What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all?
Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant 
Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 3. (Read 34840 times)
So, again:
What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all? Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant
What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all?
Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant
You're talking about a system where banks are the sun around which planetary markets evolve, which is very much contrary to what Mises and Hayek wrote, of whom I'm familiar.
The markets and banks using an effectively closed shop to create over-complex financial instruments that essentially allow them to surreptitiously fix prices is not an example of banks playing a useful role, it's in actual fact the soft-fascist facsimile of communistic price fixing.
The markets and banks using an effectively closed shop to create over-complex financial instruments that essentially allow them to surreptitiously fix prices is not an example of banks playing a useful role, it's in actual fact the soft-fascist facsimile of communistic price fixing.
Banks arose to to invest and make contracts that brings different markets and economies together. In today's age central banks also control the quality of money which is not good for long term contracts and market efficiency.
bitcoin nor any crypto can play the roles that banks evolved to do. They are institutions with thousands of years of evolution. Crypto will not be able to do what banks are doing for a very long time.
Carton, you don't understand what banks do.
Szabo's last few articles have been about the evolution and role banks have played and play.
bitcoin nor any crypto can play the roles that banks evolved to do. They are institutions with thousands of years of evolution. Crypto will not be able to do what banks are doing for a very long time.
Carton, you don't understand what banks do.
Szabo's last few articles have been about the evolution and role banks have played and play.
No, what useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all? Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant
Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all? Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant
Perhaps they can actually do work to bring value instead of raping everyone with fees and playing with their money on the open market and having ability to lend at crazy leverage allowable by the central bank cartels. First question is, what are banks useful for, why did we make banks? Then see how they fit in the new economy. Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant
What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all? Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant
Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant
i think you are asking "what role to banks play in the world economy?"
What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all? Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant
Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all? Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant
You have to remember, we are not trying to solve the problem of the most tranasctable medium. Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meantWe are trying to find a stable metric for value. This is the best thing humanity can do. But it doesn't directly serve any individual or institution, so their is no incentive for us to co-ooperate towards it.
Nash spells out a very meta overview of how this metric will come about, and its premised on the introduction of a stable international e-currency.
It doesn't speak at all to a new money, or people being their own banks. It speaks to the QUALITY of money, where quality is judged in terms of stability of value, not ease of exchange.
What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all? Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant
Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant When will the banks begin to use it?
This seems like a strange view of reality, regardless of who said it and how astute their observations about money are. The banks and their media cronies have been publicly deriding Bitcoin for a long time, and trying to ape it with their hilarious proprietary "blockchain" tech.
I can't understand how you can miss this, after reading ANY of this thread. I said many times, its a finger trap. And if you read any of the quotes by Nash you MUST have read him say that this new standard is going to take the power from the banks to arbitrarily print money. This seems like a strange view of reality, regardless of who said it and how astute their observations about money are. The banks and their media cronies have been publicly deriding Bitcoin for a long time, and trying to ape it with their hilarious proprietary "blockchain" tech.
They don't want it, but they will use it. They will react to it. They will be slaves to it. At first it will be bitcoin itself, but as we approach stable money it will be the concept of stability they will be forced to adhere to my market sentiments first and then peoples understanding of stable money.
When will the banks begin to use it?
This seems like a strange view of reality, regardless of who said it and how astute their observations about money are. The banks and their media cronies have been publicly deriding Bitcoin for a long time, and trying to ape it with their hilarious proprietary "blockchain" tech.
I can't understand how you can miss this, after reading ANY of this thread. I said many times, its a finger trap. And if you read any of the quotes by Nash you MUST have read him say that this new standard is going to take the power from the banks to arbitrarily print money. This seems like a strange view of reality, regardless of who said it and how astute their observations about money are. The banks and their media cronies have been publicly deriding Bitcoin for a long time, and trying to ape it with their hilarious proprietary "blockchain" tech.
They don't want it, but they will use it. They will react to it. They will be slaves to it. At first it will be bitcoin itself, but as we approach stable money it will be the concept of stability they will be forced to adhere to my market sentiments first and then peoples understanding of stable money.
Bitcoin is not for the people. Its for banks.
When will the banks begin to use it?
This seems like a strange view of reality, regardless of who said it and how astute their observations about money are. The banks and their media cronies have been publicly deriding Bitcoin for a long time, and trying to ape it with their hilarious proprietary "blockchain" tech.
I don't know. Although, even today, I think if Bitcoin were to be a settlement system for banks that people would probably not use it in mass, and would probably have near zero value.
You don't understand money, economics, or rational self-interest:
Quote from: Ideal Money
In a large state like one of the "great democracies" it is reasonable to say that the people should be able,
in principle, to decide on the form of a money (like a "public utility") that they should be served by, even though most of the actual volume of the use of the money would be out of the hands of the great majority of the people.
in principle, to decide on the form of a money (like a "public utility") that they should be served by, even though most of the actual volume of the use of the money would be out of the hands of the great majority of the people.
