Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 42. (Read 34840 times)

so
1.your saying bitcoin cant ever be nashes ideal money.
so why even waste 8 pages talking about nashes ideal money if it has nothing to do with bitcoin

bitcoin cant be a banana so no one talks about bitcoin being a banana

2. you keep saying bitcoin and inflation...
you really have no clue about bitcoin

but atleast we know bitcoin cant be nash's ideal money. so end of debate.

answer the question..

when did bitcoin become ideal money.

throughput should not increase in any way , shape, or form.

It is a coincidental fact that the inherent nature of mining and mining technology makes it possible for the prices of certain commodities that are produced as a result of the devotion of labor and capital to the effort of mining to increase less (or decrease more) than might be expected.  There is a “dimension paradox”: Agricultural products are produced by using the two-dimensional resource of the earth surface, so the “disappearing frontier” creates a limitation. In contrast, some mining, particularly for elemental metals, can essentially be done in three dimensions, although, of course, there are increasing costs for deep digging. So, really there is lots and lots of gold, silver, platinum, tungtsten, and so forth out there and more can be found by digging deeper.

If we then consider which commodities would be optimally suitable for providing a basis for a means of transferring utility, and if we specifically consider the possibility that the trading partners may be located in different nations and perhaps on different continents, than the suitability of such commodities with regard to the ideal function of facilitating utility transfer depends on the extent to which such a commodity seems to have a value independent of its geographical location.

Clearly, in terms of this geographical perspective, gold has historically been optimal, largely because the labor cost of moving it over great distances is so small relative to the value of what is being transported.  Thus, gold formed a very efficiently movable medium for the transportation of a value exchangeable for other values, ultimately deriving, in one way or another, from human labor (with the achievements of warriors here also being viewed as involving labor).

Nowadays, however, few would propose a return to the actual use of simply the metal gold as a standard, for the following reasons.

(i) The cost of mining gold effectively does depend on the technology. Recent cyanide leaching techniques have made it possible again to profitability mind gold at formerly abandoned sites in the U.S. so that it is now a big producer.  However, the unpredictability of the cost is a negative factor.
(ii) The location of potential gold-mining locations may not be “politically appealing.” so it would seem undesirable to make a political choice to enhance the economic importance of those particular areas.
(iii) There is some negative psychology about gold such tat even if it were the most logical choice after all, the unpopularity of the idea could be very obstructive.

However, right now platinum would be even better than gold, because it has more value per unit of weight.

ok..

if trainswrck thinks bitcoin is ideal money right now.

I almost hate to wade in at this point, but the thread is growing at a rate I fear I will never catch up with...

What is your definition of 'gold-like'?

You seem to assert that 'gold-like characteristics' are desirable for bitcoin. Without a working definition, I can neither agree nor disagree.

Your mistaken beliefs don't fuel the markets silly, what kinds economics do you think that is?

Yes it is, but its only the beginning of the dialogue.  You see we haven't yet asked the question, together, as a group, what parameters guard bitcoin's gold like characteristics.  

…this standard, as a basis for the standardization of the value of the international money unit, would remove the political roles of the “grand pardoners,”…

…intrinsically free of “inflationary decadence”..a true “gold standard”, but the proposed basis for that was not the proposal of a linkage to gold

No...Because people's belief in Bitcoin and confidence in Bitcoin are and have been underlied with the assumption that eventually the network will scale in one form or another.
 

You are being fucking ridiculous if you make changes to bitcoins VALUE you break it as something that has FAIRLY STABLE VALUE.

OK, possibly better.  Everyone proposing a block size increase (by their favorite pet method) must be believing it will increase the value of Bitcoin, more specifically possibly their personal Bitcoin holdings.  Otherwise why would they propose such a change?

So there are a lot of people who believe that increasing t/s will increase the value of Bitcoin.

With all due respect, that is ridiculous.  Please provide a rationale for this assertion if you expect me to take it seriously.



Increasing the number of transactions per second allows greater widespread use, thus making it
more valuable.

Then there is no other reason to do so.  If it doesn't increase the value.

Increasing the number of transactions per second allows greater widespread use, thus making it
more valuable.  By contrast, limiting its widespread use compromises and hampers this property
and thus its overall utility and value.

Both small block advocates and big block advocates agree we all want to somehow increase
the number of transactions that bitcoin can handle.  But we want to do it in different ways.

Ok, but are there any proposed changes that we are currently aware of that either
Core or BU and others are entertaining that hurts the gold like properties, and which is
the reason for this thread?

I am not conflating anything.  If you fuck with the tp/s you will break bitcoin.

He is saying that when considering what to change they are not considering the proposed changes from the correct frame of reference.  They are not even considering if the change will enhance or damage the "gold like" property of Bitcoin.  His belief/point/argument is that all changes should be considered within this framework:  will this change enhance or damage (or be neutral) to the "gold like" property of Bitcoin.