I don't get to talk to knowledgeable people about these concepts so I have to create my understandings with my own dialog. Its seems helpful and important to me at this point to always start with or consider the concept of “What is Ideal?” In economic terms and especially in relation to our recent history (and according to the author of “ideal money”) it still seems that ideally inflation would be zero.

It seems to me it was a very long and bumpy road to finally being the asymptotic decline of the instability of keynesian system. It might be worrisome then to see us rushing to jump back on it. I worry that Szabo is pissed at us for considering this. :)

In relation to the OP, it seems to me (although missing a few key factors like the effects of technological, social, and scientific advance?) we are taking a perspective that is not necessarily correct. I have always understood this problem to be the “bounty” for the next generation of computing/math/physics/technology. I would say “quantum computing” but as little as I know about it I think others would suggest bitcoin is or will be secure against such technology. But I mean to simply say the thing or person that solves this problem you point out is simply incentived by the cost of inflation your propose.

I suspect too we have not at all taken into account the effects of bitcoin on a society. I still think we are functioning from the belief that competition is always going to yield the best results and I suspect when a civilization gains a single stable monetary unit and a secure trust-less computer/software network, there begins a physiological evolution towards a different kind of “being” or “behaving”. We should expect completely different kinds of systems and institutions to arise from because of the difference between man before any kind of money and slightly after about the time when man started to really understand what money is and what it has done for us.

The other thing is, if we assume everything in the OP is correct and the problem remains legitimate, it seems to me we are just declaring the AI we are creating our new government and we will be harvesting resources to create value and efficiency to sustain it.

If I am so far off, I would definitely browse any literature I'm pointed too, but for all the reading and studying I have done (not that much!) I just do not seem to see all of this the same as nearly any of you.

I have some ideas for all of this in relation to the next evolution of games and gaming, but socially we haven't accepted many of the premises. I make the conjecture the next “explosion “is going to be from a shift in our collective understanding of games and their role in our society.