Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 25. (Read 34840 times)

Yes.

It's not so much that I didn't have any arguments (although certainly not Nash's), it was more a case of disinclination to heighten the (already raucous) discord, Danda essentially makes this point.

Could it be that Gavin and Mike's plan was not just to invoke a dialectic that pushes people to accept a small increase, but to blindside all to the fact that all increases are foolish?

Yes, which is partially intuitive to you but you didn't have the argument to really nail it down.  My claim is others will agree when they hear the argument.  This suggests too, that while both sides are crying of censorship and bad communication practice, both sides have drowned out the relevant argument by the old man himself. It's a very good starting point for getting people to actually come to the table and LISTEN to each other because each side is forced to concede to having some ignorance. No?

Well, as I've said, I privately preferred a more conservative blocksize increase anyway (between none and 1), 4MB was a compromise I mistakenly believed would end the debate. I'm considering the "none" option far more carefully, given the information you're eliciting.

I think that some (most?) core devs really do care about preserving bitcoin's value and keeping it stable and not making changes that would create winners and losers.  (paraphrasing gmawell writing some time ago.)  That's why they fought back against Gavin's proposed blocksize increases early on.

But there has been so much community pressure to increase TPS, that they felt they must release something in that direction, hence segwit.

it may be that some of them would not be so averse to these ideas, if exposed.   I'm curious if this thread has come to gmaxwell's attention yet, or any other core dev.

These aren't examples of the nature of gold changing.

And you are wrong, bitcoin isn't beyond nash, nash spoke many years in the future beyond the advent of bitcoin. This is clear, and he was clear about this.

you have in many posts said gold is stable and other things about gold and you comparing bitcoin to gold and even confusing golds commodity (as a raw material in the commodoty market) with the separate asset credentials of gold to assum bitcoine is a commodity too..

yet by you saying bitcoin is like gold, and gold is stable. and/or bitcoin should be more like gold
then gold should halt its ability to change how many transactions in a certain time period can occur.

golds tx/s has been changed, does change. will change
1940's only physical tx taking days to move.
1980's computer age. gold transactions move via computer transactions. and also physical gold coins. from banks pawnn brokers etc
millennium gold vending machines and even electronic stores.

yet you want to assume gold is a great store of value because its tx/s is stable and so bitcoins tx/s should be stable too...

seriously. your fixated too much on one little thing and not seeing the bigger picture. your narrative.. oops nashative to attempt to persuade the community that 1mb should be fixed is flawed.

we get you love nash. thats undeniable. but bitcoin is beyond nash. bitcoin is even beyond the concept of money. bitcoin is its own new revolutionary paradigm

---

in short.. limiting. fixing increase or decreasing will not stabilise "value" (of any sort) as there are many things that give bitcoin value. stopping one wont stabilise the rest

---

gold has changed. it was not used for solar panels 50 years ago(didnt exist) now it is
it was not used for GPU's now it is
it was not used for many things ... now it is

gold has changed and will change

Both sides are pushing for an irrational means to an irrational ends, that's why the debate is unending.

Again, calm yourself. You're not the shoutiest contingent by a long stretch, there's only 2 of you so far.

The reason we have all the shouting is because no body is basing their understanding or beliefs on the rational well founded argument which is the pursuit of a stable metric of value.  Nash shows that if we guard bitcoin's qualities in the Nashian sense, then our legacy institutions will naturally levate a stable metric of value.

Then all founded proposals must speak to this end.  If they do not, then they do not serve the world thus they are not founded.

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.

It's possible we could build community consensus around 1MB segwit. I won't be the voice in the wilderness shouting about it though, we've got enough of that as things are.

Yes, from the first day I read about bitcoin I realized it's importance to curtail central banks influence and bring about a sound money.   Though I was not aware of Nash's ideal money and tended to think in terms of Thiers' law.  I see bitcoin as the first practical application of Theirs' law, because it appears immune to legal tender laws that have killed other attempts.

Edit:  i have always intuitively sensed that fiat would have to follow suit with bitcoin, and thus impove or die.  Essentially that bitcoin can be used as a measuring stick.  This is already beginning to happen.

You can't be more clear.  You are saying bitcoin is what it is and no rational entity would change this.  Gavin tried to give a proper definition for this: http://gavinandresen.ninja/other-definitions-of-bitcoin


But he is creating that definition from the wrong direction.  He will always miss "something" by trying to define it constitutionally.  I agree with his attempt but when we have the "nashian" definition and we can say any changed alters its nashian implications, we have a far stronger attempt at a definition than gavin. we have done what gavin was trying to do, but properly.

I think you can understand this danda, but it will be a long time before the "group" does.

You have everything in your hands to tell core that they need to change their proposal to yours.

I define consensus rules to be anything that all bitcoin clients need to agree on.  So your "certain additions" would fall under that, and in my view should not be allowed.  except when released with a new genesis block.  I don't know how to be more clear.

I'm saving this realization because its completely not palatable to nearly anyone.  But its based on reason and founded arguments. And so did you say this was your feeling from the start?  Or in other words do you see the significance of the relevance of Ideal Money?

I was talking about something else.

I do not believe that any consensus level change can be made that would not affect its value "in the nashian sense", even if made for that intended goal.  And by granting devs moral authority to make a "good" change, it also opens the door to bad change.   slippery slope.

carlton, speak to the REAL proposal on the table TODAY.

No.

Consensus rules are not the only aspects of the protocol that forks can affect. For instance, the additional opcodes added in BIP 65 and 66 are not part of the consensus rules, but were still implemented as soft forks.

Whether it's a part of consensus rules or not, certain additions need soft forks so that older versions of the client can interpret blocks made by newer clients using those additions safely, i.e. without causing hazardous network splits between old nodes and new nodes should the old nodes reject blocks with the additional features.