And the big block crowd (r/btc) often cries that core is "central-planning" and that 1mb is the ultimate centrally-planned parameter and that it is an artificial limit.
Of course artificial limit has no meaning because all the parameters are artificial in the same way the 1mb limit is like the 21 million cap.
More importantly, as I understand its more so Szabo who spoke of decentralization and central-planning which is basically part of Hayek's teaching that centrally-planned institutions and markets fail. But Hayek never said anything that could be construed as something that could point to Core and the 1mb limit to be central-planning.
Central-planning of the Hayekian definition is akin to trying to stir water clean. Some sort of continual involvement that claims to be beneficial but can only do harm. There are SOME systems that fail to this problem because they run optimally without such continuous intervention.
…the sort of knowledge with which I have been concerned is knowledge of the kind which by its nature cannot enter into statistics and therefore cannot be conveyed to any central authority in statistical form. The statistics which such a central authority would have to use would have to be arrived at precisely by abstracting from minor differences between the things, by lumping together, as resources of one kind, items which differ as regards location, quality, and other particulars, in a way which may be very significant for the specific decision. It follows from this that central planning based on statistical information by its nature cannot take direct account of these circumstances of time and place and that the central planner will have to find some way or other in which the decisions depending on them can be left to the “man on the spot.”~Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society
Big blockers and r/btc-er's don't know that their use of the word is wrong, because they don't know to attribute the definition to Hayek.
Here my better definition for centrally planning that is far more of what Hayek warned us against:
This “targeting” we can understand also to be “continuous” which means that there is to be a constant readjustment of something in order to hit an arbitrary or non-sensical goal.
And thats how we start to show and understand that what I'm presenting is founded is not only Nashian but also Hayekian economic perspectives, and that each of them is aligned with each other in this regard:
Subsequent to that time [1997], 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 is apparently quite parallel to his thinking in relation to money and particularly with regard to the non-typical viewpoint in relation to the function of the authorities which in recent times have been the sources of currencies (earlier “coinage”).)~Ideal Money
