OP  (and I) are saying that bitcoin's consensus code should not be changed.  I don't think anyone has asserted that off-chain tx should be limited somehow.   seems irrelevant.

ok, fair enough.

I'm not sure OP is saying it can't have secondary layers.

In fact, it seems to me that usage by the big banks as a settlement layer, as OP envisions, would itself be creating secondary layers, and that eventually fiat itself would be a secondary layer.

So I don't see how lightning is much different from that...

OP, what say you?

as the bitcoin community increases in size and has more varied interests, changing consensus becomes harder and harder.  Thus it tends towards static, not dynamic.

You say it is dynamic, yet people have been wanting to change something as simple as the blocksize limit for years and continue to fail.  How can you ignore that?

valid question.

From a practical standpoint, it is the day that you try to change it, and find that you cannot.  ie, today.    :-)

From a moral standpoint, I beieve it is wrong to change consensus level code (unless for a bug fix that everyone agrees on) at any point after other people have invested time/money/energy into it.  So really, 2009.

I don't say that development should stop.  I say that it should be done and released with a new blockchain.  Satoshi could have done that and started the tradition for upgrades.  would've been better, in my view.

You don't fix it in bitcoin.   bitcoin is bitcoin.   just let it be bitcoin.   that's the point.

If you or anyone else has a brilliant solution for these and any other perceived problems, code them up and release the code with a new genesis block.   if the market truly values the fixes as a real advancement, then your new coin should get some adoption.   if  not, then maybe they weren't such problems to begin with, or your fixes were not the right ones.

seems pretty straight-forward to me.   and again:  this approach is the only moral path to changing consensus rules, as it is 100% opt-in.  No one has rules changed underneath them.

OP can talk to ideal money and economics rationale.    ;-)

I do not disagree with you at all on this point.  I have thought the same since the first day I read about and began to understand bitcoin, though of course I did not make a connection with Nash.   In private conversation I have usually called it a straight-jacket or trojan horse for banks and govs, but I like finger trap too!

note:  I don't post about it, because I figure the less they are warned the better.   :-)

btw, all this posits that a deflationary money is not ideal money.   I think some austrians would disagree.  Can you point us to a specific nash writing that demonstrates that?  thx.

conceded, a deflationary unit will tend to gain in value as surrounding economy grows.

So you (or Nash) is positing a value unit that stays exactly constant with the economy?  This seems impossible to me, as the surrounding economy is ever changing.  second by second even.

Also, it is very different from the other constants you mention such as watts or satoshi, as those are things that remain immutable regardless of surrounding environment.

these are just my initial thoughts.  I am not arguing.... I want to hear how the Nash unit can be achieved, and how it relates to bitcoin / satoshi unit.

It seems to me that 1 Satoshi *is* a unit of value, representing the energy/investment that was used to produce and secure it.  

There is no price associated with it until one wishes to buy or sell that unit for another currency.   So I don't see the need to introduce 1 nash or whatever.   But curious to hear OP's argument...

1 Valor.

or...

1 Nash.

you pick.   :-)

Question for OP:

What are your thoughts regarding present or future cryptocurrencies with demonstrably better "sound money" properties such as real fungibility?   An example of this today is Monero, although very likely in the future there could be one that retains bitcoin's properties, is fungible, and is also scaleable to "coffee money".

In theory and removing certain present technical limitations, I do not see a contradiction between a currency that can be both a settlement system and coffee money.    Do you?

Your definition of "fact" is very different from mine.  That's a polite way of saying you use the word absolutely incorrectly.

Time will tell who is right.  Given that bitcoin was designed to be resistant to change, and the community has gotten quite large with many diverging interests, I suspect it will be I, not you.  

Seems to me that anyone that wishes to change any of bitcoin's core properties including blocksize limit can go to hell.  ie, aint gonna happen.

have fun moaning and bitching about it though...

To adapt a popular meme:  honey badger don't care about your reasons.

In other words, bitcoin is what it is.  too much inertia to change now.   I suggest you accept that and move on...

intended or not, the vast majority of investors agreed to a blocksize limit, because that is what the code (contract) says.   It is a generally accepted principle that failure to read and understand a contract is no excuse.   And anyway, this issue was known about and publically discussed as far back as 2010.  I certainly became aware of it within a month of getting involved with btc, back in 2013 and have made decisions based on this knowledge.

now one can make an interesting point that for a very few individuals (Roger Ver may be one of these I'm not sure) that invested before the blocksize cap was put in place, there has already been a breach of contract, when satoshi added it.  That is unfortunate indeed, and I would argue that it highlights the moral hazard of changing consensus code.

I can't speak for OP but I woud say that any change to the concensus layer code (the "agreement") is altering bitcoin's fundamental properties and the contract that investors jointly agreed to.  Changing it without consent of 100% of presently-alive investors is breach of contract, and thus an immoral act.

In the gold sense, it would be like if we could change gold's atomic number or any other aspect defined by physics.  It is a god-like power, and the fact that no one can do it is a key component of what has made gold valuable historically.

likewise, bitcoin is very hard to change and this is what initially made it exciting to me.  thus, I find it strange that so many people are surprised by that now.

I do not think OPs argument is inconsistent with layered solutions.  Indeed, he explicitly states it should be used as a settlement layer, eg by banks.

I can't speak for OP, but that is basically what I am saying, and have been saying for a while now.

I think there is a mostly silent 3rd side to this entire scaling debate that simply is happy with status quo, or at least does not wish to rock the boat and risk altering the fundamentals.

The beauty of the design of bitcoin is that anything controversial has little chance of getting adopted.  So we are likely to get our way, without any need to shout or make a fuss about it, like the other two camps.

I think the core-devs could best focus their efforts into creating a bitcoin upgrade that is truly fungible and scalable.  This could mean that it has lightning or something similar built in.  It could also mean adopting tech from monero.  Or any of the other great ideas in proposed in the space in the last 5 years, eg bitcoin-ng.  Hopefully a more distributed way to mine could be found also, eg built in p2pool.   A lot of things can be fixed and improved with the experience and hindsight we now have.  Then, when this new thing has been developed and well-tested, release it with a new genesis block.  I think a lot of people would move to it, but not a single person would be forced to.

edit: and yes, there should be room for devs to discuss and possibly implement some of OP's ideas also in this upgrade.  Though I am presently unclear on what concrete parameter or other changes OP would propose.

@traincarswreck... if you are saying that bitcoin should not have any further hard forks or soft forks and should instead continue as-is in terms of consensus level code, then I agree.

I believe that both soft and hard forks of a particular cryptocurency (eg bitcoin) are a moral hazard as they change the rules of the game that people already invested time/money/energy into.

The cryptocurrency system as a whole can be continually upgraded by the introduction of new software with brand-new genesis blocks.  Anyone that believes in the properties of the new system can then invest into it.  Eventually one or more systems with the most desirable/useful properties should emerge.

I believe this to be the only moral path forward.

If I understand the thrust of your argument correctly I think you may be in agreement though from a different angle/perspective.