Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts

Saturday, January 8, 2022

Cryptocurrencies as Money

Cryptocurrencies as Money

A free economy can be compared to statistical physics. There are many actors. Independent comparisons, information processing, produce local transactions, but level out into a collective valuation, collective prices, until a global market establishes in time (more or less stable) and space (over countries, continents and the planet), until the number of transaction are maximal, i.e. fulfill all needs in all remote corners of the planet. Maximum entropy is maximum information (processing) is maximum energy consumption. Limits/setbacks of growth are reached with energy limitation/exhaustion, but new sources, automation and finally AI help out.

Cryptocurrencies (short crypto, fungible and non-fungible tokens) are a very accessible interface and infrastructure for the bookkeeping of real assets by humans and/or trading bots. Cryptos can be the money of the future. What is missing yet, is the widespread adoption, which would make valuation statistical and thus stable.

Introduction

If you have a key to a lock (of a house), then you have access (to the house). The same key-lock principle is behind the private-public cryptographic key. Instead of a physical key-lock we deal with two sequences of bytes.

  • The private part is the "key"
  • The public part is the "lock" (but normally called "address")

In ECDSA keys, the public key can be generated from the private key. So by "key" mostly the private part is meant.

Having the key gives you ownership. Locks can be combined to produce shared ownership, where more keys are needed to unlock.

In general a token is a hash of some data. The hash of the public key(s) states ownership, either of an addable number (fungible) or of another token (non-fungible). The ownership can be redeemed using the private key(s), by creating a signature, that can be checked against the public key and thus verified by everybody.

In general a transaction has more inputs and more outputs.

Each node in the network has its own interpreter to check the signatures and do other tasks like executing smart contracts. This applies to EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine), but also to bitcoin and its forks, like bitcoin-cash,

The private keys are stored in wallets. The wallet also cares to make new keys (HD Wallets).

The unspent transaction output (UTXO, Coin) is first created as the first transaction of a block (coinbase), as reward for mining the block. This numeric value is kept limited by network consensus thus can be used to temporarily replace other limited assets, i.e. it can function as money, as long as the network is online. To keep the network running, nodes are motivated to join and stay by block reward and fees.

A small change in data, and the hash is completely different. The network of miners accepts only blocks with a hash less than a certain number (difficulty). For that only (all) values nonce number is tried.

The difficulty avoids that one can provide all the blocks and thus have control over a chain.

Blocks are chained together by the previous block hash (hashPrevBlock). The blockchain forms a public decentralized ledger, secure, because it cannot be changed unless one is able to redo the difficulty of all blocks following the changed one and overtake the network.

The network nodes check that the difficulty is met and wouldn't accept a block otherwise. Nodes build on the longest chain.

The difficulty is adjusted regularly (every 14 days or 14*24*6=201614*24*6 = 2016 blocks for bitcoin) such that the network can produce no more than about one block per 10 minutes.

Money is a collective product. The consensus rules and validation are a collective product. The joint usage of the network are a collective product. Together they make a collective value, they make money (= fiat money).

Time = Value = Transaction

Value can mean:

  • an element of a variable: most elementary
  • a number: mostly the result of counting values in variables (information)
  • human valuation/pricing: this considers human needs
  • ethical value: considering human needs, but eluding pricing

The values of a variable are exclusive. The value implies the variable.

The values of the variable must occur for a variable to exist. Selection of values of the variable cycles. Every value takes time or better is a time step of the variable. One cycle is one variable, is one time.

Every variable is also an independent time.

Information is the number of values of a variable. As such information is a quantity characterizing a variable, not a value. But since variables are values for higher level, the information (extension) is an extensive value. It motivates addition and ultimately all other operations.

Most values consist of internal variables. Internal communication produces inertia, because a level has a more or less fixed speed of communication, with a maximum speed for the lowest level.

When one variable separates into more independent variables they also form independent times. The variables get out of sync without communication.

Independent times make their value combinations random. Such a system of independent variables forms an exponential number of value combinations. If SS is the number of identical and independent variables of size nn, nSn^S is the number of value combinations.

The information speed comes into play when comparing to another variable. Information/Information = time/time = information/time = energy (see earlier blog). While information is conserved, energy is not. The information stays constant even if it spreads to more variables, in the same level or vertically in the hierarchy. pV=ST+UpV = ST + U becomes pV=STpV=ST, if the internal information (energy) UU is ignored, because locked up, anyway, i.e. not spreading vertically.

A transaction is the movement of a packet to new coordinates (value = location = selection = owner). In physics, the packet is internal physical information, internal variables/times. In human economy, it is valuated/priced considering human needs. The transactions by themselves form values, a variable, in the observed level. The packet is transacted based on a price agreement. As the transaction is also with information/price (food, gas, fee, VAT), the internal value of the packet (rest mass) is lower.

  • Physics: For a variable to exist, the values must occur.
  • Economics: For a valuation/price to exist and persist, transactions must occur.

Note

  • A transaction is a time step of economy and it has a price.
  • Transactions are needed to maintain value.
  • The transactions of a product represent a cycle, a variable.
  • A product has inner cycles (those of components).
  • Products of higher level move slower and have a higher price (mass).
  • The economic pricing hierarchy builds on top of basic living cost.

Money, Pricing

In human economics, transaction of physical resources are associated with a (numerical) value through the valuation/pricing process, that takes into account the demand/need of a resource and their limited availability specific to a person or a group of people.

Valuation of a product is a comparison with other products. If one person would do that, it would create its own valuation scale. The major products an individual compares to are due to its basic needs: food, housing, clothing, ... To compare, the person simulates having the product. A product needs to be personally used to have personal value. As the person has limited time values (.e.g seconds per life), a person's total valuation is limited.

Individuals averaged over a large population, or better a large number of transactions, produces money.

We don't use gold coins any more, we are on the verge of not using paper bills any more, either. We are left with only numbers. But the numbers have a value through the trust in each other that they will redeem the number with same valuation. Like, if you helped me for a day, I give you a bill or text you a message, which remembers you, that I Owe yoU (IOU) a day of help, too.

We collect such IOU's, so we don't need to stash food ourselves, because others do it for us. We can redeem our IOU's, when we are hungry.

Money is collective trust in the promises made by others, by the society. The valuation of money rises and falls with honorable and trustworthy behavior.

Valuation varies between people, space and time. Traders calculate with the valuation of other people, and especially use the valuation differences between people (arbitrage). In order to exploit the valuation difference, the trader relies on secrecy:

  • that the valuation of one party stays unknown to the other party and
  • that the calculations leading to the price offered by the trader stays secret

Secrecy and trust do not go well together,

  • Valuation differences, i.e. lucrative business ideas, do not stay secret long, but attract competitors.
  • Companies are short-lived, if their products that don't live up to the promises.
  • Outright lies, fake it till you make it, regularly lead to gigantic crashes in the finances.

Secrecy exists, but it does actually not matter so much. Even without it there is division of labor (including mental work) due to the expertise necessary and the limited time of one to do all alone. Sharing information without limit, nowadays so easy, boosts the economy.

Traders are like Maxwell demons, like are biological cells, plants, herbivores, carnivores, ..., farmers, traders, engineers, businessmen, investors, ... They all process information in a successively higher level, and can have a positive energy balance from it. Energy is information/time, the higher the level, the slower. But the information packets matter. A scientist has a long curriculum on its shoulder, like a complex protein has a long chemical pathway.

An important criterion in valuation is the marginal profit/loss (MP=MRMCMP = MR-MC), i.e. profit change by one more/less customer, product or whatever other unit, because it tells in which direction to go to maximize profit.

All this comparison in an economy creates stable prices (more global prices in space as well as time).

The collective comparison produces a common currency. Although just a number, that currency is limited, because also input channels, e.g. via work, is compared to the same scale.

Pricing is not solely based on calculations or statistics, though. Also power hierarchies or human relations play a role. Sometimes prices can even be dictated.

Comparing is work and many people don't spend too much effort on it, also because the effort very quickly surpasses the value of the product. Sharing information, the rating of other people, reduces the effort considerably.

The scarcity (limited supply and demand) is an essential feature of money, just like of every other product.

Scarcity could be named stability of valuation in a statistical sense. It does not refer to one person or one product. It does not mean that an individual should suffer of scarcity. It just means that sudden collective changes of valuation through a change in trust or supply and demand brings some disruption, with winners and losers, and needs time to stabilize again.

For a (stable) valuation there need to be (many) transactions. Transactions need consensus of more people to use the currency. The currency needs to be well distributed over a large basis of users to maximize transactions.

Money, despite varying prices, still represents real resources. In accounting, the real resources are assets, while the money is equity+liability. Assets = money. But it is a local assumption, because the pricing changes. There need to be regular currency adaptations.

The price can change because of more demand of a real resource (assets), but it can also change because the money supply changes.

A sudden change in money supply will change the demand on assets, which will change their prices. The same happens when the asset supply changes. Also both supplies can change. After one-sided changes it takes some time for prices to stabilize again.

If a money supply change reflects the resource/asset supply change, then the price stays stable.

Often there is one currency but many assets. But more generally there are different types of assets, as well as different types of currencies. One can make a currency per product. The currencies have their exchange rates. To compare, one needs to convert to one currency (valuation/pricing). One common currency stays relatively stable, because averaged over many transactions.

A countries legal tender is kept stable by adapting the supply,

  • either by issuing new money or
  • by buying up money of its currency

A central organization has control by issuing or withholding money. The control is exerted via parameters like interest rate. More money will be issued,

  • if the central bank interest is low
  • if the state's public spending is high

It is not just the political authority that control the money supply. Basically, those who own, do control. So centrally owned money means central control of money supply, and so indirectly central control of average pricing of products, i.e. the inflation.

General inflation is not just due to money supply, but also by the change in pricing of important products, which are ingredients of a large portion of all products, like energy and work force.

  • by central pricing agreements like that for work force
  • by change of taxes
  • by a change in supply, e.g. by deciding to get out of fossil energy supply
  • by a change in demand

Every product is its own currency. A currency is a product like every other. But a central currency is a special product, because it is more centrally controlled than any other product.

Central control would need a lot of information to make a good control. Normally central control is associated with inadequate reaction to changes.

A transaction needs a compromise between the parties. First, the compromise was quite local to a transaction and was done through bargaining. But with more bookkeeping and calculations, larger chains of transactions are taken into account. They lead to narrower price ranges of buyers and sellers. Transactions happen if the price ranges overlap. The bookkeeping and other kind of communication over space and time, like collective price agreements or dictation, make prices more global in space and time, i.e. more stable.

Many local independent decisions normally produce a better stable result via the law of large numbers than by central control. A globally used independent, not centrally controlled, exchange currency would become stable after some time and stay stable unless disruptive events occur.

Note

  • A currency is like every product.
  • Transactions (supply and demand) are needed for valuation/pricing, of money as well as of real assets.
  • Difference in valuation above fee produce transactions.
  • Many transactions produce a stable currency in the absense of disruption.

Traditional Money Compared to Crypto

Crypto has all the qualities of traditional money:

  • the paper bill number corresponds to a crypto key hash (number), but that bill/number is just the carrier of value and can be exchanged by another paper bill or crypto key (fungible)
  • like the paper bill, a crypto-key has a value associated to it
  • instead of putting the bill into your physical wallet, you put the crypto key into a digital wallet
  • the crypto key is the record of your belonging, like the paper bill you own
  • Your physical wallet or your bank account is your bookkeeping, just like the digital wallet is your bookkeeping. The wallet is like an account.

The role of money is to allow bookkeeping.

But for global/long-term bookkeeping, money needs to be stable, else one better considers it as an asset, a product.

Since crypto is not widely adopted yet, it is unstable, because not averaged over a large number of diverse transactions.

Wide adoption needs and produces stability.

Currently crypto is better considered an asset, like a physical product or like shares on a company.

Governments regard a crypto as an asset, like shares.

Shares do get quite independent from the company that issued them. Their price is rather dominated by supply and demand. Only occasionally good or bad news from the company change the behavior of traders. If the link to the company is removed then we basically are equivalent to a crypto, meaning that then both have no links to real assets other then through the valuation via supply and demand.

On the other hand many cryptos are driven by ads and influencers, with a company behind it that organizes that, and also controls the consensus centrally. This is very much like traditional shares.

Cryptos can replace traditional shares: Instead of issuing shares, a company can issue a crypto to finance itself.

  • The manufacturer can have its own fungible token to express the market valuation (EIP-20) of its products.
  • Or every product item can get its own non-fungible token (NFT, EIP-721, deed). It does not matter how the token is generated. It points to metadata via tokenURI that has more asset information. Ownership is not encoded in the token hash, but with separate addresses, like for fungible tokens.

Market

Market cap(italization) is coin supply times current price of one coin with respect to a FIAT currency.

Cryptos can be bought and sold in exchanges or privately.

The crypto's exchange rate, i.e. its price, depends on the limited supply and demand.

For the demand it must satisfy needs.

  • Provide a money infrastructure easily usable via smartphones (or other computers)
  • Keep the coin supply limited
  • Serve as an exchange currency between other currencies over time or space
  • Represent bookkeeping, possibly local for a product or a company
  • Trade and exploit valuation differences

For supply, block reward and fee keep the network running:

  • Crypto is created as reward for mining blocks: The coinbase is the first transaction of a block and it creates new output without input, i.e. new coin.
  • The output can be sold for other currencies, which gives the coin a price.
  • Transaction within the network do have a fee to account for the physical resources involved (electricity, computers) to reward the block miner and to avoid DoS attacks.
  • Fee burning reduces the supply more, when demand is more, thus working against inflation, and possibly producing deflation.
  • Buy back and burn by sending to an unusable address, is also used to reduce the supply.

All cryptos fulfill basically the same goal. That some are valued more than others is to some extend irrational speculation, to some extend limited support from wallets and crypto exchanges, to some extend lack of trust.

Currently, speculation is the major motive. This leads to unstable coins, if there are only big players, because big players decide slowly and keep a trend going, trying to drag others along and win from their movements. There are not enough independent actors to keep the coin stable.

A crypto cannot produce coin forever,

  • because computers work with limited width numbers
  • because any real resource is also limited
  • because a unique consensus does not cover all needs
  • because for scalability more networks are more efficient

Bitcoin, for example, reduces block subsidy gradually to 0. The assumption is that fee and valuation can keep the nodes online.

Scalability

The independent movements of a large population to fulfill their daily needs would make a crypto stable. That is the case for large fiat currencies.

No current crypto currency network can process that many transactions, therefore they rise the fee to keep away the masses.

Ethereum can process around 7-15 transactions per second, Bitcoin around 3-7. Second layer networks like Lightning for Bitcoin and Raiden for Ethereum, or sharding (partitioning of the database) are efforts to increase scalability, maintaining security and decentralization.

Second-layer networks reduce fees, because some communication is done off-chain.

Bitcoin has about 13000 listening nodes. A high node count produces more load for transactions, because every node needs to process them.

The fee is an important criterion to choose a crypto.

Exponential growth is a consequence of independent times/actors (Boltzmann statistics). Current exponential fees make the fee market "exponential-exponential". The fee rate should be constant. A fee competition between cryptos can help. But there is also the network competition for more hash power that asks for more reward.

Many different cryptos can be a remedy to the scalability problem. Each crypto can represent a local usage (can even be pegged to a local asset). The coins stabilize each other by exchange sites. Some exchange sites have a site-specific exchange coin as intermediary.

Trading bots can exploit valuation differences of various cryptos, level them out and thus produce a stable coin that can work as money.

Trust

A currency is an IOU. The amount of currency a person possesses, is a promise of society to redeem later with same assets.

A currency is stable if people trust in it, and they trust in it if it is stable.

You cannot trust anybody but the statistics of large number.

Individual decisions should not be made due to currency value, because it ruins statistics.

A Currency must be stable.

  • A deflationary currency is bad, because it postpones transactions, and loses the link to real economy
  • An inflationary currency is bad, because it prevents long-term planning.

Large fiat currencies are rather stable through the sheer amount of transactions. Stablecoin is normally pegged to to important fiat currencies like the Dollar (Tether), Euro or Yen.

Cryptos need to be trustworthy

  • the network needs to be reliable and stay online all the time
  • the link to real assets (NFT) must be correct
  • The way programming decisions are made, whether centralized or via enhancement proposal publicly scrutinized

Trading Bot

Stability is relative, though. Just as intermediary to an exchange, a short term stability is already enough. A bot can quickly react on changes, exploit them and produce stability, for people to use.

For a valuation to be stable its supply must change according to its demand. The bot can swap falling cryptos with rising ones, leveling them out. This swapping is the result of many bots buying low and selling high, but for them small amounts already matter.

Note

speculation on trends

The principle of speculation is to act before others and gain from others.

If one is first to buy in an upward trend, and first to sell in a downward trend, one earns most. If one is first in the game, one earns most.

  • By convincing others their behavior is a result and thus is of course later.
  • Otherwise one observes and anticipates the actions of others before they actually happen. Predictable behavior is always losing in speculation.

Buy when price is minimum, sell when price is maximum.

With slow competition:

  • buy, when the price starts to increase and
  • sell, when it starts to decrease

But, with fast competition, a minimum in local time, is already beyond the minimum, when the exchange serializes independent requests. Then

  • buying, when the price falls and
  • sell when the price rises

Fast bot competition produces so small and fast vibrations that the currency seems stable for the human eye.

Let's envision a future time where every person has its own avatar bot and their are additional bots in several levels. The ultimate demand is from humans, though. The avatar must see the human demand. For that, currencies must be pegged to real assets.

  • Let's assume a currency pegged to a local electricity power station (LOCTRO).
  • The demand increases locally in space and time, due to cold weather and electric heating.
  • The power station decides to increase the price of LOCTRO to gain on the demand.
  • A local consumer bot on electricity (BOTTRO) sees changes in LOCTRO. It exchanges LOCTRO for FARTRO (farther away power station).
  • The bot is fast and humans will actually see no change in price in BOTTRO. BOTTRO is a stable mix.
  • When all use more electricity, because suddenly everybody charges its electric car, a personal consumption avatar can swap BOTTRO's for other cryptos, telling the person to reduce electricity consumption, to use the bike instead of the EV.
  • Investors see BOTTRO increase, such that a larger local investments makes sense. They build a new power station and power storage.
  • After the investment has been payed off, competition makes BOTTRO fall and become stable again.

Bots can help stabilize local changes. Speculative human changes are local changes. Bots can help to merge the many cryptos into a stable global money.

Note

  • The role of money is to allow bookkeeping.
  • A crypto is like money, but the public ledger/network brings along the full infrastructure for bookkeeping.
  • More cryptos with (automatic) trading between them are a remedy to the scalability problem.

DEFI and DAO

DEFI: decentralized finance

DAO: decentralized autonomous organization

Cryptos are public ledgers. This does not yet make them decentralized finance, if the consensus rules are centrally dictated. Rather it also needs organizational decentralization that distribute control over the programming of the consensus rules.

The ledger only records transactions. For transactions to increase and become statistical the coin must be distributed. Only in combination with fair organizational rules, that care for a good distribution, transactions and thus valuation of the coin becomes decentralized.

Decentralized finance usually just refers to the public ledger, and the avoidance of a third person in transactions via smart contracts. It does not refer to a fair distribution. For fair distribution the participants in transactions must care for fairness. Fairness is an ethical value of humans, but often cannot unfold due to lack of information, centrally imposed to keep the advantage and power.

The distribution of information is the first step to fairness. The following crypto properties help towards fairness:

  • The ledger is public.
  • Smart contracts are programmed and can be reviewed before adoption.
  • Neither can be modified afterwards.
  • Smart contracts can be done without the need to trust a third party.

Extra fairness effort on top of the public ledger is still needed, though. The DAO needs its own purpose, its own constitution, local consensus rules, The data for a specific DAO needs to be made conveniently manageable for its members according to the DAO's constitution.

Bitcoin is a public ledger, but it is yet mostly used by rich people that have money to speculate on ups and downs of its exchange rate. The bitcoin capital is in the hands of a few and therefore not stable.

Everything develops by proposal and acceptance/adoption. So someone needs to (centrally) develop a proposition. If others accept the proposal a consensus has been reached.

A new crypto/blockchain/DAO needs someone to start it. If it gets adopted a consensus has been reached.

But people should also verify that the further governance is decentralized else their investment is laid into the hands of a few, which is not decentralized finance any more.

Source Code

bitcoin-core was the first and is now reference implementation to many forks. The forks, like bitcoin-cash-node, share much code with bitcoin-core and regularly take over changes from bitcoin-core.

Here some central identifiers. Initial v means vector, i.e. many:

CBlock(Header): vtx (nVersion hashPrevBlock hashMerkleRoot nTime nBits nNonce)
CTransaction: vin vout nVersion nLockTime hash
CTxIn: prevout scriptSig nSequence
CTxOut: nValue scriptPubKey
COutPoint: txid n
CChain: vChain of CBlockIndex
CScriptCheck: scriptPubKey amount ptxTo nIn nFlags cacheStore txdata pTxLimitSigChecks pBlockLimitSigChecks
CTxMemPool: mapTx
CConnMan: vNodes
CNode: hSocket, vRecvMsg

Note

hash

Hashes are used for

  • transactions (txid)
  • public key (Pay-to-PubKey Hash = P2PKH)
  • signatures (content according SigHashType + private key)
  • blocks (hashPrevBlock)
  • proof-of-work (POW): find a nonce that makes the block hash smaller than nBits

While POW's smaller-than task is hard, finding the data exactly hashing to a given hash is almost impossible. Hashing is a trapdoor.

Node

A bitcoin node is a bitcoind daemon running on a computer. Each node is its own time. Parallel times means parallel independent information.

To manage to maintain the consistency of many transactions, transactions are divided into blocks.

A mining node creates blocks (CBlock) that are filled with transactions (vtx) from the mempool of transactions (addTxs). The block is like a page in a ledger.

To make a common ledger, a common time, more mining nodes need to find a way to choose, who contributes the next block with transactions to the chain.

The first mining node that fulfills the proof-of-work, adds a block to to the longest chain. The frequency of blocks is controlled by the difficulty.

CBlockHeader::hashPrevBlock of each block fixes content of the previous block, because changing the content would produce a different hash that would not fit any more to hashPrevBlock of the next block. The hash brings the blocks into a sequence, a chain (vChain).

This ledger is replicated in all full nodes.

CBlock is derived from CBlockHeader and contains the transactions (vtx).

The hashPrevBlock that fulfills the nBits difficulty is based on data in the header (hashMerkleRoot, nTime, nNonce). The transactions are included in the hash indirectly via the hashMerkleRoot field.

