Hey technological dunce, servers don't have a Dunbar limit. Even users of P2P don't have to be limited by their Dunbar limit, because P2P is automated (which is probably why Bitcoin is tracking Metcalf's law).

My server for new website is accepting all connection requests to it and doesn't need to ask me first. Duh!

While it is true that Reed's law doesn't apply to all the users on the internet because they don't all connect with each other over the internet (i.e. P2P is not used yet by all users, although I plan to change that!), the article you cited admits that Reed stipulated that his law only applied to groups wherein all the users did interact with each other.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/metcalfes-law-is-wrong


If we limit my proof to only servers, we still find that my math about relative complexity applies — the costs of the connections is growing slower than the complexity value of the virtual IP network. This is because the network self-organizes into a hierarchical hub-and-spoke topology that is more efficient than a fully connected mesh. Thus the entropy is grower faster than the potential energy can according to the Conservation of Energy, and this gain is coming from efficiency of topology. You can quibble about the exact model of the growth of the virtual IP network, but you will never be able to argue that is not growing at a greater complexity scale than the cost of the physical network.


Don't flatter yourself. I was already well aware that you would think that and it is obvious why you would think that. Really I have your thinking all mapped out already. I know why you are wrong. I was going to address that fundamental math in the more abstract essay. Nevertheless the math above is irrefutable.

Start searching now for your mistake instead of assuming incorrectly and egotistically presuming that my thought process was not exhaustive (when have I ever demonstrated myopia?! never!), and see if you can figure it out before I tell you.


The network is free market, self-organizing into a plurarity of top-down managed mesh or bus connected hubs which multifurcate (spoke topology) to the network ends.

I am arguing against a monopoly on (force) top-down management, because it has an entropy approaching 0. Someday you will get this distinction into your hard head.


Flattering your ignorance with platitudes is noise. You'd be wiser to stop interjecting those incorrect barbs and stick to futilely, incorrectly arguing the facts.

In your stubborn ignorance, you are going to miss a huge opportunity to become a $billionaire. You are like the politically correct, mainstream educated fools who told Columbus not to sail because the world is flat.

Your disingenuous behavior is causing me to not ever want to be your friend in future, even after you finally realize I am correct. All the apologies you could make won't erase the memory I will have of how you prefer disingenuous ego (you appear to be so worried about your reputation as if that is your productive value in society whereas I shred my reputation every damn day because my value to society is actual production and pursuit of truth, ego be damned!) over intellectual pursuit of truth. If you were sincere, you would have at least explored the point I make above. It is certainly obvious to someone of your intellect. Or are you really that myopic? Well I have had a few indications that you are that myopic, such as the rash investment decision, etc.. So perhaps this isn't insincerety but rather just a mental handicap? Then I guess I should be empathetic.

Your mistake is you are conflating energy and entropy.

It is true that a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is not possible to attain 100% efficiency in a thermal transfer process because we would need an infinite reservoir (heat sink) of absolute 0 temperature internally and an infinite external ambient environment (heat source) of infinite temperature.

What is being considered with the Conservation of Energy in the First Law of Thermodynamics and the transfer of Heat in the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the fact that the matter of the universe is constant. I was going to go more abstractly into what the matter of the universe is, because I have unifying theory on that which I think will be breakthrough. But suffice it to say that the matter of the universe does not increase nor decrease. Btw, my future elucidation will explain why this is required else the universe would need to have a fixed, absolute origin and edge and thus could not exist (would collapse into an infinitesimal point), but that is not elucidation is not necessary for the point we need to discuss now.

Whereas the entropy, i.e. the probabilistic degrees-of-freedom organization of the matter, of the universe is not constant and is always increasing. This is the entropic force and the other forces and macroscopic effects emerge from it, e.g. gravity emerges from the entropic force. See the matter of the universe is uninteresting. It doesn't cause any thing to happen. It is the organization of the matter that defines the various macroscopic effects, such as potential energy, kinetic energy, heat, etc..

The Second Law tells us that entropy is always created by any thermodynamic process (except for idealized reversible processes which never occur in nature).

Thus the entropy created by the internet which exceeds the potential energy that can be created by the work done of building the physical internet, is an increase in efficiency above 100%. But that > 100% efficiency is not in terms of energy, but rather in terms of entropy. Thus it does not violate the Conservation of Energy.

Measuring efficiency in terms of energy is myopic, because for example I can achieve near to 100% efficiency for transferring energy from reservoir (e.g. battery) to another but that hasn't achieved anything useful.

The useful work as far as nature is concerned are the increases in entropy. Nature's entire holistic motivation is increasing entropy.

Thus the only definition for efficiency which has any consistently, holistic meaning is the ratio of entropy increase.

Thus (entropic) perpetual motions machines do exist! They are called Life a.k.a. nature.


Your subordination of entropy to a 2nd class citizen of physics and nature is abomination and travesty of science and philosophical inquiry.

Free markets increase entropy. Monopolies don't. There is no argument.

If you don't want entropy increase, then you have to kill nature, because nature demands entropy increase per the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I have no more time for your nonsense. Whether it is ego (passive aggressive shit that Marxists are expert at) or not, is irrelevant.

Make some kind of argument that isn't just more obfuscation such as your mutation analogy.

Do you realize how much of my valuable time you have wasted on this nonsense of yours?

Google's Plan to "Estimate Web Sources' Trustworthiness"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1W32qQy_k

We are losing the war for the update of the civilization signalling system. They are pushing even more the branding of reputation with all its devils.

I already know how I will route around that for the Knowledge Age economy. The masses (and CoinCube) can go into that negative entropy production system and perish.

Let me say something CoinCube will not say to you by respect you don't deserve, again, in less holistic words.

