Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 18. (Read 34841 times)

There is no doubt that Hal knew of Nash, but there is no evidence he conspired with Satoshi
to purposefully add the 1MB for an Nashian intention. Hal spoke of additional tech to Bitcoin
that if applied, and can still be applied even with a 1MB limit indefinitely, would render bitcoin
useless in Value to compel the "Ideal Money". So if they intended to be "Alternative Options",
it has not reached the point yet where it is now guaranteed, because you still need to stop
other forms of TPS flow.

See my prior statement as to this issue here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18090488

In this thread "ideal" refers to stable in value.  Nothing else. 

if you are asking "hey whats a good kind money in regard to different qualities money has" thats  stupid question that doesn't solve any useful problem.

I wrote these words, did you read them?  Right above ^^^

There is a whole thread explaining this you just participated in.

Guys, what is the ideal currency? What should it be? After all, I agree that Bitcoin and Fiat have their qualities needed by users. I'm not exaggerating. Fiat is also needed. But bitcoin with full legalization can completely destroy the statehood and will rule the corporation.

I'm not speaking to all the irrational discussion going on.

The introduction of a good great awesome super good medium of exchange does not solve a problem in this world.  Basically and nearly every one of you is still functioning on the premise that it does.

The problem to solve is a stable metric of value.  Instable money doesn't do this.  And no, we are not referring to price.

Price and value aren't the same thing.

Bitcoin isn't stable in value, bitcoin doesn't provide a stable metric for value.

Value isn't subject. Thats something civilizations without a stable metric for it believe.  It's a religious beleif.

Bitcoin can't be stable in value.

Yes Nash's works about Ideal Money have cosmological implications (ie e = mc^2) which is why Nash tried to talk to einstein about his insights because in the 50's.

Hal Finney wasn't ignorant to Nash (http://extropians.weidai.com/extropians.1Q02/3146.html):


The moment Satoshi added the 1mb people immediately realized that it would be next to impossible to change.  Satoshi and finney knew it before they did it.  That's obvious.

And Nash didn't need that information to extrapolate from it.  Nash's doesn't need  you to tell him how the system works.  He just know, read his biography.

Nash knew all this in the 50's.  It's what fucked him up so bad. extremely rational foresight.

Don't worry, When people do not realise if they are eating BS or not, it tends to disagree with them.

Im addressing the idea of ideal currency based on constant stable absolute value.

Typing in cap dont make you look more rational and reasoned ijs.

The idea of currency is still that the value on market is not based on the intrinsic value of the physical asset.

You DID read the first comments then jump to the end.  Turns out everything is incredibly detailed isn't it?  You know for 4 years I have been told I present nothing in detail, simply because my accusers can't read?

You've not addressed any of the RATIONAL and REASONED argument proposed in this thread or by Nash, and you are confused about everything.

It can't be a peg because then nixon could just end the peg based on a political whim.  It the system needs a new compass that entices rational self interest to work towards the desires of the people.  Not altruistic cooperative interest, rational SELF-INTEREST.

But for me currency cant be an absolute metrics, and it's always estimated in relation to something else, either it's another currency, price of oil, gold, or banana, the goal of currency is not necessarily to have intrinsic absolute value to be used as a metrics for anything. And you can only say what it worth in relation to another thing, much like speed/energy metrics with relativity.

Perhaps Satoshi Nakamoto was Nash. It might explain why he has not gambled his bitcoin on a game of poker, and it is left just sitting there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash_Jr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_money

Sorry if I cannot keep up with this thread. I need bookmarking technology introduced on the forum.

So there must be one entity, that defines the price of ideal money for all times, because when the value changes it will never become Nash's "Ideal Money" ever again. That sounds pretty much like a big brother scenario to me and therefore is not decentralized and "ideal" at all.

I like Bitcoin, because it is the the best store of value atm and easy and quick to send/recieve transactions. It is proven by math and cryptography to be very secure and can still adapt to future issues. When my government shuts down my bank account I still have Bitcoins to trade. If I have to flee because of a war or whatsoever, it would be easy for villains to steal my money, gold, diamonds etc, but it will be quite difficult to even know about my Bitcoins.
The idea of storing a value behind a very big number is simple but genious. Thanks!

Satoshi added it based upon Hal's recommendation, due to the "discovery" of a
spam/bloat block attack vector. Which means, either the 1MB cap was:

(1) coincidental and can result in an "Ideal Money" possible future.
(2) intentional and designed to compel the future "Ideal Money".

Since the second option would be malicious and since Hal did many important things
for Bitcoin, as well as spoke about second layer payment systems and how they could
work with bitcoin, which contradicts "Other alternatives" value, I do not believe Hal's
recommendation was "intentional", nor do I think Satoshi added the 1MB cap knowing
something that Hal was unaware of (meaning he would add the cap at some point in
time, regardless of Hal's correct input of an attack vector).

So, in conclusion, bitcoin may now, due to its current deadlock, actually fulfill the theory
of "Alternative Options/Other Alternatives", but it was not designed as such. In fact, it would
have to evolve into such, as Nash claims must happen, and bitcoin may now have done so.

So, Satoshi and Hal did not consciously cause this, IMO.

(Edit: I wish to clarify my statement about Satoshi adding the 1MB cap as being
malicious if intentional to bring about an "Alternative Option" possibility. In this sense,
I consider it malicious since it was not publicly disclosed as to its "secret higher purpose".
Though it could be argued that Satoshi could not have ever disclose such, since then it would
impact the projects ability to "evolve" into the "Alternative Option" in a "natural" way. Though
it is not truly natural but should be considered a "Naturally Manufactured Alternative Option".

On the other hand, if we acknowledge one or both purposefully did do so, then bitcoin's
Value as the "Alternative Option" decreases and "Ideal Money" does not manifest, since
we have now broken it's "natural occurrence" by showing "intended manufacture".
So if you believe Bitcoin was created as this weapon, then we must all lie to ourselves
including the public, otherwise as per the theory, it will not manifest the "Ideal Money".

Either way, I still stand by my prior conclusion that Satoshi and Hal did not consciously
implement the 1MB cap to bring about the "Alternative Option(s)". )

Well, the ultimate paradox with bitcoin is, it can take several forms. For example, you can print a paper wallet and then it is also useful for lining up some good ol coke in a hooker's ass, hopefully bought by the hundreds of dollars a single bitcoin will be worth in the future.

It can also be a weapon. You can store a seed in Cryptosteel and im pretty sure you can kill someone if you throw it strong enough into someone's head.

And so on.

https://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Money-Financial-History-World/dp/0143116177

I kind of did the same but realized that my thinking was aligned with nash's although obviously he has refined them to alot more details and a more elaborate theory whereas my ideas are just abstract (truthful ideas as you would put it), there is no way I could have put that much time and thought nor do I wish to as much as someone like the late Nash did who spent his whole life on the subject.

Yes, although it's unlikely they're original, someone else is bound to have recognised this too. I'm sure a more refined or more universal theory can make better sense of the uselessness paradox.

No its called leverage, the fractional reserve banking mechanism is a direct definition of trying to create prosperity out of future work.

he understood the long term properties of the system.  That it would become harder and harder to change, the more people use it.