Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 9. (Read 34841 times)

Cheers, Welcome!

Before giving my opinion on the content of the article, I would like to talk about the feelings of everyone here, please make a little research, I see too much war, this is not good, Be calm and talk to each other.
You seem to have so much frustration about people, I've seen it in your talk, this is the internet community, the ineffective dialogue is completely normal
And about your idea, I think that bitcoin is so familiar, so it's hard to change, your idea is new and surprising.

First you have to learn about the rules of the forum you are using. They are pretty simple.

Then you have to understand, that Nash's Ideal Money is not related to Bitcoin as much as you are trying to imply. It might have been one of the inspirations for Satoshi Nakamoto when he (or she or them ... whatever) created Bitcoin as an alternative currency. That was the real revolutionary step and not your blocksize theory. Nash didn't invent Bitcoin, but Satoshi Nakamoto did. He created the real thing, which is open source, decentralized and backed by math and cryptography and it works like a store of value and at the same time as a medium for exchange. Bigger Blocks will NOT change that. Bitcoin will NOT lose its gold properties (store of wealth) because of bigger blocks. It will only allow more transactions per block and will lead to a lower fee, because there will be enough space for low fee transactions. Satoshi knew, that it might be necessary to change the blocksize later, if there was a consensus about it. If there wasn't it wouldn't happen.

OP, you already failed to convince Bitcoin core devs about your idea of how Bitcoin SHOULD be, because you present nothing but some constructed connections between Nash's Ideal Money and Bitcoins blocksize. Another point where OP is mistaken, is that he thinks Bitcoin=Bitcoin Core Devs. Why else should you desperately try to convince Bitcoin Core Devs and the Bitcoin community, instead of finding developers, who will support your idea and create a competitor to Bitcoin (= Altcoin) based on that?

If you are intelligent, maybe you should change your conversation tactics from "calling people names" to "beeing nice and constructive" when you want to make a change and present your "revolutionary" ideas.

No you can't make bitcoin stable because its supply is fixed.  But if you leave bitcoin how it is then it will cause our existing fiat money to become stable.

right...

so you're saying bitcoin cannot have a stable value, and so cannot be used to price goods, because its deflationary. (or somthing to that effect.)

but then you say things like
"fits perfectly"

hmm...

can you offer some hypothetical "fix" to bitcoin's unstable value problem.

I don't understand what is meant about the zero sum point but my intuition says it again misses the macro economic implications of bitcoin.  Your sentiments seem to ignore that our fiat systems will adjust to the pressure bitcoin adds by becoming relevant.  So we both agree bitcoin's increasing value will enact change but you are suggesting it will replace the real currency when the truth is fiat is going to "idealize"  it is going to gain stability of value.  And this will do something very special to the word's economy. This is different than bitcoin being the world money.

That's the whole answer to the question about how the bitcoin will replace the real currency. I totally agree that bitcoin is a commodity, it is an investment of money or as a stock that sells and buys earning on the difference in price. Someone lost and somebody won.

Why are you asking me if something that goes up in value stays the same in value?

deflation means the value is changing.  Stable means the value is not changing.  The definition of ideal in this thread is stable. Bitcoin is deflationary therefore it is not stable therefore it is not ideal money. there is probably 200 posts in this thread that repeat this concept over and over. It's also incredibly basic to point out.

OP

can you point to a post which best describes the root problem you have identified in bitcoin which makes it "not ideal money"

in some post you seem onboard with the idea of deflationary currency, and in other posts you seem to say that this deflationary nature cannot produce stable prices.

Szabo once said it will take 30 years, and I can't remember the context. But its the one thing I don't believe him on.  Well it would be relevant to found out if he understand Nash's argument (which implies he knows about it).  There is a range of possibilities from Nash being the mastermind to not being hardly involved or not being involved at all in any way.

Villiani had this to say about Nash (https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@jokerpravis/ideal-money-insight-in-a-flash):


And its likely that the NSA and/or Rand has more letters and correspondence with Nash that hasn't been released.  He was quite clear that he was using esoteric writing to convey his points because of fear of the US government that could act without legal consent.

And he travel to give his talks so there is probably other significant correspondence that happened around the globe. https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2015/06/02/in-conversation-with-john-nash-jnr-on-ideal-money/

But there is also the possibility that rational arguments lead different persons to the same ends and direction.  Nash makes a side point that his views are in line with Hayek, who gives a similar treatise with the premise that the governments monopoly on our money has been broken. Someone from the Princeton faculty introduced Nash to Hayek and that person is probably noteworthy (well they literally were for Nash in his lecture).

There is the simple possibility Nash foresaw a time when someone or some group released an e-currency, and he explains in order to do so it needs to be deflationary and comparable to gold in this regard. He simply uses the introduction of such an international currency as his premise.

For this Ideal Money serves as an enthymeme for bitcoin, in which the audience must realize and provide the premise.

Because of that and the significance of what Nash expounds on, he did something far more amazing than leave a footprint of being Satoshi.  He ushered in the new economic age and he showed he had 20 years of a proof of work.  It's almost like he knew of the general plans for bitcoin or that someone stole the idea from him, or at least told him about it or consulted him....

But nonetheless, that we are still so clueless as to the power of bitcoin as a technology that could be the catalyst to bring our currency legacy money systems into order and that it can levate a stable metric of value, yet he had this basic ideal when he was a kid and has been talking about it in such a way that nearly not a single person in the world noticed, is going to be seen as nothing short but miraculous.

Now listen to him talk about the possibility of a miracle and watch the look he gives at 54:14 https://youtu.be/oM1SflhJDoc?t=54m14s

dose OP suggest a more ideal form of money?
is he saying that fiat is better than bitcoin "because deflationary"?
should i be investing in an inflationary crypto ( like DOGE )

its really too bad that I wasted my time reading the first post...

That is very interesting.. and yea it makes total sense in hindsight szabo builds the foundations of his logic in a way i can see that he would.either be involved in the vision of btc or.was the principle architect along with nash and wei. The funny.thing is btc following an organic growth pattern... if it was planned for a malthusian event then wouldnt we see a more abrupt and market manipulated move unless they know that most dumb money will sell anyway and its pennies infront of a bulldozer for them.

 Ive always hoped nash would have left some kind of signed message that proved it was him that would be found in his place of residence or with his wife.. but perhaps knowing him he would take.the thing to his grave.. i just dont see value.in hiding it esp since its so low in marketcap.. that he would have wrote something incase somethin sudden happened to him.. although part of the allure is the unknown part of satoshi. Its helping with the network effect

I think he doesnt want to speculate thus ommited the game theory stuff thats happening.. but bitcoin is too small to.be considered a game changer yet though hey you never know it may have been an nsa invention in the first place and if it was nash he knew what curves to use and using change addresses becsuse he knew secrets of nsa and the fact they didnt have secp256k1 figured out.. it does classify as a better money.so it may have stronger network effects than traditional commodities but def interesting times.. just ask where the monry is going after it the oil kings are left hodling the gold.bags.. im sure it will be cash for a while.. westerners in rei and stocks.. but i bet a large chunk is available for.new speculation... esp those that planned it if btc was planned for such an event

You couldn't fork it, because you would need a rational founded/scientific argument to do so and there isn't one.  BU supporters and developers have no macro economic considerations in their proposal.  It's based on a tacit unfounded assumption that increasing the transactability will increase the value/price. And most of the supporters don't understand the difference between value and price.  It's an irrationally based movement. You can't move the markets like that, its not how market theory works.

Did you mean to imply that szabo doesn't realize that bitcoin is the next big thing in regard to inflation hedging?  Szabo's been writing about smart contracts and bitgold for 10 to 20 years and its effects and implications on gold and commodities in general.

Also Nash talks about why we might not go back to a gold standard.  Satoshi impied this when he said the price of any commodity tends to gravitate towards the cost of production.  There are few people in the world that would have said that at that time, Nash Szabo and Finney are the only ones I know of, no one would have understood or believe bitcoin would usurp gold-its a very bold thing to say and I think this point is often missed. 

There is no such definition of money that says this.  And there is no founded reasoning to suggest that bitcoin must become "money", whatever your definition of money turns out to be anyways. Gold is not unbounded and it has a cost to transact which is going to be more than bitcoin.  Your argument is effectively if gold's cost to transact decreases by 1/2 that this will increase the value.  But the markets don't value gold for its tractability in this regard. And neither does a market that is looking for an inflation hedge.

It is only on the one hand that increasing the users could increase bitcoin's value.  It is on the other hand that bitcoin, if left as is, will attract high value metaplayers, big banks, and international settlement etc.  


Yes and so we should raise the tps to infinite and then bitcoin will increase to infinity value as a world money.  The problem is this is not a virtuous circle, its circular logic that isn't founded.  And I have the impression now that you don't understand what a founded argument is.

Again, you aren't using FOUNDED economic literature and science.  Economics believes the markets act rationally.  It cannot be that a bunch of vocal forum critics can decide that the will of the markets follow their own.  The markets are the clairvoyant being, not the individual.


This isn't how science works and its not how the markets work.  The markets will require a scientifically founded theory/proposal in order for a large enough majority to accept it.  This is why, regardless of how obvious it is we will and have to scale, we haven't.  I don't have to put out any theory in order for nothing to change and the 1mb limit to remain.  In order for 1mb to be changed there has to be a scientifically founded proposal outlining the reasoning in regard to the macro economic implications of the change. If the proposal isn't founded the markets will reject it, and we now know the only founded proposal: Ideal Money.

It's already end game.

It's not reason you are using, its cognitive bias and dissonance. You've stated a circular unfounded unscientific argument and you are re-asserted its correctness as your conclusion.

Great writeup i skimmed through but he fails to recognize the game theory that is happening.. there is a bigger cycle at play in that then us would fully understand that the oil holders will start to convert that oil into gold because gold is a better store of value and is liquid.enough.. but one thing we have learned is that things are not always as they seem. I feel that since bitcoin offers a more ideal form or money over gold that true smart money would instead start to shift assets over to bitcoin type investments instead although they would have to nibble away due to lack of liquidity. It makes sense that when oil congolomerets are busy converting back to gold that gold along with the rest of the commodity complex falls back to industrial demand value that the ones who set the bar will already be in another form of investment that they will then use to increase purchasing power by selling later to these same people who will offload gold for the now much higher priced new more efficient store of value.  Now that the second malthusian event is over.. the elite would be offloading gold they acquired between the first and second events.to those buying the top currently like.those stuck in oil which is a weaker form of value than gold. Once that gold is sold off where do you think they will put that money? Hint it wont be back into gold as that limits further purchasing power expansion and it has to respect the 3 laws szabo explained that foreigners would use to deduce a proper store of value for when the next malthusian type of event occurs and this new store of value is used to fund back into commodities which are needed for industrial expansion

thought experiment:

imagine that next Monday bitcoin core devs announce that there will be no more changes to bitcoin-core except bug fixes.  There will be no future soft-forks or hard-forks.    All future development by the team will take place in a new codebase, to be released "sometime later" with a new genesis block.

what do you think will happen?   Will bitcoin actually be able to persist unchanged?   Will someone like BU fork it and thereby dilute value?

how do you think the market will react short term, medium, long term?


I'm not offering an opinion.  Just asking.

I think it is relevant to the thread, because it is basically what the OP is asking for.  except perhaps the "further development on new blockchain" part.

One cannot park their wealth in anything without performing a transaction. And it is not really wealth, unless it can be converted back to products and services - which requires another transaction. Capping tps also caps the rate at which people can get in and out of this form of wealth (though that's a tautology). Yes, with capped tps there is a slider: a lot of people can get in and out once on one end, and very few people can get in & out at will at the other. But if unbounded participants can get in and out at will, then it starts becoming a money. The more liquid a store of wealth be, the more useful it is to those who control it. More utility: more value. More value: higher price. Higher price: better store of wealth. It's a virtuous circle.
 

And BurtW has just told you that it had been an all-but-universal belief among Bitcoiners that scaling solutions would be forthcoming in some form or another. You seemed to accept this proposition. I certainly believe that to be true.

So if you are suddenly advancing the new proposition that Bitcoin should be artificially limited, it is you that is introducing uncertainty.


If there is economic literature that says not increasing Bitcoin's tps will increase its value, kindly point me to it. Or if there is economic literature that says increasing Bitcoin's tps will not increase its value, kindly point me to that.

Lacking a mutually accepted reference, uncovering the truth will require either: reasoning it out; or running the experiment.

Reason tells me that more people getting more utility out of something would tend to increase its value (for any reasonable definition of value). So tear down that assertion.