Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 40. (Read 34840 times)

Simple 'yes' almost lost in superfluous verbosity duly noted. I think I may be on the verge of understanding your argument, though.


Yet you say that gold no longer has the gold like properties you seek. Stop saying 'gold' when you really mean 'as stable in value as humanity can muster'.


(apologies for the edit - if nothing else, it can serve to inform you of how I am reading your statement)

I can see that a Nash ideal money is a very important thing. If we had something that acted like Nash ideal money, I agree that it would be an important advance for humanity. I am skeptical of your seeming insistence that Bitcoin be the thing that fulfills this role. Indeed, it has several strikes against it already:
1) Its value has been increasing at an astonishing rate over its short history
2) Almost every stakeholder already wants to increase its utility, and thereby consequently its value

A) I don't think it can be decreed to make the value of Bitcoin stable
B) I think it likely inevitable that it will eventually serve as coffee money.

To clarify A) - the paltry fraction of humanity that is current stakeholders of Bitcoin have a natural incentive to increase the price of Bitcoin. Call it a tragedy of the commons if you wish, but human nature will conspire mightily against any attempt to freeze the value of Bitcoin as a whole. No matter how great a tool Nash ideal money would be for humanity as a whole.

I can see that increasing the tps will add value to Bitcoin. I can see that this impacts negatively on Bitcoin's ability to serve as Nash ideal money. But it already fails spectacularly at value stability. I think you need to look elsewhere for a candidate for Nash ideal money.

No facts are things you can observe or have observed, they are not your feelings about the future you dumb mutt.

No.  Satoshi designed the fact that you are observing today.  and it gets harder to change not easier, thats why everyone was pissed the MOMENT he did it. Thats why he never talked about it after and that why he doesn't exist.

Satoshi is a lie, and a complex you subscribe to.  Your new religion: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@jokerpravis/the-satoshi-complex-the-greatest-trick-in-the-history-of-humanity

Your definition of "fact" is very different from mine.  That's a polite way of saying you use the word absolutely incorrectly.

Time will tell who is right.  Given that bitcoin was designed to be resistant to change, and the community has gotten quite large with many diverging interests, I suspect it will be I, not you.  

Yes, but that only holds true in 2017.
It is only a digital gold now because of technological restrictions, not due to design.

A blocksize increase will occur one day in the future, that is a fact.
To prevent that from happening is almost impossible.

trainscarwreck
weeks ago you were stating bitcoin was ideal money and Nash was satoshi.. now your saying bitcoin is not and cant be ideal money

if bitcoin never has been and never can be ideal money.
why should we suddenly stop developing bitcoin and do as you say and do nothing more to bitcoin to grow bitcoin.

if it never is was will be nashes ideal money. then it doesnt matter..

just accept that bitcoin is not Nashes ideal money.. but also accept that bitcoin can be something else. something new

beyond the scope of your king nash

Accept what?
You do understand that in a moments notice, we may have to make emergency changes, right?
Your argument ignores the realities in which we live. You assume there will be no trouble ahead.

Sounds like a bad investor with his head in the sand. You better sell bags buddy.

Seems to me that anyone that wishes to change any of bitcoin's core properties including blocksize limit can go to hell.  ie, aint gonna happen.

have fun moaning and bitching about it though...

Ideal money is a foil for the argument, like "perfect circle" in a mathematical proof.  There is no such thing.  

His assertion is Bitcoin cannot will not ever be or approximate ideal money


Bitcoin = stable value upon which to base an ideal money
Ideal Money = not stable value by definition, value has to change to match the economy

Yes and so be it.  The pressure to scale is off.  Bitcoin won't be a world coffee money.  It's a digital gold, a settlement system that is a finger trap for our central banks and nations.

Nash wins.

The markets are rational.  They won't scale bitcoin because that is irrational. And they know, because I have propagated the rational argument.

What did Satoshi lie to me about? I have no problem with what he did at the time.

Satoshi was correct to do it at the time and if we can not get consensus to change it, so be it.

To adapt a popular meme:  honey badger don't care about your reasons.

In other words, bitcoin is what it is.  too much inertia to change now.   I suggest you accept that and move on...

The vast majority of investors can go to hell.
No one cares about what they say, unless they run a node.

Contract law does not apply to this argument, especially within unregulated decentralized systems.

Ya and people immediately protested because it was obviously going to be impossible to remove and he ignored them.  He said here's the code, all you have to do is all agree.

And we can't agree.

Satoshi lied to you, and you are sad because of it.

Satoshi placed the 1MB cap not as a economic parametr, but to prevent a spam attack vector in its early life.

Thats just your opinion.  My argument is scientifically founded.  Your's is just an expression of your ignorance on the subject, and all you have to back it up is a lot of other ignorant people. it's not, macro economics doesn't work like that. 

this is one argument and the real argument is that if i bring the rational path to the table, that was the path all along that the market knew of, because the markets god and all knowing.  Thats the real economic truth.  The rest is whining, from whiners that haven't read any books.

So your belief is, that Bitcoin should be artificially restricted to its current form for eternity,
otherwise it will lose value as tps increases. You think mass adoption whether by the masses or by
the world financial systems can only occur (if it ever does) by keeping tps extremely low. Increasing
tps, whether by on chain or off chain actually prevents adoption.

intended or not, the vast majority of investors agreed to a blocksize limit, because that is what the code (contract) says.   It is a generally accepted principle that failure to read and understand a contract is no excuse.   And anyway, this issue was known about and publically discussed as far back as 2010.  I certainly became aware of it within a month of getting involved with btc, back in 2013 and have made decisions based on this knowledge.

now one can make an interesting point that for a very few individuals (Roger Ver may be one of these I'm not sure) that invested before the blocksize cap was put in place, there has already been a breach of contract, when satoshi added it.  That is unfortunate indeed, and I would argue that it highlights the moral hazard of changing consensus code.