Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 15. (Read 34841 times)
The definition of "inflation" and "deflation" varies depending on who you ask.
Some economists will define inflation as the increasing of the number of units of a currency in circulation -- some economists will define "in circulation" as being not in possession by the central bank, while others will define "in circulation" as being the number of units of a currency that are printed.
Other economists will define inflation as the increasing of the number of units of a currency that it costs to purchase a basket of goods and services (eg CPI). As mentioned previously in this thread, the basket of goods/services used to measure inflation can be politically motivated. Individuals can somewhat measure inflation on an individual basis by measuring how much money they have left over after all of (or a certain subset of) their expenses at the end of the month.
If one were to use the first measure, then Bitcoin is very much inflationary because currently roughly 657,000BTC will be created every year; based on the approximately 16,079,000BTC in circulation as of the beginning of the year, that is ~4.086% inflation rate that 2017 will see. At the beginning of 2018, there will be approximately 16,736,000BTC in circulation, there will a similar number of additional bitcoin added to the total of bitcoin in circulation, ~657,000BTC, which means that 2018 will see ~3.925% inflation for bitcoin. Contrary to what the OP has claimed, the inflation rate, in terms of percentage of bitcoin in circulation will never half (the number of bitcoin created every day will half every 4 years).
If you were to use the later measure, then one would reasonably say that bitcoin has been deflationary, primarily due to market forces. As people have opined that Bitcoin has value, they have purchased it, causing it's price to increase. I would note that the OP has claimed that the price on exchanges is irrelevant to the "value" of bitcoin, however he is outright wrong here because if the price of bitcoin increases, then I can use one bitcoin to purchase more (and or higher quality) goods/services, either by directly exchanging my one bitcoin for these goods/services, or exchanging my bitcoin for some other currency that can be exchanged for goods/services.
Both measures of inflation can be heavily influenced by the availability and cost of credit. With dollars (for example), the banking system as a whole can lend out $1 to a borrower, and as long as that borrower keeps that $1 within the banking system, the banking system as a whole can lend out that $1 again -- this can be repeated for all intensive purposes unlimited number of times, however regulations have placed minimum amounts of capital that banks must hold to protect deposits against losses that result from loans not being repaid limit the number of times the banking system as a whole can re-loan that $1. Banks have not developed in the Bitcoin world, I think because users so frequently like to hold their bitcoin as "cash", as in control the private keys that control their bitcoin, removing their bitcoin from any potential banking system. Today, central banks (in first world countries) influence the cost (and effectively the availability) of credit by manipulating short term (and more recently long term) interest rates.
I would also note that John Nash is simply one economist, and just because he has a certain opinion does not necessarily mean it is correct. Although he has won a nobel prize, his opinions do not appear to be shared with many other economists. Before reading this thread, I have never heard of John Nash nor his "ideal money" theory; based on what I have read about his "ideal money" I am not so sure it is something that I would want to pursue, nor am I sure that it is even possible to achieve due to market forces, and the fact that economies change over long periods of time.
I would also note that actual ownership of bitcoin is very concentrated among a small number of people, and that if any of these people need to exchange their bitcoin for some other medium of exchange and/or for goods/services quickly, then the amount/quality of goods/services that everyone else will be able to purchase with one bitcoin will decrease due to supply and demand.
I believe that if Bitcoin does not change soon, then someone will create a competitor to Bitcoin (an altcoin) that can scale in a way that is economical. Many people are trying this today, however I have not seen anything that I think will overcome Bitcoin in the long run.
After reading the entire thread (the later parts of it more quickly than the earlier part), I am not entirely sure I understand the OP's belief of the relationship that bitcoin has with "ideal money".
Interestingly enough, it appears as if the OP agrees that increasing the TPS will cause the value of Bitcoin to increase...
Some economists will define inflation as the increasing of the number of units of a currency in circulation -- some economists will define "in circulation" as being not in possession by the central bank, while others will define "in circulation" as being the number of units of a currency that are printed.
