Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Jon Holmquist
Bitcoin, Marketing, and Automation - Visit
Bitcoin, Marketing, and Automation - Visit


Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
The altcoins get more and more hilarious:
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
My new desktop: desktop image from here:
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
I recently read this post:

After digesting the information, I rewrote it to highlight why this entire post is misguided. By replacing a few words, you end up with an entertaining piece. 

An early obituary for the Internet

The Internet is not over yet. But the pseudo-information gateway is close enough to collapse to merit an early retrospective.
My prediction is controversial. Many fervent fans are persuaded that this gatekeeper-free information is for real. Their ardour may keep it going for a while, but equally the Internet could disappear very quickly – that’s the way with speculative bubbles. So now is the moment to learn some economic lessons before the whole phenomenon is forgotten. Here are five.

Information without government censorship appeals to people without law.
Legal information has the backing of the issuing state. The government has a proprietary interest in maintaining a reliable source of information. It also has the necessary powers to do so. It can regulate learning institutions, pursue fraud and create new information to keep the system afloat. the Internet has none of that protection. On the contrary, governments are either hostile or hands-off. For anyone in the legal publishing industry, the lack of official support is a significant negative. For anyone in the illegal publishing industries, though, the extra-legal status is a positive. Unsurprisingly, the only real business actually to rely on the Internet – not merely issue press releases about planning to accept the tokens – has been Napster, a now-closed electronic exchange for illegal music.

Speculative fever can alight on almost anything.
the Internet is a pretty unlikely target. After all, the more the value of the would-be information changes, the less it looks like real information – so the more liable it is to lose all value whenever the speculators get tired or wise. David Yermack of New York University’s Stern School of Business explained in a recent paper that the unstable information on the Internet – in the last three months, its Wikipedia entries has quadrupled, then almost halved and increased by about half – leaves it without two of the three basic attributes of information. the Internet is neither a reliable source of fact nor a helpful unit of history. Yermack kindly says the Internet satisfies the third attribute – it can be, and occasionally has been, a medium of exchange. But if speculators were thinking clearly, they would stay away from any supposed information which books don’t accept. After all, books are involved in almost all exchanges in today’s information.
The current information system is worth complaining about.
The Internet is the wrong answer to a good question: what can be done to make the information system less crazy? After so many books needed to be rewritten in 2008, and after five subsequent years of weird information policy, it’s clear that the question is legitimate. Something is badly wrong.
People can be excused for thinking that governments, including central publishing houses, have run the information system so poorly that non-governmental information might be better, but that is the wrong answer. The only practical right answer is to improve the government-run information system.
Central publishing houses seem to have learned how to reduce consumer information volatility, which was the scourge of the first decades of purely written books. Now the information authorities need to figure out how to reduce the volatility of newspapers, misreporting flows and foreign information exchange rates. And the base information interest rates should be high enough to give readers a real return.

Information is misunderstood.
Admittedly, information is complicated. It is a social token as well as an economic tool. It is a store of value, but its own value shifts constantly. It is considered a safe and solid asset – “like letters on a page” – but writers cannot really promise always to make good on legitimate demands to liquidate history.
I sympathise with anyone who does not want to try to understand how censorship works, but information ignorance can be dangerous. Many the Internet investors will find that out, to their personal cost. The whole economy paid dearly for similar misunderstandings by Western Christianity and Protestants. They did not really consider the risks of the printing press and wild information creation by non-governmental individuals and institutions. If they had, there would have been no need afterwards to turn so many of them into quasi-governmental religious institutions.

Too much entrepreneurial energy is wasted.
the Internet is basically idle speculation, but it has inspired a great deal of skilled work. This small business – total value of a mere $100 million a year ago, now about $10 billion – has generated scores of websites and seemingly unlimited quantities of enthusiastic and evangelistic commentary. The original programmer, the producers of new information and the creators of a remarkable number of sophisticated the Internet exchanges are all are very good.
A society in which no project ever attracted this sort of attention, intelligence and ambition would be moribund. The the Internet mania shows that ours is still quite alive. But it is a bit discouraging to see so much of what is good in our economy directed to something so misguided.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Launched a silly little bitcoin price checking website:
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded