Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 48. (Read 34840 times)

Sure, now that this isn't in the technical forum anymore I shall unsubscribe because I have no interest in these topics.

We finally have someone that is willing to discuss the macro-economic implications of bitcoin.  Can everyone else (except theymos) stfu and just let dialogue open?

You conclusion should be, we cannot approach "type 1" stability, if we destroy bitcoin's properties as a type 2 (ie gold) therefore it is core's mandate to guard bitcoin's type 2 properties as a digital gold.

And if they try to make bitcoin type 1 then it immediately, even by intention, destorys bitcoin's properties as a type 2 (gold)

anyone that knows anything about keynes/hayek or szabo/nash KNOWS you cannot centrally plan or design a type 1 money in and of itself (any more than you can stir muddy water clean).

"Ideal Money the Motivations of Savings and Thrift"

Conclusion
So bitcoin is currently ideal "type 2" store of value money. It is definitely not ideal "type 1" price denomination "currency". Whether it becomes ideal type 1 price denomination currency isn't in the hands of the bitcoin devs, it's in the hands of credit markets and governments.

…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.

…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…

We of Terra could be taught how to have ideal monetary systems if wise and benevolent extraterrestrials were to take us in hand and administer our national money systems analogously to how the British recently administered the currency of Hong Kong.

...if, for example, all of the countries of the world would base the value for their national currencies on the value of the British currency then this situation would appear singular and unstable, while it was not so singular for a lot of countries to base their currency value on gold.

The historical fact seems to be that the gold standard, was, in its time, a basis that favored the prosperity of the United Kingdom and of other states, like the United States and Switzerland, that adopted the concept of the standard.

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

But a modern alternative is possible, one that would provide a good standard independent of state pardoners.  This idea occurred to me fairly recently.

...if two states evolve towards having currencies or more stable value as measured locally by national CPI indices that then also these distinct currencies would tend to evolve towards more stable comparative relations of value.

Then the limiting or “asymptotic” result of such an evolutionary trend would be in effect “ideal money” but this as a result achieved without the adoption of anything like an ICPI index as a basis for the standard of value.

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

…a global money standard could have a value similar to that of standard measures such as those of the metric system.

…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,”…

There is tremendous value in simply having prices quoted conveniently.

So it occurs to me to think that that which is not achieved by a grand action of establishment by “fiat” may alternatively tend to come into existence as a consequence of a process of evolution. And of course, after a certain degree of progress by “evolution” the rest of the progress could possibly be realized by a convention or a process of “fiat”.

The constitutional structure of the authority behind the euro is of the “paper money” character in that nothing is really guaranteed as far as the value of the euro is concerned. But this is typical of all currencies used in the world nowadays.

I think of the possibility that a good sort of international currency might EVOLVE before the time when an official establishment might occur.

…the possible area for evolution is that if, say, an inflation rate of between 1% and 3% is now considered desirable and appropriate in Sweden, then, if it is really controllable, why shouldn’t a rate between 1/2 % and 3/2 % be even more desirable?

M. Friedman acquired fame through teaching the linkage between the supply of money and, effectively, its value. In retrospect it seems as if elementary, but Friedman was as if a teacher who re-taught to American economists the classical concept of the “law of supply and demand”, this in connection with money.

…my personal view is that a practical global money might most favorably evolve through the development first of a few regional currencies of truly good quality. And then the “integration” or “coordination” of those into a global currency would become just a technical problem. (Here I am thinking of a politically neutral form of a technological utility rather than of a money which might, for example, be used to exert pressures in a conflict situation comparable to “the cold war”.)

Starting with the idea of value stabilization in relation to a domestic price index associated with the territory of one state, beyond that there is the natural and logical concept of internationally based comparisons.

The currencies being compared, like now the euro, the dollar, the yen, the pound, the swiss franc, the swedish kronor, etc. can be viewed with critical eyes by their users and by those who maybe have the option of whether or not or how to use one of them. This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened rate of inflationary deprecation in value.

…after consulting with some of the economics faculty at Princeton, I learned of the work and publications of Friedrich Von Hayek.  I must say that my thinking i apparently quite parallel to his thinking with regard to money and particularly with regard to the non-typical viewpoint regarding the functions of the authorities that in recent times have been the sources of currencies.

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”.

…we can’t really logically assume that human civilization has found the ultimate ideal of forms of social government in the times of the twentieth century. (One can imagine a future form of government where a highly advanced automaton (or array of computers) would function like the office of a City Manager with the human input to the government passing through the analogue of a City Council.)

Here's the first.  Why wouldn't you explain.  I think I know why you wouldn't explain.

Here is the thing. Ideal Money is money that has stable value over LONG periods of time.  

A deflationary currency does not have that quality.

You win, mentaltrainwreck. We're all stupid and you're the only one in the whole world who has it all figured out. Bye.

On Perpetuating Dualities

It can be, and often is, that we are generally caught in the trap, habit, and pattern of framing our understanding, observations, and arguments such that we are simply and only perpetuating a duality that needn’t otherwise “exist”.

Such a perpetual duality might be the gun control debate, abortion, the role or place of religion in education or politics, immigration policy, left versus right, conservative versus liberal, climate change debate, or capitalism versus socialism.

But we might rather take the stance that such dualities are a signal that we cannot over come these problems without a necessary evolution, especially, and basically in the form of technology (ie debate cannot solve them).

As an example consider a debate about whether or not an immigrant arriving to a “free country” wants to take their oath WITH their, face covering religious, clothing on (“After all,” they argue, “it IS a free country in regard to religious beliefs).

Some argue, that you cannot properly ID the person, that this would be an issue if you cannot see their face, and therefore they should have to hold up to OUR standards and take their covering off.

The interesting point, being that this was argued in Canada, and the immigrant won, which suggests it is Canada’s standard to uphold such a freedom of religious expression, and to force them to take off their covering for their oath is actually NON-Canadian.

What is important to note, is that the Muslim (to be blunt), or the immigrant, seemed to understand the laws and constitutional framework of Canada better than many Canadians, and the supreme court agrees with that statement.

Now if we introduce the technology of a retina scanner, then the anti-freedom anti-religious argument has no legs and is seen to be UNNECESSARILY arguing a moot point.

To understand this, is to understand that to debate for ANY side of such a duality is simply to participate in the religious belief of unnecessarily perpetuating conflict.

Probably not. By going through your post history here and on reddit I can see you are the second smartest man to have ever lived - close second to Nash. I suggest you start working on your proposal and come back when you have some actual code to show, because you are definitely the man for it.

Is there any forum or place for dialogue where the participants might be able to hold a candle to me in regard to the macro-economic implications of bitcoin?  I'm done with this petty bullshit.

I'll get more specific but gimme a bit to think and write. But to those who say I don't explain.  You don't know I have a history in the community of writing 100's of article citing and expounding on every aspect of his works.  I was as meticulous and articulate as I am capable of, and its very easy to use google to search for it.

So what's happening is I did my homework ya'll haven't done yours. 

You have no chance. Believers of the Keynesian church will always believe what their preachers (economists) tell them to believe.

False.

    The metric system does not work because french chefs de cuisine are constantly cooking up new and delicious culinary creations which the rest of the world then follows imitatively. Rather, it works because it is something invented on a scientific basis…

    Our view is that if it is viewed scientifically and rationally (which is psychologically difficult!) that money should have the function of a standard of measurement and thus that it should become comparable to the watt or the hour or a degree of temperature.

    …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”…

Each of is living our lives to our best ability, in regard to the hands we are dealt, and with a mix of intent to satisfy our own wants, desires, and passions, and with some level of inclination in regard to helping our family, friends, fellow man, perhaps animals, the ecosystem and/or the cosmos (ie everything in it).

We have a goal in mind, what ever that may be, and whenever it might be achieved, and we work on whatever means we deem appropriate that we somehow justify as leading to that goal.

This basically describes each of us, as the human condition, whether it was ultimately part of our ancient biological nature or whether it evolved into us as society itself evolved.

The popular misconception is that we might abandon, completely, the selfish pursuit for one’s desires and suggest that each individual should simply concentrate on serving each other, and that such actions will suffice for a society that provides far greater pleasures and alleviates for more suffering than the selfish pursuit.

The reason this is a misconception is something I will not go into here.

Regardless for those who either understand and agree or those that fully cannot (altruists), I think I can re-solve both views and any that fall in the range between.

First we must understand about the nature of money, society, and institutions, and how and why they arise. Society, that is a large collective of individuals, growing ever more complex, eventually comes to a point where the biological human being cannot be expected to perform nor understand all of the tasks required to sustain and/or grow a population.

Complex problems arise, and with them complex solutions. These solutions can be understood as technology, and especially in that it takes many individuals to build them (and so there is a certain time involved and implied).

Institutions are these solutions, often thought of as buildings, but are really just customs or complex sets of rules, and they exist not because of some history of secret societies that rule over the common man, but rather to act as sort of meta-vehicles that render complex problems into simple games, that can be approached and solved from the meta perspective.

Money too, arises (naturally!) as a technological solution to our complex social problem (we ALL share this problem right?), and so there is a special psychological problem that arises because of the nature of the problem and solution money attends to.

Money exists to solve a problem that the individual isn’t supposed to or can’t fully understand, and yet because of the nature of the solution, each of us knows and understands the “value” of money or in other words what money is for.

So a duality arises where on the one hand we have a increased and often irrationally/emotionally motivated want for money, and on the other hand we don’t really understand what money truly is or what it is for.

The problem then is exacerbated, if the money used by the people is subject to the whims of political will, whether it be of some real or fictitious elite rulers that control the quality and/or supply of a currency used by the citizens, or whether it is the citizens themselves that might exert their own political influence on the nature of the money used to serve the society.

Ultimately, and this is my conjecture, but it is also my plea, and in regard to the introduction to this paper (the individual seeking to serve their selfish wants but also possibly to alleviate world suffering), what we truly should want, is to levate an unbreakable standard between the largest institutions (nations/central banks/large currencies) in order to solve the largest (and most significant) meta-problem possible on our planet.

That problem is the Triffin Dilemma.

The bitcoin community has been fighting over trying to keep bitcoin a coffee money for the people, trying to keep bitcoin out of the hands of the big players, governments and banks. This crusade is petty, short sighted, and value-less to the individual and the society (not to mention scientifically unfounded).

Ideal Money, which is the levation of such a standard I allude to, that is for none other than the highest meta players of our global financial system, is that which will bring order to our global economy, and what that means to the individual is the attainment of each of our individual goals.

Ideal Money means, the attainment of each of the individuals selfish wants, and each of us can help each other (and our “selves”) achieve such ends by the levation of it, which happens through dialogue on the subject of “How do we bring Ideal Money about?”…which we must remember, from the very beginning of the dialogue, is a QUESTION, not a conclusion to be argued about.

True, but Bitcoin wasn't designed to have a stable value. It was designed to be deflationary and you won't be able to change that. Go and start your own coin, but don't be surprised if nobody uses it.