Other economists will define inflation as the increasing of the number of units of a currency that it costs to purchase a basket of goods and services (eg CPI). As mentioned previously in this thread, the basket of goods/services used to measure inflation can be politically motivated. Individuals can somewhat measure inflation on an individual basis by measuring how much money they have left over after all of (or a certain subset of) their expenses at the end of the month.
If one were to use the first measure, then Bitcoin is very much inflationary because currently roughly 657,000BTC will be created every year; based on the approximately 16,079,000BTC in circulation as of the beginning of the year, that is ~4.086% inflation rate that 2017 will see. At the beginning of 2018, there will be approximately 16,736,000BTC in circulation, there will a similar number of additional bitcoin added to the total of bitcoin in circulation, ~657,000BTC, which means that 2018 will see ~3.925% inflation for bitcoin. Contrary to what the OP has claimed, the inflation rate, in terms of percentage of bitcoin in circulation will never half (the number of bitcoin created every day will half every 4 years).
If you were to use the later measure, then one would reasonably say that bitcoin has been deflationary, primarily due to market forces. As people have opined that Bitcoin has value, they have purchased it, causing it's price to increase. I would note that the OP has claimed that the price on exchanges is irrelevant to the "value" of bitcoin, however he is outright wrong here because if the price of bitcoin increases, then I can use one bitcoin to purchase more (and or higher quality) goods/services, either by directly exchanging my one bitcoin for these goods/services, or exchanging my bitcoin for some other currency that can be exchanged for goods/services.
Both measures of inflation can be heavily influenced by the availability and cost of credit. With dollars (for example), the banking system as a whole can lend out $1 to a borrower, and as long as that borrower keeps that $1 within the banking system, the banking system as a whole can lend out that $1 again -- this can be repeated for all intensive purposes unlimited number of times, however regulations have placed minimum amounts of capital that banks must hold to protect deposits against losses that result from loans not being repaid limit the number of times the banking system as a whole can re-loan that $1. Banks have not developed in the Bitcoin world, I think because users so frequently like to hold their bitcoin as "cash", as in control the private keys that control their bitcoin, removing their bitcoin from any potential banking system. Today, central banks (in first world countries) influence the cost (and effectively the availability) of credit by manipulating short term (and more recently long term) interest rates.
I would also note that John Nash is simply one economist, and just because he has a certain opinion does not necessarily mean it is correct. Although he has won a nobel prize, his opinions do not appear to be shared with many other economists. Before reading this thread, I have never heard of John Nash nor his "ideal money" theory; based on what I have read about his "ideal money" I am not so sure it is something that I would want to pursue, nor am I sure that it is even possible to achieve due to market forces, and the fact that economies change over long periods of time.
I would also note that actual ownership of bitcoin is very concentrated among a small number of people, and that if any of these people need to exchange their bitcoin for some other medium of exchange and/or for goods/services quickly, then the amount/quality of goods/services that everyone else will be able to purchase with one bitcoin will decrease due to supply and demand.
I believe that if Bitcoin does not change soon, then someone will create a competitor to Bitcoin (an altcoin) that can scale in a way that is economical. Many people are trying this today, however I have not seen anything that I think will overcome Bitcoin in the long run.
After reading the entire thread (the later parts of it more quickly than the earlier part), I am not entirely sure I understand the OP's belief of the relationship that bitcoin has with "ideal money".
Interestingly enough, it appears as if the OP agrees that increasing the TPS will cause the value of Bitcoin to increase...
So:
a) based on bitcoin as a premise; or
b) based on something that bitcoin seems to resemble pretty closely as a premise?
