So forgive my brain block as it is still synchronising so I think your knowledgeable node will have to orphan it.
If Ideal Money is one that expands and contracts with the underlying economy.
In order to turn bitcoin into ideal money we need to freeze development in order to create a stable metric. Bitcoin will then destroy all other money through competition and become ideal money.
As bitcoin will eventually have a maximum coin supply, the economy must freeze for bitcoin to become Ideal Money and learn to live on its tps rate.
Want to die of hypothermia because your bitcoin payement for heating hasn't confirmed? No you can't it upsets the equilibrium.
Want to feed thy starving neighbour by gifting them some food? No you can't as it might be considered money and so upsets the equilibrium.
Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 21. (Read 34840 times)
From an economic perspective, the hitting of the block size was in itself a change.
Many perceive the economic change as more significant then would be a technical change to the block size. The evaluation of the effect of either of these changes upon the value of Bitcoin would be significant towards purposing Bitcoin as a step towards Nashian ideal money, would it not?
Now its number 2 from the summary of the paper which is that core needs to declare this mandate, and the community needs to discuss why its important not to scale bitcoin in regard to tp/s
Yes but its more so the CHANGE that the markets won't like. People ask why is 1mb the magic number. its not, but whatever satoshi put it at, I think we need to consider leaving it there, in this case its 1mb
Now it may be useful to get back to the Economic Change Event. The idea in a nutshell: until about a year ago, the block size cap had no effect upon the system. Blocks were consistently well below 1MB in size. On the few occasions that the max size was hit, it did not create a persistent backlog of transactions awaiting inclusion in a block.
From an economic perspective, the hitting of the block size was in itself a change.
Many perceive the economic change as more significant then would be a technical change to the block size. The evaluation of the effect of either of these changes upon the value of Bitcoin would be significant towards purposing Bitcoin as a step towards Nashian ideal money, would it not?
good stuff. yes, markets like predictability. bitcoin's consensus code is 100% predictable. Unless an immoral change is made without 100% agreement of invested parties. Fortunately that is hard to do. The more people that are aware of this point of view the better because a small number can veto, and a veto is all that is necessary.
Nash's discourse on ideal money is brilliant. He ushered in the new era. Everyone will know. And yes for now, its just a matter of getting a few elites with significant influence to join the dialogue.
good stuff. yes, markets like predictability. bitcoin's consensus code is 100% predictable. Unless an immoral change is made without 100% agreement of invested parties. Fortunately that is hard to do. The more people that are aware of this point of view the better because a small number can veto, and a veto is all that is necessary.
Great conversation, no trolling, no stupid posts just to get their daily post quota, great thread. Rare on this board. Thanks and good night!
That's because we have something of value to discuss, we are getting somewhere. ...Yes, it is a fun discussion. Much more novel and interesting than the average here.
Creates many new ideas and possibilities I did not anticipate. I do not know if I advise this path,
but now I understand your reasoning/argument and it worthy of expanded discussion.
Until next time.
Great conversation, no trolling, no stupid posts just to get their daily post quota, great thread. Rare on this board. Thanks and good night!
That's because we have something of value to discuss, we are getting somewhere. Also cause we are invoking bohmian dialogue. Weird that people were calling me the trollCheers!
Tell ur friends, we won the block size debate!
Great conversation, no trolling, no stupid posts just to get their daily post quota, great thread. Rare on this board. Thanks and good night!
So my last question will be, what happens to the "other alternatives" after many years of
"Ideal Money" being successful? Will they still need to exists as a counter to that system,
or do they become obsolete?
Weapon. Interesting new comparison that I have never heard before in my years here. A weapon aimed directly at the current banking system? This post will get homeland security's interest I am sure. I wonder if they still monitor my activity on this board. I guess we will find out.
OK, then I see nothing special about 3 TPS, the whole system could be "increasing and quasi-stable" at 100 TPS or 200 TPS just fine as long as TPS did not change after that. See traincarswreck's post right before this one, not quoted, but is basically states that the long term stability in parameters = trust in the system is what is needed.
OK, I understand the idea (again).
And for example we could have chosen (satoshi) like 2 4 6 like back suggested or whatever for blocksize, and that would fine. The problem is, that now we know that its not necessary, and therefore potentially damaging. what is not damaging is realize that 'no change' will guard the implied future value, and so it will be predictable as possible, It will become the sun that the other fiats will revolve around....
as things come into order, the people will learn to understand "value" and then we will be able to use the process of democracy and fiat and say "let it be", and then we will have a stable metric of value for all time.
I think what you are missing is that OP is really saying Bitcoin is a weapon and that is all.
Everything else is really secondary.
Everything else is really secondary.
Weapon. Interesting new comparison that I have never heard before in my years here. A weapon aimed directly at the current banking system? This post will get homeland security's interest I am sure. I wonder if they still monitor my activity on this board. I guess we will find out.
One last question to maybe get me back on track: Is Bitcoin the metric of value?
No, we are looking for a stable metric of value. what good is an instable metric of value? If you are going to measure something with a measuring stick, and the measuring stick changes length at an unpredictable rate, what good is the measuring stick?Why does this difference in the rate of value increase matter? Why does one rate of increase lead to the creation of ideal money while a different (faster) rate of increase not lead to ideal money?
My understanding is that ANY TPS increase, allows more flow which decreases value.
The value only exists and increases because the TPS is fixed at 3 (give or take).
So as Bitcoin scales, it become a currency more and leaves behind digital gold.
If Bitcoin had 10,000 TPS, its value would be extremely low and thus would
not have enough momentum to cause the financial world to reform.
OK, then I see nothing special about 3 TPS, the whole system could be "increasing and quasi-stable" at 100 TPS or 200 TPS just fine as long as TPS did not change after that. See traincarswreck's post right before this one, not quoted, but is basically states that the long term stability in parameters = trust in the system is what is needed.
OK, I understand the idea (again).
My understanding is that ANY TPS increase, allows more flow which decreases value.
The value only exists and increases because the TPS is fixed at 3 (give or take).
So as Bitcoin scales, it become a currency more and leaves behind digital gold.
If Bitcoin had 10,000 TPS, its value would be extremely low and thus would
not have enough momentum to cause the financial world to reform.
Yes but its more so the CHANGE that the markets won't like. People ask why is 1mb the magic number. its not, but whatever satoshi put it at, I think we need to consider leaving it there, in this case its 1mb
that can be used to calculate which rates of increase in value will work and which ones will not work. Statement (2) only requires an asset that is increasing in value - the rate of increase appears to be arbitrary.
I see nothing in this:
that can be used to calculate which rates of increase in value will work and which ones will not work. Statement (2) only requires an asset that is increasing in value - the rate of increase appears to be arbitrary.
Quote from: The Bitcoin & Ideal Money Theory Simplified
...
that can be used to calculate which rates of increase in value will work and which ones will not work. Statement (2) only requires an asset that is increasing in value - the rate of increase appears to be arbitrary.
I think what you are missing is that OP is really saying Bitcoin is a weapon and that is all.
Everything else is really secondary.
OK, I did misunderstand that part.
It appears you are saying that Bitcoin does change in value, it is not the metric of value, it somehow creates a metric of value.
Also the value of Bitcoin is assumed to increase over time.
Then why does the rate of increase in value over time matter? Why is the rate if value increase so critical?
If we make no changes then the value increases over time, right? If we increase TPS then the value increases over time but at a different, possibly faster rate.
Why does this difference in the rate of value increase matter? Why does one rate of increase lead to the creation of ideal money while a different (faster) rate of increase not lead to ideal money?
Threatening the tp/s won't increase the value, its an attempt at increasing the value. The markets need something the can have confidence in the predictable nature of in regard to value. Bitcoin can do this, but not if there is a political battle over it. That would obviously necessarily put the value into flux.It appears you are saying that Bitcoin does change in value, it is not the metric of value, it somehow creates a metric of value.
Also the value of Bitcoin is assumed to increase over time.
Then why does the rate of increase in value over time matter? Why is the rate if value increase so critical?
If we make no changes then the value increases over time, right? If we increase TPS then the value increases over time but at a different, possibly faster rate.
Why does this difference in the rate of value increase matter? Why does one rate of increase lead to the creation of ideal money while a different (faster) rate of increase not lead to ideal money?
Changing the value proposition does not cause our fiat legacy system to adjust any faster. Changing the value proposition (tp/s money supply underlying fundamentals etc.) just disturbs the implied unchangeable nature of bitcoin.
We want to guard its stability of value, not seek to increase it. You can't stir muddy water clean. doesn't matter how hard you stir.
One last question to maybe get me back on track: Is Bitcoin the metric of value?
No, we are looking for a stable metric of value. what good is an instable metric of value? If you are going to measure something with a measuring stick, and the measuring stick changes length at an unpredictable rate, what good is the measuring stick?Why does this difference in the rate of value increase matter? Why does one rate of increase lead to the creation of ideal money while a different (faster) rate of increase not lead to ideal money?
My understanding is that ANY TPS increase, allows more flow which decreases value.
The value only exists and increases because the TPS is fixed at 3 (give or take).
So as Bitcoin scales, it become a currency more and leaves behind digital gold.
If Bitcoin had 10,000 TPS, its value would be extremely low and thus would
not have enough momentum to cause the financial world to reform.
One last question to maybe get me back on track: Is Bitcoin the metric of value?
No, we are looking for a stable metric of value. what good is an instable metric of value? If you are going to measure something with a measuring stick, and the measuring stick changes length at an unpredictable rate, what good is the measuring stick?It appears you are saying that Bitcoin does change in value, it is not the metric of value, it somehow creates a metric of value.
Also the value of Bitcoin is assumed to increase over time.
Then why does the rate of increase in value over time matter? Why is the rate of value increase so critical?
If we make no changes then the value increases over time, right? If we increase TPS then the value increases over time but at a different, possibly faster rate.
Why does this difference in the rate of value increase matter? Why does one rate of increase lead to the creation of ideal money while a different (faster) rate of increase not lead to ideal money?
I see nothing in this:
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.
(2) bitcoin is the "other alternative" due to increase in value.
(3) bitcoin cannot be the "ideal money".
(4) "other alternatives" existence is to force fiat to compete in value.
(5) "other alternative" ushers in the "ideal money".
(6) "Ideal money" is the end result of the competition.
including not increasing the TPS whether on-chain or off-chains, then:
(1) bitcoin will increase in value.
(2) bitcoin is the "other alternative" due to increase in value.
(3) bitcoin cannot be the "ideal money".
(4) "other alternatives" existence is to force fiat to compete in value.
(5) "other alternative" ushers in the "ideal money".
(6) "Ideal money" is the end result of the competition.
that can be used to calculate which rates of increase in value will work and which ones will not work. Statement (2) only requires an asset that is increasing in value - the rate of increase appears to be arbitrary.
So my last question will be, what happens to the "other alternatives" after many years of
"Ideal Money" being successful? Will they still need to exists as a counter to that system,
or do they become obsolete?
Now you are asking the correct question from the correct frame. Well done. Jump to: