Antpool just started mining BU blocks.
And there seems to be some brewing drama regarding UASF and dingy miners who are threatening to split the network with BU (shitcoin)
The sooner Chinese miners are sold for body parts by their government the better. They shouldn't have the power that they do. Let them fork off but it would be a worry unless there was some way of truly disposing of them with a PoW change. That may well invalidate the non BU miners too though. You do realize that UASF is User Activated Soft Fork, right? Don't be hatin' on the miners for that. |
|
|
|
BTC as their intergalactic currency tomorrow
Absurd. The speed of light makes the ten-minute block interval unsuitable for even Earth-Mars currency. |
|
|
|
the markets are clairvoyant
I would ask for evidence of this assertion. The other point is that the debate arises because both sides are pursuing an irrational ends with an irrational means.
It seems to me that for this to be irrational then: a) there would need to be recognition that Bitcoin was indeed the best tool to be the alternative money of which Nash spoke; and b) the collection of the sum of individual Bitcoin holders perceived more value in a stable-ish value for Bitcoin, than in an accelerated price increase for Bitcoin. As far as a), I have not yet seen a compelling argument to this end, and as far as b), this seems counter-intuitive. |
|
|
|
Now it may be useful to get back to the Economic Change Event.
That was not a change to the properties of bitcoin. only to usage, perception. The type of change you are talking about (and Ver, et al) is more like if gold was somewhat abundant and easy to find, then it mostly all got dug up and hoarded. I am not convinced. Your analogy is inapplicable. It has nothing to do with tps increase, and is more akin to the miners hoarding their spoils (which indeed may be occurring today, for all we know). Do you have e better analogy to make your case? |
|
|
|
Yes but its more so the CHANGE that the markets won't like. People ask why is 1mb the magic number. its not, but whatever satoshi put it at, I think we need to consider leaving it there, in this case its 1mb
Now it may be useful to get back to the Economic Change Event. The idea in a nutshell: until about a year ago, the block size cap had no effect upon the system. Blocks were consistently well below 1MB in size. On the few occasions that the max size was hit, it did not create a persistent backlog of transactions awaiting inclusion in a block. From an economic perspective, the hitting of the block size was in itself a change. Many perceive the economic change as more significant then would be a technical change to the block size. The evaluation of the effect of either of these changes upon the value of Bitcoin would be significant towards purposing Bitcoin as a step towards Nashian ideal money, would it not? |
|
|
|
Your argument seems predicated upon 'value'. I have asked several times in this thread for your definition of 'value'. Have I missed your responsive reply, or have you refused to supply such definition?
Where is the citations of your claim that you asked this and my reply didn't include a response to your question. Prove it. I owe you an apology. I must have been mistaken in that I thought I asked that question outright. I cannot now find a post of mine containing that question stated as such. Accordingly, I must have erred. I am sorry. So with that out of the way, let me ask you as if anew: What is your definition of 'value'? |
|
|
|
When we agree the common goal is to levate a stable metric of value, which all rational players will, then it is easy to highlight which arguments are founded. Thus ideal money reveals players hands.
Once we understand this to be the goal, once enough people support an inquiry into Nash's works and understand the relevance, I can begin to speak beyond it. It's only the tip of the iceberg, but it sounds like irrational jibberish until we understand the concept of a stable metric of value AND that we can use bitcoin as a catalyst to bring such a concept to REALITY.
Your argument seems predicated upon 'value'. I have asked several times in this thread for your definition of 'value'. Have I missed your responsive reply, or have you refused to supply such definition? You have stated an axiom that Nashian ideal money is one whose absolute value is unchanging. You have seemed to make a statement that Bitcoin can never be Nashian ideal money. Why then, is it important that Bitcoin be rendered as close to unchanging in value as possible? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin's nature will change, but the markets already know this.
If this were true, then your argument here serves no purpose. Accepting your axiom (which I don't, BTW), Bitcoin's final trajectory is already cast in stone. This argument accordingly accomplishes nothing. The Bitcoin is gonna do what the Bitcoin is preordained to do. edit: also don't know about this grazik ece.
It's worth a read. ECE is Economic Change Event. And the name is jgarzik - proper spelling will assist your google search. eta: I see you found at least one jgarzik statement on the ECE concept. The entire discussion is relevant. |
|
|
|
Perhaps a more important question to ask -- because the heuristics certainly seem to suggest a strong affinity -- would be:
'Why would you expect Bitcoin's value to be stable, when the number of people its value is affecting is rising in such an erratic albeit rapid manner?'
I'm not sure you asked this question well. But there is to be a bootstrapping of bitcoin's price right? At first the price is no where near the ultimate value because there are no real exchanges. I must not have asked that question well - certainly your reply does not indicate that you understood what I was getting at. Let us posit that some 'thing' has some quantity of per-user value. As more and more people start to employ that 'thing', does not the overall value of that 'thing' increase in proportion to the users of that 'thing'? But the ultimate value of bitcoin as a digital gold lies in the relationship between the cost of production and the supply, just like gold.
But the supply is (essentially) fixed, and the cost of production is directly related to its price - not its value. This is rather different from gold, where mining developers have the vast majority of good geographies locked up, idle, waiting for price appreciation to sell to producers to start actual mining operations. |
|
|
|
It's an admission, when you want to change the tps in order to increase bitcoin's usefulness, that you are changing its value.
Not to put words into jonald's mouth, but I believe he may be advocating the proposition that Bitcoin finally bumping up against its tps limits was in itself a change in value. Are you familiar with the discussion around jgarzik's ECE? I find that proposition very persuasive. Do you have a rebuttal to this? |
|
|
|
I have said over and over, bitcoin cannot be ideal money.
...
It is by nature not stable in value because its deflationary.
...
BUT bitcoin, being deflationary, is very similar to gold in a special sense (I call it the nashian sense).
It can't be ideal money, but it COULD be a new digital gold, which COULD serve as the bedrock for our global financial system.
I am just quoting the above, because I am going to need to refer back to it, when I finally understand what it is that you are advocating. edit: yeah... this bit too: ...because if bitcoin is going up in value over time...
|
|
|
|
Value is different based on the tf you choose..
tf? Time Factor? Transfer Funciton? Toe Fungus? |
|
|
|
I'm still not convinced that this entire thread is anything but an elaborate troll
starting to appear so  I no, rite? Befuddling. If a troll (a possibility upon which I vacillate), it is very well played. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin's price is volatile but its underlying value is not at all expected to be.
"expected to be"? Expected by whom? If bitcoin's parameter remain unchanged, then any rational person would expect its value (not necessarily its PRICE!) to be fairly stable. If you dramatically change its underlying nature, why would you expect its value to stay stable? Perhaps a more important question to ask -- because the heuristics certainly seem to suggest a strong affinity -- would be: 'Why would you expect Bitcoin's value to be stable, when the number of people its value is affecting is rising in such an erratic albeit rapid manner?' |
|
|
|
At least OP stopped using 'gold-like' as a term for this property, which s/he has stated is a property that gold does not possess. OP dances around an implication that Bitcoin is our best shot at Nash ideal money, but never comes out and admits nor denies that this is the case. Yet OP continues to talk about Bitcoin: bitcoin is not for the peoples daily use, its a finger trap for the meta-players.
'gold-like is the correct term and I think your want to tell me its not is your mistake, not mine. Gold is fairly stable in value which is why it has been sought as an inflation hedge. Its the cost of mining that is relevant here. There is lots of gold but the cost of mining it throttles the supply favorably. Yet you posted this (which, while not attributed in your post, I assume is attributable to Nash?): Nowadays, however, few would propose a return to the actual use of simply the metal gold as a standard, for the following reasons.
(i) The cost of mining gold effectively does depend on the technology. Recent cyanide leaching techniques have made it possible again to profitability mind gold at formerly abandoned sites in the U.S. so that it is now a big producer. However, the unpredictability of the cost is a negative factor.
(ii) The location of potential gold-mining locations may not be “politically appealing.” so it would seem undesirable to make a political choice to enhance the economic importance of those particular areas.
(iii) There is some negative psychology about gold such tat even if it were the most logical choice after all, the unpopularity of the idea could be very obstructive.
However, right now platinum would be even better than gold, because it has more value per unit of weight.
So "Gold is fairly stable in value", so you aspire to "gold like properties", even though Nash argues "right now platinum would be even better than gold". Bitcoin has a different mechanism for this but the result is the same. The relationship between the cost of production and the supply makes bitcoin and gold similar. It keeps their value stable. But to what aim? Bitcoin is nothing if not spectacularly volatile in value. If there is a case to be made for Bitcoin to be thought of, and directed to, the role of Nash ideal money, then OP ought to state that case, no?
You have conflated value and price. Fair enough. Kindly direct me to a statement of the definition for 'value' you wish to employ. Bitcoin's price is volatile but its underlying value is not at all expected to be.
"expected to be"? Expected by whom? |
|
|
|
I am a little charmed by this thread...
^ the real poke the bear topic derailer appears [...off topic post regarding the Segwit proposal...] There are plenty of other threads to debate the Segwit, BU or other schemes to "fix" bitcoin. Agreed. This is a very interesting topic in its own right. Let's focus on it in this thread, and leave the 'how is the right way to scale' battles elsewhere. This thread is discussing the idea that Bitcoin does not need to be fixed by any of the proposed schemes.
I'm still not convinced that this entire thread is anything but an elaborate troll perpetrated by a master. We seem to be talking about Nash's ideal money. And that the defining aspect of Nash's ideal money is that it is stable in value.... What is 'ideal' ...?
because the definition for deal we are using is 'stable in value of long periods of time'. At least OP stopped using 'gold-like' as a term for this property, which s/he has stated is a property that gold does not possess. OP dances around an implication that Bitcoin is our best shot at Nash ideal money, but never comes out and admits nor denies that this is the case. Yet OP continues to talk about Bitcoin: bitcoin is not for the peoples daily use, its a finger trap for the meta-players.
But to what aim? Bitcoin is nothing if not spectacularly volatile in value. If there is a case to be made for Bitcoin to be thought of, and directed to, the role of Nash ideal money, then OP ought to state that case, no? |
|
|
|
Someone gimme a name for this unit of stable value so I can use it to explain?
Isn't it obvious? Just call it a Nash. |
|
|
|
What if Bitcoin reaches $10k and you have a lot of coins (20+) wouldn't that be a good moment to live your life,...
Whatevs. What is a couple hunnert thousand (a couple years first-world salary) against potentially life-changing money? I'm riding this charger as far as it will take me. Better live either as a king or a pauper rather than to merely retire a few years earlier. What if you have 100 coins, and it hits $10k. I would probably retire... That could work in some parts of the world. For me, I'd need several times that. As in some single-digit multiple. You're greedy. I know that what works for someone doesn't really have to for the rest of us, but $1 million is a serious sum. Most of us won't hold this much cash ever. Given this much money I would retire or hire people to work for me. You can call me greedy if you so choose. I will neither agree nor disagree. I will say however that if I am greedy, that I am not maliciously so. Current wisdom (such as it is) from Certified Financial Planners in the USA (where I live) is that, if one retires at a 'normal' age (e.g. 65 or so), you can likely spend about 4% of your initial nest egg per year without the money running out before your telomeres do. So for a Million, that's $40,000 a year. And that percentage would need to go down if you retire earlier, or your death will be hastened by the fact that you've run out of money. I agree that $40K/yr would be fine for some people. For me, that would be a step backward. Why would I stop working if I'd have to curtail my fun activities to do so? |
|
|
|
I think you are confusing price and value. From what I can tell Bitcoin is the thing with "relatively stable value". The other thing, the thing that approximates ideal money would change in relation to Bitcoin.
So the value of Bitcoin priced in the ideal money would be changing.
The value of Bitcoin is relatively constant, the price of Bitcoin priced in "ideal money" would vary over time.
Oh dear. Just when I was starting to think I understood OP... So we're back to some non-Bitcoin being our best approximation of a Nash ideal money? While it is an interesting conversation, why are we conducting it in a Bitcoin-centered venue? Is there some nexus between Bitcoin and some posited Nash ideal money? Is the latter a former a derivative of the former in some manner? |
|
|
|
Is it axiomatic in your estimation that the world would benefit from the existence of Nash ideal money? Simple yes or no will do here - I can work with that as a foundation.
Why is it that Bitcoin be used to fulfill this role (or the role of a best-effort approximation of Nash ideal money)?
Ideal Money signals the levation of a stable metric of value. This is the most significant technology conceived to date. We will have it soon. It is need to optimize the markets, read hayek, he'll tell. all this is linked to in this thread and cited. You don't tell me to answer yes or no. Simple 'yes' almost lost in superfluous verbosity duly noted. I think I may be on the verge of understanding your argument, though. Nash's argument is premised on bitcoin as a gold, with the definition of gold he uses.
Yet you say that gold no longer has the gold like properties you seek. Stop saying 'gold' when you really mean 'as stable in value as humanity can muster'. Yes we can decree bitcoin into gold a thing nearly stable in value, with intelligence and rational argument. We cannot decree it into a coffee money, it won't happen and it will kill its gold like properties value stability.
(apologies for the edit - if nothing else, it can serve to inform you of how I am reading your statement) I can see that a Nash ideal money is a very important thing. If we had something that acted like Nash ideal money, I agree that it would be an important advance for humanity. I am skeptical of your seeming insistence that Bitcoin be the thing that fulfills this role. Indeed, it has several strikes against it already: 1) Its value has been increasing at an astonishing rate over its short history 2) Almost every stakeholder already wants to increase its utility, and thereby consequently its value A) I don't think it can be decreed to make the value of Bitcoin stable B) I think it likely inevitable that it will eventually serve as coffee money. To clarify A) - the paltry fraction of humanity that is current stakeholders of Bitcoin have a natural incentive to increase the price of Bitcoin. Call it a tragedy of the commons if you wish, but human nature will conspire mightily against any attempt to freeze the value of Bitcoin as a whole. No matter how great a tool Nash ideal money would be for humanity as a whole. I can see that increasing the tps will add value to Bitcoin. I can see that this impacts negatively on Bitcoin's ability to serve as Nash ideal money. But it already fails spectacularly at value stability. I think you need to look elsewhere for a candidate for Nash ideal money. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
