Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 41. (Read 34840 times)

No you are wrong.  it was never going to be scaled this quote Satoshi I dare.  It doesn't matter that Satoshi tricked you and you are sad.  There is no reason to scale.  No reason to scale NO REASON TO SCALE. NO REASON.

NONE.  

ITS NOT HAPPENING.  

1mb1mb1mb1mb1mb1mb

Ideal Money signals the levation of a stable metric of value.  This is the most significant technology conceived to date. We will have it soon.  It is need to optimize the markets, read hayek, he'll tell.  all this is linked to in this thread and cited. You don't tell me to answer yes or no.

Nash's argument is premised on bitcoin as a gold, with the definition of gold he uses.

I use relative because its relevant  to what is needed as a catalyst: the introduction of something relatively stable, ie better than the alternatives, but not necessarily perfectly stable.

So you just need something better than gold (if gold is otherwise the best), it doesn't have to be perfectly stable. Gold failed as a defacto peg with the bretton woods and ended at the nixon shock.  Why should i teach you history? Issac Newton pegged the british pound to gold and it was a good thing and he had cosmological revelations also.

Yes we can decree bitcoin into gold, with intelligence and rational argument.   We cannot decree it into a coffee money, it won't happen and it will kill its gold like properties.

When we talk about gold's property we are specifically referring to its fairly stable value.  The old is your admission of my truth.  

Your question is answered here: http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2014/10/transportation-divergence-and.html


The cost of transportation effects the value of the network.

Your conclusion follows your false premise

Increasing tps, even by a 2MB blocksize increase, does not violate its "gold properties".
It would not be a contract breach nor an immoral act since it was never intended to restrict tps forever.

It would require a hardfork with high consensous, yes, but don't go as far to say it would be a violation
of the "social contract". That would be incorrect.

Chill, willya? At the point I replied, you had not yet written that post, nor linked the Szabo post.

More germane, nothing in that addresses my questions.

Let's back up a notch. Is it axiomatic in your estimation that the world would benefit from the existence of Nash ideal money? Simple yes or no will do here - I can work with that as a foundation.

Why is it that Bitcoin be used to fulfill this role (or the role of a best-effort approximation of Nash ideal money)?

In an earlier reply, you stated:


If you mean 'relatively stable in value', then please use that term. Otherwise you seem to be saying that 'gold does not possess gold-like qualities', which is confusing.

Is this the 'history lesson' you are referring to to illustrate why gold failed in this role?:


It seems to me that the assertion is that gold would not again be able to fulfill this role (note that this is not the same as 'why did it fail to begin with') because (i) new technologies were invented that caused supply instabilities. There seems to be an implication that a simple decree can prevent technological advances from being applied to Bitcoin. Do I understand that correctly?

Is it your assertion that the reasons "few would propose a return to the actual use of simply the metal gold as a standard" are identical to the reason gold failed in this role to begin with?

Gold properties are gold properties.
TPS is only a measure as to how those gold properties disburse or transact as
a medium of exchange for commerce or storage. TPS can affect value, but it only
does so speculatively for future possibilities and not as an inherent property of the
currency itself. For example, would you argue that the gold properties of a gold bar was
hurt/ruined/altered when humans transferred those bars from a horse and carts compared
to when they done so years latter by boats, cars, and planes? I would say no.

But overall I see what you are saying. Your only concern throughout the whole debate is having
a new currency type that all other financial systems will peg and defer to and you believe Bitcoin
as it is in its current form is the likely cryptocurrency to do so. And that is your whole point.

I would just like to add that I disagree that tps violates the gold properties and that your argument,
which is valid on its face, is not what bitcoin started out to be. It may be what it could become or has
now become in its current form, but no matter what, all parties agree now that scaling will occur,
whether done so on-chain or off-chain. I think no scaling ever will never be agreed to nor entertained.

yup

I can't speak for OP but I woud say that any change to the concensus layer code (the "agreement") is altering bitcoin's fundamental properties and the contract that investors jointly agreed to.  Changing it without consent of 100% of presently-alive investors is breach of contract, and thus an immoral act.

In the gold sense, it would be like if we could change gold's atomic number or any other aspect defined by physics.  It is a god-like power, and the fact that no one can do it is a key component of what has made gold valuable historically.

likewise, bitcoin is very hard to change and this is what initially made it exciting to me.  thus, I find it strange that so many people are surprised by that now.

Obviously if you alter the tps (and especially if you believe it affects the value) then you mess with its gold properties. Obviously on chain this is true.  The difficult argument is to convince you and others (core) that off chain endeavor are a "fatal conceit". The world is not looking for a better medium of exchange. We need a stable metric for value.  tps doesn't attend to the latter.

Just for my own understanding, are you saying even an on-chain tps increase potentially
violates the "gold like properties" and this is where you are coming from?

thanks bear, im terrible with systems and I never realized that.  would have been helpful (ha).  thx for the sincerity.  the original topic was posted in the tech section, where it belongs.  because any dev needs to understand this.  the whole community needs to bring it to attention.

I'm still catching up with the head of the thread. However, with the most sincere good intentions...

You seem to frequently get frustrated with your fellow earthians. This is the internet. Unproductive dialogue will occur.

Further, in this particular sub, almost anything is on-topic, as long as it pertains to Bitcoin. I would not expect any moderator to leap to your request.

The thread starter (that would be you) has the ability to make a thread self-moderated. Or rather _had_, at the inception of the thread. This would have given you the power to delete posts you don't want in the thread. But as I understand it, that opportunity is now past.

Yes but we are left with no motivation to layer in pursuit of t/s. And no, their sentiments that are mistaken don't determine bitcoin's value.  They are not driving the market for bitcoin.  That poster just has no understanding of the definition and meaning of economics and its relevance as a social science.

To be clear, a bunch of irrational people not understanding money, do not determine bitcoin's value.

I do not think OPs argument is inconsistent with layered solutions.  Indeed, he explicitly states it should be used as a settlement layer, eg by banks.

You have to read my writing.  you can't just not read it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18055317

And the question of why gold failed (and to be clear the answer is in the link, by nash) is also a matter of history.  You are asking me to teach you history.  I am not your history teacher.  Its fact gold failed and both szabo and nash talk about why.

Gold isn't rare.

OK, now I am completely lost.

I thought you earlier claimed that Bitcoin _cannot_ be ideal money (I assumed you meant in a Nashian sense). I had a tacit assumption that you would eventually get around to claiming that some derivative of Bitcoin could be a Nash ideal money, and that the attributes of Bitcoin that enable the creation of this derivative are the important attributes that must be protected. Now I see I was wrong to jump ahead from your seemingly incomplete statements.

Now if 'bitcoin can be scaled as gold', and that is important in that it allows 'the rest of the world's money systems tend to stability in value', why do we need Bitcoin to fulfill this role? I mean, if anything, gold is likely to scale like gold, right? Why did gold fail in this role?

Maybe it would move the conversation if you define what it is you mean by 'scale like gold'. Note this may fall out from answering my previous inquiry.

I see this got moved from the technical discussion, and I know longer have any hope of reaching relevant people.  I refuse to debate with bitcoin enthusiasts, they don't understand economics and they don't read books.  I am only looking to speak to devs and bitcoin elite that have reach.

Your feeling don't control the market, its the other way around, the stability of money effects the rationality of the participants.  Bitcoin's fundamental control you.  You don't control them. This is the basis of economic science you are rejecting, and I don't care to educate you on them.  I am looking for those that understand.

Why does a moron franky1 get to derail what is otherwise significant and productive dialogue? I need a moderator to explain to me the reasoning behind such stupidity.  I wanna understand what moderators think this is ok.