A quick recap of this thread as I understand it:
1. Ideal money would be money that ideally expands and contracts to account for the economy
2. The highly manipulated money we have today is far from ideal
3. Bitcoin is not ideal money and can never be ideal money (easy to prove - by the definition of Bitcoin)
4. However Bitcoin could be used as a thing of constant value, a standard of value, against which all other things of value, including fiat money, could be measured.
5. Given a standard of value against which we could actually see and measure the manipulations being done to all the various currencies the economy would naturally gravitate toward those currencies that more closely approximate ideal money.
6. Given this new quality metric for currencies all currencies would be forced to compete on this new playing field of quality. This metric outside of their control would force all currencies to either asymptotically approach ideal money or die by market forces.
In order to get to the more contentious statements about Bitcoin itself, specifically with regard to the great BS (Block Size) debate of the last few years, I and many others here would be willing to accept 1-6 on face value. In fact, if true, we get exactly what we all want: money that works for everyone equally and cannot be manipulated by special interests (including the issuers) in order to game the system to their advantage. Great! However, we would have to give up on the idea that Bitcoin itself would actually be the currency we use on a daily basis - and that would be very hard for many people, myself included.
However when spelled out this paradigm does not sound all that bad, we get:
1. Ideal savings accounts using Bitcoins, or Bitcoin based derivatives of high quality, your choice
2. Ideal money for all day-to-day (off chain) transactions using either honest versions of what we already have or from a yet to be delivered system
I see two bones of contention that need to be ironed out:
1. Bitcoin as implemented today, specifically including the current block size cap, can or will become this standard of value that will force honesty on to the world currencies.
2. Changing the block size will break Bitcoin so that it can not or will not be able to become this standard of value.
Personally, I would be willing to give you #1 at least as a hypothetical for the time being in order to dive into your proof of #2. Because if #2 is not provable then there is no need to go back and prove #1. If proof of #2 relies on the proof of #1 then by all means let's prove #1 first and then get to the crux of the matter, #2.
There is a lot of noise in this thread so I could very easily missed your discussion/proof of #2 in the thread or by link. If so please link us to that discussion.
Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 32. (Read 34840 times)
Let us posit that some 'thing' has some quantity of per-user value. As more and more people start to employ that 'thing', does not the overall value of that 'thing' increase in proportion to the users of that 'thing'?
Why not "posit" that the 'thing' is actually something real?
If the 'thing' was a spoken language, your principle conforms, at any scale.
If the 'thing' was a computer network, your principle does not conform (except during early growth, i.e. not a function of the paradigm).
Your statement doesn't apply universally (as suggested by invoking your 'thing' abstraction). It's not a principle. You're about as intellectual as my toe nail clippings
Bitcoin's nature will change, but the markets already know this.
If this were true, then your argument here serves no purpose. Accepting your axiom (which I don't, BTW), Bitcoin's final trajectory is already cast in stone. This argument accordingly accomplishes nothing. The Bitcoin is gonna do what the Bitcoin is preordained to do.
Quote
edit: also don't know about this grazik ece.
It's worth a read. ECE is Economic Change Event. And the name is jgarzik - proper spelling will assist your google search.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18071419
Ok its clear i already googled it and linked it and cited the summary. You watched me do it. And in that summary Garzik explains, if we are to do nothing, then we should discuss it and be clear about it. So how can you simultaneously point me to a document I showed you I read (cause I quoted the last section/summary) and tell me its pointless to do exactly what the guy who wrote the paper you recommenced I read suggest we do?
Yes I think he is right, we can bring great order and coherence to the community by discussing why we shouldn't scale bitcoin and why we are (probably) not going to.
Quote from: garzik ece
2) If block size stays at 1M, the Bitcoin Core developer team should sign a
collective note stating their desire to transition to a new economic
policy, that of "healthy fee market" and strongly urge users to examine
their fee policies, wallet software, transaction volumes and other possible
User impacting outcomes.
collective note stating their desire to transition to a new economic
policy, that of "healthy fee market" and strongly urge users to examine
their fee policies, wallet software, transaction volumes and other possible
User impacting outcomes.
I must not have asked that question well - certainly your reply does not indicate that you understood what I was getting at.
Let us posit that some 'thing' has some quantity of per-user value. As more and more people start to employ that 'thing', does not the overall value of that 'thing' increase in proportion to the users of that 'thing'?
The the perceived expected value of bitcoin is such that it will rise steadily, probably not at an incredibly rapid pace in the long term. But from another view a fully bootstrapped bitcoin is going to have a relatively stable value.
Quote
But the supply is (essentially) fixed, and the cost of production is directly related to its price - not its value. This is rather different from gold, where mining developers have the vast majority of good geographies locked up, idle, waiting for price appreciation to sell to producers to start actual mining operations.
So yes its different, but the result is the same, a fairly predictable supply.
Bitcoin's nature will change, but the markets already know this.
If this were true, then your argument here serves no purpose. Accepting your axiom (which I don't, BTW), Bitcoin's final trajectory is already cast in stone. This argument accordingly accomplishes nothing. The Bitcoin is gonna do what the Bitcoin is preordained to do.
Quote
edit: also don't know about this grazik ece.
It's worth a read. ECE is Economic Change Event. And the name is jgarzik - proper spelling will assist your google search.
eta: I see you found at least one jgarzik statement on the ECE concept. The entire discussion is relevant.
Perhaps a more important question to ask -- because the heuristics certainly seem to suggest a strong affinity -- would be:
'Why would you expect Bitcoin's value to be stable, when the number of people its value is affecting is rising in such an erratic albeit rapid manner?'
I'm not sure you asked this question well. But there is to be a bootstrapping of bitcoin's price right? At first the price is no where near the ultimate value because there are no real exchanges. 'Why would you expect Bitcoin's value to be stable, when the number of people its value is affecting is rising in such an erratic albeit rapid manner?'
I must not have asked that question well - certainly your reply does not indicate that you understood what I was getting at.
Let us posit that some 'thing' has some quantity of per-user value. As more and more people start to employ that 'thing', does not the overall value of that 'thing' increase in proportion to the users of that 'thing'?
Quote
But the ultimate value of bitcoin as a digital gold lies in the relationship between the cost of production and the supply, just like gold.
But the supply is (essentially) fixed, and the cost of production is directly related to its price - not its value. This is rather different from gold, where mining developers have the vast majority of good geographies locked up, idle, waiting for price appreciation to sell to producers to start actual mining operations.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html
Ya, here is my view in a metaphor. Bitcoin is a balloon that isn't blown up yet. We are waiting for this fee event he speaks of. And its fine. I am working to talk about it, like he says, the intentions should be discussed as intentions. But it doesn't really matter. And the markets know this, because markets are clairvoyant. Mankind will do what is rational, and bringing on the fee events asap is the best outcome for society.
Like Nash says we will able to choose to levate this money, even though we won't be the ones actually transacting with it so much.
Quote
Core recommendations:
1) "Short term bump" Block size increase to maintain buffer. I've no
special BIP preference.
This avoids moral hazard and avoids a major Economic Change Event, as well
many other risks.
2) If block size stays at 1M, the Bitcoin Core developer team should sign a
collective note stating their desire to transition to a new economic
policy, that of "healthy fee market" and strongly urge users to examine
their fee policies, wallet software, transaction volumes and other possible
User impacting outcomes.
3) Even if can is kicked down the road, Fee Event will come eventually.
Direct research, testing and simulations into the economics and user impact
side of the equation. Research and experiment with pay-for-burst (pay to
future miner), flexcap and other solutions ASAP.
The worst possible outcome is letting the ecosystem randomly drift into the
first Fee Event without openly stating the new economic policy choices and
consequences.
The simple fact is *inaction* on this supply-limited resource, block size,
will change bitcoin to a new economic shape and with different economic
actors, selecting some and not others.
It is better to kick the can and gather crucial field data, because
next-step (FFM) is very much not fleshed out.
1) "Short term bump" Block size increase to maintain buffer. I've no
special BIP preference.
This avoids moral hazard and avoids a major Economic Change Event, as well
many other risks.
2) If block size stays at 1M, the Bitcoin Core developer team should sign a
collective note stating their desire to transition to a new economic
policy, that of "healthy fee market" and strongly urge users to examine
their fee policies, wallet software, transaction volumes and other possible
User impacting outcomes.
3) Even if can is kicked down the road, Fee Event will come eventually.
Direct research, testing and simulations into the economics and user impact
side of the equation. Research and experiment with pay-for-burst (pay to
future miner), flexcap and other solutions ASAP.
The worst possible outcome is letting the ecosystem randomly drift into the
first Fee Event without openly stating the new economic policy choices and
consequences.
The simple fact is *inaction* on this supply-limited resource, block size,
will change bitcoin to a new economic shape and with different economic
actors, selecting some and not others.
It is better to kick the can and gather crucial field data, because
next-step (FFM) is very much not fleshed out.
Ya, here is my view in a metaphor. Bitcoin is a balloon that isn't blown up yet. We are waiting for this fee event he speaks of. And its fine. I am working to talk about it, like he says, the intentions should be discussed as intentions. But it doesn't really matter. And the markets know this, because markets are clairvoyant. Mankind will do what is rational, and bringing on the fee events asap is the best outcome for society.
Like Nash says we will able to choose to levate this money, even though we won't be the ones actually transacting with it so much.
Not to put words into jonald's mouth, but I believe he may be advocating the proposition that Bitcoin finally bumping up against its tps limits was in itself a change in value. Are you familiar with the discussion around jgarzik's ECE? I find that proposition very persuasive. Do you have a rebuttal to this?
The markets are smart, not dumb. We can't have a reasonable dialogue, if we are assuming we can outsmart the markets.
edit: also don't know about this grazik ece.
It's an admission, when you want to change the tps in order to increase bitcoin's usefulness, that you are changing its value.
Not to put words into jonald's mouth, but I believe he may be advocating the proposition that Bitcoin finally bumping up against its tps limits was in itself a change in value. Are you familiar with the discussion around jgarzik's ECE? I find that proposition very persuasive. Do you have a rebuttal to this?
I have said over and over, bitcoin cannot be ideal money.
...
It is by nature not stable in value because its deflationary.
...
BUT bitcoin, being deflationary, is very similar to gold in a special sense (I call it the nashian sense).
It can't be ideal money, but it COULD be a new digital gold, which COULD serve as the bedrock for our global financial system.
...
It is by nature not stable in value because its deflationary.
...
BUT bitcoin, being deflationary, is very similar to gold in a special sense (I call it the nashian sense).
It can't be ideal money, but it COULD be a new digital gold, which COULD serve as the bedrock for our global financial system.
I am just quoting the above, because I am going to need to refer back to it, when I finally understand what it is that you are advocating.
edit: yeah... this bit too:
...because if bitcoin is going up in value over time...
Perhaps a more important question to ask -- because the heuristics certainly seem to suggest a strong affinity -- would be:
'Why would you expect Bitcoin's value to be stable, when the number of people its value is affecting is rising in such an erratic albeit rapid manner?'
Quote
Starting with the idea of value stabilization in relation to a domestic price index associated with the territory of one state, beyond that there is the natural and logical concept of internationally based comparisons.
The currencies being compared, like now the euro, the dollar, the yen, the pound, the swiss franc, the swedish kronor, etc. can be viewed with critical eyes by their users and by those who maybe have the option of whether or not or how to use one of them. This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened rate of inflationary deprecation in value.
It seems possible and not unlikely, however, that if two states evolve towards having currencies or more stable value as measured locally by national CPI indices that then also these distinct currencies would tend to evolve towards more stable comparative relations of value.
