Just out of curiosity:
While actual gold is not the 'perfect gold' that you envision that Bitcoin can be (is?), nevertheless actual gold is a near approximation, is it not? And yet, the existence of actual gold does not force nations to adapt their currency to its value - in fact, they have evolved in the opposite direction, and have decoupled currencies from the value of gold completely.
If the existence of actual gold seems to have little or no effect on national currencies, why will the existence of 'perfect gold' in the form of Bitcoin be anything other than marginally more effective?
Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 20. (Read 34840 times)
Given everything you have said, yes, any changes to scale Bitcoin would sound irrational to you.
The problem is that everyone else here, myself included, have been working very hard for years before you showed up with the single minded outcome of improving, scaling, and mass adoption.
That is a lot of momentum. A lot of flow to swim against.
Yes but I would suggest it was known from the start that the system would realize stability of this kind and that it would need to be initially designed so that the minority had a veto vs ignorant change. The problem is that everyone else here, myself included, have been working very hard for years before you showed up with the single minded outcome of improving, scaling, and mass adoption.
That is a lot of momentum. A lot of flow to swim against.
The other point is that the debate arises because both sides are pursuing an irrational ends with an irrational means. That would start an unwinnable war.
Do we understand how irrational and silly it sounds to me to hear core supporters and elite say "we gotta stop fitting and figure out how to scale responsibly!"?
Given everything you have said, yes, any changes to scale Bitcoin would sound irrational to you.The problem is that everyone else here, myself included, have been working very hard for years before you showed up with the direction of improving, scaling, adding value, and mass adoption.
That is a lot of momentum. A lot of current to swim against and stop.
Lucky for you/Nash/Satoshi(?) consensus is nearly impossible.
Do we understand how irrational and silly it sounds to me to hear core supporters and elite say "we gotta stop fighting and figure out how to scale responsibly!"?
It's nice to think of Satoshi Nakamoto as a nash economics inspired visionary who desired to stabilise fiat to save the world, rather than some poker playing gambling addict.
He says if you introduce bitcoin into the world, but he doesn't call it bitcoin, he calls in an international e-currency with a stable supply and a halving inflation rate, then this will act as a catalyst that makes our fiat money tend towards stability.
It's nice to think of Satoshi Nakamoto as a nash economics inspired visionary who desired to stabilise fiat to save the world, rather than some poker playing gambling addict.
Good morning. I think I understand this.
So really you should be thinking about getting a development team together to create nashcoin. No need to speak to the bitcoin devs who have their own ideas and agenda.
The thought I have, is that if you create a stable metric for a currency, for ideal money, then it has to be linked with a stable metric for the global economy. At the moment I don't think any economist has a stable metric for the economy.
He says if you introduce bitcoin into the world, but he doesn't call it bitcoin, he calls in an international e-currency with a stable supply and a halving inflation rate, then this will act as a catalyst that makes our fiat money tend towards stability.
But you have to freeze bitcoin development in order to create a stable metric, so it can become ideal money.
Good morning. I think I understand this.
So really you should be thinking about getting a development team together to create nashcoin. No need to speak to the bitcoin devs who have their own ideas and agenda.
The thought I have, is that if you create a stable metric for a currency, for ideal money, then it has to be linked with a stable metric for the global economy. At the moment I don't think any economist has a stable metric for the economy.
Did you just read the first post, quote one part of it, skip 30 pages of discussion and explanation and then ask for an explanation? I hope not, because that would be rude.
interestingly- these kinds of fiefdoms creep in ultra fast in any new method or invention... can you please post some link to which part of Nashs work you are referring too specifically?
I would like to dig into it, but I am not sure whether to start with the definition of Nash equilibrium itseelf, or if Nash made some specific allusions to BTC like eCurrency as you imply ...
Thanks!
What happens when Bitcoin deflation ends in 2140? Wouldn't this be a factor to stabilize Bitcoin value and therefore could be Ideal Money in the long run?
deflation is not the correct word in this sentence. bitcoin's value will NEVER be stable. BITCOIN CANNOT BE IDEAL MONEY. Bitcoin is deflationary, which means "increases in value over time", things that increase in value over time are not stable in value, because stable in value means that its value DOESN'T CHANGE. But you have to freeze bitcoin development in order to create a stable metric, so it can become ideal money.
I did not find a single scientist in that group (save Back). Every person was willing to argue against Nash argument without hearing it. And when I suggested they read the source material the general consensus was there is no need to (WHEN is this acceptable?).
Core’s ignorance is it’s biggest security leak.
interestingly- these kinds of fiefdoms creep in ultra fast in any new method or invention... can you please post some link to which part of Nashs work you are referring too specifically?
I would like to dig into it, but I am not sure whether to start with the definition of Nash equilibrium itseelf, or if Nash made some specific allusions to BTC like eCurrency as you imply ...
Thanks!
I did not find a single scientist in that group (save Back). Every person was willing to argue against Nash argument without hearing it. And when I suggested they read the source material the general consensus was there is no need to (WHEN is this acceptable?).
Core’s ignorance is it’s biggest security leak.
interestingly- these kinds of fiefdoms creep in ultra fast in any new method or invention... can you please post some link to which part of Nashs work you are referring too specifically?
I would like to dig into it, but I am not sure whether to start with the definition of Nash equilibrium itseelf, or if Nash made some specific allusions to BTC like eCurrency as you imply ...
Thanks!
What happens when Bitcoin deflation ends in 2140? Wouldn't this be a factor to stabilize Bitcoin value and therefore could be Ideal Money in the long run?
I thought this myself. The way I picture it in my mind is that if you represent ideal money as a flat line then Bitcoin would approach ideal money asymptotically from the top and all other currencies are forced to asymptotically approach from the bottom. This means that Bitcoin can never be ideal money, fiat (or whatever wins the value competition) can never be ideal money, but they both approach it from different directions.
The question was asked whether, after all this happens, we would still need Bitcoin and my thought is yes, you still need the alternative on the "top of the line", no mater how close it approaches the line, in order to force all the currencies (or the remaining currency) on the bottom of the line to remain honest.
In order to turn bitcoin into ideal money...
Bitcoin cannot be ideal money, its not a brain block you haven't read the thread, I have chewed people out over and over and over and over and over for this. Bitcoin is deflationary. It increases in value over time. Increasing in value means its not stable. Increasing in value means ITS NOT STABLE. Bitcoin is not stable in value, it never will be. Ideal Money is stable in value, bitcoin is not stable in value its deflationary. I don't know how to be more clear.
But you have to freeze bitcoin development in order to create a stable metric, so it can become ideal money.
Maybe I've misread the thread as some of it appears to be contradictory. Maybe that is my lack of knowledge or maybe you are failing to clearly illustrate your point.
AngryDwarf,
Your brain block is simple. You have to give up on the idea that Bitcoin is going to be the money you use ever day to buy your coffee at Starbucks. The proposal here is that everyday money, the ideal money, will not be Bitcoin.
Want to die of hypothermia because your bitcoin payment for heating hasn't confirmed?
Want to feed thy starving neighbor by gifting them some food?
You would not be using Bitcoin for these things. You still want to believe you could. In order to understand this you need to, at least temporarily, suspend your desire to have Bitcoin be able to do these things.Want to feed thy starving neighbor by gifting them some food?
Read this sequence of events over very carefully keeping track of the terms like mathematical items until you see it:
Quote from: The Bitcoin & Ideal Money Theory Simplified
So, if bitcoin maintains current gold like properties,
including not increasing the TPS whether on-chain or off-chains, then:
(1) bitcoin will increase in value [by design].
(2) bitcoin is the "other alternative" due to its increase in value [all other currencies decrease in value by design].
(3) bitcoin cannot be the "ideal money".
(4) "other alternatives" [=Bitcoin] existence is to force fiat to compete in value.
(5) "other alternative" [=Bitcoin] ushers in the "ideal money".
(6) "Ideal money" is the end result of the competition [and it will NOT be Bitcoin].
including not increasing the TPS whether on-chain or off-chains, then:
(1) bitcoin will increase in value [by design].
(2) bitcoin is the "other alternative" due to its increase in value [all other currencies decrease in value by design].
(3) bitcoin cannot be the "ideal money".
(4) "other alternatives" [=Bitcoin] existence is to force fiat to compete in value.
(5) "other alternative" [=Bitcoin] ushers in the "ideal money".
(6) "Ideal money" is the end result of the competition [and it will NOT be Bitcoin].
As plain as I can express it:
The mere existence of an alternative to all the constantly devalued currencies will cause all of the constantly devalued currencies to either a) asymptotically become ideal money or b) die a horrible death at the hands of market forces.
Cool, eh?
In order to turn bitcoin into ideal money...
I don't know how to be more clear.
But you have to freeze bitcoin development in order to create a stable metric, so it can become ideal money.
Maybe I've misread the thread as some of it appears to be contradictory. Maybe that is my lack of knowledge or maybe you are failing to clearly illustrate your point.
Yoooo you have to freeeeze.
All
At 0 Klevin we have ideal state - nothing moves. Hm academic?!
For science and all theories (describing parts of our real nature) - freeze is ideal - nice. You have not to change your theory once scientists captured that little thing of our nature (into what language ? Pure Math ? Code ? - everything else is NOT strict and you can dispute for ever) .
Sadly
Very sadly
THERE IS a GAP (HUUUUGE)
to apply this little frozen nice ideal theory into REAL life.
This thread here is all about to understand this GAP -
Ideal science brains are soo frozen! (With some heat they are running out of capacity - set to 1MB mostly)
Still Popcorn...
What happens when Bitcoin deflation ends in 2140? Wouldn't this be a factor to stabilize Bitcoin value and therefore could be Ideal Money in the long run?
In order to turn bitcoin into ideal money...
I don't know how to be more clear.
But you have to freeze bitcoin development in order to create a stable metric, so it can become ideal money.
Maybe I've misread the thread as some of it appears to be contradictory. Maybe that is my lack of knowledge or maybe you are failing to clearly illustrate your point.
In order to turn bitcoin into ideal money...
I don't know how to be more clear.
Jump to: