Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 38. (Read 34840 times)

I do not read any of that in his posts or writings.

What I read is that Bitcoin as a worldwide store of value is the key to getting the world banks to do our bidding, meaning asymptotically approach a more ideal money for us to use.

What did Satoshi lie about?

At least you understand my argument.  You are just sad Satoshi lied.  You never would have participated if he told you the truth.  Bitcoin is a finger trap for nations and banks:



The more they struggle the tighter things will get. Thx for bumping my thread lots!

How can "if it ain't broke don't fix it" be labeled extreme?  Even if dead wrong it is the most conservative course of action and, in my opinion, the most likely outcome of this entire years long debate.

You seem to agree:

No, the blocksize debate exists because some think we can scale now and others think we need to scale later.
Then you come along and say we can never scale and we should try to market directly to world banks.

You are advocating we solicit the very institutions that Satoshi created Bitcoin to counteract.
You are an extremist with possible mania, who can not argue without personally attacking people.

I see a couple of 10 year olds have come in to derail derail derail and ignore reality, and derail.  Go for it punks.  There are plenty of participants and lurkers that read what just transpired in this thread.  My articles are being read and people are understanding the truth of the matter and why the block size debate exists and has been unending.

I don't argue with idiots.  But just don't think that everyone here can't see your childish foolish intellects.

You have all those quotes sitting in a word document at the ready like a good manic fundamentalist.

Continue with your incoherent statements that never end in a true conclusion because your only goal
is to maintain 1MB at all costs, including preventing second layered solutions.

traincarswreck

you have spent MONTHS obsessing about nash

your conclusion is that bitcoin is NOT nashes ideal money..

ok its not NASHES ideal money..
end of.

bitcoin is something else.. something new.. something that does not fit the category of "money"

bitcoin is its own NEW paradigm and it will leave "money" in the past.
people will evolve and treat "money" as the scam stuff government used.

where as the future is about ASSET CURRENCIES. where its an asset and a currency.

---

now here is a tip
if you want to talk about "money".. in regards to a blockchain currency being ideal money.. go talk to the bankers at hyperledger.

bitcoin is not about letting governments or any centralised entity manage and halt bitcoin. bitcoin should remain as a new open paradigm that can grow and develop naturally

Does everyone see these last two posters.  They haven't read anything on anything.  They have no education on any of these subjects.  And let me you tell.  Central banks hate this argument.  The intelligence agencies around the world KNOW this truth, because I emailed it to all relevant players.  Do we believe in the NSA?

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/ideal-money-and-esoteric-hidden-meaning-writing-139861c31c83#.wd3ohb3eg

Nash left us the truth:



And here's his insight on the axiom he realized was missing:


Who will people believe?  My cited argument that John Nash is correct and relevant.  Or a couple of yahoos that clearly can't read books.

Your whole theory is flawed because of mining.
The banking sector will never accept Bitcoin because of how mining is performed.
If they ever think it has merit to attach itself upon, it will be a new coin where nation
states are the sole miners in competition with other nation states.

You have taken Nash's theories and placed them into something that was created
without that original intention and now attempting to argue for capture and hold it
to your ideal. The truth of the matter is you are talking out of your ass in an attempt
to create a new type of extremism within the Bitcoin community. Its borderline Psy-Ops.

You are a true "1MB4EVA" extremest. We should call your kind a Fundamental IMB Jihadist.
Instead of the "Unlimited blocksize" extreme, you want "Smallest blocksize" extreme.

Bitcoin should be balance over time.

People like you are one of the reasons there can't be consensus on certain things.
You are being purposefully malicious, whether consciously or unconsciously.

lol the veto limit?

lol there is not official veto limit. apart from the natural 51% which is not something satoshi wrote in.. its just nature
the end result is LOTS of orphan drama until it settles down to reveal a single chain after the orphan drama if close to 51%
the end result is little amount of orphan drama until it settles down to reveal a single chain after the orphan drama if closer to 100%

pools dont like to change unless nodes accept the change.. and devs have set recent thresholds at 95% to reduce as much orphan temporary drama as possible. but any number above 50% can cause a change,

again for emphasis. the lower the % from 100% the more orphan drama there is.
most say something between 75%-95% could be acceptable. but expect more orphan drama at 75%, with less orphan drama at 95%

issues such as this soft fork drama is that pools dont like to change if nodes are not ready to accept it. which is why 60% of pools are undecided. which is where going soft went wrong..