The block chain is like its own time. The many different times of all the nodes create one common time.

The result of hashing is random. To find hashPrevBlock that meets the difficulty the hashes per second matter. Whether they are achieved in parallel or sequentially does not matter. This way many slow machines can be as fast as one fast machine. The fastest machine must not be more than 50% of the hash frequency of the whole network, else that fast machine could tamper with a block and then rebuild the chain and produce a longest chain, that would be accepted by the network.

Network

The network has a documented protocol.

Nodes in the network are characterized by permission flags like PF_MEMPOOL,...

The nodes exchange NetMsgType messages:

CConnMan::ThreadMessageHandler
    PeerLogicValidation::ProcessMessages
        ::ProcessMessage
            ::RelayTransaction
            ::ProcessGetData
            ::Process...
                CInv//ventory

A PeerLogicValidation implements the NetEventsInterface interface with SendMessages and ProcessMessages.

Only full mining nodes create new blocks. They need and others can fetch all accumulated unconfirmed transactions (NetMsgType::MEMPOOL/[GET]BLOCKTXN). Other nodes RelayTransaction one-by-one (NetMsgType::TX), so after some time all nodes will have all relevant transactions.

CInv types correspond to NetMsgType commands:

MSG_TX: NetMsgType::TX
MSG_BLOCK: NetMsgType::BLOCK
MSG_FILTERED_BLOCK: NetMsgType::MERKLEBLOCK
MSG_CMPCT_BLOCK: NetMsgType::CMPCTBLOCK
MSG_DOUBLESPENDPROOF: NetMsgType::DSPROOF

Each node constantly communicates with other nodes:

  • connman->PushMessage(pfrom, msgMaker.Make(NetMsgType::TX, ...)), ...
  • ProcessMessage according to the protocol, especially:
    • fetch new blocks and determine ChainActive (longest chain) (ActivateBestChain/FindMostWorkChain)
    • fetch new transactions as they need to be in the block before the block hash is created

ZeroMQ or zmq is an additional optional protocol to broadcast transactions and blocks.

Transactions

Each of the transactions vtx in a CBlock have

  • many inputs (vin)
  • many outputs (vout)

A transaction can

  • split the vin[i] to more vout[j], to take only part of a vout[n].nValue addressed by vin[i] and keep the rest via one's own change address, or it can
  • combine more vin[i] (previous vout[k].nValue) to one new vout[j].nValue.
  • or mix otherwise

vin is the n'th vout of another transaction (txid), referenced via prevout:COutPoint{txid;n}.

The unspent coin is important for validation.

cacheCoins:CCoinsMap is a map from vin[m].prevout to Coin{TxOut{nValue,scriptPubKey}} (CCoinsViewCache::FetchCoin()). This map is also stored in a leveldb .lvl database (CDBWrapper). The CBlockTreeDB is also stored in a leveldb database.

The Coin can be fetched from a CTxMemPool with mempool.get(txid).vout[n]. mempool holds enough transactions to check yet unstable blocks (COINBASE_MATURITY) against double spending.

Older transactions are secured in blocks by hashPrevBlock. Many blocks are serialized into one .blk file.

The sum of all vout[].nValue, i.e. GetValueOut(), minus the sum of all the vout[vin[].prevout], i.e. GetValueIn(), is fee.

Fee

The fee of a transaction is Σoutput - Σinput. The fees of all transactions mined into a block contribute to the coinbase, together with the subsidy. The fees are not linked to its original transaction via address keys. The coinbase has no input, but its output is subsidy+fee.

When mining a block the transactions are ordered high fee first. With more transaction available than fitting into a block those with higher fee are chosen, while the others wait for the next block.

There is a blockMinFeeRate(DEFAULT_BLOCK_MIN_TX_FEE_PER_KB) to accept to block and a GetMinFee() to accept a transaction into the transaction pool (g_mempool). The latter is influenced by the maxMemPoolSize configuration. The largest fee of the transaction falling out becomes the minimum of those allowed in. GetMinFee() gets exponentially smaller with a half life of 12 hours (or 6 or 3 depending on how fast the traffic goes down).

The users decide on the fees, but it is a guess, because if too low the transaction will not get into a block. A stuck transaction can be manually prioritisetransaction'ed, thus circumventing currently higher fees. But for that you need RPC access to a node.

The number of blocks in the network are kept at a constant rate (e.g. 1 / 10 min). With constant block size, even a larger network cannot serve more transactions. A larger network only produces more load for transactions.

In nature exponential behavior comes from independent times. The resource usage of a transaction can be considered constant (proportional to the number of network nodes). But those doing transactions are independent and thus produce an exponential memory usage. In the presence or constant memory, the fee will have an exponential behavior, shutting out an exponentially growing number of smaller fee transactions.

getmempoolinfo informs about the current GetMinFee().

GetMinFee() is a rate per KB. The actual fee is GetMinFee().GetFee(<transaction size in bytes>).

On Ethereum the fee required to make transaction go through is called gas. EIP-1559 burns a base fee. Miners only get the difference to the base fee. The base fee changes with the traffic. Burning the base fee means more is burned the more traffic. The supply becomes smaller, when the demand becomes higher. This increases the price of the coin (deflationary coin/token).

Script

Bitcoin has no fields for addresses one spends money to or from. The addresses are buried in a script indirectly addressing public keys as hashes. To redeem a vout[i]->vin[j] from one transaction to another, the following script composition must evaluate to true (done by CScriptCheck):

[ <vin[j].scriptSig> ]  [ <vout[i].scriptPubKey> ]

The first part comes from the later transaction's vin[j].

There are more variants, the most frequent one is P2PKH.

P2PK:

[ <signature> ]    [ <public key> OP_CHECKSIG ]

P2PKH:

[ <Signature> <Public Key> ] [ OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <public key hash> OP_EQUAL OP_CHECKSIG ]

P2SH allows to provide the public keys (or locks) in a script only when actually spending:

[ <only push data to stack> <script> ] [ OP_HASH160 <script hash> OP_EQUAL ]

e.g.:

[ <signature> {<pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG} ] [ OP_HASH160 <hash of {<pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG>}> OP_EQUAL ]

The hash prevents linking an UTXO to the public key and avoids that future more powerful computers can infer the private key from the public. Hashes are also smaller and thus easier to be communicated on paper or screen printout, either via binary-to-text encoding like base58 or a QR code.

ECDSA cryptography (secp256k1 for Bitcoin) allows to recover the public key from the private key. So only the private key needs to be saved.

The public key can also be recovered from a signature and the message/hash that was signed. This is actually how <signature> <public key> OP_CHECKSIG works. To redeem, OP_CHECKSIG needs to have access to the private key. How the hash for the signature is created is known by SigHashType. The last byte of the signature encodes sigHashType for SignatureHash(), VerifySignature(). SignatureHash in script/interpreter.cpp shows what is signed. sigHashType can decide that more of the transaction than just vout[i]->vin[j] is signed, normally sigHashType=SIGHASH_ALL, i.e. the whole transaction is signed in each vout[i]->vin[j] link.

Everybody can recreate the same hash using the same data in the same order, but only the owner of the private key can make a signature of the hash fitting to he public key it contains.

When redeeming, the signature can be published, so that everybody can verify that the token was redeemed righteously (scriptSig).

SignSignature can be used to fill vin[i].scriptSig, i.e. to redeem a transaction.

The sigHashType used in scriptSig does not depend on scripPubKey, i.e. OP_CHECKSIG will succeed if the public key fits to the signature, independent of the content that was signed.

Token

In general the hash of some data is called token. For example, in pay-to-public-key-hash (P2PKH), the public key is the essential part in scriptPubKey. It is thus an ownership token.

