you need to understand this in order to participate properly in the dialogue, and there are multiple participants who understand this very well.
Don't expect a Franky to understand something if his job depends on him not understanding it
Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 29. (Read 34840 times)
Don't expect a Franky to understand something if his job depends on him not understanding it
I think he is saying that all of the arbitrary parameters (21 M, 10 min, 4 TPS) lead to a certain value proposition for Bitcion. Changing any of these parameters would change the value proposition of Bitcoin. In this case changes to TPS would change the value. Most believe that increasing TPS will lead to a higher utility, value and price. I do not think there is any argument there. TPS is only one of the parameters which feeds into the entire value proposition of Bitcoin.
you want a stable price. but do not realise that halting utility wont cause a stable price
HE DOES NOT WANT OR INTEND A STABLE PRICE. He never said that. Why do you keep saying that?
I'm not sure OP is saying it can't have secondary layers.
In fact, it seems to me that usage by the big banks as a settlement layer, as OP envisions, would itself be creating secondary layers, and that eventually fiat itself would be a secondary layer.
So I don't see how lightning is much different from that...
OP, what say you?
I am saying if we don't make the Nashian consideration every step of the way then we are being irresponsible. In fact, it seems to me that usage by the big banks as a settlement layer, as OP envisions, would itself be creating secondary layers, and that eventually fiat itself would be a secondary layer.
So I don't see how lightning is much different from that...
OP, what say you?
If I was to make a big international remittance to someone who accepted bitcoin, I would consider bitcoin to have value.
If I was to try and quickly pop in to my local shop to buy a packet of rolling papers, I would say bitcoin has no value. (They don't accept bitcoin anyway!)
I consider that to be the difference between value and price. Not sure how it correlates to what an economist would say.
You are speaking to the problem. We have no metric for value so there is no easy why to say what you are trying to say. Some people say "value is subjective" but its not true, if what they mean is, x is value to you but to me its worthless. If I was to try and quickly pop in to my local shop to buy a packet of rolling papers, I would say bitcoin has no value. (They don't accept bitcoin anyway!)
I consider that to be the difference between value and price. Not sure how it correlates to what an economist would say.
That is not a useful thing to say. But we don't need to sort that out, we can say that something that is left unchangeable, like gold, has a stable value. Now if there is all of a sudden a lot more gold, then of course it's scarceness changes and we can see its value will change.
We can say what gold's value is, or what bitcoin's value is. We can say, "It costs x usd". Which is an example of price. But usd are also not stable in value right, because the government/fed manipulates the SUPPLY.
So do you understand where this problem arises and the nature of it? There is no stable metric to show value.
you yourself over use "value" but do not express which "value" you are talking about.
"value" is an umbrella term with multiple subcategories.
i only put the brackets to inform you which "value" you are trying to cause an end result of.
you want a stable price. but do not realise that halting utility wont cause a stable price
you need to understand this in order to participate properly in the dialogue, and there are multiple participants who understand this very well.
as the bitcoin community increases in size and has more varied interests, changing consensus becomes harder and harder. Thus it tends towards static, not dynamic.
You say it is dynamic, yet people have been wanting to change something as simple as the blocksize limit for years and continue to fail. How can you ignore that?
yup exactly, and I don't need to convince them, THEY need to convince the network to change, and its not going to happen. Thats why this dialogue is valuable, its a realization of truth, together.You say it is dynamic, yet people have been wanting to change something as simple as the blocksize limit for years and continue to fail. How can you ignore that?
And this is dawkins point about genes. There value, is in their stability and unchanging nature, it is what evolves AROUND them that we see as evolution. But the unchangingness of the genes is sign of their relevance, not irrelevance.
You're still making the mistake of treating Bitcoin like a static system
when in fact it is dynamic. Something like TPS is actually a variable that has
changed over time and will continue to change.
Thus, treating the current level of TPS as a determinant of value is not appropriate/accurate.
Not sure why i'm bothering to make this point since you don't listen.
when in fact it is dynamic. Something like TPS is actually a variable that has
changed over time and will continue to change.
Thus, treating the current level of TPS as a determinant of value is not appropriate/accurate.
Not sure why i'm bothering to make this point since you don't listen.
I think he is saying that all of the arbitrary parameters (21 M, 10 min, 4 TPS) lead to a certain value proposition for Bitcion. Changing any of these parameters would change the value proposition of Bitcoin. In this case changes to TPS would change the value. Most believe that increasing TPS will lead to a higher utility, value and price. I do not think there is any argument there. TPS is only one of the parameters which feeds into the entire value proposition of Bitcoin.
you want a stable price. but do not realise that halting utility wont cause a stable price
HE DOES NOT WANT OR INTEND A STABLE PRICE. He never said that. Why do you keep saying that?
Burt, I think you missed something important.
In prior statements, the OP is arguing that even LN or other off-chain
systems for bitcoin would also be considered a TPS increase. When I
started talking about TPS, I was not refereeing the blocksize specifically
since a TPS increase and a blocksize increase are two separate things.
For value to remain stable for the proposed "future currency" bitcoins
will be TPS restricted on chain and can not have proxies off chain as
a secondary pegged token.
What OP is saying without saying it is that Bitcoin must stop now and
can't have second layers, since that also erodes value through time.
An "absolute" value must be isolated and constant in all ways.
In other words we need to consider the stability of value in the Nashian sense, with every change proposed. To not do so, is haphazard, and irresponsible, knowing that if we protect bitcoin's Nashian qualities (ie stability of value NOT price), then it will serve as the catalyst/component to bring about Ideal Money (which is not bitcoin).
I'm not sure OP is saying it can't have secondary layers.
In fact, it seems to me that usage by the big banks as a settlement layer, as OP envisions, would itself be creating secondary layers, and that eventually fiat itself would be a secondary layer.
So I don't see how lightning is much different from that...
OP, what say you?
In fact, it seems to me that usage by the big banks as a settlement layer, as OP envisions, would itself be creating secondary layers, and that eventually fiat itself would be a secondary layer.
So I don't see how lightning is much different from that...
OP, what say you?
Burt, I think you missed something important.
In prior statements, the OP is arguing that even LN or other off-chain
systems for bitcoin would also be considered a TPS increase. When I
started talking about TPS, I was not referencing the blocksize specifically
since a TPS increase and a blocksize increase are two separate things.
For value to remain stable for the proposed "future currency" bitcoins
will be TPS restricted on chain and can not have proxies off chain as
a secondary pegged token for any exchange or whatever.
What OP is saying without saying it is that Bitcoin must stop now and
can't have second layers, since that also erodes value through time.
An "absolute" value must be isolated and constant in all ways.
In prior statements, the OP is arguing that even LN or other off-chain
systems for bitcoin would also be considered a TPS increase. When I
started talking about TPS, I was not referencing the blocksize specifically
since a TPS increase and a blocksize increase are two separate things.
For value to remain stable for the proposed "future currency" bitcoins
will be TPS restricted on chain and can not have proxies off chain as
a secondary pegged token for any exchange or whatever.
What OP is saying without saying it is that Bitcoin must stop now and
can't have second layers, since that also erodes value through time.
An "absolute" value must be isolated and constant in all ways.
If I was to make a big international remittance to someone who accepted bitcoin, I would consider bitcoin to have value.
If I was to try and quickly pop in to my local shop to buy a packet of rolling papers, I would say bitcoin has no value. (They don't accept bitcoin anyway!)
I consider that to be the difference between value and price. Not sure how it correlates to what an economist would say.
If I was to try and quickly pop in to my local shop to buy a packet of rolling papers, I would say bitcoin has no value. (They don't accept bitcoin anyway!)
I consider that to be the difference between value and price. Not sure how it correlates to what an economist would say.
halting the tx/s does not destabilize its value and there is no founded scientific argument that it does. You can re-assert this opinion all you want, but you cannot move the market with an irrational unfounded argument.
hmmm lets change something halting the tx/s does not destabilize its value and there is no founded scientific argument that it does. You can re-assert this opinion all you want, but you cannot move the market with an irrational unfounded argument.
"bitcoins value(price)" <<< stop saying this, its a fundamental misunderstanding. value and price are not synonymous, it doesn't matter what your syntax is..
you yourself over use "value" but do not express which "value" you are talking about.
"value" is an umbrella term with multiple subcategories.
i only put the brackets to inform you which "value" you are trying to cause an end result of.
you want a stable price. but do not realise that halting utility wont cause a stable price
as the bitcoin community increases in size and has more varied interests, changing consensus becomes harder and harder. Thus it tends towards static, not dynamic.
You say it is dynamic, yet people have been wanting to change something as simple as the blocksize limit for years and continue to fail. How can you ignore that?
You say it is dynamic, yet people have been wanting to change something as simple as the blocksize limit for years and continue to fail. How can you ignore that?
You're still making the mistake of treating Bitcoin like a static system
when in fact it is dynamic. Something like TPS is actually a variable that has
changed over time and will continue to change.
Thus, treating the current level of TPS as a determinant of value is not appropriate/accurate.
Not sure why i'm bothering to make this point since you don't listen.
when in fact it is dynamic. Something like TPS is actually a variable that has
changed over time and will continue to change.
Thus, treating the current level of TPS as a determinant of value is not appropriate/accurate.
Not sure why i'm bothering to make this point since you don't listen.
It is the belief of many that constricting TPS is constricting the value of the network for them. It is the belief of others that constricting the TPS maintains the value of the network for them (yourself included here).
That is all belief. I am looking for an argument based on economic facts.
I am showing there is no founded argument to change the tps. It doesn't speak to a founded economic argument.
I don't what the truth is in this sense, but I can sure tell you that if someone says changing the tps alters the value then this is an admission of value targeting/changing.
And lastly, are you really asking me to prove that not changing bitcoin means not re-targeting the value? It's tautologically correct.
To leave bitcoin alone means to leave the value targeting alone. To change bitcoin in order to change the value, is to target the value.
You come along and say wait a second here, I think that keeping the value constant is, unfortunately for a lack of a better term more valuable. Well to avoid confusion lets call it a more expedient use or a more efficient use of Bitcoin as a revolutionary force.
Unfortunately you do have to prove your assertion that not increasing TPS is a better way for everyone to get what they want, just because you are in the minority.
Edit: Again given your desire for no change and the fact that no change is almost certainly the outcome of all this debate I am not sure what you are so concerned about. You are most likely going to "win" this argument by default, right?
Burt, I think you missed something important.
In prior statements, the OP is arguing that even LN or other off-chain
systems for bitcoin would also be considered a TPS increase. When I
started talking about TPS, I was not referencing the blocksize specifically
since a TPS increase and a blocksize increase are two separate things.
For value to remain stable for the proposed "future currency" bitcoins
will be TPS restricted on chain and can not have proxies off chain as
a secondary pegged token for any exchange or whatever.
What OP is saying without saying it is that Bitcoin must stop now and
can't have second layers, since that also erodes value through time.
An "absolute" value must be isolated and constant in all ways.
(And I think Bitcoin can never be a constant with human mining.
It needs to be fully automated. "Set it and forget it!".)
You're still making the mistake of treating Bitcoin like a static system
when in fact it is dynamic. Something like TPS is actually a variable that has
changed over time and will continue to change.
Thus, treating the current level of TPS as a determinant of value is not appropriate/accurate.
Not sure why i'm bothering to make this point since you don't listen.
You aren't speaking to the act of targeting value through changing the IMPLICATE tps. when in fact it is dynamic. Something like TPS is actually a variable that has
changed over time and will continue to change.
Thus, treating the current level of TPS as a determinant of value is not appropriate/accurate.
Not sure why i'm bothering to make this point since you don't listen.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
You're still making the mistake of treating Bitcoin like a static system
when in fact it is dynamic. Something like TPS is actually a variable that has
changed over time and will continue to change.
Thus, treating the current level of TPS as a determinant of value is not appropriate/accurate.
Not sure why i'm bothering to make this point since you don't listen.
when in fact it is dynamic. Something like TPS is actually a variable that has
changed over time and will continue to change.
Thus, treating the current level of TPS as a determinant of value is not appropriate/accurate.
Not sure why i'm bothering to make this point since you don't listen.
halting tx/s is already destabilising bitcoins value(utility/desire)
which cause and effect(chain reaction) destabilises bitcoins value(price)
"bitcoins value(price)" <<< stop saying this, its a fundamental misunderstanding. value and price are not synonymous, it doesn't matter what your syntax is..
halting development wont stabilise the price
halting tx/s is already destabilising bitcoins value(utility/desire)
which cause and effect(chain reaction) destabilises bitcoins value(price)
halting development wont stabilise the price
The relevant point is that it is not only money supply which affects inflation/deflation.
this whole topic has not been about messing with 21m coin cap..
so lets not meander down that rabbit hole.
many things have given bitcoin its desire
sticking to development (your main gripe)
halting development wont stabilise the price because many other factors are interplaying bitcoins desire.
The relevant point is that it is not only money supply which affects inflation/deflation.
Jump to: