Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 34. (Read 34840 times)

The bold is an admission I am right.  It's wrong to conflate value and price. And its that exact error that is making it difficult for everyone to understand the argument nash proposes.  This is why he introduction a conceptual/theoretical notion for stability called an ICPI.

This whole problem of understanding stems from the very fact that we don't have a stable unit of value.  If we did this dialogue would be easy.

I assure you.  I understand, and you do not.

Are you arguing my argument, or are you also disagreeing with Nash, just to be clear?

Do you accept my argument that Nash says that central bankers and central banking theory will be usurped by a political revolution inspired by the introduction of an international currency?


What do you think he means by "alternative options for where to place their "savings"?

They converge depending on liquidity and tf..

If you want my interpretation of ideal money by nash i could give it to you but i think its outside of the scope of this thread.. i think if you clear yourself of mindfuck you have yourself in you might be able to see truth

A lot of words to hide the fact that you very well know that value and price are not necessarily the same thing.

...

    There perhaps will always be “politics”, like also “death and taxes”. But it is sometimes remarkable how political contexts can evolve. And in relation to that I think that it is possible that ‘the Keynesians’ are like a political faction that will become less influential as a result of a political evolution….(All over the world varieties of states make claims to have governments very properly or even ideally devoted to the interests of the citizens or nationals of those states and always an externally located critic can argue that the government is actually a sort of despotism.)

    The Keynesian implicitly always have the argument that some good managers can do things of beneficial value, operating with the treasury and the central bank, and that it is not needed or appropriate for the citizenry or the “customers” of the currency supplied by the state to actually understand what the managers are managing, what exactly they are doing and how it will affect the “pocket book” circumstances of these “customers.”

    I see this as analogous to how the “bolshevik communists” were claiming to provide something much better than the “bourgeois democracy” that they could not deny existed in some other counties. But in the end the “dictatorship of the proletariat” seemed to become rather exposed as simply the dictatorship of the regime. So there may be an analogy to this as regards those called “the Keynesians” in that while they have claimed to be operating for high and noble objectives of general welfare what is clearly true is that they have made it easier for governments to “print Money”.

    So I see the Keynesians as in a weak sense comparable to the “Bolsheviks” because of the support of both parties for a certain “lack of transparency” relating to the function of government as seen by the citizenry. And for both of them it can be said that they tend to think in terms of government agencies operating in a benevolent fashion that is, however, beyond the comprehension of the citizens of the state.

    And this parallel makes it seem not implausible that a process of political evolution might lead to the expectation on the part of citizens in the “great democracies” that they should be better situated to be able to understand whatever will be the monetary policies which, indeed, are typically of great importance to citizens who may have alternative options for where to place their “savings”.

I won't address your conspiracy theory stuff.  

But yes they will rely on bitcoin this is the exact argument of finney szabo and nash.  And it is perfectly inline with adam smith.  Hayek also expounded on what would happen if the governments no longer held a monopoly on our money.

They are all scientifically founded arguments and they say the same thing.

Nash simply adds that as the fiats compete with bitcoin, governments/central banks will be forced to print asymptotically better money, and that quality will eventually hit a ceiling.

That ceiling is stability of value, and Nash deemed this "Ideal Money"

There is nothing to argue.

Noone knows what the relation or value and price is today in bitcoin but it depends on many variables like ive said

Bitcoin can never be the world's new gold that financial systems will rely upon because it is
contrary to their nature. Deflationary systems erodes their control, so thus they will never
accept it. In fact, they can't rational it. They would more likely use a blockchain that is editable.

Bitcoin is like the new gold, but that does not mean the powers that be will use it if we capture
it for them. in fact, they will likely destroy us and make their own version.

Bitcoin is a digital gold & currency and needs to scale, in whatever way, over time.

I don't know the what you are referring to "tf".

your argument is semantical and it needn't be.

bitcoin has a value at a given time.  But its price is different on different exchanges. 

You cannot say that value = price

bitcoin only has one value, regardless if it fluctuates over time.

And the mt gox example.  Bitcoin's price was skyrocketing because there was a security leak at the exchanges. 

You are a fucking idiot for suggesting that the value was increasing that dramatically at that time that the price was skyrocketing.

I think you spent to much trading based on a religious view of what you were doing, to understand what a 5 year old could understand.

It's an admission, when you want to change the tps in order to increase bitcoin's usefulness, that you are changing its value.  The markets are desperately looking for an investment in which the value doesn't change.  So when you change the tps, you change the market valuation and the markets will not have the same faith in bitcoin as an inflation hedge.

You still might not agree, but what I am saying is very basic and easy to understand.

And when you finally understand, you can't just say you don't agree, because its not YOUR vision.

I am not incorrect.  You will never get enough protestors to harm the system.  
That's why bitcoin is interesting in the first place.  Your hypothetical is never the real.  
I am speaking to what is REAL.

More importantly.  You have missed the easy point.
I have said over and over, bitcoin cannot be ideal money.  Did you read the word "cannot"?
It is by nature not stable in value because its deflationary.  That means its value increases over time.
That is not stability of value. That's increasing of value.
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.
This is different than thinking bitcoin is going to be the world currency.  DIFFERENT.

no its not a semantic argument.  You clearly stated changing the tps is changing bitcoin fundamentally and I am suggesting the exact opposite could be true... so its anything but semantics.

You are incorrect. Attackers or protestors do not care about incentives.
They are empowered and driven by ideals, like suicide bombers. They do
not care about what you believe they should care about. They are viewing
the situation from a non-human perspective, sometimes higher and non-base
(irrelevant as to whether it is moral or not).

You are relying upon short term human nature. Some humans do not care about money.
Some only care about power, control, creation, or destruction.

My ultimate point is that Bitcoin's mining mechanism is the factor that prevents a stable value.
Bitcoin can never be what you envision it can be because stable value is an illusion with this system.
Bitcoin is fundamentally indefinitely unstable due to the mining mechanism.

If you want a NashCoin for your purposes, it needs to be fully autonomous from start to end.

Value is different based on the tf you choose.. basically price bakes in value at any given moment based on tf. You need to spend more time trading perhaps 10 or more years to understand that fact.

 Yes this is Ver's argument that no change to the protocol is change because bitcoin will grow in such away that the way we use it will change.  So its really a semantic argument about determinism and free will in regard to the behavior of the markets.  We could argue forever.  But I am for more knowledgeable on this subject. 
 

You have given a scenario that cannot occur.  The incentive scheme make the practicality of this impossible.

Don't conflate these things.  You can have multiple exchanges with different prices, and you can have different prices for bitcoin in different currencies.  It's then absurd to suggest bitcoin has different values.

Price is how we discover the underlying value, but it is not correct to assert the value is the price.  

Furthermore, if for example we made the assumption (as a thought experiment) that bitcoin is fairly stable or actually stable in value, when the price changes, this is a reflection of the FIAT value changing not at all (necessarily) bitcoin's value.

Please spend some time with this, and understand that the difficultly we are having in dialogue and conception is that we don't already have a stable metric for value.  So it is difficult to convey that value and price are not at all the same.

hey did you ever consider the idea that by NOT scaling the TPS you are changing its underlying nature?

Think about it:  If for years, anyone was free to start using Bitcoin and send money around the world , for less than a penny, and get their transaction confirmed within minutes,
and now it costs dollars and it takes days to get a confirmation, to me that counts as "dramatically changing its underlying nature", at least from a user experience.

I'm still not convinced that this entire thread is anything but an elaborate troll

Miners have the power to create blocks that contain no txs, other than the coinbase.
If they did this on purpose as an attack or as a protest, wouldn't that automatically violate
your premise that Bitcoin is already "locked in" and in an unchangeable state and thus nothing
should be done about TPS from this point forward? You previously alluded to TPS increases in
any manner hurts the value and leads to an ultimate devaluation to near zero.