Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 23.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 10:42:59 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 05, 2017, 10:39:07 PM

Over time, whatever the device is, will lose more of its supply of the original whole.
This leads to the remaining pieces of the original whole gaining price, if still demanded.

So simply, as things are lost, the remaining gains.

Right which means each unit increases in value, thus its not stable in value, because its increasing and increasing value implies not stable value. right? bitcoin won't be stable in value, bitcoin will be increasing in value, and again thats not stable, thats increasing.

Lol, right. But then why is my statements/clarification below incorrect?

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 05, 2017, 10:28:55 PM

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 10:19:19 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 05, 2017, 10:05:12 PM

...

...
bitcoin cannot be stable in value
ideal money is money stable in value
bitcoin cannot be ideal money
...
I've repeated this over and over and its simple and obvious.

...
bitcoin cannot decline in value
ideal money is money stabilized by bitcoin's inability to decline in value
Bitcoin cannot be the "ideal money"
...

Are you saying "increasing in value" and "cannot decline in value" are two separate things?

Edit: Oh I see... You are only saying there is no stable value, so it should be "bitcoin will increase in value".
"Bitcoin cannot decline in value" implies there could be stabilization.

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 05, 2017, 10:39:07 PM

Over time, whatever the device is, will lose more of its supply of the original whole.
This leads to the remaining pieces of the original whole gaining price, if still demanded.

So simply, as things are lost, the remaining gains.

Right which means each unit increases in value, thus its not stable in value, because its increasing and increasing value implies not stable value. right? bitcoin won't be stable in value, bitcoin will be increasing in value, and again thats not stable, thats increasing.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 10:32:11 PM

No that is not right at all. How can you not understand? What does deflationary mean to you?

Over time, whatever the device is, will lose more of its supply of the original whole.
This leads to the remaining pieces of the original whole gaining price, if still demanded.

So simply, as things are lost, the remaining gains.

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

No that is not right at all. How can you not understand? What does deflationary mean to you?

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 10:19:19 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 05, 2017, 10:05:12 PM

Ok, so in theory a volatile digital asset (bitcoin) can, due to evolution (time and non-consensus capture)
may transfigure into an "accidental" stable value, which has the potential to bring about Nash's Ideal Money?

The only thing I disagree with (besides everything we disagreed about prior) is that Advanced Thinking Machines
should in theory be able to design, implement, and maintain a PERFECT stable value, in the future.

Why not wait or use the Thinking Machine's Perfected Stable Value for the Ideal Money?
Wouldn't it be even more secure and perfect than Bitcoin/bitcoin?

you are speaking to the volatility of bitcoin's price on the exchanges, that is not its value. bitcoin's value is not very volatile, it is very predictable. If it bitcoin's supply was random, or changed arbitrarily etc., then it would be volatile in value. If the cost of energy or production changed rapidly, then it would be volatile in value. Bitcoin is fairly stable in value.

The exchange price jumping up and down is not bitcoin's underlying value jumping up and down, its the things bitcoin is being compared to that are jumping (now keep in mind IN THE BEGINNING bitcoin's price will be volatile simply because it is new to the markets).

But bitcoin's value will always go up, because it is deflationary, which means that its value increases over time, its value is not stable because going up and being stable are not the same thing.

Bitcoin cannot be stable in value
bitcoin cannot be stable in value
bitcoin cannot be stable in value
ideal money is money stable in value
bitcoin cannot be ideal money
ideal money is money stable in value
bitcoin cannot be ideal money
ideal money is money stable in value
bitcoin cannot be ideal money

I've repeated this over and over and its simple and obvious.

The issue here is you should be saying:

Bitcoin cannot decline in value
bitcoin cannot decline in value
bitcoin cannot decline in value
ideal money is money stabilized by bitcoin's inability to decline in value
Bitcoin cannot be the "ideal money"
ideal money is money stabilized by bitcoin's inability to decline in value
bitcoin cannot be the "ideal money"
ideal money is money stabilized by bitcoin's inability to decline in value
bitcoin cannot be the "ideal money"

Right?

