Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 30.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 02:17:42 PM

We have to use the accepted definitions of these words. Can't make up our own definitions:

Quote

In economics, inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time[1] resulting in a loss of value of currency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

The definition does not speak to money supply.

depends on what side of the fence you are

$1200 may have got you 200 bitcoins 5 years ago
1btc may have got you $6 bitcoins 5 years ago

both same thing. but dependant on what side of the fence you are on. are you a fiat lover or a bitcoin lover

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: franky1 on March 05, 2017, 02:15:15 PM

Quote from: franky1 on March 03, 2017, 11:09:07 AM

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 03, 2017, 11:02:23 AM

bitcoin's price and value will die off if the user experience is such that the rising fees cause them to flee. Therefore, the argument goes, we must scale bitcoin to support a higher tp/s. This will keep the price and value going up.

Is this not an admission of inflation control?

no
inflation control is about adding more coins endlessly with no cap.. and LIMITING utility while producing endless coins.
bitcoin is deflationary over time so EXPANDING or limiting utility over time is deflationary control.

We have to use the accepted definitions of these words. Can't make up our own definitions:

Quote

In economics, inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time[1] resulting in a loss of value of currency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

The definition does not speak to money supply.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: franky1 on March 03, 2017, 11:09:07 AM

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 03, 2017, 11:02:23 AM

bitcoin's price and value will die off if the user experience is such that the rising fees cause them to flee. Therefore, the argument goes, we must scale bitcoin to support a higher tp/s. This will keep the price and value going up.

Is this not an admission of inflation control?

no
inflation control is about adding more coins endlessly with no cap.. and LIMITING utility while producing endless coins.
bitcoin is deflationary over time so EXPANDING or limiting utility over time is deflationary control.

what i was saying was the expanding or limiting of utility. is the control..
then because we are talking about bitcoin=deflation. its about control of deflation..

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 02:06:59 PM

Quote

a raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee.

look at the commodities market.

you will see a coffee BEAN on the market. but you wont see the manufactured ground coffee end product sold in walmart on a commodity market.
you will see a pure gold on the market. but you wont see grannies necklace on a commodities market

grannies necklace asset value(price, desire, utility) is not going to be the same as the commodity value(PRICE)

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: franky1 on March 05, 2017, 02:02:00 PM

2 things
1. bitcoin is not inflationary (to address your many earlier points that still gripe me)

I don't know what you mean to say here, we have said over and over in this thread that bitcoin is deflationary thus its value is not stable.

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

wiki:

"In economics, a commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs"

Google def:

Quote

Search Results
com·mod·i·ty
kəˈmädədē/
noun
noun: commodity; plural noun: commodities

a raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee.
synonyms: item, material, product, article, object; More
import, export
"the prices of basic commodities have risen again"
a useful or valuable thing, such as water or time.

Quote

Etymology
The word commodity came into use in English in the 15th century, from the French commodité, "amenity, convenience". Going further back, the French word derives from the Latin commoditas, meaning "suitability, convenience, advantage". The Latin word commodus (from which English gets other words including commodious and accommodate) meant variously "appropriate", "proper measure, time, or condition", and "advantage, benefit".

Bitcoin is a commodity and it is useful for far more than transactibility.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 01:55:50 PM

You can't say "store of value(price)" because a commodity like bitcoin, if its value was stable, its price would NOT be stable.

You are saying, that if we don't guard bitcoin's transactability, then it won't act like gold (ie fairly stable value), but there is no founded scientific argument for this, and in fact bitcoin's "utilitiy" in regard to tps already functions far better than gold. It is and always will be, even with 1mb, cheaper and easier to transact with bitcoin than gold.

The tps a 3/sec does not hurt bitcoin's properties as a store of value. Thats a tacit assumption.

2 things
1. bitcoin is not inflationary (to address your many earlier points that still gripe me)
2. bitcoin is not a commodity. its an asset.

a commodity is a raw material used to make other products
beef=hamburgers, steaks
oil=plastic, fuel
wheat=bread, animal feed
gold=jewellery/circuits

gold sits in 2 categories and on multiple markets. 1 being the commodity market (jewellery/circuitry). the other being asset market.

just because you see bitcoin as the similar principles of golds ASSET values. does not mean bitcoin also holds golds commodity value.

they are 2 separate categories.

you are also mixing up golds value(utility/desire) to fit whatever narrative you like.
golds value(price) is a culmination of desire(asset store of value) AND utility(commodity usefulness as jewelery and circults)

take away golds commodity utility.. and people only value(desire price) it as the equivalent of rust.

take away bitcoins ability to be spendable to pay rent once a week or groceries once a week. and you affect its utility and desire. making its store of value(price) deminish

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: franky1 on March 05, 2017, 01:52:09 PM

the store of value(price) is only there if and only if there is desire and utility. (otherwise we would see all 1000 altcoins at $1200 if it was based on just 'existing')

if you take away utility. desire errodes. and then price errodes.. thus store of value(price) drops

if we simply turned bitcoin into... say... 42coin. that has fixed limit, scarce and no development.. and not used for buying coffee.. or anything for that matter.. bitcoins store of value(price) would be the same as 42coin.

