Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 50. (Read 34840 times)

There is no single group of economists with a single _opinion_. Economics is a social science, most of the predictions are not falsifiable. A lot of economists drive the agenda of their masters. A good example for successfully using economics as a weapon is Ken Rogoff. A very good example of a failing economic model can be currently seen in india.

timeo oeconomicus et dona ferentes

I know but the smartest man that ever existed spent 20 years explaining what will be the effects of an international e currency with a stable supply in relation to our legacy financial system and instead of reading it you typed a bunch of words.

That's why theymos is sort of reprimanding my attitude but I think you are the definition of ignorant.

ig·no·rant
ˈiɡnərənt/
adjective
adjective: ignorant

    lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

While I can empathise with you on what I myself have found to be (what I guess I might call) premature pre-emptive defensive attitudes of many otherwise knowledgeable technical people - you should also realise when someone is trying to sincerely help you out. You're pointed in the right direction but insist that you're unfamiliar and unconvinced - then where do we go from there?

In any case, implying that only one dev is sincere and rational by the title of the thread isn't a show of sincerity in itself. I think most technically knowledgeable people (including non devs) in crypto are sincere and rational, if not always friendly and open to what they deem is unacceptable ignorance on the part of the majority.

That means you've read less than 10% of the material. Listen.  You are wrong and I am right, and I have read the material.

Theymos, what kind of a world do we live in if I have to explain what Nash's already explained? Why won't anyone read it?  I mean I know but, I'm pretty sure he did a perfect job of explaining.  What is the culture of refusing to read the source documents?

I never suggested as much.


I've read the Nash lecture and I don't see it.


I guess I ain't gots 'nuff brains!

There was a fellow named Etlase2 who used to post here about money as measurement and tying a token's value to a basket of global commodities, et cetera. He, too, had it all figured out and I think he even tried to create his own thing. Maybe you can find a way to contact him. He used lots of big words and was always right! You two will get along great...

Theymos, is there anyone smarter I can reach out to?  Adam Back realized it was intelligible near instantly as I understand. If core moves bitcoin's direction without attending to this, they will break the project.

This is where I get in trouble from theymos.  But I'm just being accurate. 

You are wrong.  Firstly bitcoin CANNOT be Ideal Money.  Secondly the relevant of bitcoin and john nash's lecture is such that bitcoin fits PERFECTLY as the premise which is an international e-currency with a stably issued supply that has an inflation rate that halves periodically.

You are confused, and I am not confused. Please re read my post to theymos. 

1)I was very explicit in my post to theymos when I said bitcoin CANNOT be ideal money.
2)It can't be. It's deflationary.

What you are suggesting, if it can even be accomplished, is something so drastically different from Bitcoin that it would have to be created from the ground up. I honestly think your efforts would be best directed towards that end. Trying to modify Bitcoin in an attempt to achieve what you are suggesting seems to me like destroying a functional system which already has a viable purpose, in the hopes of achieving the impossible. There is simply no reason to start from Bitcoin when you can start from scratch.

1) Why do you believe the goal of Bitcoin is to become ideal money?
2) Do you know people who got involved in Bitcoin because it was going to be stable in value?

Thank you theymos.  I think I just don't have a proper forum and the proper people to address. Honestly I'd rather just give the link to the lecture and walk away forever, but at this point I realize its not going to work.

I need you know this...

Bitcoin cannot be ideal money.  Economists know this because money stable in value needs to be able to expand and contract with its underlying economy.  

This means that its an irrational pursuit from both sides of the debate.  

This is happening because both sides are functioning on the tacit assumption that a good medium of exchange solves an important problem.  It doesn't.

The REAL problem we need to solve is creating a stable unit of value for the markets so they can optimally distribute our commodities.

Money can help play this role, but this creates pressure, and the pressure has always historically corrupted the metric.

Core's mandate needs to be (if it is possible) to use bitcoin to facilitate the creation of a stable unit of value.  This is wholly different than trying to idealize bitcoin as a currency.  In fact the latter will destroy the possibility of the former.

Core's misunderstanding of this is what is perpetuating the debate, not Ver ignorance.  It's both sides. And that's why the debate is unending.

I propose a protocol by David Bohm, Einstein's protege, called On Dialogue.  It's specific quality is that it lift's tacit assumptions.

This is related to why Adam Back said Trace Mayer would be interested (and he knows who Bohm is and that Bohm is relevant) and that Roger Ver would probably be receptive to this.

I don't use Slack, and I don't know anything about what happened in this case. But although I've seen you bring up good points before, I've also seen you communicate non-constructively on many occasions. Oftentimes, if someone is disagreeing with you, you will start berating them with non-arguments. You also tend to monopolize the discussion, posting far more than anyone else. If you want people to take you seriously (and not ban you from places), then you need to stop this.

Instead of constantly ranting about how we're all fools for not understanding Ideal Money, I suggest that you write a single complete post on how Nash's ideas relate to Bitcoin. In this post:

- Don't actually say Nash's name more than once. You tend to assume that everything Nash says is automatically correct, but the rest of us aren't super familiar with him, and certainly don't view him as omniscient. Your constant appeals to Nash's authority just weaken your arguments.
- Don't tell people to go read Ideal Money. Nobody's going to do that, even if it's a fairly short paper. Summarize the points from Ideal Money that you think are important here. Don't assume that things are correct just because they're in Ideal Money; instead, using the same arguments as Nash (or your own), convince us that they're correct.
- Make logical arguments which advance your case.

I've read many of your posts, but I only have a vague idea of what your underlying points are because you hardly ever give any details. You just keep referencing Nash and Ideal Money constantly, and telling people that they're obviously wrong because they contradict Ideal Money. This is not an effective way of communicating.

I reject your notions.  Core should be rational scientists and there should be no reason to "build an alternative".

I read it, I just an unfamiliar with it, and am not convinced it's an appropriate place for me to be since i'm not a dev.

@traincarswreck
Many key people in the Core dev team are probably ignorant of what you are saying and/or in a position of conflict of interest (so their mind will deny everything that can go against their salary), but ... if you give a full proof about their ignorance, then Core will become a magic pure entity, full open source, completely transparent, where everyone is free to contribute ...

Traincarswreck, do not waste your time on complaining.
When things don't work as you think that they should do, help to build an alternative

Did you not read what I wrote? You can go to the IRC channel and talk there. You can also go to the #bitcoin-dev channel and talk there generally to anyone working on anything related to Bitcoin, not just Core. You can also post on the bitcoin-dev mailing list. There are many places to discuss economic implications of technical details. However you may not get any response as most of the people who work on Core (or any Bitcoin software) are software developers, not economists.

So there is no place to explain to the people that are working on the direction of bitcoin, that they are wholly ignoring the macro-economic implications of it?

The Bitcoin Core developers don't use slack because it is not conducive to open source development work. They use #bitcoin-core-dev on Freenode IRC to communicate.

There is no roadmap like "We are going to force these things to happen to Bitcoin because we think that is how it should be". For that matter, there is no unified "This is what Bitcoin should be". Even the concept of "Bitcoin Core Developer" is extremely nebulous; anyone who has contributed to the project could be considered a "Core dev".

Ah, where is the slack channel dedicated to core?  And why is core trying to make bitcoin ideal money when its obviously impossible?