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 05, 2017, 10:05:12 PM

Ok, so in theory a volatile digital asset (bitcoin) can, due to evolution (time and non-consensus capture)
may transfigure into an "accidental" stable value, which has the potential to bring about Nash's Ideal Money?

The only thing I disagree with (besides everything we disagreed about prior) is that Advanced Thinking Machines
should in theory be able to design, implement, and maintain a PERFECT stable value, in the future.

Why not wait or use the Thinking Machine's Perfected Stable Value for the Ideal Money?
Wouldn't it be even more secure and perfect than Bitcoin/bitcoin?

you are speaking to the volatility of bitcoin's price on the exchanges, that is not its value. bitcoin's value is not very volatile, it is very predictable. If it bitcoin's supply was random, or changed arbitrarily etc., then it would be volatile in value. If the cost of energy or production changed rapidly, then it would be volatile in value. Bitcoin is fairly stable in value.

The exchange price jumping up and down is not bitcoin's underlying value jumping up and down, its the things bitcoin is being compared to that are jumping (now keep in mind IN THE BEGINNING bitcoin's price will be volatile simply because it is new to the markets).

But bitcoin's value will always go up, because it is deflationary, which means that its value increases over time, its value is not stable because going up and being stable are not the same thing.

Bitcoin cannot be stable in value
bitcoin cannot be stable in value
bitcoin cannot be stable in value
ideal money is money stable in value
bitcoin cannot be ideal money
ideal money is money stable in value
bitcoin cannot be ideal money
ideal money is money stable in value
bitcoin cannot be ideal money

I've repeated this over and over and its simple and obvious.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 09:56:10 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 05, 2017, 09:48:50 PM

The OP believes that Bitcoin, in a non-consensus captured state, is almost a perfect asset.
The "value" the OP is referring to is an abstract, which could never have existed naturally
in this universe. It must be designed and programmed to be so.

The "Value" the OP is mostly referring to is like a Higgs Boson of Economics.
That is why "value" in conjunction with "price" is irrelevant.

At least this is how I interpreted the OP.

Almost, but the crux is, you cannot design something with stable value. You can only design something with FAIRLY stable value. The rest is natural evolution. When you try to design something with actually stable value, you destroy all hope at even fairly stable value.

Ok, so in theory a volatile digital asset (bitcoin) can, due to evolution (time and non-consensus capture)
may transfigure into an "accidental" stable value, which has the potential to bring about Nash's Ideal Money?

The only thing I disagree with (besides everything we disagreed about prior) is that Advanced Thinking Machines
should in theory be able to design, implement, and maintain a PERFECT stable value, in the future.

Why not wait or use the Thinking Machine's Perfected Stable Value for the Ideal Money?
Wouldn't it be even more secure and perfect than Bitcoin/bitcoin?

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 05, 2017, 09:48:50 PM

The OP believes that Bitcoin, in a non-consensus captured state, is almost a perfect asset.
The "value" the OP is referring to is an abstract, which could never have existed naturally
in this universe. It must be designed and programmed to be so.

The "Value" the OP is mostly referring to is like a Higgs Boson of Economics.
That is why "value" in conjunction with "price" is irrelevant.

At least this is how I interpreted the OP.

Almost, but the crux is, you cannot design something with stable value. You can only design something with FAIRLY stable value. The rest is natural evolution. When you try to design something with actually stable value, you destroy all hope at even fairly stable value.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: jbreher on March 05, 2017, 09:32:53 PM

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 09:04:10 PM

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 08:56:46 PM

Your argument seems predicated upon 'value'. I have asked several times in this thread for your definition of 'value'. Have I missed your responsive reply, or have you refused to supply such definition?

Where is the citations of your claim that you asked this and my reply didn't include a response to your question. Prove it.

...
So with that out of the way, let me ask you as if anew: What is your definition of 'value'?

The OP believes that Bitcoin, in a non-consensus captured state, is almost a perfect asset.
The "value" the OP is referring to is an abstract, which could never have existed naturally
in this universe. It must be designed and programmed to be so.

The "Value" the OP is mostly referring to is like a Higgs Boson of Economics.
That is why "value" in conjunction with "price" is irrelevant.

At least this is how I interpreted the OP.

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: jbreher on March 05, 2017, 09:32:53 PM

So with that out of the way, let me ask you as if anew: What is your definition of 'value'?

This is the problem, remember, we don't have a metric for it. Most people intuitively use either usd, or their respective fiat. But the usd is not stable in value either right? If you claimed it was, I would ask stable in relation to what?

There is a conjecture, that gold is fairly stable in value, but what is it a comparison too?

Value I can say, can go up or down, but I cannot point to you the "value" of something. That's the problem. The problem is what i value one way, you value another way. So we use the markets to solve this problem...

But the markets haven't solve this problem, because the mechanism they are using to price things CHANGES. It inflates.

We can say, some thing X is worth this many units of Y. That's the best we have. There is no further definition of value.

Not without a stable metric for it.

That's the very problem we need to solve. There is no definition for value. Nash's has finally provided us with one, and we are to levate it.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 09:04:10 PM

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 08:56:46 PM

Your argument seems predicated upon 'value'. I have asked several times in this thread for your definition of 'value'. Have I missed your responsive reply, or have you refused to supply such definition?

Where is the citations of your claim that you asked this and my reply didn't include a response to your question. Prove it.

I owe you an apology. I must have been mistaken in that I thought I asked that question outright. I cannot now find a post of mine containing that question stated as such. Accordingly, I must have erred. I am sorry.

So with that out of the way, let me ask you as if anew: What is your definition of 'value'?

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 08:56:46 PM

Your argument seems predicated upon 'value'. I have asked several times in this thread for your definition of 'value'. Have I missed your responsive reply, or have you refused to supply such definition?

Where is the citations of your claim that you asked this and my reply didn't include a response to your question. Prove it.

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: jbreher on March 05, 2017, 08:53:09 PM

Your argument seems predicated upon 'value'. I have asked several times in this thread for your definition of 'value'. Have I missed your responsive reply, or have you refused to supply such definition?

You have stated an axiom that Nashian ideal money is one whose absolute value is unchanging. You have seemed to make a statement that Bitcoin can never be Nashian ideal money. Why then, is it important that Bitcoin be rendered as close to unchanging in value as possible?

Show me where in this fucking thread you made a post and asked me questions where i didn't carefully reply. If you already asked this do you want me to quote my reply or do you want me to re-write it? Its annoying. I answered ALL your posts, and that you don't understand is on YOU to seek clarification, not to accuse me of not answering you.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 05:33:36 PM

When we agree the common goal is to levate a stable metric of value, which all rational players will, then it is easy to highlight which arguments are founded. Thus ideal money reveals players hands.

Once we understand this to be the goal, once enough people support an inquiry into Nash's works and understand the relevance, I can begin to speak beyond it. It's only the tip of the iceberg, but it sounds like irrational jibberish until we understand the concept of a stable metric of value AND that we can use bitcoin as a catalyst to bring such a concept to REALITY.

Your argument seems predicated upon 'value'. I have asked several times in this thread for your definition of 'value'. Have I missed your responsive reply, or have you refused to supply such definition?

You have stated an axiom that Nashian ideal money is one whose absolute value is unchanging. You have seemed to make a statement that Bitcoin can never be Nashian ideal money. Why then, is it important that Bitcoin be rendered as close to unchanging in value as possible?