EIP-20 (ERC-20) is a specification of fungible tokens on the ethereum network. Coins are fungible tokens: They don't identify an asset. 200000 compatible tokens exist. They are all traded on the Ethereum network, and can thus be exchanged against each other. UNI from uniswap is such a ERC-20 token.

EIP-721 specifies non-fungible token (NFT, deed). The value of NFT's is in its links to physical assets or other non-copyable items like contracts (mortgages and the like).

It is interesting that NFT's are used for images and other things that have no link to real assets, but that consist of data only, and can be copied easily.

OpenSea is a marketplace for NFT's.

Wallet

Coins is an unspent output of transactions (UTXO, COutPoint). To use coins one needs to have

  • the private key fitting to the public key hash in scriptPubKey (for P2PKH)
  • the transaction hash (txid)
  • the index n into vout of txid

The public bitcoin site one can queried with a key hash, i.e. with an address, e.g.:

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1EwpnNBdFJykwxp6X8v9AfZnup9bgmrLE1

Wallets can find transactions with importprivkey.

ScanForWalletTransactions allows to find the COutPoint{txid,n} for the private keys it contains. A wallet then stores the transaction hashes for its keys.

So what is important is only the keys. Only keys need backup.

For anonymity a new key is used for every transaction output.

With HD Wallets (HD = hierarchical deterministic), keys are generated from a seed and thus only the seed needs backup. With it the wallet can construct the keys and then query the blockchain.

Using the same HD wallet, the seed (key, phrase) can be used to regain access to all coins. The HD wallet name should be backed up, too, or the key derivation path.

Non-custodial software wallets:

Bitcoin: Bitcoin, Electrum, Pywallet, ...

Lightning: eclair, breez, muun, ...

ERC-20: bitbox, coinomi, metamask, zengo, brd, edge, trust bitpay (open source, visa functionality, segwit, schnorr)

Mining

Choose one time line (block chain) for more separate times (nodes).

  • Make adding a block hard enough by proof-of-work (POW) to last enough human-relevant time to accumulate transactions (10 min).
  • Make it easy to check the POW result.
  • A random POW algorithm (trial-error) makes two parallel similar nodes about twice as fast, because twice as many trials are done.
  • If none of the nodes is faster than the rest together it is impossible to overtake the longest chain.
  • A node adds a block to the longest chain (= chain with most work).
  • Longest chain with POW is the main consensus rule to choose the common time (ChainActive).
  • ActivateBestChain/FindMostWorkChain decides to switch ActiveChain.
  • Transactions (and its fees) count only in a matured ChainActive.

POW loop:

  • try a nonce until the block hash becomes smaller then a arith_uint256 bnTarget, constructed from nBits (difficulty).

    The arith_uint256 type is used to represent a block hash. SetCompact constructs a large arith_uint256 bnTarget number from a compact uint32_t nBits.

  • GetNextWorkRequired calculates nBits, CheckProofOfWork checks.

  • A node mines in response to generatetoaddress.

    CreateNewBlock() create a CBlockTemplate, on which one finds nNonce, then ProcessNewBlock()/ActivateBestChain()/ConnectTip()/ConnectBlock()

getblocktemplate is

  • an RPC API function
  • a protocol

getblocktemplate allows to do mining separately:

  • the miner asks the server about some fixed data (nVersion, hashPrevBlock, nTime, nBits) that needs to go into the block via getblocktempate.
  • The miner can change hashMerkleRoot, nTime, nNonce to produce a hash that meets nBits difficulty.
  • The miner calls submitblock on the server.

For a pure mining implementation in an ASIC, libblkmaker can be used to call getblocktemplate to a server. Then the miner can be simple, concentrating only on changing values to meet the difficulty (mining).

A bitcoin full node (server) can have more miners. This is called a mining pool. The full node is the server. It redistributes the reward to the miners.

Consensus

Apart from fulfilling the difficulty on longest chain, there are other relevant rules that decide, whether transactions and blocks are accepted by the network (MAX_MONEY, MedianTimePast(), ...). The coin is the result of the network consensus rules. The consensus rules decide, which transactions and blocks are accepted. The consensus rules are like a parallel program producing one time: the blockchain.

The nodes could have completely different implementations, if the behavior is the same. Two different implementations would need long testing against each other to produce the same behavior. The nodes are controlled by different parties, but they still choose the same implementation to produce the same behavior. The implementation of peers is not visible, though. If advantages are detected, individual nodes slightly change implementation and behavior here and there. The network adapts slowly by introducing new rules and checks them starting from a specific height or MedianTimePast() time. The upgrades have are named after BIPs or get special names, like taproot.

Changes in the behavior need to be taken over by all nodes simultaneously, or they are backward incompatible.

hard fork

If more nodes do not agree on the new rules, the transactions and/or blocks are mutually not accepted any more, which is a hard fork of the network and the into separate branches.

soft fork

In a soft fork changes need to have backward compatible behavior, to allow communication until almost all nodes are upgraded.

Fork above refers to chain forks. The software that creates a chain can also be forked. The software fork can possibly create a completely new chain with its own genesis block.

RPC Command

After starting, bitcoind exposes its interface as RPC. The RPC names and parameters are also command line arguments of bitoin-cli.

To list commands:

bitcoin-cli help

The simplest way to send money:

bitcoin-cli sendtoaddress [address] [amount]

Further information:

Wednesday, May 1, 2019

Employment=Inequality

Summary

Economic inequality is bad

  • for emotional health
  • for social stability
  • productivity

The reasons for inequality are

  • employment, because labor is a separate market and not linked to profit
  • power hierarchy, because abused for inequality
  • information hiding, because fairness cannot be checked

If those making a product own its profit, work is linked to profit

Below follows broad and deep argumentation

  • how things are but should not be
  • i.e. motivating to do things differently

Here the results are summarized

pproduct

Base fair value-to-work mapping on the product (continuity, employment disadvantages, legal company).

pchoice

Contributors choose to work on a product (personality).

powner

Contributors become product owners (company ownership, work for equality).

pnoboss

The product network has coordinators and mediators, but no boss (importance of fairness, problem of the important man).

pnoemployment

No separate labor market, no employment (importance of fairness, employment disadvantages).

pnostock

The legal entity does not use stock for financing the product effort (no shares).

pprofit

Product profit goes to the contributors (importance of fairness).

pfair

Effort is also spent on verifying fairness.

Fairness is a development like every other. Fairness needs

This file is the plan. The next step: do.

Of course everybody is free to engage in unfair relationships. But there are undesirable effect for the economy as a whole, if too many do that.

Economy of Emotions

Economics is a rational science that uses a lot of mathematics based on economic models.

Rational economic models do not contradict the fact, that economy is also built on emotions, a feature of the human animal acquired through biological evolution. We use to contrast emotions with rationality, but emotions are the rationality of a far longer evolutionary history.

Economy is a cooperation to satisfy our needs, that evolved over biological evolution, and are averaged by the Maslow pyramid.

Emotions are the psychological and physiological algorithms developed by biological evolution to safeguard various kinds of resources. These algorithms are encoded in the human genome.

  • We love because of our offspring's dependence on the resources of both parents
  • We love our parents to provide resources
  • We feel at ease and loyal, if accepted by a group as a security on resources
  • We fear a threat on our resources
  • We become envious or jealous on unfair distribution of resources
  • We develop anger to prepare our body to defend resources
  • We become sad when we realize a resource is lost

To summarize: Dependence on resources is the evolutionary cause of emotions.

That emotions long predate the dawn of mankind is proven by

  • our sharing of emotions with other mammals
  • the fact that emotions produce physiological reactions

Some animals prefer a solitary life to avoid the stress of intraspecific biological competition. Other animal live socially, among them the humans.

Humans show emotional evidence of a long evolutionary history of group life. Many emotions predate eusociality of humans, but acquired a social trigger. Emotions can be contagious. We have empathy.

Emotions co-evolved, e.g. a social anxiety, like stage fright, possibly co-evolved with the envy at someone who plays important and demands an unjustified bigger share of limited resources.

Group emotions are in our genes, because of the dependence of individuals on the group. The group is an essential subsystem to the individual. Genes producing behavior destructive for the group decreased the gene-holder's chances to survive. It is still selection on the individual via inclusive fitness rather than selection of groups.

Group emotions constitute a macroeconomic view, which considers the importance of the group. That they evolved shows their usefulness and advices us not to base the economy purely on egoistic motives.

There are also emotional differences between humans:

  • Different strategies allowed survival, e.g Some people evolutionarily satisfied their needs via relations, while others did it more directly.
  • Different environments selected differently. In the presence of resource scarcity,
    • environments where resources could be obtained alone lead to more competitiveness
    • environments where resources needed cooperation lead to more cooperativeness

Personality

As a result we can classify two stereotypes with every shade in between:

  • those who are interested in things (more introvert) and
  • those who are interested in people (more extrovert)

Because extroverts evolutionarily got their resources indirectly, they will likely

  • pay attention to what the others want, think or believe and
  • behave accordingly
  • groom them
  • accept a hierarchy
  • try to get a better place in the hierarchy

Introverts will

  • spend less time in social grooming, because their time is consumed with learning new things.
  • team up with people of the same interest and
  • see other off-topic grooming more as a nuisance or insincere.
  • don't like hierarchies, especially none above, because they take away their freedom to explore new things.

Human emotional peculiarities were shaped in the long prehistory of small groups more then in the short written history. We still feel well in teams that model such natural companies. They put each member at ease with mutual appreciation for

  • the help in acquiring and
  • fairly distributing resources

The natural companies evolved to fit together and to the environment. Extroverts and introverts complemented each other in the natural company.

Emotions demand respect, because grown and proven over a hundred million years. Those who didn't have these emotions do not exist any more. The lack of respect leads to destructive behavior of individuals or groups, which can become disruptive or destructive for larger social systems.

A company as a legal entity is no such natural company. It rather can be compared to an interface in programming. Economic exchange goes through the (address, role) tuples of a company. The company plays external roles in the economy independent of who provides its function, i.e. the internal roles.

The entity as a separate unit

  • makes contracts and
  • is legally responsible for them,
  • economically spends and earns and
  • is taxable for the profit

Legal entity types provide useful constructs for people working together,

  • not making everybody liable for the actions of the others (limited liability)
  • guaranteeing fair distribution between partners or owners

But legal entity types are mostly abused for exploitation of the inherited capability to form a natural company and achieve great things by working together.

The problematic internal role is the employee role, because employees

  • provide the full functionality of a company
  • but do get only a minor portion of their achievement

The owners

  • have considerably better legal protection
  • have power over the employees
  • control the money flow through the addresses of the company

Owner vs employee inequality obviously produces also distribution inequality.

Company Ownership

Property is a claim (ownership) on resources, because of a dependence on these resources. This territorial claim we share with other animal.

Because of the importance of property in human history, society has developed special protection for it. Owners can therefore sit back and do without constant emotional stress to defend their claim.

When people started to rely on farming, land became an essential resource and thus people claimed ownership on land. Farmers were raided, though, and fell prey to protection rackets. The racketeers became the authorities (monarchs), claiming taxing rights on their territories (nowadays countries).

There are properties in all levels of society up to a state's territory.

Property is heritable and whether acquired fairly, violently or by tricks, gets forgotten. Society's protection of property stays, though.

Nowadays very few depend on farming. Mostly we depend on cooperation to create and maintain technically complex systems, like computer HW and SW, cars, robots, ... Consequently the important resources of today and the future are companies, the cooperation of people.

To improve distribution of wealth one must aim at a fair distribution of company ownership.

No Shares

To own shares of other companies is possible, but even public float is in principle nothing else than a direct owner of the corporation.

The problem leading to inequality is not that companies are owned, but that they are not sharedly owned by those working there, the employees.

The company is legally obliged to maximize profit for the owner(s), this conflicts with maximizing the profit of the employee and is a legal unfairness.

One should not hold a share on one's own cooperation and not of the cooperation of others.

Maximizing Profit

In principle, there is nothing wrong with profit maximization. Partners expect each other to work together towards this goal. So do shareholders.

The problem are the employees, as they do not help each other to maximize their profit. Even the opposite: There is a pressure on wages to increase the profit of the owners.

By law, the employee is controlled by the employer. Because the majority of people are employees and cannot take part in the profit maximization, employment produces inequality.

To improve their lives, i.e. maximize their profit, employees need to become owners of their work, of their cooperation.

Work for Equality

The idea that work is a product like any other, that you can buy,

  • might be OK for physics work (and according jobs)
  • but it is not OK for people creating value beyond lifting a weight

Especially highly educated technical people should avoid employment, because they produce immense innovation, like automation and artificial intelligence. If those who own the cooperation get all the profit, instead of those cooperating, this creates an unbelievable inequality. It has done so already and will do more so in the future by orders of magnitude unless the employment relation is avoided.

The employee is regarded as working or thinking machine, basically a slave. Seen from the investor or owner, the productivity of slavery is high (slave = little cost = little input, but high value output). But overall the productivity is low.

The economy is driven by demand, i.e. needs. Making one person super rich does not increase the demand, because a person's needs are more or less limited. Thus, from a macroeconomic viewpoint,

A super rich person does not live a million lives and does not have a million thoughts in every instant. The few super rich spend their money only according to their very limited mind, thus curbing economic evolution.

The few super rich create bullshit-jobs in the finance industry, management hierarchy and legal industry to report to their bottleneck mind, which makes the overall productivity small again.

The super rich are not at fault though. Those who played along, without caring for fairness, are at fault. They renounced potentially much higher income to make a few super rich.

It is not a goal of the many, the economy, to be productive for a few super rich people. This is only the goal of the few rich.

The goal of the economy as a whole is to spread freedom to let choose according to individual needs and interests. For this, workers need to be owners themselves, and not be the lackey of some super rich owner.

Real economy is also reduced with shares:

  • With public float small shareholders
    • waste time gathering information about the company they hold a few shares of or
    • delegate to bullshit-jobs in managed funds.
  • Majority stock holders or direct owners get too rich.

The money of the super rich is lost, because accepting it would further increase inequality. Actual value is thus lost for the economy, since vaulted by the super rich.

The existence of super rich people is a prove that there is a systemic error in economic practice and laws.

Freedom

A person with own thoughts needs freedom for own plans.

Free choices are not possible without resouces, without alternatives to choose from. Free choice depends on money.

Freedom needs both:

It is extortion, if economic value cannot be obtained by free will, but only under an employer's commands.

The employee does not get its fair share of the actual value of a company and thus renounces freedom of choice.

One has effectively become a slave, if one has no alternatives that make a difference in the pursuit of one's self-interest.

Concentration of wealth is a vicious circle that sucks away freedom from the majority.

Importance of Fairness

Humans did well on this planet. But now there are so many of us, that we are driven to optimize wherever possible. We can no more take a piece soil and plough, or go hunting in the woods. There is much effort or high financial investment needed to reach ownership to keep away competition.

Because one or a few decide over others, currently companies resemble

Being more by number, workers don't need to agree on such terms. They can establish a democracy. Worker ownership brings democracy into the companies.

But also with workplace democracy inequality still can creep in.

A sense of fairness for distributive justice or equality is part of our emotions. The majority of society should be able to agree on it as a common ethical value, unless they agree to be treated badly, which would mean that the majority lacks self-esteem.

Mass lack of self-esteem can happen and maybe is actually the case due to an authoritarian educational system, in which

  • students are squashed into a class,
  • dominated the first quarter of their lives by central figures (the teachers)
  • with continuation in the work place.

Legacy ethics is in many ways mislead. Values can have religious reasons, or be supported simply out of tradition. Even if well thought through, who is to decide, what is right or wrong? One better keeps out of value discussions without relevance. And especially one needs to refrain from discriminating based on values in interactions where those values have no importance. But resource distribution is of relevance.

Fairness is local to a cooperation, because it is associated with information. One needs to demand information to be able to judge fairness.

Hiding information is the major means of exploitation.

Being political is a necessity.

When working together one cannot split

  • politics: decision making
  • economics: fair distribution

Politics applies to all social structures, not just countries.

We are still animals, but animals with a intellect, that can design and commit to a social structure other than alpha, beta and omega, also because communication has become more flexible.

To overcome a subjective feeling of fairness one needs to compromise on a metric. As is common with measuring, as hard as one tries, there will always be an error. Accordingly there will never be perfect fairness.

The sum of everybody demanding fairness in their local contexts (microeconomy), produces more equality, also globally (macroeconomy), e.g. in a country. Non-local inequality between companies will be leveled by

The problem, though, is to make enough people aware of their marginal importance in reducing inequality. Economies, where enough people exit unfair companies, do better, because a fairer distribution makes an economy grow.

Distributing wealth also

  • makes people financially independent
  • spreads freedom (alternatives), which
  • leads to more diversification
  • makes the economy resistant against financial crises
  • makes people happier
  • protects against social upheaval
  • gives a say to many instead of a few

A financial crises is reached when the limit of exploitation is reached. A good example is the 2007-2008 crisis. The rich need to invest, which means that the poor need to incur debt.

The way via fairer laws is often not taken, because the minority, that profits from inequality, has a disproportionate influence on politicians and frame the public via mass media. (obedience, work ethic, virtue, ..., religion, ...).

In a democracy, why aren't their any politicians that promise to end inequality? There are, but only when inequality reaches a critical level for a critical mass. This is then a revolution, which operates outside the laws, and is a threat to life of many and thus the ultimate resort. History shows, when a critical inequality has been reached,

These are just the last stages of a long period of preceding suffering. The rich, though, don't experience the suffering and don't see it either. The initiative therefore can only come from those suffering.

Liberté-égalité-fraternité is not just a slogan

  • it has relevant content (goal)
  • and tells that things were not that way.

Considering the inertia of large systems, there is a point of no return, which one cannot detect. Instead one needs to counteract every local inequality.

Inequality is a world problem, not of countries existing due to historical coincidences.

Employment Disadvantages

The most obvious cause for inequality is company owner versus employee. Employees have produced an unbelievable wealth inequality, because they did not claim ownership of their cooperation.

On a settled market employee's P_e = w versus owner's P_o = r N w (w wage investment, return on investment (ROI) r, N employees) produces a minimal linear inequality growth text{MLD}=ln(r+1)t, where MLD is mean log deviation as inequality metric.

Best would be r=0. Then the price of labour meets the profit of the company and inequality does not rise. This is the case when those working together also own their cooperation. Because the exploiting separate owner role is gone.

The above r is for one company. Between companies inequality can still increase. But then work force would move to the profitable business to level it again. This is normal healthy competition and not due to power hierarchy.

  • Employees renounce the market value of an established company.

The value of a company is to a big part of structural nature, internal and in market position.

The ownership of many legal entity types is established at the beginning with no change during the growth of a company. Every new employee's contribution to the value of the company is claimed by the same owners:

  • profit per employee
  • intellectual property
  • structural value (internal and market)
  • ...

Basically all accumulated economic value of the company is claimed by the same owners.

Wealth grows exponentially by averaging compound interest (stochastic model: geometric brownian motion). This is the wealth of the owners produced by the employees. The wages of employees, on the other hand, settle on a level to be just enough, to make a living.

  • Employees miss opportunities.

An employee is compensated via wages determined by the separate labor market instead of according to the profit in the product market.

  • Price of labor (wage) does not reflect value of labor (profit).

Without a say in the company via ownership, wages can basically only be influenced via strikes. The owner has more possibilities in an imperfect competition, the simplest being to increase the price, which has the extra profit, that the ensuing inflation is not immediately reflected in the wages.

  • The owners have control over the employees.

The idea of one person controlling one or more others is against the principle of liberté-égalité-fraternité

  • Employees cannot maximize profit, while the company owners can.

  • Employees create the company profit, but an owner might still think, s/he pays the wages.

  • Employees create the company's links to the economy, but lose them all at once when leaving.

  • Employees cannot decide for themselves, even if they know better.

  • Employees cannot organize their environment according to their needs, but are placed in loud crowded big open offices.

  • Employees are not included in decision processes that have an impact on them (especially wages).

  • Employees get deprived of their intellectual property.

  • Employees do not get a share of the company matching their relative investment.

  • Employees sell their full time for an unfair price as if they had no goals of their own. They give up their personal development.

  • Employees are unprotected against the many causes of loosing their job, their work investment.

  • The dependent work without rights is coercion of an employee to obey.

  • Employment is coercive and conflicts

    ... equal in dignity and rights.
    ... should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
    ... right to life, liberty and security of person
    ... right to own property
    No one shall be subject to ... degrading treatment ...
  • Employment does not create an evolutionary context. Employees cannot decide

    • what to offer (what work to do)
    • for what price (what pay)

    There would need to be an internal market with free decision making. Market encapsulations do make sense, because they reduce the selection cost.

  • If employees voluntarily or involuntarily leave a company they helped build, they loses the value of the company, especially its market position. The owner role protects against such losses.

  • An argument for a labor market sometimes is the risk. But employees are exposed to more risk on the labor market, than the owners off a company in the product market. Owners can calculate and limit their risk (e.g. LLC). Employees have the product market risk, because they get dismissed on product failure, but in addition there is the risk from the arbitrariness of the boss and all the disadvantages listed here.

Employment is a cooperation with only a few winners and many losers. If you take a job, the employer wins, you lose. Shouldn't you better hide from employment? One can hide from employment, if one is able to

  • think of alternatives and
  • offer alternatives

Tech people

Tech people on the average are people that are more interested in things (personality). They don't like hierarchy and have a hard time accepting the owner vs employee discrimination.

Tech people don't like to be chosen on a labor market, but prefer to choose tech systems to work on.

A power hierarchy leads to

  • intra-group competition for higher and more profitable roles or
  • power-based instead of knowledge-based decisions

This is occupational stress to tech people.

If tech people own their cooperation, the resulting meritocracy produces a better feedback

  • not only via resources, but also
  • via mutual appreciation, resulting in better self-esteem

Costly employment turnover is avoided, as ownership binds people to the company and secures tech people's links to the market.

A tech coordinator should be

  • a highly skilled technical guy himself and
  • wise and empathetic enough not insinuate hierarchy

Problem of the important man

An important person, a boss,

  • is against equality
  • abuses power to increase inequality
  • throttles self initiative
  • hinders parallelization
  • is a bottleneck in the process
  • produces sycophants
  • spoils communication

Amoral Law

Laws are historically grown rules which mix the goals and ideas of many but especially rich people. As such they are neither moral nor immoral, but amoral.

In our context immoral is

  • unequal profit
  • subordination

It is immoral to own the cooperation of people, Those cooperating hold a share of the cooperation, simply by logic. Employment is immoral.

Inequality in general is immoral, as those with no wealth must work for the wealthy.

Jurisdictions do little against inequality, A jurisdiction's goal is more to keep continuity for those with influence than to care for equality.

To a large part, company ownership today is a continuation of wealth distribution that is many centuries old. Employment is a continuation of slavery or feudalism. The rich always had, and still have, a big influence on jurisdictions and were able to maintain laws that allowed them to continue their exploitation.

Jurisdictions care for equal treatment of partners and owners, but treat the employees as inferior roles.

Without protection from law, simply by tradition, employees can expect unfair contracts

  • that produce inequality with respect to the company
  • that put them in a subordinate role

Actually subordination is in the employment contract by law. How to make a majority avoid the employment role that is immoral by law? How to make a majority more suspicious and political?

Since schools are mostly state-controlled, they do not prepare to think politically and economically, leaving them quite exposed to exploitation.

A slave becomes a respectable person, an economic entity instead of a economic resource,

  • if his/her will counts
  • if s/he can make economic decisions beyond taking/changing jobs a few times in live
  • and can get most of his/her needs satisfied
  • with minimal out-of-interest work investments
  • leaving enough time for work investment in the area of interest

Jurisdictions do not prevent a slave from becoming an independent economic entity

  • to organize with others on the same level
  • to create economic links (customers and suppliers)
  • to follow one's goals
  • to control one's own work
  • to control the money flows

Still, employment laws are harmful, as they allow to offer slave-like employment roles to which the unaware make themselves available, thus producing an unfair and immoral market and removing opportunities for fair cooperation.

Basically, the one who does not own is a slave. One must own what one depends on, specifically one's cooperation. If the owner is someone else, one depends on that person and is a slave of that person.

Jurisdictions should abandon the concept of employment and employment contracts altogether. Instead of checking for employment misclassification they should distinguish between

By regulations one would have an immediate impact.

Jurisdictions do not demand equality, but they do also not forbid it.

Social security providing a basic income through redistribution allows people to avoid unfair contracts and thus indirectly helps to spread and maintain fair cooperation. It is also needed due to automation taking over.

Jurisdictions should make structural change that have a direct distribution effect, like abandoning the concept of employment, instead of only through taxes and redistribution.

Continuity

The tension in the company-employee relationship produces employment turnover which produces discontinuity

  • of individual development
  • of product evolution
  • of economic network

because these are associated to the company, instead of actual people.

If one changes company there is a high chance

  • not to work in the field of one's previous expertise any more
  • the product left behind will be maintained by people with little knowledge about it

Evolution of complex systems need continuity as a foundation to build upon.

In a technological advanced economy, complex systems are built and maintained. This demands continuity to develop actual improvements of components instead of random alterations from every new employee working on it. Even a new approach is better done by someone that has experienced all the shortcomings.

Worker ownership brings more continuity.

  • Having none of the employment disadvantages
  • Influence on company decisions relevant for all members
  • Better share of the profit via company value and via influence on wages
  • Security for the future
  • Intellectual property stays with the originator
  • The expertise stays valuable
  • The product gets a continuous development
  • Income can be increased by offering to more clients
  • More companies and better distribution of wealth
  • Better income and more time produces a feedback to the actual genes (more attractive to the other sex, better care for offspring, ...)
  • No power hierarchy, no bootlicking a boss, ...
  • Decision right where the information is
  • Work according to interest

There must never be someone with to much power, too much wealth, too much leverage.

Especially young people should become aware of their interests and develop in that direction without ever letting anybody distract them. If people want to decide over their actions, employment is not an option, even if it is in the field of interest.

A problem is, though, that young people do not know yet. So they are easily exploited by companies.

The educational system does not teach students to be political and care about fairness.

Open Information

Everyone wants an easy life, but it is often made harder than necessary, through competition instead of cooperation.

Cooperation means that everyone interacting makes the other's life easy. From the personal perspective:

  • Everyone makes my life easier.
  • I make everyone's life easier.

By choice: I interact with people that make my life easier. I make their life easier, too.

From cooperation follows a better distribution of effort and reward. Technically, "easier" needs to be defined and involves measuring and recording.

Information sharing produces fairness.

Information is

  • easy to give
  • valuable to get

Opening up information is an easy way to make each other's life easier.

If the information is a byproduct of one's profitable work, because one needs to write things down anyway, there is no extra effort in sharing, and therefore no need for all the useless effort going into agreeing on a price.

Complex Systems

Open development originates from software, which

  • consists of pure information
  • is complex

But all technical systems build on information. Open source can be seen more generally as open information.

Hardware should first be simulated, but definitely also needs physical prototyping and testing effort. This is considerable effort that should not need to be repeated, which can be easily avoided by sharing information.

The invested effort comes back from the community, by not having to do the effort on a similar occasion, because this time somebody else already did it.

Many complex systems are still hidden. This protectionism is stifling cooperation just like it does between countries.

Complex systems need a lot of effort. So reducing the competition to the level of the final product should be an exception.

An alternative to a company owning a complex system is to use open development: the complex system is open source and one offers work on it as a service.

The effort to develop a complex system alone are prohibitive. The consumer will not want to pay the effort more times. This demands for cooperation on all levels. Opening up the description of the complex system, makes it easy to cooperatively work on it.

Because open development is less effort, those who start will force others to follow to stay competitive.

There can be economic relationships of servicing on the complex system instead. Many small detailed technical contributions have no market to agree on a price, though. So there will be many individual contributions everybody can profit from. Also, those who contribute will get a return of investment

  • by the contributions of others
  • by the right to use the system

Cooperation is made easy through the internet via services like github, gitlab, bitbucket, sourceforge for development. Also for production there are local and global services (3d, pcb, ...).

Benefits of open development are many, but can be summarized by

  • Sharing an information repository reduces effort to create the information and to use (select) it. (create-select is evolution: i.e. less evolution effort, less development effort).

More detailed: Open source (open information)

  • means overall less effort and thus also less energy waste and less footprint
  • lowers the threshold to enter the market of complex products
  • produces supply better fitting the demand (big companies cannot react to niche needs)
  • removes the dominance of big companies, which stand for inequality
  • creates a community of cooperating equals
  • requires less communication
  • more developer independence
  • creates freedom and continuity for the product and the developer
  • speeds up technological evolution as a whole
  • allows tech people to develop interest on it
  • allows different products to benefit from existing products
  • allows work investment to be valuable even if the endeavor out not yet feasible with existing technology
  • produces cheaper and better products
  • makes contributions rewarding compared frustrating unfair competition
  • allows to choose the best of cooperatively competing solutions
  • produces fairer distribution of wealth
  • allows crowd sourcing (many little contributions add up)
  • Customers do get
    • more choice
    • better support by large community
    • can do their special adaptations and possibly contribute them
    • have no risk to lose the supplier because a company get bankrupt
    • can maintain the product for oneself even if the community abandons it

Hype Product

A tech product with almost full market coverage

  • on the one hand is good, as a standardization, as a foundation for new development
  • but only if NOT CONTROLLED by one company, as that is a monopoly, and produces inequality.

Hype product is not a problem if produced

E.g., Windows became a hype product via the PC revolution and produced an amazing amount of inequality. Gnu/Linux, on the other hand, is a moneyless trade of contributions, but innumerous companies earn good money using it in their products. It produces less inequality and more freedom: without a lock in and the possibility of own adaptations.

In the future, automation will enter the mass market. As an extreme case imagine a robot that can take over most work, cheaper than humans. This demands for open hardware and software, else we all become locked in to one company, as the complexity does not allow for competition.

Many companies servicing an open automation infrastructure

  • make automation faster
  • can also better raise money for a basic income as work is automated away