Assuming there is a certain amount of stability to the value of energy there will be even more stability to the value of Bitcoin as variation in the production cost and technological improvements in the production of energy are removed by the design of Bitcoin.

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.

OK, I will grant you that because I want to see the meat:  proof that a change in transactions per second does in fact change the value of the network - under a specified definition of value.

When I said:

I must have had CB specifically in mind

I see two scenarios that need to be discussed.

We have what bitcoin is today with all its magnificence and warts.

1. We finally agree to a one time step function, let's say for example going to a new value of 8 megabytes for the maximum block size.

2. We finally agree to a formula or other method to increase the maximum block size over time.

#1 (which has been done before with no dire consequences, but at a time when Bitcoin was younger and more malleable) would cause a one time revaluation of the entire system and would test the impulse response of the system.  As long as it is never done again things would eventually settle back down and we would be back to the current state, which for the sake of argument is assumed to eventual lead to a stable value metric system.

#2, whether BU or an predefined expansion formula, is another matter.  This is where I am hoping to see the macro economic argument that shows it leads to the loss of the stable value property.

As noted up thread #1 could be considered a special case of #2 since it can be repeated over time in order to change the block size on an "as needed" basis.  But, given our current inability to agree to change it now, I expect we would have an even harder time changing it 5, 10, 15 years from now.  So the argument that this would somehow "set a precedence" is not convincing to me because a) there is already precedence for it and b) changes of this type will only get even harder if not impossible to do in the future.

A quick recap of this thread as I understand it:

 1.  Ideal money would be money that ideally expands and contracts to account for the economy
 2.  The highly manipulated money we have today is far from ideal
 3.  Bitcoin is not ideal money and can never be ideal money (easy to prove - by the definition of Bitcoin)
 4.  However Bitcoin could be used as a thing of constant value, a standard of value, against which all other things of value, including fiat money, could be measured.
 5.  Given a standard of value against which we could actually see and measure the manipulations being done to all the various currencies the economy would naturally gravitate toward those currencies that more closely approximate ideal money.
 6.  Given this new quality metric for currencies all currencies would be forced to compete on this new playing field of quality.  This metric outside of their control would force all currencies to either asymptotically approach ideal money or die by market forces.

In order to get to the more contentious statements about Bitcoin itself, specifically with regard to the great BS (Block Size) debate of the last few years, I and many others here would be willing to accept 1-6 on face value.  In fact, if true, we get exactly what we all want:  money that works for everyone equally and cannot be manipulated by special interests (including the issuers) in order to game the system to their advantage.  Great!  However, we would have to give up on the idea that Bitcoin itself would actually be the currency we use on a daily basis - and that would be very hard for many people, myself included.

However when spelled out this paradigm does not sound all that bad, we get:

1. Ideal savings accounts using Bitcoins, or Bitcoin based derivatives of high quality, your choice
2. Ideal money for all day-to-day (off chain) transactions using either honest versions of what we already have or from a yet to be delivered system

I see two bones of contention that need to be ironed out:

1.  Bitcoin as implemented today, specifically including the current block size cap, can or will become this standard of value that will force honesty on to the world currencies.

2.  Changing the block size will break Bitcoin so that it can not or will not be able to become this standard of value.

Personally, I would be willing to give you #1 at least as a hypothetical for the time being in order to dive into your proof of #2.  Because if #2 is not provable then there is no need to go back and prove #1.  If proof of #2 relies on the proof of #1 then by all means let's prove #1 first and then get to the crux of the matter, #2.

There is a lot of noise in this thread so I could very easily missed your discussion/proof of #2 in the thread or by link.  If so please link us to that discussion.

There are plenty of other threads to debate the Segwit, BU or other schemes to "fix" bitcoin.  This thread is discussing the idea that Bitcoin does not need to be fixed by any of the proposed schemes.  So, your post is 100% off topic.

I do not read any of that in his posts or writings.

What I read is that Bitcoin as a worldwide store of value is the key to getting the world banks to do our bidding, meaning asymptotically approach a more ideal money for us to use.

How can "if it ain't broke don't fix it" be labeled extreme?  Even if dead wrong it is the most conservative course of action and, in my opinion, the most likely outcome of this entire years long debate.

You seem to agree:

Yes, I am very interested in the relationship between the Nash and the Satoshi

It appears that a fundamental part of the OPs claim is:

You can be an ideal store of value
You can be an ideal medium of exchange
You cannot be both
Any crypto that tries to do both will fail at both

Worse (for anyone who wants Bitcoin to be/become a medium of exchange) he says "Bitcoin cannot be ideal money" is a provable statement.

I am still looking for the proof of that but, assuming that statement is true efforts should be redirected.

Assuming the statement is provably true then I personally would not want to beat my head against the wall trying to make it a medium of exchange and in the process destroy it.

Still processing.

I think the totally cool part of his argument is that whether the banking sector actually uses Bitcoin or not is immaterial.  The argument is that as people (and maybe the smarter institutions) use Bitcoin more and more as a store of value the entire monetary system is changed through economic forces outside of their control.  They may use Bitcoin or not, makes no difference.

What is new to me here is the idea that mass adoption as a medium of exchange - what we have all talked about for so long - may not be the most expedient way to use Bitcoin to revolutionize the system.  If fact the argument goes farther:  pushing Bitcoin as a medium of exchange is counterproductive to the revolution and in fact may be lethal.

I still have not found the proof of this assertion but if true we should all immediately stop trying to create a medium of exchange and in fact focus on supporting Bitcoin on the "store of value" front.

Joe,

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.

Fact:  we have been discussing the block size limit for a long time
Fact:  no consensus has been reached

My opinion:  It is looking more and more like a consensus is impossible

Assume for the moment that Bitcoin will proceed from this time forward with only critical bug fixes that everyone can agree to (cryptographic changes in the face of a breaking cryptographic algorithm as an example)

I personally would not be that upset by locking it in as it is now.

Especially if it can be show to me that by doing so we can revolutionize the entire banking sector as a side effect.

Ideal money is a foil for the argument, like "perfect circle" in a mathematical proof.  There is no such thing.  

His assertion is Bitcoin cannot will not ever be or approximate ideal money


Bitcoin = stable value upon which to base an ideal money
Ideal Money = not stable value by definition, value has to change to match the economy

OK, possibly better.  Everyone proposing a block size increase (by their favorite pet method) must be believing it will increase the value of Bitcoin, more specifically possibly their personal Bitcoin holdings.  Otherwise why would they propose such a change?

So there are a lot of people who believe that increasing t/s will increase the value of Bitcoin.

For example:

He is saying that when considering what to change they are not considering the proposed changes from the correct frame of reference.  They are not even considering if the change will enhance or damage the "gold like" property of Bitcoin.  His belief/point/argument is that all changes should be considered within this framework:  will this change enhance or damage (or be neutral) to the "gold like" property of Bitcoin.

Honestly I cannot answer this question.  Not trying to avoid it.  I have no basis upon which to make a decision.

The best I can do is to state I believe that raising the t/s might change the perceived value of Bitcoin.  I wish I could do better but it is not my area of expertise.

Personally don't care what it is called at this point.  If what you are saying is true this thing (ideal money) will be asymptotically approached and provided by the current system, correct?