^^^I found the quote. Bitcoin is not for the people. Its for banks.
Is there any sense to letting forks live side-by-side for awhile? Naturally the transactions in each fork would need to be unrelated. Eventually we would need a block bringing forks back together when the history of transactions begin to intersect.
More dreaming.
It is not technically possible to merge two entirely different block chains back together again. Just think about the block reward subsidy. In each block chain the subsidy for the blocks were give out to two entirely different miners. One of the chains must be totally dropped and the miners on the losing chain get nothing - the miners on the winning chain get all the block rewards they earned during the construction of the winning chain.More dreaming.
Is there any sense to letting forks live side-by-side for awhile? Naturally the transactions in each fork would need to be unrelated. Eventually we would need a block bringing forks back together when the history of transactions begin to intersect.
More dreaming.
It is not technically possible to merge two entirely different block chains back together again. Just think about the block reward subsidy. In each block chain the subsidy for the blocks were give out to two entirely different miners. One of the chains must be totally dropped and the miners on the losing chain get nothing - the miners on the winning chain get all the block rewards they earned during the construction of the winning chain.More dreaming.
No, Burt.
Your description is only valid if the hashrates of the 2 chains are sufficiently different. Within a certain range, the chains will be sufficiently similar in quantity of PoW (the parameter that Bitcoin uses to determine how the best chain is selected) can re-merge and split easily, and it would be very disruptive. If that situation continued for long enough, both chains would be impossible to use, as transactions would constantly unconfirm, reconfirm, then unconfirm etc etc
Remember when you took BU seriously as an honestly intended solution?
Is there any sense to letting forks live side-by-side for awhile? Naturally the transactions in each fork would need to be unrelated. Eventually we would need a block bringing forks back together when the history of transactions begin to intersect.
More dreaming.
It is not technically possible to merge two entirely different block chains back together again. Just think about the block reward subsidy. In each block chain the subsidy for the blocks were give out to two entirely different miners. One of the chains must be totally dropped and the miners on the losing chain get nothing - the miners on the winning chain get all the block rewards they earned during the construction of the winning chain. More dreaming.
In theory then a smaller block size (smaller even than 1MB) will promote decentralization?
Suppose we go with this idea and take it to the extreme. Then perhaps a block should be exactly two transactions
Suppose we go with this idea and take it to the extreme. Then perhaps a block should be exactly two transactions
Indeed.
But 1MB blocks contain upwards of 2,000 transactions, not 2. Just to put that into perspective.
The real issue is that measuring decentralisation isn't a valid concept, there is no viable metric. One could say that tracking changes in the overall node count is a reasonable measure, but it's very much a 1 dimensional measure of a far more complicated phenomenon.
If node count was consistently parabolic, I'd have very little to say about blocksize increases. It's pretty flat right now though.
Is there any sense to letting forks live side-by-side for awhile? Naturally the transactions in each fork would need to be unrelated. Eventually we would need a block bringing forks back together when the history of transactions begin to intersect.
This provides a good illustration of the ill-intent of the contending client forks: the Bitcoin Core devs suggested to the XT, Classic and BU devs that they ought to change some aspects of their code such that the two competing chains could live together without causing chaotic incoherence between one another (leaving the code as it is means each fork can potentially detect the other and briefly merge back together again, then split apart, then merge again... etc)
The response of the XT/Classic/BU devs? "You're not even the Real Bitcoin, we are". And they're definitely not trying to screw everything up, right?
Is there any sense to letting forks live side-by-side for awhile? Naturally the transactions in each fork would need to be unrelated. Eventually we would need a block bringing forks back together when the history of transactions begin to intersect.
More dreaming.
More dreaming.
In theory then a smaller block size (smaller even than 1MB) will promote decentralization?
Suppose we go with this idea and take it to the extreme. Then perhaps a block should be exactly two transactions; the coinbase transaction and one other non-coinbase transaction (such that both fit together inside of 1MB?) -- um, that is, until the block reward drops to zero and then one and only one transaction gets packed into each block. Naturally the highest fee transaction is the one going into the next block. Hmm, maybe we should have these single transaction blocks coming out more often than once every 10 minutes (on average).
Just dreaming.
Suppose we go with this idea and take it to the extreme. Then perhaps a block should be exactly two transactions; the coinbase transaction and one other non-coinbase transaction (such that both fit together inside of 1MB?) -- um, that is, until the block reward drops to zero and then one and only one transaction gets packed into each block. Naturally the highest fee transaction is the one going into the next block. Hmm, maybe we should have these single transaction blocks coming out more often than once every 10 minutes (on average).
Just dreaming.
Jump to: