such a thing as peer money
- From: "marc fawzi" <marc.fawzi gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:23:55 -0800
Hi Stefan,
<<
Is there another reason why you use the label "P2P"? I'm asking
because I worry that the term P2P becomes meaningless if it is put on
everything.
Besides P2P energy production, which is integral to the model, every
peer is both a producer (or seller) and a consumer of goods and
services and all transactions involving goods and services (and
appreciable assets) happen in peer-to-peer fashion.
To clarify, all buy/sell transactions are direct peer-to-peer (except
for energy which goes thru P2P Bank only because doing it in a
decentralized fashion means a rather large upfront investment on my
part in the design of a bilevel optimization model that does what
predictive inventory management and multi-source supplier scheduling
do, i.e. minimize energy deficit/surplus inequalities between peers on
dynamic basis and minimize dependence on certain peers or peer types.
So making the model fully decentralized may happen eventually but the
key thing is that P2P Bank is a peer-driven process that sits in the
P2P client itself and is a distributed, edge-driven process with only
a virtual process at the center. Making the virtual process
decentralized when it's already fully driven and supported
functionally by the peers and void of any human intervention means
that we just want to make things harder for the sake of some faint
semantic argument that says that a model is not P2P unless it's both
physically and virtually decentralized, which I find to be a great
waste of brain power to even think about. It suffice it that the model
is physically decentralized and only virtually centralized in the
bilevel optimization (which is dependent on peers in every way for its
functioning)
<<
2. Money, as defined here, does not grow in value on its own, i.e.
cannot derive value from itself over time, i.e. 'interest' is not
possible.
No money I know of does this. If that would be the case for the money
in my pocket then I'd kindly ask you for the recipe ;-) .
Updated: "2. Money, as defined here, does not grow in value on its
own, i.e. cannot derive value from itself over time (e.g. by sitting
in a bank or being loaned to others.) In other words, 'interest' is
not possible for the type of money defined under this model."
In constructing a theory or any axiomatic intelligence (e.g. in
software) you start with a set of axioms (most likely non-universal,
logically speaking) and you define your rules of inference and
propositions such that your propositions are logically provable based
on _your_ axioms and rules of inference.
Arguing the model's axioms outside the model itself is meaningless
since the model will work as long as the propositions are provable per
the model's axioms and set of rules. What you mean to argue is not
whether or not the model will work logically but whether or not it
will do the right thing according to whatever is "right" in your own
mind.
I don't generally argue subjective choices of right and wrong.
<<
Also you are putting lots of today's left-wing Western moral in your
axioms. This makes it hard for other people to accept and therefore
this seems to me a reason your why model is doomed to fail.
The potential for failure is not decided by subjective argument, but
if you have a non-computable judgment to make and that judgment is
that the model will fail then I will take that as your own judgment,
which seems to me more subjective than non-computable, i.e. not a wise
judgment, IMO, not having talked to me in full about the model and
what I intend to accomplish with it.
Iff money, not just peer money, can be derived and used more
intelligently, then there is nothing in my (and other people's)
operative reality against its existence.
Hah! I respond with an axiom:
* Money systems have the inherent tendency to become the "invisible
hand" meaning they follow their own logic. Therefore they can not be
"used more intelligently".
Just kidding. Of course this is not an axiom but the result of an
analysis of a money based system namely capitalism. In fact there are
hardly any axioms in social sciences (though there are also very few
in mathematics).
I think I might have to bold the "non-universal" qualifier before the
word "axiom" since people here, even comp sci people, seem to have
little experience with the construction of axiomatic intelligence.
Indeed it would be *great* if a single peer would be able and willing
to supply all the energy needed on earth. Nobody else would need to
care anymore. I for one am glad that the Linux kernel developers care
for the kernel the best they can. A single energy provider would be a
very concrete use value and indeed something I'd strive for.
WOW.
Single source dependence.
By your argument, why not have us all depend on one person to decide
the fate of the universe?
Dependence of a single person or a single group of people/companies or
a single industry or even a single model is what causes total failure.
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de