Quote
Aug. 30, 1999 Initiation of this directory, “Goldbach_Programs”. This is just for some recreational mathematics stuff that may be of occasional interest. I recently read the novel “Uncle Petros and the Goldbach Conjecture”. In the story Petros, but at a time many years in the past, wonders about whether or not, in particular, the number 2¹⁰⁰ satisfies GB (so that it is a sum of 2 primes). Nowadays it is possible to compute answers to questions of this sort for numbers of that size fairly easily. As I read the novel and thought about that specific question I remembered that quite a few years ago, just while doing recreational work/play with numbers, I had developed a moderately efficient program to search for the next prime larger than a given odd number. And I realized that this program, which I had on file as a MATHEMATICA program, could be applied to the problem challenge of checking out 2¹⁰⁰ in relation to the Goldbach Conjecture.
Litcoin?
I don't necessarily think he knew of bitcoin. I think he knew only a deflationary untouchable medium would survive and be his premise.
it think nash's ideal money is based on bitcoin as a premise.
So:
a) based on bitcoin as a premise; or
b) based on something that bitcoin seems to resemble pretty closely as a premise?
So you assume, that Satoshi said "We can change to bigger blocks later with a consensus if nescessary", but in reality he thought "We can NOT change to bigger blocks later, because I know it will be impossible to achieve a consensus about blocksize, but I won't tell anybody"?
Then why would he have proffered his famous suggestion?
nothing at all like "we must..." "we will".
So you assume, that Satoshi said "We can change to bigger blocks later with a consensus if nescessary", but in reality he thought "We can NOT change to bigger blocks later, because I know it will be impossible to achieve a consensus about blocksize, but I won't tell anybody"?
Then why would he have proffered his famous suggestion?
nothing at all like "we must..." "we will".
Agent, fyi you are on my ignore list now, so save your breath.
Yes, show this forum your insecurities and how you deal with conflict.
Bitcoiners like you are of the most malicious, because you plug your ears and talk to mirrors.
Agent, fyi you are on my ignore list now, so save your breath.
I didn't state that. you are the only person to use those words, right here. wow.
You just stated that Satoshi created a Consensus mechanism that he understood was flawed.
And thus every comment he made about it after the v0.1 release was willful obfuscation.
And thus every comment he made about it after the v0.1 release was willful obfuscation.
No that is what you said.
Unless you talk without understanding what your opinion actually means.
that's a good question, and something I've wondered about.
It could be that he was naive and actually believed such a change could be effected later, before the community grew too large.
or it could be that it was just hand waving to pacify the critics. And he didn't actually intend to make such a change.
It doesn't really matter now.
What is actually most curious to me at the moment is why some of you get so bent out of shape about me expressing my opinion on this.
oh, and btw, my opinion on the topic has nothing to do with OP or this thread, contrary to an earlier assertion by, I think agent.
Then why would he have proffered his famous suggestion?
It could be that he was naive and actually believed such a change could be effected later, before the community grew too large.
or it could be that it was just hand waving to pacify the critics. And he didn't actually intend to make such a change.
It doesn't really matter now.
What is actually most curious to me at the moment is why some of you get so bent out of shape about me expressing my opinion on this.
oh, and btw, my opinion on the topic has nothing to do with OP or this thread, contrary to an earlier assertion by, I think agent.
I don't believe he was a fool, thus I **personally** believe he had an idea it would exist in perpetuity, or at any rate be hard to change later.
Then why would he have proffered his famous suggestion?
Quote
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
I didn't state that. you are the only person to use those words, right here. wow.
You just stated that Satoshi created a Consensus mechanism that he understood was flawed.
And thus every comment he made about it after the v0.1 release was willful obfuscation.
And thus every comment he made about it after the v0.1 release was willful obfuscation.
Your post makes me chuckle. I'm well aware of the context in which he made his statements. I've read every single post satoshi ever made on this forum.
nowhere did I state that the 1M cap was in place in v0.1. You misinterpreted.
I don't even care to comment on the rest.
All I'm saying is that if Satoshi was somehow unaware of the ramifications of that change when he made it, then he was a fool. I don't believe he was a fool, thus I **personally** believe he had an idea it would exist in perpetuity, or at any rate be hard to change later.
...
nowhere did I state that the 1M cap was in place in v0.1. You misinterpreted.
