Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 17. (Read 34841 times)

I think maybe I am not framing my question properly.  I was not suggesting any 'peg' or otherwise, just referring to what was done in the past.  Let me fully characterize the thing I don't understand:

1) Real gold exists.
2) Real gold is not as perfect as Bitcoin might be as a standard of value, but it is a reasonable approximation.
3) The existence of real gold does not currently appear to have any effect at all of pushing fiat currencies toward embodying the properties of a more "ideal currency".
4) The use of gold in the past to make fiat currencies relied on the issuer to voluntarily link the value of the currency to gold.
5) It seems unlikely that any fiat currency issuer would establish any such linkage between their currency and Bitcoin.

So how does the "finger trap" that will supposedly compel fiat currencies to converge asymptotically to "ideal" currency work?  If these fiat issuers are not influenced by the existence of real gold, why would a more "perfect" gold, in the form of Bitcoin, be any thing more than marginally more successful in that regard?

I know the answer should be that they will get there by acting in their own rational interest - but I can't seem to piece together how that will work exactly.


PS - You must be using a different version of "Ideal Money" than any I can find on the web...  I cannot find the quote below in my copy.

I think this quote comes pretty darn close:


Taken at face value it means that Satoshi envisioned Bitcoin to eventually have a high TPS.

Now this does not take away from all your Nashian arguments as to why it might be a good idea to leave the block size alone.

I think it does mean that you should stop claiming Satoshi actually created what you/Nash are looking for on purpose.  It looks more like it was created as a happy coincidence due to a temporary bug fix.

I have read some more of the thread, and you mention this ideal money would be ideal as in conceptual, which i assume being in the platonic sense of the term ( ideal can have meaning also in experimental physics), so it would be in a sense an utopia, and if you think computer algorithm are able to have this sens of ideal and utopia, it's total science fiction

I think i remember there is this connexion between Nash & kant on idea of common good, and how currency or economic ethics should be based on this perception of common good, but from there to make such kind of algorithm to determine the currency dynamic  based on economic theory or utopic concept, it needs more than blockchain technology

Some theory would say hedonism and pleasure seeking is what drive the market economy more than research for common good. Plato theorized a lot on this too. Ideal never mix up with material interest, which money is all about.


Even if there is more banana and the price decrease, it still mean the currency has un stable value, if the metric is the number of banana you can get out of it. Or then it get back to what it is measured against to measure it's stability, how it's is détermined. .


Larouche wrote lot of theory of this stuff of economic metrics, he gets very deep into it I will try to find some links latter.

Please, you have become transparent.

BillyBob's comment is worthless in conjunction with the topic at hand.
You are attempting to outmaneuver my argument without proof, by claiming he was not specific.
That is not truth, that is playing games that children do.

See my prior statement above where Satoshi talks about micropayments and comment.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18092571

I want to talk about the physics and why a market driven metric is better than any other metric (kilo newton Celsius etc.) but not to some who doesn't have a clue and is just using words.

Anyways in regard to something you said.  I think you said a stable metric or money would buy less bananas in the future, which isn't true.  in the future bananas come to the market with less cost, and satoshi says price gravitates towards cost.  And a stable money will buy MORE bananas in the future because technology will lower the cost to produce them.

This paragraph was awesome to write.

Hold up.  Burt is correct to defend the topic of this thread.  However, BBZ here made a proper and on topic counter point.  thank you BBZ.

In regard to agent.  There is no such quote with satoshi explicitly stating a block size increase is eminent. Any quote you have provided or will provide will not have satoshi saying.  Every quote you provide will imply it only in your opinion. 

That is what i am saying.  And its a falsifiable claim, because you could produce evidence to the contrary.  Keep in mind, I don't have to convince you.  You have to convince us,  with proof. Not implication.

There are plenty of other threads where you can go to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of the various schemes to raise the block size.  Please go to those threads and express your opinions there.  That is not what this thread is about.  If you want to join this thread then read it before you post.

Satoshi said a lot of things including how he would reject something like BUcoin:




yet I see people quoting satoshi to defend BUcoin. People use satoshi quotes in their advantage, it is funny/sad.

No, that's not an appropriate response.
I do not need to quote everything Satoshi said that points toward my belief.
It is overwhelming and voluminous. I don't need to build the case.

But your belief is based on conspiracy, so you need to show more evidence.


Edit: Added for sake of argument.

In the above quote, Satoshi is discussion possibility of micropayments. They would not be possible with a 1MB cap.
Thus Satoshi did not intend 1MB forever, since he is discussion a future point where even micropayments may be On-Chain.
(Side note: I disagree with his 5 to 10 years, since that would lead to centralization of the network, another topic.)

Back on page 30 or so a pretty good summary was developed:

No i didn't imply anything.  Satoshi never said we will increase the blocksize or we must, or we are going to, or anything of the sort.  He said "could".

I am talking about his quotes, that you quoted, and I am not implying anything.  You are implying he said these things when he didn't and if he did you would have quoted him saying them and you haven't cause he didn't.

Thank you.

Listen dummy, what i am saying is fact, Nash tried to tell einstein about his cosmological insight, which was based on ideal money.  The reason I am saying it is it is PROOF that nash knew about ideal money in the 50's and that it had relevance to einstein's theories.  The rest is you being an idiot.

Both of you: please go back and read the thread then ask questions.

No, you are incorrect. Your statement is entirely an implication.
Everything I stated, is backed by referenceable information on this forum and other places.
Your statements as to this boarders on conspiracy, which you stated prior you do not believe in.

Why do you want them to have done this purposefully?
Don't you understand that IF they DID, then bitcoin will never manifest "Ideal Money"?

your admiration of nash overpowers the logical understanding of bitcoins new paradigm that sits outside the concept of money.

your admiration of nash makes you overstate nash and make him sound bigger than he is by these name drop games. an example being " he has tried to talk to"..
meaning nash did not succeed. meaning whats the point even mentioning it.

i want a banana. i tried to eat one...

but what the hell does what i try to and fail at getting, have to do with bitcoins new paradigm.
screw it.
my grandfather tried to talk to einstein. and although i admire the old guy( my relation) . it has no relevance to bitcoin.

in short trying to stop bitcoin by endlessly showing your adoration to nash and talking about nashes philosophy of money. wont cause bitcoin to be stable value(utility/desire) because you are forgetting the logic and features of bitcoin and only thinking about it from the narrow old principles of money.

bitcoin is beyond money

34 pages and you still havnt even got to the summary of the topic. instead its turning into a game of how many times you can mention his name and bitcoins name at the same time

Agent everything in your quote of satoshi suggests that he knew it would be problem if he told people it probably can't be changed in the future.  So the way he put it suggests to me he says "you COULD do this....we COULD do it....heres how we WOULD do it...." etc.

The rest is your implication.

 IadixDev, can you give me some context of your exp and knowledge/education so I can speak to what you know?

The very basics of bitcoin is based on the idea that certain computation take time, and have a price, and is very rooted also in idea of thermodynamics as the more energy is put on the network , the more secure and stable it is, with certain idea of the entropy of hash computation give faire distribution, there is still a good intellectual thinking on how to give it more stable absolute value, the metrics of emission is block solving time'& non deterministic but still keep in certain distribution which still try to keep it stable.

I wonder what kind of implication there can be between the concept of mass/mateer being absolute metrics vs kinetic energy/speed being relative metrics as they cant have absolute measure, only measure relative to another object, and only have a value in this referential, like different markets can be different referential to measure the value of currency against something else.

But the thing I find weird with the idea of currency being a metric, is let say to simplify you use your money mostly to exchange it against a certain product like banana, and that for some reason, climatic or social or anything, the production of banana become more difficult, how can you keep a fixed ratio of value exchange if the product become harder or more expansive to make for any reason, and if you would buy only this product, how could you say the value of the currency can remain stable if in the end you can buy less things with it.

If you want to say in this case the currency is to be a constant metrics, even if you can buy less things with it, what is it a metrics of ?

It's where maybe there is this concept of weight as in intrinsic value of the currency tokens themselves , that can be measured in absolute manner without going through market estimation against another valuable, but that seem hard to imagine how something could represent absolute same intrinsic value for everyone, and then it's the question of how this value should be estimated if it's not based on universally recognized intrinsic value.

I admit that others "thought" it "may" be impossible to remove the 1MB way into the future.
I am not aware that they "thought" it "would" be impossible.

Satoshi himself said that it could be technically removed, when the time arrived.
I do not think he was speaking purposefully with omission, meaning he knew Consensus-ly,
that it could not be removed. At this time in Bitcoin history, hardforks and Consensus was not understood fully.

The 1MB cap ("blocksize") debate only stems from the communities realization due to years of experimentation.
In theory, as Node numbers drop, hardfork consensus should become easier to perform,
and Satoshi assumed node count would go down in time.

So it would be massively contradictory that Satoshi (and Hal) intended this, when he says everything contrary.

EMPHASIS MINE.


But remember, blocksize is only one form of TPS increase, there are second layers that can not be restricted as easily.
If Satoshi and Hal had true intention, they would have easily known that second layers prevent the "Alternative Options".

Thus, they may have know of Nash, and enjoyed the ideas, but didn't create Bitcoin with that intention, nor add the 1MB.

Agent do you admit that it was obvious to others, immediately, that the 1mb would be near impossible to remove?  If so do you admit Satoshi and Hal knew this, if not then can you quote me the link where satoshi added the cap.