You are in internal denial. I don't know why or with what this process is relating to and it is apparent because you are always psychologically leaking trough labeling. Like, when I first told about RepCoin you summarily labeled it of Marxist. who said that? You.

Who said it will be perennial? You.
Who said it will be coercive? You.
Who said it will be non-voluntary? You.
Who said there will be only one system? You.
Who said charity will be left out of it? You. And that one I know why. You do not know social value in your own life and fail to acknowledge social capital. You should be doing some serious charity to take the chance of learning it.


But know what? It is already at work. There are plenty districts and islands doing it with the wrong tools, but soon it gonna be a thriving city on the swamp of world economics, maybe a city-state. Could be a strong tool for a Florenza like republic. Could put social distinction and titles where it deserves to exist. BUT NOoooo!

It does not matter if there will be no full representation and UN-vote system. Its Marxism!
It does not matter if the group budget will be fully transparent and completely subject to each individual approval. Its Marxism for Christ sake!
It does not matter if it kills the "public" straw man cause Its fucking Marxism!
It does not matter if it subjects justice to local law and peer evaluation. DON'T YOU SEE IT IS MARXISM?!
It does not matter if it can remove the boundaries and renew the dying system of bankruptcy and prescription. OH MY GOD THIS IS MARXGASM!

CoinCube,

Indeed there is no convergence if entropy creation outstrips the rate at which the system can anneal. This is true whether there is a top-down controller or not. I don't need to deny that in order to be correct in my argument against collectivized top-down monopolies.

And that is why the free market forms a plurality of (sometimes decentralized, autononomous) top-down hierarchies as it anneals.

Are there cases of free market failure? Of course there are! The existence of the massive collectives we have now are an example of free market failure. The masses were free to choose and they chose democracy (and I assert they did because the Industrial Age gave them no better options).

The economic incentives (constraints) in the free market determine whether the free market will anneal or not. In the case of the Industrial Age, it was like a relapsing Multiple Sclerosis, in that the incentives lead to massive concentration of productive (monetary) capital and massive collectives as the only way humans could cope (it as a lose-lose structure for all involved including the capitalists!). So the system periodically relapses into collapse and resets again into the same malaise because the economic incentives haven't changed.

But the Knowledge Age changes the economic incentives, and so it doesn't matter what you or I prefer philosophically. The free market will determine the outcome and I am confident that the economic incentives are now such that the collectives will be destroyed. Those who can't adapt will huddle into the one-world reserve NWO and perish with it. Those who can adapt will prosper in a glorious (not "repulsive") decentralized, anonymous Knowledge Age.

There is nothing factual you can write that is contrary.

The mutation analogy you wrote about is reinforcing my point! There is no one in control of evolution. Species with the wrong parameters perish. Let them go gracefully. Accept that nature is in control the parameters, not us.

We can avail of opportunities to change those parameters, e.g. the technology is recently available for us to do the work necessary to enable the Knowledge Age. But none of us planned that. It was just the natural progression of entropy (technology).

Marxists are so self-important.

What matters is what the free market will do now. It's ALWAYS in control.

P.S. I hope you realize I just wrote that Marxism was created by the free market, because of the technological limitations of the Industrial Age (and prior).

Heres what I learned in the course of living on this shitty ass rock that I`m stuck on.

You dont like your situation, reshuffle your damn cards to play a better hand. Why play a shitty hand, is the same choices you make in this 1 life to live philosophy.

The financial situation sucks, so become a better player in another market that isnt saturated. Or become one of another choice taking market share of that business.

None of this is all easy, so prepare yourself to work.

CoinCube,

The implicit economic incentives in the free market drive the outcome ALWAYS.

You are correct that free market "failure" (divergent outcomes) result from too high or too low of entropy w.r.t. to the rate at which the system can iterate (anneal). Your myopia is on the fact that no one can put their hand on the entropy production and regulate it (Adam Smith's Invisible Hand is doing it). We get the entropy production that naturally fits the implicit constraints in the system. A top-down constraint only sustains because it is the most economic.

We humans can work on technology that alters those implicit constraints. That is about all we can do to effect change. Education is a total waste of time, because people will naturally anneal to the implicit constraints (humans are very adaptable).

In the Industrial Age, the most economic meant aggregation of capital (factories and labor) because production required large economies-of-scale. Thus the Theory of the Firm (top-down management) applied. As well, capture of the State by the capitalists applied, because these were all the most economic outcomes. The people were fed the delusion of democracy because this was the most economic (for them and for the capitalists). But I tell you even the capitalists know they are trapped by the one-world NWO and they don't like it. Their ROI is diminishing and they know it.

My point all along has been the Knowledge Age alters the implicit economic constraints, because it removes those requirements (benefits) for economy-of-scale beyond the groupsize of the individual. The larger entities will be less agile and thus a liability in the Knowledge Age.

The monetary system we got was the one that fit the implicit economic constraints.

What will get in the Knowledge Age is what is most economic in the new paradigm of implicit economic constraints.

It would be much more productive use of your time to analyze what the implicit constraints are and model the free market outcome, than waste your time being repulsed by your ingrained preferences (which frankly I think are just FUD any way). And yes your beloved Statism was a free market outcome of the Industrial Age (and prior). And that is why socialism thrives at this end game, because people correctly blame the free market, but without realizing that it all is changing in the Knowledge Age if they would only adapt (but their ears and eyes are covered).

The Knowledge Age threatens to alter the implicit economic constraints radically.

You need to factor most people are judgmental.

Even asking genuine advice on this forum people attack you for no reason. Or your views, so I think its best to keep every insight you have to others who appreciate your time.

Just ignore that user.