I don't even care to comment on the rest.
All I'm saying is that if Satoshi was somehow unaware of the ramifications of that change when he made it, then he was a fool. I don't believe he was a fool, thus I **personally** believe he had an idea it would exist in perpetuity, or at any rate be hard to change later.
...
You just stated that Satoshi created a Consensus mechanism that he understood was flawed.
And thus every comment he made about it after the v0.1 release was willful obfuscation.
So can you explain what you find interesting about Bitcoin then (beside in the context of this thread)?
Seems pretty contradictory and amazing you would continue participation with such a belief.
You essential stated that Bitcoin's blockchain theory failed the day it was released.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
I don't believe he was a fool, thus I **personally** believe he had an idea it would exist in perpetuity, or at any rate be hard to change later.
Then why would he have proffered his famous suggestion?
Quote
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
No. Just to be clear, you think Nash is the person who devised, coded, and released to the world Bitcoin?
And even if so, might the above scenario belie a flaw in his masterstroke?
Your post makes me chuckle. I'm well aware of the context in which he made his statements. I've read every single post satoshi ever made on this forum.
nowhere did I state that the 1M cap was in place in v0.1. You misinterpreted.
I don't even care to comment on the rest.
All I'm saying is that if Satoshi was somehow unaware of the ramifications of that change when he made it, then he was a fool. I don't believe he was a fool, thus I **personally** believe he had an idea it would exist in perpetuity, or at any rate be hard to change later.
You don' t have to believe that way. I'm only stating my opinion. deal with it.
nowhere did I state that the 1M cap was in place in v0.1. You misinterpreted.
I don't even care to comment on the rest.
All I'm saying is that if Satoshi was somehow unaware of the ramifications of that change when he made it, then he was a fool. I don't believe he was a fool, thus I **personally** believe he had an idea it would exist in perpetuity, or at any rate be hard to change later.
You don' t have to believe that way. I'm only stating my opinion. deal with it.
I would advise you to do more research prior to attempting to salvage OP's failed premise
that Satoshi and/or Hal, with foreknowledge created Bitcoin to transfigure into a device to
facilitate "Ideal Money". If it becomes so, it was purely by accident.
that Satoshi and/or Hal, with foreknowledge created Bitcoin to transfigure into a device to
facilitate "Ideal Money". If it becomes so, it was purely by accident.
Theymos, what kind of a world do we live in if I have to explain what Nash's already explained? Why won't anyone read it? I mean I know but, I'm pretty sure he did a perfect job of explaining. What is the culture of refusing to read the source documents?
To answer your question bud and be frank, it's because nobody really cares except a few. The majority of Bitcoin users go with the flow of what everyone else is doing and those who lead that flow do what is in their own best interest.
Welcome to the financial world bud, money is the only desire here.
No. What evidence has been provided that 'Bitcoin is the 'other alternative'?
What are the other fucking possibilities that take the power from central banking like nash described? That are international e-currencies with a stable supply with a halving inflation rate?Give me ONE example.
OK... just for the sake of argument... Litecoin.
For all essential aspects, Litecoin is a virtual clone of Bitcoin. The only thing differentiating Bitcoin from Litecoin, as viewed as the "other alternative" is the relative 100:1 ratio of market cap.
Granted, that is a significant difference from the aspect of the "other alternative". However, even Bitcoin is still a sideshow on the world stage. What if adoption in the coming years is driven to Litecoin rather than Bitcoin? Then Litecoin would end up the economic juggernaut, and Bitcoin would be relegated to junior status.
What might lead to mass adoption of Litecoin over Bitcoin? If Litecoin were to have increased utility to its user base, that is something that might lead to this eventuality. If something increases in value, it is a more compelling investment to the individual that some other thing which does not. And individuals are the decision-makers who allocate their resources to products and services.
What might lead Litecoin to have increased value with respect to Bitcoin to each individual stakeholder? I might posit that Litecoin adopting higher tps capability while Bitcoin does not might be such an eventuality.