however..
if there was a REAL hard CONSENSUS* (nodes first and then pools SECOND) changes can happen more officially and constructively.
especially if organised and planned where ALL different brand versions pre agreed to release the code for the same change. to ALL allow their loyal users to have the choice

it could be done where lets say nodes get to 75% to then trigger a pool consensus.. thus giving nodes further time to add to that 75%.. by being inspired/enticed to upgrade during the pool consensus... where that 75% gets higher by the time a pool reaches a certain limit.

thus when pools get to a certain limit the pools then have the node count there to accept what pools then produce.

its about network confidence, and consent

pools wont do anything if they feel a certain amount of nodes will orphan their efforts. so just going soft was a bad idea.

note.
* DO NOT confuse a soft consensus or a hard consensus.. with a soft bilateral split or hard bilateral split.

It's locked.  It can't be changed because satoshi set the veto limit so that a minority could block change.  And there are far more rational people than the limit he set the threshold for change at. I've done my homework.  No one can hold a candle to me on the subject.  All they can do is ignore me.

MIT
cornell
duke
stanford
princeton
NYU
just to name a few universities that have bitcoins attention

not locked. but SOCIALLY halted using FALSE scare stories and FALSE reasons not to develop

There are too many rational people in the world for you to convince that John Nash was an idiot and they shouldn't read his writing.  It's all perfectly laid out, its just matter of bitcoin getting the attention to the right academic people which it hasn't yet.  It needed to be given to the public as a toy money, a trick.

And you clearly don't understand the framework of the constitution which is something you were supposed to learn by reading Szabo works on it.

Satoshi said you COULD change the blocksize, he even gave the code, and yes IMMEDIATELY after people complained and he ignored them.  It was obvious when he did it that the entropy is such that it gets more difficult over time, not less.

YOU have to convince the markets to change bitcoin, not me. It's locked in place as far as I am concerned.

Lets say for the sake of argument that I agree with you on that.

But what are bitcoin's fundamentals?  Remember, bitcoin is an open source software project, and thus is A) written by humans and B) is subject to change and evolution.  Some people have referred to an aspect of this called 'Bitcoin's social contract' which seems to be relevant here.  For example, certain things like the 21M coin amount seem to be a firm part of that social contract and are beyond questioning. 

I am simply suggesting that Bitcoin's social contract also contains an implicit assumption that transaction capacity was expected to scale in some form (whether onchain or offchain) -- at least beyond a few tx/sec.

You're of course free to disagree with that and I won't try to convince you otherwise.

For 20 years nash has been saying that an international ecurreny with a stable inflation rate that halves periodically is going to asymptotically take the power from central banks to arbitrarily print money.  This is an idea he had when he fled US in the 1950's or early 60's in order to change his usd to swiss franc (in which the navy tracked him down and took him back in chains).

There is no such problem introducing a good medium of exchange solves.  Its silly.  No one needs that.  Money isn't a technology man designed with foresight.  It arose accidentally to solve the problem of needing a stable unit.  Do you understand?  Your question imply something untrue, that we need a medium of exchange.

You are asking me to prove if a coin that is expected to grow in value over time (ie the definition of deflationary ie bitcoin) is stable in value.  I don't have to prove it logical people because its tautologically correct.

And so you agree and understand our efforts will now be redirected.  Redacted. 

And so you have those that don't understand and they are saying that the markets will never accept this.  But they don't understand that Satoshi gave leverage to the few.  Bitcoin gives the minority veto, and so I only have to convince the rational people, and they are easy to convince.

And when the world gets a hold of Nash's ideal money and the TRUE story of his life.  You will never change this thing. It's done, there is just the short time to watch it unfold as he explained.

No Austrian economist would claim a deflationary currency is stable in value its a stupid thing to say and you are wasting our time.

You are lost.  Its not a whim of what the definition of ideal money is.  everybody doesn't get to choose then we fight over whether nash is right.  Nash gave the definition in his premise, and that is normal in academics don't look at the premise and don't "why is the premise right?" Its a premise, do you know what that is?

His definition of ideal is money that is stable in value and no Austrian economist or rational thinking person will tell you deflationary currency has stable value cause that would be fucking stupid to say.