What happens when Bitcoin deflation ends in 2140? Wouldn't this be a factor to stabilize Bitcoin value and therefore could be Ideal Money in the long run?
I thought this myself. The way I picture it in my mind is that if you represent ideal money as a flat line then Bitcoin would approach ideal money asymptotically from the top and all other currencies are forced to asymptotically approach from the bottom. This means that Bitcoin can never be ideal money, fiat (or whatever wins the value competition) can never be ideal money, but they both approach it from different directions. The question was asked whether, after all this happens, we would still need Bitcoin and my thought is yes, you still need the alternative on the "top of the line", no mater how close it approaches the line, in order to force all the currencies (or the remaining currency) on the bottom of the line to remain honest. |
|
|
|
In order to turn bitcoin into ideal money...
Bitcoin cannot be ideal money, its not a brain block you haven't read the thread, I have chewed people out over and over and over and over and over for this. Bitcoin is deflationary. It increases in value over time. Increasing in value means its not stable. Increasing in value means ITS NOT STABLE. Bitcoin is not stable in value, it never will be. Ideal Money is stable in value, bitcoin is not stable in value its deflationary. I don't know how to be more clear. But you have to freeze bitcoin development in order to create a stable metric, so it can become ideal money. Maybe I've misread the thread as some of it appears to be contradictory. Maybe that is my lack of knowledge or maybe you are failing to clearly illustrate your point. AngryDwarf, Your brain block is simple. You have to give up on the idea that Bitcoin is going to be the money you use ever day to buy your coffee at Starbucks. The proposal here is that everyday money, the ideal money, will not be Bitcoin. Want to die of hypothermia because your bitcoin payment for heating hasn't confirmed?
Want to feed thy starving neighbor by gifting them some food?
You would not be using Bitcoin for these things. You still want to believe you could. In order to understand this you need to, at least temporarily, suspend your desire to have Bitcoin be able to do these things. Read this sequence of events over very carefully keeping track of the terms like mathematical items until you see it: So, if bitcoin maintains current gold like properties,
including not increasing the TPS whether on-chain or off-chains, then:
(1) bitcoin will increase in value [by design].
(2) bitcoin is the "other alternative" due to its increase in value [all other currencies decrease in value by design].
(3) bitcoin cannot be the "ideal money".
(4) "other alternatives" [=Bitcoin] existence is to force fiat to compete in value.
(5) "other alternative" [=Bitcoin] ushers in the "ideal money".
(6) "Ideal money" is the end result of the competition [and it will NOT be Bitcoin]. As plain as I can express it: The mere existence of an alternative to all the constantly devalued currencies will cause all of the constantly devalued currencies to either a) asymptotically become ideal money or b) die a horrible death at the hands of market forces. Cool, eh? |
|
|
|
|
Great conversation, no trolling, no stupid posts just to get their daily post quota, great thread. Rare on this board. Thanks and good night!
|
|
|
|
I think what you are missing is that OP is really saying Bitcoin is a weapon and that is all.
Everything else is really secondary.
Weapon. Interesting new comparison that I have never heard before in my years here. A weapon aimed directly at the current banking system? This post will get homeland security's interest I am sure. I wonder if they still monitor my activity on this board. I guess we will find out. |
|
|
|
One last question to maybe get me back on track: Is Bitcoin the metric of value?
No, we are looking for a stable metric of value. what good is an instable metric of value? If you are going to measure something with a measuring stick, and the measuring stick changes length at an unpredictable rate, what good is the measuring stick? ... Why does this difference in the rate of value increase matter? Why does one rate of increase lead to the creation of ideal money while a different (faster) rate of increase not lead to ideal money? My understanding is that ANY TPS increase, allows more flow which decreases value. The value only exists and increases because the TPS is fixed at 3 (give or take). So as Bitcoin scales, it become a currency more and leaves behind digital gold. If Bitcoin had 10,000 TPS, its value would be extremely low and thus would not have enough momentum to cause the financial world to reform. OK, then I see nothing special about 3 TPS, the whole system could be "increasing and quasi-stable" at 100 TPS or 200 TPS just fine as long as TPS did not change after that. See traincarswreck's post right before this one, not quoted, but is basically states that the long term stability in parameters = trust in the system is what is needed. OK, I understand the idea (again). |
|
|
|
One last question to maybe get me back on track: Is Bitcoin the metric of value?
No, we are looking for a stable metric of value. what good is an instable metric of value? If you are going to measure something with a measuring stick, and the measuring stick changes length at an unpredictable rate, what good is the measuring stick? OK, I did misunderstand that part. It appears you are saying that Bitcoin does change in value, it is not the metric of value, it somehow creates a metric of value. Also the value of Bitcoin is assumed to increase over time. Then why does the rate of increase in value over time matter? Why is the rate of value increase so critical? If we make no changes then the value increases over time, right? If we increase TPS then the value increases over time but at a different, possibly faster rate. Why does this difference in the rate of value increase matter? Why does one rate of increase lead to the creation of ideal money while a different (faster) rate of increase not lead to ideal money? I see nothing in this: So, if bitcoin maintains current gold like properties,
including not increasing the TPS whether on-chain or off-chains, then:
(1) bitcoin will increase in value.
(2) bitcoin is the "other alternative" due to increase in value.
(3) bitcoin cannot be the "ideal money".
(4) "other alternatives" existence is to force fiat to compete in value.
(5) "other alternative" ushers in the "ideal money".
(6) "Ideal money" is the end result of the competition. that can be used to calculate which rates of increase in value will work and which ones will not work. Statement (2) only requires an asset that is increasing in value - the rate of increase appears to be arbitrary. |
|
|
|
My take away from these two statements plus the entire premise of this thread is the following:
1. If we do not change Bitcoin it is not and will never be stable but it will be stable enough for the desired purpose of creating a real absolute (enough) metric of value, but
2. If we do change Bitcoin it is still not and will still never be stable and it will not be stable enough for the desired purpose of creating a real absolute (enough) metric of value?
Is that what you are saying?
I thought I was understanding until this last couple of pages.
Yes what is not consistent here? One last question to maybe get me back on track: Is Bitcoin the metric of value? |
|
|
|
Now I am lost. Bitcoin is expected to be, if we don't change it, FAIRLY stable in value
Bitcoin ISN'T FUCKING STABLE!!!!
My take away from these two statements plus the entire premise of this thread is the following: 1. If we do not change Bitcoin it is not and will never be stable but it will be stable enough for the desired purpose of creating a real absolute (enough) metric of value, but 2. If we do change Bitcoin it is still not and will still never be stable and it will not be stable enough for the desired purpose of creating a real absolute (enough) metric of value? Is that what you are saying? I thought I was understanding until this last couple of pages. |
|
|
|
Here I may disagree, not sure exactly what you meant. Why would a change that make something that is inevitable easier/safer/more efficient be a problem for you.
We cannot stop second layer solutions.
I am asking if you need to propose a protocol change through consensus in order for 2nd layer's to happen? What change are you refering to? This is not important. Assuming all protocol changes were vetted though your proposed filter then a change to the protocol that enables more efficient second layer solutions will be OK by definition since it passed muster and therefore does not hurt the value proposition of Bitcoin itself. |
|
|
|
Yes, I realize that that is what he is saying, but I think it is a poor model of value.
Imagine a publicly traded railroad company that, early in its inception, issued press releases with its business plan to service passengers
all around the country. Now imagine that it currently it only services 57 stations railway stations, but investors know there are major plans
for expansion. The stock price for the past 12 months has been trading between $15 and $20. Suddenly the CEO announces that instead
of servicing the thousands of stations around the country, they will simply stick to the 57. Does the stock price tank? Of course it does.
But this isn't how market theory works. The markets are god, they are clarivoyent, they KNOW the outcome and this is what they invested in. They didn't invest in the promise, they KNOW the truth because they are god. The markets knew from the start the project would stick at 57 and invested as such. Your argument is not accepted market theory and mine is based effectively on the efficient market hypothesis. It doesn't matter how butt hurt, irrational, or mistaken you and other investors are. The market knows the truth, it knows the future. This argument could just a easily be used to state that we are going to adopt BU and the markets know that. So the current price/value of Bitcoin has already factored in that we will be accepting <insert your favorite or least favorite change here> |
|
|
|
OK, we all agree then that we are only talking about the on chain TPS. So that is settled.
Unless there are changes needed in order to facilitate 2nd layers. Hold the phone. Here I may disagree, not sure exactly what you meant. Why would a change that make something that is inevitable easier/safer/more efficient be a problem for you. We cannot stop second layer solutions. We cannot limit or even count off chain transaction. Off chain transactions are inevitable. If a change to Bitcoin makes off chain transactions easier/safer/more efficient then that should not be an issue. |
|
|
|
Then you must define TPS as on chain TPS only.
If you cannot do that then you are dead in the water because there is absolutely no way to control the off chain TPS.
Example: A large Bitcoin deposit provider allows off chain "ledger" transfers directly between its customers, for free. For all practical purposes they can handle any number of these transactions as they are all simply database entries. More transaction volume? Buy more hardware.
Now it can be argued that all of these off chain transactions are not really Bitcoin transactions. In that case we are back to the original statement: the TPS you are discussing must be on chain transactions only.
If we are not in control of something (ie a subset of txs) then why would it be implied that I am speaking about not controlling it/them? OK, we all agree then that we are only talking about the on chain TPS. So that is settled. This is all in response to this comment: Burt, I think you missed something important.
In prior statements, the OP is arguing that even LN or other off-chain
systems for bitcoin would also be considered a TPS increase. When I
started talking about TPS, I was not referencing the blocksize specifically
since a TPS increase and a blocksize increase are two separate things.
For value to remain stable for the proposed "future currency" bitcoins
will be TPS restricted on chain and can not have proxies off chain as
a secondary pegged token for any exchange or whatever.
What OP is saying without saying it is that Bitcoin must stop now and
can't have second layers, since that also erodes value through time.
An "absolute" value must be isolated and constant in all ways.
(And I think Bitcoin can never be a constant with human mining.
It needs to be fully automated. "Set it and forget it!".)
|
|
|
|
I am saying if we don't make the Nashian consideration every step of the way then we are being irresponsible.
Then you must define TPS as on chain TPS only. If you cannot do that then you are dead in the water because there is absolutely no way to control the off chain TPS. Example: A large Bitcoin deposit provider allows off chain "ledger" transfers directly between its customers, for free. For all practical purposes they can handle any number of these transactions as they are all simply database entries. More transaction volume? Buy more hardware. Now it can be argued that all of these off chain transactions are not really Bitcoin transactions. In that case we are back to the original statement: the TPS you are discussing must be on chain transactions only. |
|
|
|
You're still making the mistake of treating Bitcoin like a static system
when in fact it is dynamic. Something like TPS is actually a variable that has
changed over time and will continue to change.
Thus, treating the current level of TPS as a determinant of value is not appropriate/accurate.
Not sure why i'm bothering to make this point since you don't listen.
I think he is saying that all of the arbitrary parameters (21 M, 10 min, 4 TPS) lead to a certain value proposition for Bitcion. Changing any of these parameters would change the value proposition of Bitcoin. In this case changes to TPS would change the value. Most believe that increasing TPS will lead to a higher utility, value and price. I do not think there is any argument there. TPS is only one of the parameters which feeds into the entire value proposition of Bitcoin. you want a stable price. but do not realise that halting utility wont cause a stable price
HE DOES NOT WANT OR INTEND A STABLE PRICE. He never said that. Why do you keep saying that? |
|
|
|
|
Got to go outside and take a walk with my daughter and dog. Good luck guys!
|
|
|
|
OK. I think I get it now. Would you agree to this: There are many people/factions that believe that an increase in TPS will increase the overall value(utility, desire and price) to the Bitcoin system. They want to increase the value(utility, desire and price) of the system so, of course, they want to increase the TPS(utility). They do not give a second thought to your desire for a stable unit of value(price), most have never heard of any desire from anyone for Bitcoin to be this stable unit of value(price) so, given their desire to improve/increase the value(utility, desire, price) of Bitcoin, it is obvious to them that TPS needs to be increased.
You come along and say wait a second here, I think that keeping the value(price) constant is, unfortunately for a lack of a better term more valuable(desire). Well to avoid confusion lets call it a more expedient use or a more efficient use of Bitcoin as a revolutionary force.