You can't say "store of value(price)" because a commodity like bitcoin, if its value was stable, its price would NOT be stable.

You are saying, that if we don't guard bitcoin's transactability, then it won't act like gold (ie fairly stable value), but there is no founded scientific argument for this, and in fact bitcoin's "utilitiy" in regard to tps already functions far better than gold. It is and always will be, even with 1mb, cheaper and easier to transact with bitcoin than gold.

The tps @ 3/sec does not hurt bitcoin's properties as a store of value. Thats a tacit assumption.

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Got to go outside and take a walk with my daughter and dog. Good luck guys!

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 01:46:16 PM

I actually have a great appreciation for what you did and i think it is the exact behavior that ends the debate by highlighting our tacit assumption. By showing the different possible defintions for the words, we stop having semantical arguments, when we are both either saying the same thing in a different way OR using the same words to say different things with different meanings.

Now you used utility in two conflated ways. You are saying we need to keep bitcoins utility as a widely used coffee money (to be extreme), and this will guard bitcoin's value. But bitcoin also has a utility as a store of value (ie inflation hedge).

and this is DIFFERENT than the transfereable medium utility.

There is no argument that you must make bitcoin evolve in regard to transferable medium utility, or order to preserve the store of value utility. And the store of value utility does not require such evolution.

No change, still preserves bitcoin as an inflation hedge.

the store of value(price) is only there if and only if there is desire and utility. (otherwise we would see all 1000 altcoins at $1200 if it was based on just 'existing')

if you take away utility. desire errodes. and then price errodes.. thus store of value(price) drops

if we simply turned bitcoin into... say... 42coin. that has fixed limit, scarce and no development.. and not used for buying coffee.. or anything for that matter.. bitcoins store of value(price) would be the same as 42coin.

increasing the tx/s is not about coffee its about progressively and naturally allowing more people to transact. even if its 2mill users using it 5times a month now .. to for instance 1 billion people IN 30 YEARS(not overnight, but natural dynamic progression over time) using it 5 times a month.

just for a weekly wage/grocery shop.

that will help desire grow and with more user adoption (not frequency of spending per person) the extra user adoption will actually help stableise the value(price)

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: BurtW on March 05, 2017, 01:47:09 PM

By changing my quote to value(price) I see your fundamental misunderstanding of what is being proposed.

A tacit assumption has been revealed.

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: franky1 on March 05, 2017, 01:40:26 PM

Quote from: BurtW on March 05, 2017, 01:21:27 PM

OK. I think I get it now. Would you agree to this: There are many people/factions that believe that an increase in TPS will increase the overall value(utility, desire and price) to the Bitcoin system. They want to increase the value(utility, desire and price) of the system so, of course, they want to increase the TPS(utility). They do not give a second thought to your desire for a stable unit of value(price), most have never heard of any desire from anyone for Bitcoin to be this stable unit of value(price) so, given their desire to improve/increase the value(utility, desire, price) of Bitcoin, it is obvious to them that TPS needs to be increased.

You come along and say wait a second here, I think that keeping the value(price) constant is, unfortunately for a lack of a better term more valuable(desire). 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?

FTFY

i think many need to start using brackets against "value" to effectively show what version of "value" you are discussing

also the value(price) does not become stable simply by stalling its utility. infact it can become more unstable if utility is halted but desire increas or decrease. or many other factors.

stablising price cannot occur simply by stopping development. there are more than one elements that causes the PRICE to be affected.

Franky1,

By changing my quote to value(price) I see your fundamental misunderstanding of what is being proposed. There is absolutely no desire here for any sort of value(price) stability. What is being proposed is that Bitcoin can become a metric of value(absolute) that could be used to measure variation in the value(absolute) of a given currency. This ratio of absolute value would be reflected in the price of the currency relative to the standard unit of value represented by Bitcoin.

So I do not agree with your edit.

In other words for the first time ever we would be able to actually measure and see whenever someone tries to screw with their currency to the advantage of the few in charge of the currency. Once we can measure and track their shenanigans, market forces will kill off all the currencies that do not behave.

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: franky1 on March 05, 2017, 01:40:26 PM

FTFY

i think many need to start using brackets against "value" to effectively show what version of "value" you are discussing

also the value(price) does not become stable simply by stalling its utility. infact it can become more unstable if utility is halted but desire increas or decrease. or many other factors.

stablising price cannot occur simply by stopping development. there are more than one element that causes the PRICE to be affected.

I actually have a great appreciation for what you did and i think it is the exact behavior that ends the debate by highlighting our tacit assumption. By showing the different possible defintions for the words, we stop having semantical arguments, when we are both either saying the same thing in a different way OR using the same words to say different things with different meanings.

Now you used utility in two conflated ways. You are saying we need to keep bitcoins utility as a widely used coffee money (to be extreme), and this will guard bitcoin's value. But bitcoin also has a utility as a store of value (ie inflation hedge).

and this is DIFFERENT than the transfereable medium utility.

There is no argument that you must make bitcoin evolve in regard to transferable medium utility, or order to preserve the store of value utility. And the store of value utility does not require such evolution.

No change, still preserves bitcoin as an inflation hedge.

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 01:29:40 PM

Burt you are awesome!

Ya. So let's continue with that as the premise, being true. You are asking, in some form, 'what is the value of the community coming to the same realization as me' (knowing we are headed in my/nash's direction anyways)?

Thanks for the compliment. I really just try to listen and understand - that is all.

I listen to BU, I listen to SegWit, and now I am listening to you. Bitcoin is by far the most interesting idea I have found. From the low level cryptography to large scale political, economic and sociological implications, debates and discussions, Bitcoin really has it all.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: BurtW on March 05, 2017, 01:21:27 PM

OK. I think I get it now. Would you agree to this: There are many people/factions that believe that an increase in TPS will increase the overall value(utility, desire and price) to the Bitcoin system. They want to increase the value(utility, desire and price) of the system so, of course, they want to increase the TPS(utility). They do not give a second thought to your desire for a stable unit of value(price), most have never heard of any desire from anyone for Bitcoin to be this stable unit of value(price) so, given their desire to improve/increase the value(utility, desire, price) of Bitcoin, it is obvious to them that TPS needs to be increased.

You come along and say wait a second here, I think that keeping the value(price) constant is, unfortunately for a lack of a better term more valuable(desire). 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?

FTFY

i think many need to start using brackets against "value" to effectively show what version of "value" you are discussing

also the value(price) does not become stable simply by stalling its utility. infact it can become more unstable if utility is halted but desire increas or decrease. or many other factors.

stablising price cannot occur simply by stopping development. there is more than one element that cause the PRICE to be affected.

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: BurtW on March 05, 2017, 01:35:57 PM

I could not agree more with this statement. The constant meddling with what is "in the basket" and what is "outside the basket" when considering the consumer price index and inflation renders all long term and even short term inflation measurements totally mathematically meaningless and meaningful only as a way to flat out lie about the state of the economy to the benefit of those in charge.

Yup, thats what hes saying

The dialogue we are having is the most important one on the whole of the internet.

Nash wins.

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 01:12:30 PM

Quote from: Ideal Money

Here, evidently, politicians in control of the authority behind standards could corrupt the continuity of a good standard, but depending on how things were fundamentally arranged, the probabilities of serious damage through political corruption might becomes as small as the probabilities that the values of the standard meter and kilogram will be corrupted through the actions of politicians.

I could not agree more with this statement. The constant meddling with what is "in the basket" and what is "outside the basket" when considering the consumer price index and inflation renders all long term and even short term inflation measurements totally mathematically meaningless and meaningful only as a way to flat out lie about the state of the economy to the benefit of those in charge.

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: BurtW on March 05, 2017, 01:21:27 PM

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.

No not prove, convince!

Remember that John Nash said, in his letter to the NSA, "Although I cannot prove it...this does not destroy its significance."

We can understand all of this through dialogue and furthermore, I don't have to prove anything for 'no change', the people that want change, need to have scientifically founded proposals for it. That is all I need to assert and re-assert.

And there is no founded proposal for raising the tps.

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Burt you are awesome!

Ya. So let's continue with that as the premise, being true. You are asking, in some form, 'what is the value of the community coming to the same realization as me' (knowing we are headed in my/nash's direction anyways)?

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 05, 2017, 01:08:43 PM

Quote from: BurtW on March 05, 2017, 01:01:00 PM

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.

No. I don't need to prove the negative. Science. In order to make a change to the system, in order for a rational order to accept the change, it must be shown to be scientific. I am not proposing any change to the system.

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.

OK. I think I get it now. Would you agree to this: There are many people/factions that believe that an increase in TPS will increase the overall value to the Bitcoin system. They want to increase the value of the system so, of course, they want to increase the TPS. They do not give a second thought to your desire for a stable unit of value, most have never heard of any desire from anyone for Bitcoin to be this stable unit of value so, given their desire to improve/increase the value of Bitcoin, it is obvious to them that TPS needs to be increased.

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?

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: BurtW on March 05, 2017, 01:04:28 PM

Assuming there is a certain amount of stability to the value of energy there will be even more stability to the value of Bitcoin as variation in the production cost and technological improvements in the production of energy are removed by the design of Bitcoin.

Exactly and we can see that we are starting to understand the context of Nash's argument together. Nash already considered all this:

Quote from: Ideal Money

We can see that times could change, especially if a “miracle energy source” were found, and thus if a good ICPI is constructed, it should not be expected to be valid as initially defined for all eternity. It would instead be appropriate for it to be regularly readjusted depending on how the patterns of international trade would actually evolve.

And he thought beyond it:

Quote from: Ideal Money

Here, evidently, politicians in control of the authority behind standards could corrupt the continuity of a good standard, but depending on how things were fundamentally arranged, the probabilities of serious damage through political corruption might becomes as small as the probabilities that the values of the standard meter and kilogram will be corrupted through the actions of politicians.

Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 30. (Read 34840 times)