a note –
how does 1 bitcoin/dollar/euro/etc get to be more “valuable” than 0.5?
there are 2 0.5 in the 1 – but 1 is more valuable than the 2. If we had voting like that then 1 person’s vote could be more than 2’s votes.. (assuming they happened to vote for 2 different parties. Also if they voted for one, the de-facto value of 1 is more than theirs..)
But back to numerical exchanges..
For 1 to be more valuable than 2 0.5’s we also need a few other elements:
there should be less 1s than 0.5s.
the relative scarcity of 1s within a system makes an element more desireable. but here comes the really twisted fairness of numerical sequences of exchange:
for 1 to have more value, it requires more people to want 1 than people who have 1. Its not a systematic question of altering mechanisms, its a question of the sequence that makes numerical exchange Be as it is, sense life as it does. Its the art of numerical exchange sequences.
I have 1, and for 1 to have more value than 0.5 there has to be more elements that fancy 1 than elements that have 1. To ensure the sequence is not challenged, there are system of power in place..
In my view, bitcoin does not alter that, its just offering a different way to maintain and develop economical in equalities..
These thoughts follow a quick read about analogue computing – neuromorphic style.
From a rhythmic point of view, the sequences and strands move/operate by reacting/interacting/connection/linking/exchanging with one another. The more these operations occur, the denser the proximity between strands and the frequencies of activities is quick/high.
Because there are strands and sequences going in all sorts of directions, either by themselves or via collisions, or avoidance/dejection, the further one gets from the dense – not main – activity space, the less frequent are the occurrences, and the frequencies are slower..
From a view via the outside, this will look like a system. Like an organised interconnected elements that operate in some sort of connectivity with one another.
This is a view from the out side. It fails to reflect how and what it is to Be that “system”. An example is the “ecosystem”. Imagining the system as a complete unit is sort of mechanical in the way it images clear lines and design-like features. eg plants and photosynthesis, some plants, perhaps in the less frequent plant sequences, use other ways to keep alive. In terms of life on earth, perhaps if oxygen was choked, these plants could multiply more? The eco-connections’ sequences might alter precisely because it is not a fixed system..
In terms of networking, it seems that people try to come up with so called “open” platforms. Systems that are aimed-at/designed to operate in a certain manner. I think this might be di=ue to our desire to operate stuff, however it is slightly conflated. Confusing the ability to operate with forcing an operation. So we get stuff like etherium that Talks about being open for bitcoin kind of networking by being a platform language rather than offer specific solutions/tools. However, this is precisely the point, the design from a set of operators/company/team of some specific systems that suppose to provide X. even if the x seems like an enabler, as is in etherium.. Hence we get other similar efforts that fight and waste energies on surviving each other rather than imagining.