Unfortunately you do have to prove your assertion that not increasing TPS is a better way for everyone to get what they want, just because you are in the minority.
Edit: Again given your desire for no change and the fact that no change is almost certainly the outcome of all this debate I am not sure what you are so concerned about. You are most likely going to "win" this argument by default, right?
FTFY i think many need to start using brackets against "value" to effectively show what version of "value" you are discussing also the value(price) does not become stable simply by stalling its utility. infact it can become more unstable if utility is halted but desire increas or decrease. or many other factors. stablising price cannot occur simply by stopping development. there are more than one elements that causes the PRICE to be affected. Franky1, By changing my quote to value(price) I see your fundamental misunderstanding of what is being proposed. There is absolutely no desire here for any sort of value(price) stability. What is being proposed is that Bitcoin can become a metric of value(absolute) that could be used to measure variation in the value(absolute) of a given currency. This ratio of absolute value would be reflected in the price of the currency relative to the standard unit of value represented by Bitcoin. So I do not agree with your edit. In other words for the first time ever we would be able to actually measure and see whenever someone tries to screw with their currency to the advantage of the few in charge of the currency. Once we can measure and track their shenanigans, market forces will kill off all the currencies that do not behave. |
|
|
|
Burt you are awesome!
Ya. So let's continue with that as the premise, being true. You are asking, in some form, 'what is the value of the community coming to the same realization as me' (knowing we are headed in my/nash's direction anyways)?
Thanks for the compliment. I really just try to listen and understand - that is all. I listen to BU, I listen to SegWit, and now I am listening to you. Bitcoin is by far the most interesting idea I have found. From the low level cryptography to large scale political, economic and sociological implications, debates and discussions, Bitcoin really has it all. |
|
|
|
Here, evidently, politicians in control of the authority behind standards could corrupt the continuity of a good standard, but depending on how things were fundamentally arranged, the probabilities of serious damage through political corruption might becomes as small as the probabilities that the values of the standard meter and kilogram will be corrupted through the actions of politicians. I could not agree more with this statement. The constant meddling with what is "in the basket" and what is "outside the basket" when considering the consumer price index and inflation renders all long term and even short term inflation measurements totally mathematically meaningless and meaningful only as a way to flat out lie about the state of the economy to the benefit of those in charge. |
|
|
|
It is the belief of many that constricting TPS is constricting the value of the network for them. It is the belief of others that constricting the TPS maintains the value of the network for them (yourself included here).
That is all belief. I am looking for an argument based on economic facts.
No. I don't need to prove the negative. Science. In order to make a change to the system, in order for a rational order to accept the change, it must be shown to be scientific. I am not proposing any change to the system. I am showing there is no founded argument to change the tps. It doesn't speak to a founded economic argument. I don't what the truth is in this sense, but I can sure tell you that if someone says changing the tps alters the value then this is an admission of value targeting/changing. And lastly, are you really asking me to prove that not changing bitcoin means not re-targeting the value? It's tautologically correct. To leave bitcoin alone means to leave the value targeting alone. To change bitcoin in order to change the value, is to target the value. OK. I think I get it now. Would you agree to this: There are many people/factions that believe that an increase in TPS will increase the overall value to the Bitcoin system. They want to increase the value of the system so, of course, they want to increase the TPS. They do not give a second thought to your desire for a stable unit of value, most have never heard of any desire from anyone for Bitcoin to be this stable unit of value so, given their desire to improve/increase the value of Bitcoin, it is obvious to them that TPS needs to be increased. You come along and say wait a second here, I think that keeping the value constant is, unfortunately for a lack of a better term more valuable. Well to avoid confusion lets call it a more expedient use or a more efficient use of Bitcoin as a revolutionary force. Unfortunately you do have to prove your assertion that not increasing TPS is a better way for everyone to get what they want, just because you are in the minority. Edit: Again given your desire for no change and the fact that no change is almost certainly the outcome of all this debate I am not sure what you are so concerned about. You are most likely going to "win" this argument by default, right? |
|
|
|
Ideal money would be money that ideally expands and contracts to account for the economy Then accept that bitcoin is not, and cannot be ideal money. We have all accepted this. Please catch up before posting. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
