Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 45. (Read 34840 times)

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

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?

Haha too good. And you are not even close to achieve anything. So what does it teach to you know?

You read. I already know.

I clearly know more about this subject than you. And so does nash:


I'd like the general community to take note of this posters' reaction in the face truth, and a well founded argument.  

They are not a scientist, and they don't see the validity in source documents.  I have read Szabo, Hayek, Nash, and Smith.  You have not read anything.

The person you are quoting is not saying anything that is wrong. You are starting from a conclusion that our point is irrelevant and insignificant and its not either of those things. It's based on founded science and an extensive argument by John Nash which he perfected for ~60 years.  You are simply ignorant to it, and ignoring.  But that doesn't make it wrong or go away.

Go an learn about extensive and intensive units first.

Economics: there is just no useful  metric because all known underlyings are not stable.

You cannot really divide live from body, things are complex.

What is a stable unit of value to be called?  A watt, Celsius, Fahrenheit, Newton?

This ABSOLUTELY belongs in the tech/developers' discussion.

Yes exactly and this is a problem, and Bohm formalized the protocol to alleviate the problem:

Yes.  Core's mandate if moved to 'securing bitcoin's gold like qualities' attends to BOTH the problems of technical security and gold likeness.

They are ALL relevant vectors of attack that must be considered in ALL technical "improvements".  Ignorance on this subject is therefore a security leak.

Yes I can speak to Chinese.  Bruce Lee was one of my instructors.  Listen its not a protocol proposal on that level.  It's a higher level proposal.  Bohm Einsteins protege: http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Chaos-Complexity/dialogue.pdf

Bohm and Lee had the same instructor: https://steemit.com/philosophy/@jokerpravis/jiddu-krishnamurti-the-philosophical-inspiration-behind-bruce-lee-s-martial-art-jeet-kune-do

Bohmian Dialogue will bring about this change.  It is the next evolution of technology.  It is our next major technological advance: https://steemit.com/psychology/@jokerpravis/bohmian-dialogue-and-group-therapy

As is Ideal Money, the levation of a stable unit value. What shall we call it?

Although important, none of those are related to archetypal fidelity. They are technology factors.

You can't compromise authenticity for those because authenticity is something that's not replaceable once lost. Technology factors are.

I can't speak for OP, but that is basically what I am saying, and have been saying for a while now.

I think there is a mostly silent 3rd side to this entire scaling debate that simply is happy with status quo, or at least does not wish to rock the boat and risk altering the fundamentals.

The beauty of the design of bitcoin is that anything controversial has little chance of getting adopted.  So we are likely to get our way, without any need to shout or make a fuss about it, like the other two camps.

I think the core-devs could best focus their efforts into creating a bitcoin upgrade that is truly fungible and scalable.  This could mean that it has lightning or something similar built in.  It could also mean adopting tech from monero.  Or any of the other great ideas in proposed in the space in the last 5 years, eg bitcoin-ng.  Hopefully a more distributed way to mine could be found also, eg built in p2pool.   A lot of things can be fixed and improved with the experience and hindsight we now have.  Then, when this new thing has been developed and well-tested, release it with a new genesis block.  I think a lot of people would move to it, but not a single person would be forced to.

edit: and yes, there should be room for devs to discuss and possibly implement some of OP's ideas also in this upgrade.  Though I am presently unclear on what concrete parameter or other changes OP would propose.

Don t forget the security from PoW, network effects and the velocity, last one is related to the 1MB limit.

Here we are again. You do not talk in Chinese, that would be near to ideal. Fully ideal in terms of what you try to achieve would be to talk in hashpower, means , try running 51% of the miners and you are heared.

I wish you all the best.

I didn't say scarceity is what makes Bitcoin valuable, I said "authenticity" did.

Scarecity doesn't make anything valuable. Lots of things are scarce.

You can produce an altcoin tomorrow that's "scarce". It will go to zero if that's the only monetary property it has.

Exactly. Not stupid.

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 the debate DEVELOPERS need to have. But the devs, are asking a different question, they are asking how can we safely scale bitcoin as a currency.  It's a bad question.  BAD.

I miss the Shelby parody accounts.  Where is Annoymint when we need him the most?  

Not seeing how your analogy is apt whatsoever, sorry.
Blocksize and bitcoin scarcity are two completely different things.    

Even before BU, I had the same idea that blocksize should be removed from the consensus rules.