So if such were to come about, and Bitcoin's market dominance be shunted to the side by Litecoin, why would Bitcoin's properties matter in terms of being the "other alternative"?
No. Just to be clear, you think Nash is the person who devised, coded, and released to the world Bitcoin?
And even if so, might the above scenario belie a flaw in his masterstroke?
There is another Satoshi quote, already in this thread a while back, that demonstrates Satoshi made bitcoin resistant to change by design. That, combined with the facts that he snuck this 1M change into a release without telling anyone and that he left without providing any sort of warning about it or, upgrade advice, to me is counterevidence that he at least had a pretty good idea it would stick around, or should have.
edit: here is the satoshi quote. context is talking about the rationale for the script language.
That combined with the fact that people immediately jumped in and stated it was dangerous and could be hard to change in the future... well, it's hard to argue he was somehow clueless and unaware.
...
edit: here is the satoshi quote. context is talking about the rationale for the script language.
Quote
The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.
That combined with the fact that people immediately jumped in and stated it was dangerous and could be hard to change in the future... well, it's hard to argue he was somehow clueless and unaware.
...
This is historically and factually incorrect.
When Satoshi created v0.1 the "blocksize" had a 32MB Cap, as DESIGNED.
So, if you are going to argue that Satoshi designed it as intended at version 0.1, then
you must admit that he intended to "deadlock" or "capture" the consensus at 32 MBs,
theoretically speaking.
You don't understand the history or the timeline of events that took place. The 1MB Cap
was implemented in v0.3. Over 19 months after v0.1.
In addition, in the whitepaper, Satoshi stated, Para 12, last line:
Quote from: Bitcoin Whitepaper
"Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism." Emphasis Mine.
Translation: Consensus mechanism that Satoshi outlined is the mechanism that by which the node network will signal acceptance for a change to the protocol and after the change,
enforce it.
Elaboration: If Satoshi envisioned protocol changes (ex. NEEDED rules (future tense)) he
would not have stated "set in stone for the rest of its lifetime" in the manner in which you
are implying. You are reinterpreting his words to fit a false premise.
I would advise you to do more research prior to attempting to salvage OP's failed premise
that Satoshi and/or Hal, with foreknowledge created Bitcoin to transfigure into a device to
facilitate "Ideal Money". If it becomes so, it was purely by accident.
No. What evidence has been provided that 'Bitcoin is the 'other alternative'?
What are the other fucking possibilities that take the power from central banking like nash described? That are international e-currencies with a stable supply with a halving inflation rate?Give me ONE example.
OK... just for the sake of argument... Litecoin.
For all essential aspects, Litecoin is a virtual clone of Bitcoin. The only thing differentiating Bitcoin from Litecoin, as viewed as the "other alternative" is the relative 100:1 ratio of market cap.
Granted, that is a significant difference from the aspect of the "other alternative". However, even Bitcoin is still a sideshow on the world stage. What if adoption in the coming years is driven to Litecoin rather than Bitcoin? Then Litecoin would end up the economic juggernaut, and Bitcoin would be relegated to junior status.
What might lead to mass adoption of Litecoin over Bitcoin? If Litecoin were to have increased utility to its user base, that is something that might lead to this eventuality. If something increases in value, it is a more compelling investment to the individual that some other thing which does not. And individuals are the decision-makers who allocate their resources to products and services.
What might lead Litecoin to have increased value with respect to Bitcoin to each individual stakeholder? I might posit that Litecoin adopting higher tps capability while Bitcoin does not might be such an eventuality.
So if such were to come about, and Bitcoin's market dominance be shunted to the side by Litecoin, why would Bitcoin's properties matter in terms of being the "other alternative"?
Quote from: ideal money
…the possible area for evolution is that if, say, an inflation rate of between 1% and 3% is now considered desirable and appropriate in Sweden, then, if it is really controllable, why shouldn’t a rate between 1/2 % and 3/2 % be even more desirable?
Jump to: