Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 44. (Read 34840 times)

Please explain what you mean by "scale it as gold".    

I also do not understand what you mean by "perfect stability in value".  The price of gold fluctuates as do all commodities.

What Nash was possibly envisioning was a World Government owned and controlled electronic
gold like fiat. So it would act like a gold, yet be transactable freely, guaranteed, and backed  by
the world government.

Many think my attitude is terrible

You missed it.  Bitcoin can be scaled as a gold, but not an ideal money.  But if we scale it as gold, then the rest of the world's money systems well tend towards perfect stability in value.  This is a VERY good thing.

So the discussion from BOTH sides (all sides) needs to be how to do THAT.  And this changes the argument.  Everyone wants a stable metric of value.  No one will argue versus having that.  Big and small blockers alike.

Do you see now, where the division lies?  It's in the tacit assumption that we need to scale bitcoin to be ideal money.  both sides are guilty of this assumption.  nash's argument lifts this divide.

...
My argument is our goal is a stable unit of value.  The market need this for their long term pricing mechanism. A great medium of exchange doesn't necessarily solve this.  And making it "greater" doesn't solve this more.

But Nash argues, if you have a gold like commodity (but not gold for reasons he explains) then our CURRENT financial system will natural asymptotically slide towards a ceiling of perfect stability in value.

So I am arguing its critical and urgent we understand we need to guard bitcoins gold like properties, by nash's definition, so what he describes, can unfold.
...

Also what I am hearing from you regarding the scaling debate is "do nothing" don't change it leave it alone.  Bitcoin will provide what we need to get the rest of the system to give us what we want as it is.

Correct?

I appreciate your good attitude.

You make a lot of different points, none of which here I disagree with.

I think most Bitcoiners agree we all want sound money, ideal money, whatever you want to call it.

The main thing we as a group disagree on is how to scale the network.

And for the record, I'm quite sure that most people who've formed a strong opinion will not be easily persuaded to change their mind, no matter how good the arguments are (on either side).  That is why you never discuss religion or politics at a dinner party -- because we tend to become very attached to our own point of views. 

I express the opinions I do because A) it is intellectually stimulating and B) perhaps there is a chance I will influence someone important or contribute in a small way to the betterment of the community.

This is what I have been saying over and over day after day for 4 years.  Nash's proposal ends the conflict.  All we have to do, is inspire core to talk to the community about it-in dialogue.

1) Make this your central arguement  because almost everyone here will agree with the proposed outcome.

Cheers.  Now.  In order to bring it to light, we have to move together in relationship through dialogue. In other words if i make a post, its not enough, cause I can't tailor it to everyone's specific knowledge at once.  So there needs to be back and forth.  But if its from a stance of trying to win, we will cheat and just be clever arguers that are locked in perpetual conflict.  Your post shows you are willing to move beyond perpetual conflict, and so we might.

My argument is our goal is a stable unit of value.  The market need this for their long term pricing mechanism. A great medium of exchange doesn't necessarily solve this.  And making it "greater" doesn't solve this more.

But Nash argues, if you have a gold like commodity (but not gold for reasons he explains) then our CURRENT financial system will natural asymptotically slide towards a ceiling of perfect stability in value.

So I am arguing its critical and urgent we understand we need to guard bitcoins gold like properties, by nash's definition, so what he describes, can unfold.

Now I compressed that, and you might have questions on things I didn't expand on...and I will have answers.  And its definitely helpful for others to participate on any side of the understanding because I don't have the technical language. But please don't think of me as technical illiterate.

if you have a gold like commodity (but not gold for reasons he explains) then our CURRENT financial system will natural asymptotically slide towards a ceiling of perfect stability in value.

Sorry, TLDR.  But, the topic is somewhat interesting to me.

For me, Bitcoin is a cool new thing that I can make money on by speculating.  I've made by initial bets.  My problem is timing my withdrawals.  I've made enough already that I will let some remainder ride it into the future no matter which way it goes; moon or bust.

Ideal money?  Who cares?  Who ever said anything about "ideal" for Bitcoin?  Tell 'em to stop it.  Bitcoin just needs to be fun/cool/new.  If it ever approaches the possibility of becoming the global reserve currency then I suppose we can talk about it then.

Protocol for helping settle debates?  Who cares?  Debates are fun to watch.  I try to contribute my perspective but it will go which way it does anyway.  I think the SegWit guys got good stuff *but* bad public relations; they might fail to gain consensus.  I think the BU guys' approach has some sense to it but won't reach consensus either.  If both sides would admit they can't win separately but have a chance together then maybe consensus can be gained while improving public relations.  Otherwise the two sides ought to step away and make their own separate things.

I believe I have listened to the reasoning of those who think differently than me,
and I will admit that some of the arguments from the opposite camp are plausible even if I firmly disagree with them.
  
Look, I'm a pretty bright guy and I've been around here a while... but if you think there's some aspect of this
or some fact or argument I'm not aware of, feel free to bring it to light.

…we may become irrational in thinking about it and fail to be able to reason about it as if about a technology, such as radio…

…money itself is a sort of “utility”, using the word in another sense, comparable to supplies of water, electric energy or telecommunications. And then, if we think about it, we can consider the quality of money as comparable to the quality of some “public utility” like the supply of electric energy or of water.

ok. so know you know what the conclusion of the argument is.  you understand the context. Are you sincere?  Will you listen to the reasoning, but WITHOUT arguing versus it?  Will you seek to seek it from OUR view.  Or will you stand as a skeptic and not suspend your judgements UNTIL WE feel you understand us?

Yeah, I m human, sorry Im a fool.

But you need help.

    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”.

   The label “Keynesian” is convenient, but to be safe we should have a defined meaning for this as a party that can be criticized and contrasted with other parties.

    So let us define “Keynesian” to be descriptive of a “school of thought” that originated at the time of the devaluations of the pound and the dollar in the early 30’s of the 20th century. Then, more specifically, a “Keynesian” would favor the existence of a “manipulative” state establishment of central bank and treasury which would continuously seek to achieve “economics welfare” objectives with comparatively little regard for the long term reputation of the national currency…

There can be Keynesians Neo-Keynesians New-Keynesians Post-Keynesians. Even the Post-Keynesians are still Keynesians~Ideal Money

Scientists also get into the same situation. Each one may hold to a different view of the truth, so they can’t get together. Or they may have different self-interests. A scientist who is working for a company that produces pollution may have a certain self-interest in proving that the pollution is not dangerous. and somebody else might have self-interest in proving that it is dangerous. And perhaps then somewhere there is an unbiased scientist who tries to judge it all. Science is supposed to be dedicated to truth and fact, and religion is supposed to be dedicated to another kind of truth and to love. But people’s self-interest and assumptions take over.

An essential feature of the dialogue group is that it is able to reveal assumptions. These assumptions are actually making us ill. And in that sense, it is therapy to reveal them. The content here, then, is more in that direction and eventually moving toward being free of those assumptions, and exploring something new beyond the assumptions.

I’m saying that it is necessary to share meaning.

So we’ve said that it is crucial to be able to share our judgement, to share our assumptions and listen to each other’s assumption.

Therefore, this is crucial both individually and collectively; and dialogue is the collective way of opening up judgements and assumptions.

The collective dimension of the human being, where we have a considerable number of people, has a qualitatively new feature: it has great power-potentially, or even actually. And in dialogue we discuss how to bring that to some sort of coherence and order. The question is really: do you see the necessity of this process? That’s the key question. If you see that it is absolutely necessary, then you have to do something.

And perhaps in dialogue, when we have this very high energy of coherence, it might bring us beyond just being a group that could solve social problems. Possibly it could make a new change in the individual and a change in the relation to the cosmic. Such an energy has been called ‘communication’. It is a kind of participation. The early Christians had a Greek word koinonia, the root of which means ‘to participate’-the idea of partaking of the whole and taking part in it; not merely the whole group, but the whole.

This, then, is more or less an outline of what I mean by ‘dialogue’.

You are making a fool out of yourself, in a thread in which the educated people are started to realize that I am speaking intelligibly.  I am not unintelligible because YOU can't understand us. Theymos, I am calling this person an idiot. DUCY?

Well, I can agree with that, but certainly not your opinion that changing the blocksize will be bad, as I believe the opposite.