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 05, 2017, 08:42:57 PM

Your statement was "consensus for change" not "consensus of/on a change".
"Consensus of/on a change" is Bitcoin Consensus. Your words were of a simple form of agreement.
If you intended "Consensus of/on a change" then so be it, but that isn't what you wrote.

sure.

Quote

If "capture" ultimately comes about, you don't understand that Bitcoin failed in its experiment.
Your dream of a Nashian Utopia currently rests upon Bitcoin failing in its original premise, uncontrollably.
And by logic, when that does occur, it is no longer an absolute value for Nash's theory.
So you fail in the long run as well.

No I have described its original premise, you are misquoting satoshi.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 08:26:39 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 05, 2017, 08:22:25 PM

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 07:58:20 PM

... There is no consensus for change and there never will be, because there are not enough people that are stupid as you.

The reality is there is consensus for change on both sides, there just isn't
consensus on what that change will be or when.

In contrast, you have no sizable (or existent) consensus for capture.

That's not consensus, BOTH sides need to agree with each other on the path forwards. That there are two sides that don't agree is the opposite of consensus. Again I am using standard definitions and i am pointing to reality. And the division in perspectives is growing, entropy is increasing.

Quote

In contrast, you have no sizable (or existent) consensus for capture.

Capture doesn't require consensus it requires the infighting you are highlighting as reality.

Your statement was "consensus for change" not "consensus of/on a change".
"Consensus of/on a change" is Bitcoin Consensus. Your words were of a simple form of agreement.
If you intended "Consensus of/on a change" then so be it, but that isn't what you wrote.

If "capture" ultimately comes about, you don't understand that Bitcoin failed in its experiment.
Your dream of a Nashian Utopia currently rests upon Bitcoin failing in its original premise, uncontrollably.
And by logic, when that does occur, it is no longer an absolute value for Nash's theory.
So you fail in the long run as well.

Thus, you and this theory attached to Bitcoin, is ultimately malicious.

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 05, 2017, 08:22:25 PM

The reality is there is consensus for change on both sides, there just isn't
consensus on what that change will be or when.

In contrast, you have no sizable (or existent) consensus for capture.

That's not consensus, BOTH sides need to agree with each other on the path forwards. That there are two sides that don't agree is the opposite of consensus. Again I am using standard definitions and i am pointing to reality. And the division in perspectives is growing, entropy is increasing.

Quote

In contrast, you have no sizable (or existent) consensus for capture.

Capture doesn't require consensus it requires the infighting you are highlighting as reality.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 08:08:45 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 05, 2017, 08:01:56 PM

CORE wants change and BU wants change.

This is the definition for NOT having consensus, and in this thread we learned what is holding that perpetual debate up. The only "change" that will happen is more and more people will learn the reasoning behind nash's rational argument. And thus science will prevail, which is the purpose for science. The entropy of opinions is such that change gets harder-it will never happen and each day is living proof.

I know what the Bitcoin definition of Consensus is.
My statement should be understood from the context of your statement which I quoted:

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 07:58:20 PM

... There is no consensus for change and there never will be, because there are not enough people that are stupid as you.

The reality is there is consensus for change on both sides, there just isn't
consensus on what that change will be or when.

In contrast, you have no sizable (or existent) consensus for capture.

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: AngryDwarf on March 05, 2017, 08:10:24 PM

I'm one of those idiots who bought some Freicoin. Wrong economic theory. Silly me.

Quote

Stable long-term value

Demurrage forces freicoins to circulate at deliberately high rates. Separation of money's roles as store-of-value and medium-of-exchange allows money to flow when it is needed, in good times and bad. Our careful selection of governing parameters creates a currency whose value is stable with neither price inflation nor deflation.

Ya if you want to create Nashs stable metric for value, it has to be the strongest thing in the universe. Freicoin won't do it.

freebutcaged

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 541

Stop worshiping Nash and start develop your own thoughts, consensus system requires no leader figure.

Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 23. (Read 34840 times)