Then the limiting or “asymptotic” result of such an evolutionary trend would be in effect “ideal money” but this as a result achieved without the adoption of anything like an ICPI index as a basis for the standard of value.”
…intrinsically free of “inflationary decadence”..a true “gold standard”, but the proposed basis for that was not the proposal of a linkage to gold
The currencies being compared, like now the euro, the dollar, the yen, the pound, the swiss franc, the swedish kronor, etc. can be viewed with critical eyes by their users and by those who maybe have the option of whether or not or how to use one of them. This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened rate of inflationary deprecation in value.
It seems possible and not unlikely, however, that if two states evolve towards having currencies or more stable value as measured locally by national CPI indices that then also these distinct currencies would tend to evolve towards more stable comparative relations of value.
Then the limiting or “asymptotic” result of such an evolutionary trend would be in effect “ideal money” but this as a result achieved without the adoption of anything like an ICPI index as a basis for the standard of value.”
…intrinsically free of “inflationary decadence”..a true “gold standard”, but the proposed basis for that was not the proposal of a linkage to gold
But the ultimate value of bitcoin as a digital gold lies in the relationship between the cost of production and the supply, just like gold. It's predictability is valuable as an inflation hedge. We expect bitcoin's value to be fairly stable because of this-better than gold.
It's PRICE though, won't be stable, because the respective fiats value changes, and this will be reflected in exchange price.
Value is different based on the tf you choose..
tf?
Time Factor?
Transfer Funciton?
Toe Fungus?
I'm still not convinced that this entire thread is anything but an elaborate troll
starting to appear so
I no, rite? Befuddling. If a troll (a possibility upon which I vacillate), it is very well played.
Quote
Quote
Bitcoin's price is volatile but its underlying value is not at all expected to be.
"expected to be"? Expected by whom?
Perhaps a more important question to ask -- because the heuristics certainly seem to suggest a strong affinity -- would be:
'Why would you expect Bitcoin's value to be stable, when the number of people its value is affecting is rising in such an erratic albeit rapid manner?'
Fud means: fear uncertainty and doubt.
The men who worked on the atom bomb knew what they were doing. The didn't correct anything. They told the UN to encourage all significant countries to have such technology so that no one group held all the power. This was the real arms race. And we did it, and there was no fear of apocalypse, just ignorance.
btw David Bohm was one of these men.
We are not tending towards our own slavery. Governments are not evil. We are evolving our technology life is getting better and we are procuring more and more freedom by the day.
Ideal Money, the levation of a stable unit of value, will signal a new age and a new magnitude for such freedom. Not having it, and not searching for it, is self slavery. There is no illuminati that controls this and none that ever will.
The men who worked on the atom bomb knew what they were doing. The didn't correct anything. They told the UN to encourage all significant countries to have such technology so that no one group held all the power. This was the real arms race. And we did it, and there was no fear of apocalypse, just ignorance.
btw David Bohm was one of these men.
We are not tending towards our own slavery. Governments are not evil. We are evolving our technology life is getting better and we are procuring more and more freedom by the day.
Ideal Money, the levation of a stable unit of value, will signal a new age and a new magnitude for such freedom. Not having it, and not searching for it, is self slavery. There is no illuminati that controls this and none that ever will.
Maybe, but you are implying that Satoshi secretly intended Nash's future.
Did Nash take the time to adjust his scientific beliefs to accommodate for the technological
advancements humans will be entering into with the next 25 years? If he did, I highly doubt
he would have believed that his theory would be used against the "empires" and not to reinforce
them. I'm sure when all is said and done, it will play out in the same manner as the Trinity Experiments.
When those scientist saw what they created when they detonated their baby, it was only then that they
realized what they brought upon the world.
Nash's theory plus current technological advancements equals oppression.
And yes nash understood technological advancements far better than us. In 1954 he wrote this memo for rand, on a parallel computing network, where the goal is to decentralize control.
It is a basic design for AI, which has the capability to heal itself and to solve problems man can't conceive or solve itself.
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/500/1*nDl2-mPQBbzYnCKSQMX4bw.png
He was very technologically inclined:
Quote from: nash's homepage
Aug. 30, 1999 Initiation of this directory, "Goldbach_Programs". This is just for some recreational mathematics stuff that may be of occasional interest. I recently read the novel "Uncle Petros and the Goldbach Conjecture". In the story Petros, but at a time many years in the past, wonders about whether or not, in particular, the number 2^100 satisfies GB (so that it is a sum of 2 primes). Nowadays it is possible to compute answers to questions of this sort for numbers of that size fairly easily. As I read the novel and thought about that specific question I remembered that quite a few years ago, just while doing recreational work/play with numbers, I had developed a moderately efficient program to search for the next prime larger than a given odd number. And I realized that this program, which I had on file as a MATHEMATICA program, could be applied to the problem challenge of checking out 2^100 in relation to the Goldbach Conjecture.
There is nothing to fear, because the encryptor will always outrace the decryptor:
Quote from: ideal money
…we can’t really logically assume that human civilization has found the ultimate ideal of forms of social government in the times of the twentieth century. (One can imagine a future form of government where a highly advanced automaton (or array of computers) would function like the office of a City Manager with the human input to the government passing through the analogue of a City Council.)
What part is FUD?
Prior to the actual detentions those scientists had no understanding of what the future
repercussions would be. What you cite as their statements with the UN after the fact
was their attempts at correction. They were lucky that over time, it was managed and taken
seriously. But who will arise and correct an oppressive world government for us? Nash? Hal? Szabo?
Will they go and spit some truth to the International Body and advise moderation with such power?
If you believe that Nash's theory anticipates human's natural technological evolution toward its own
desire for enslavement and control (simple current day example, facebook) then so be it. I never
claimed to be an expert on Nash or any other economic theorist. If you have nothing to fear, that is
great for you, because when someone says that to me, its usually a sign of downfall ahead.
In the meantime, I will support Bitcoin to scale conservatively, because I believe that could be
humanities only recourse in the future. People should have choice and thats what Bitcoin provided.
*Either way, fun discussion.
Maybe, but you are implying that Satoshi secretly intended Nash's future.
Did Nash take the time to adjust his scientific beliefs to accommodate for the technological
advancements humans will be entering into with the next 25 years? If he did, I highly doubt
he would have believed that his theory would be used against the "empires" and not to reinforce
them. I'm sure when all is said and done, it will play out in the same manner as the Trinity Experiments.
When those scientist saw what they created when they detonated their baby, it was only then that they
realized what they brought upon the world.
Nash's theory plus current technological advancements equals oppression.
And yes nash understood technological advancements far better than us. In 1954 he wrote this memo for rand, on a parallel computing network, where the goal is to decentralize control.
It is a basic design for AI, which has the capability to heal itself and to solve problems man can't conceive or solve itself.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2008/RM1361.pdf
He was very technologically inclined:
Quote from: nash's homepage
Aug. 30, 1999 Initiation of this directory, "Goldbach_Programs". This is just for some recreational mathematics stuff that may be of occasional interest. I recently read the novel "Uncle Petros and the Goldbach Conjecture". In the story Petros, but at a time many years in the past, wonders about whether or not, in particular, the number 2^100 satisfies GB (so that it is a sum of 2 primes). Nowadays it is possible to compute answers to questions of this sort for numbers of that size fairly easily. As I read the novel and thought about that specific question I remembered that quite a few years ago, just while doing recreational work/play with numbers, I had developed a moderately efficient program to search for the next prime larger than a given odd number. And I realized that this program, which I had on file as a MATHEMATICA program, could be applied to the problem challenge of checking out 2^100 in relation to the Goldbach Conjecture.
There is nothing to fear, because the encryptor will always outrace the decryptor:
Quote from: ideal money
…we can’t really logically assume that human civilization has found the ultimate ideal of forms of social government in the times of the twentieth century. (One can imagine a future form of government where a highly advanced automaton (or array of computers) would function like the office of a City Manager with the human input to the government passing through the analogue of a City Council.)
None of them said that Bitcoin was indeed Nashisn's theory manifested.
They all likely agreed it could facilitate that and was the closest thing in
existences at the time.
In a way, are you implying that Hal's suggestion of the 1MB Spam Cap
was nefarious in order to destroy Satoshi's "intention" at the onset and
ultimately bring about Nash's theory? I'm sure you will say no, because
that would be a conspiracy and you don't deal in such.
The point is, because Satoshi does not address specific issues, like the
economics, does not mean he had something to hide. It could be that
Satoshi could give less of a shit and really wanted to create an e-currency,
and not a "One World Digital Gold Asset" to be used to facilitate the "Nashian
International One World Currency".
Your belief is as valid as mine, since the only people who know the truth are
either dead or not talking.
Maybe, but you are implying that Satoshi secretly intended Nash's future.
Did Nash take the time to adjust his scientific beliefs to accommodate for the technological
advancements humans will be entering into with the next 25 years? If he did, I highly doubt
he would have believed that his theory would be used against the "empires" and not to reinforce
them. I'm sure when all is said and done, it will play out in the same manner as the Trinity Experiments.
When those scientist saw what they created when they detonated their baby, it was only then that they
realized what they brought upon the world.
Nash's theory plus current technological advancements equals oppression.
None of them said that Bitcoin was indeed Nashisn's theory manifested.
They all likely agreed it could facilitate that and was the closest thing in
existences at the time.
In a way, are you implying that Hal's suggestion of the 1MB Spam Cap
was nefarious in order to destroy Satoshi's "intention" at the onset and
ultimately bring about Nash's theory? I'm sure you will say no, because
that would be a conspiracy and you don't deal in such.
The point is, because Satoshi does not address specific issues, like the
economics, does not mean he had something to hide. It could be that
Satoshi could give less of a shit and really wanted to create an e-currency,
and not a "One World Digital Gold Asset" to be used to facilitate the "Nashian
International One World Currency".
Your belief is as valid as mine, since the only people who know the truth are
either dead or not talking.
Whether a person is real or not is irrelevant.
The fact is that Satoshi did not release the whitepaper or discuss its ideas within economic forums or mailing lists.
Instead, he did so within the cypherpunk community and discussed the ideas with those members. The financial
aspects of the system came about later, for example, block times, amount of coins, halving times, etc. He did not
create those financial aspects first on Nashian theory and then decide he would solve the problems of e-currency.
Satoshi created Bitcoin as a result of how the banking system has evolved. He wanted a checks & balances.
If Satoshi was attempting to create a Nashian "international gold" for the "international currency", then he did
everything wrong. I believe Satoshi intended people to make txs directly on-chain. Currently we can not do that
without harming the special aspects of Bitcoin, so we will manifest his dream through second layer systems. When
this occurs, TPS will increase massive for off-chain and over time, respectively conservative for on-chain.
All TPS restriction to 1MB indefinitely will not be allowed and we will have malicious hardforks if that occurs.
It is likely that not only will those come from the BU big blockers, but also Core small blocker, IMO.
Nash's argument, and szabo's argument, and finney's argument are each founded, and none of them say what you THINK that satoshi IMPLIED.
None of them said that Bitcoin was indeed Nashisn's theory manifested.
They all likely agreed it could facilitate that and was the closest thing in
existences at the time.
In a way, are you implying that Hal's suggestion of the 1MB Spam Cap
was nefarious in order to destroy Satoshi's "intention" at the onset and
ultimately bring about Nash's theory? I'm sure you will say no, because
that would be a conspiracy and you don't deal in such.
The point is, because Satoshi does not address specific issues, like the
economics, does not mean he had something to hide. It could be that
Satoshi could give less of a shit and really wanted to create an e-currency,
and not a "One World Digital Gold Asset" to be used to facilitate the "Nashian
International One World Currency".
Your belief is as valid as mine, since the only people who know the truth are
either dead or not talking.
Jump to: