a ponzi is where you hand funds over. and those funds are just used to pay off the middle mans other debtors. where you are left with nothing.
basically hand over X with promises of X+0.X return. but wher X pays out to others as their 0.X return.

totally different game theory to cryptocurrencies

---

crap coins are you buying an 'asset' with the knowledge/naivity that the asset may go up or down in value.
if it goes down and becomes worthless. you might aswell have bought a bag of dogs mess..(hence crapcoin)

unless a coin has REAL utility its a crapcoin. and its 'value' is short lived with a pump and dump.
some try to rinse and repeat empty promises of FUTURE POSSIBLE uses.. but unless it has ACTUAL REAL USE NOW. treat it as a pump and dump crap coin.

if a crapcoins 'utility' is just a peg to another coin. but that second coin has no REAL WORLD UTILITY. then defacto the first coin is just as crap.

---

EG
bitcoin is great example of how real utility gave real value. it was released in january 2009. but did not actually get any "value" until 2010 when it obtained REAL UTILITY (bitcoin pizza / alpaca socks) and its VALUE increased due to REAL UTILITY (silkroad then more legit merchants).

in short if a coin just mentions future 'possibilities' your playing 100% speculation (pump and dump).

look for where it has REAL AND ACTUAL USE and follow the real and actual utility growth to know of its 'value' and longevity

you have spend 14 pages trying to tell people that bitcoin is not ideal money..

ok bitcoin is not nashes "ideal money".. no disaster..
best rebuttal.. bitcoin is not a banana either.. (widen your scope and think outside of the box to know what i am getting at)

bitcoin is not meant to be for the banks to adopt. bitcoin is a new paradigm AWAY from the greed of bankers.

bitcoin doesnt need to be government controlled ideal money. it works as an open and natural digital asset currency

bitcoins value(price) stability is not related to bitcoins value(utility) needing to be halted.
even if we halted all value(utility).. the value(price) will still be unstable due to it being new. and so far used by less than 1%, which makes it volatile by a small number of users

by developing bitcoin adding value(utility) you will see value(desire) increase and adoption increase and then with more people the value(price) will stabilise

there is a stability S curve and at the moment bitcoin is still at the beginning. and has a long way to go mainstream to reach the peak where things get stable.

halting development does not = stability

UK VAT is about you professionally selling something as a value added product.
bitcoin is not a value added product so dont worry.. no VAT -(out of scope of VAT)

if you are a business you can offset how much you invested IN.. against how much you want to withdraw (coin for coin). the profit or loss coin for coin is then set for or against corporation tax

if personal it is income tax.
again offset whatever you bought the coins at against what the value of the coins you withdraw. to give you the income (profit or loss)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/revenue-and-customs-brief-9-2014-bitcoin-and-other-cryptocurrencies/revenue-and-customs-brief-9-2014-bitcoin-and-other-cryptocurrencies

must people set themselves up as a trust.. but not as beneficiaries.. instead as administrators (which you can then take a salary/commision or administer how its spend without the total funds 'technically' being yours)

then you can do things like pay for a cough 'company car' cough and get that wrote off for tax purposes

usually best to speak to an accountant

traincarswreck

you have spent MONTHS obsessing about nash

your conclusion is that bitcoin is NOT nashes ideal money..

ok its not NASHES ideal money..
end of.

bitcoin is something else.. something new.. something that does not fit the category of "money"

bitcoin is its own NEW paradigm and it will leave "money" in the past.
people will evolve and treat "money" as the scam stuff government used.

where as the future is about ASSET CURRENCIES. where its an asset and a currency.

---

now here is a tip
if you want to talk about "money".. in regards to a blockchain currency being ideal money.. go talk to the bankers at hyperledger.

bitcoin is not about letting governments or any centralised entity manage and halt bitcoin. bitcoin should remain as a new open paradigm that can grow and develop naturally

lol the veto limit?

lol there is not official veto limit. apart from the natural 51% which is not something satoshi wrote in.. its just nature
the end result is LOTS of orphan drama until it settles down to reveal a single chain after the orphan drama if close to 51%
the end result is little amount of orphan drama until it settles down to reveal a single chain after the orphan drama if closer to 100%

pools dont like to change unless nodes accept the change.. and devs have set recent thresholds at 95% to reduce as much orphan temporary drama as possible. but any number above 50% can cause a change,

again for emphasis. the lower the % from 100% the more orphan drama there is.
most say something between 75%-95% could be acceptable. but expect more orphan drama at 75%, with less orphan drama at 95%

issues such as this soft fork drama is that pools dont like to change if nodes are not ready to accept it. which is why 60% of pools are undecided. which is where going soft went wrong..

however..
if there was a REAL hard CONSENSUS* (nodes first and then pools SECOND) changes can happen more officially and constructively.
especially if organised and planned where ALL different brand versions pre agreed to release the code for the same change. to ALL allow their loyal users to have the choice

it could be done where lets say nodes get to 75% to then trigger a pool consensus.. thus giving nodes further time to add to that 75%.. by being inspired/enticed to upgrade during the pool consensus... where that 75% gets higher by the time a pool reaches a certain limit.

thus when pools get to a certain limit the pools then have the node count there to accept what pools then produce.

its about network confidence, and consent

pools wont do anything if they feel a certain amount of nodes will orphan their efforts. so just going soft was a bad idea.

note.
* DO NOT confuse a soft consensus or a hard consensus.. with a soft bilateral split or hard bilateral split.

MIT
cornell
duke
stanford
princeton
NYU
just to name a few universities that have bitcoins attention

not locked. but SOCIALLY halted using FALSE scare stories and FALSE reasons not to develop

"ideal money" is a vision of Nash.

medium of exchange can be anything.

bitcoin does not need to be Nashs ideal money. bitcoin can be something new beyond the scope of nashes thoughts.
it can sit in its own new category where its still medium of exchange. but as a deflationary digital asset currency.

anything can be a currency/medium of exchange. the attributes of a currency can differ.
in history golds attributes were only for decoration... today its for circuitry tomorrow who knows some martian air purifier..

bitcoins attributes can change..
2009 speculative experiment.
2012 deflationary digital asset currency.
2018 smart contract trigger

we should not halt bitcoins progress much like we didnt say no to using gold in circuitry.

we should not really care about bitcoins value(price).. let that be the side effect
what we should be concentrating on is
the cause which is its value(utility) which will cascade to its action value(desire) which will gain more adoption and cascade more value(utility) which has an end result of value(price) as a result.

halting utility is just as bad as expanding utility

no point with halting development to play around with value(price) as only playing with value(price) is not sustainable

trainscarwreck
weeks ago you were stating bitcoin was ideal money and Nash was satoshi.. now your saying bitcoin is not and cant be ideal money

if bitcoin never has been and never can be ideal money.
why should we suddenly stop developing bitcoin and do as you say and do nothing more to bitcoin to grow bitcoin.

if it never is was will be nashes ideal money. then it doesnt matter..

just accept that bitcoin is not Nashes ideal money.. but also accept that bitcoin can be something else. something new

beyond the scope of your king nash

1. anyone
2. not only but a moderate large amount of people at home
3. yep them too.. Blockstream have a few hundred running on servers(FIBRE), 21.co have 50+, btcc mining pool have a few
4. nope. but thats where users hope one day to run LN nodes (wrote in Go laungage) which pays them out if people have to hop a payment through them. but dont hope to get regular hop payments. because commercial services like blockstream and retailers will run HUBS (centralised hops)

LN nodes are not bitcoin nodes but when you get more involved you will start to see alot of talk and debate about what should be used for making payments. using bitcoins network or using a lightning network.

so
1.your saying bitcoin cant ever be nashes ideal money.
so why even waste 8 pages talking about nashes ideal money if it has nothing to do with bitcoin

bitcoin cant be a banana so no one talks about bitcoin being a banana

2. you keep saying bitcoin and inflation...
you really have no clue about bitcoin

but atleast we know bitcoin cant be nash's ideal money. so end of debate.

answer the question..

when did bitcoin become ideal money.

was it 2009... meaning nothing should have changed after 2009.
or is it suddenly ideal money right at the point where people have woke up that segwit is losing its "promises" and now ur scraping the barrel to prevent non core changes

give us a date when you think bitcoin should have stopped making changes

ok..

if trainswrck thinks bitcoin is ideal money right now.

when was it ideal money

was it ideal money at 2013 when sipa changed to leveldb and caused issues that were a hard consensus.. but chose to stick with a plan which then allowed blocks over 500kb to be made

was it ideal money when libsecp256k1 replaced the other mechanism

was it ideal money before CLTV and CSV were introduced
was it ideal money before RFB and CPFP were introduced..

let me guess every time core propose to change it trainwreck will quietly sit by. but if anyone else want to add extra ability to it trainwreck will want to bring up the nash argument as to why no one but core should change bitcoin.

the only issue is by appealing to core like kings/government. rather then using bitcoins built in feature since 2009 (consensus) trainwreck is not wanting ideal money he is wanting core controlled money.

the feature of bitcoin known as consensus is part of bitcoin. not using it (such as core bypassing it) is worse than using it

lol typical script reciter
all you need is a post with the words 'conservative' and 'ad-hom' and ull have the blockstream triple golden ticket

you do know that andreas was talking about segwit before it was even in a form ready for bitcoin..
MAY 2016 (not october 2016.)

segwit doesnt disarm the network from sigop quadratics (just disarms the USERS that would move funds to segwit keys)
segwit doesnt disarm the network from tx malleation (just disarms the USERS that would move funds to segwit keys)
segwit doesnt give a true doubling of tx count

segwit only disarms people who use segwit keys. allowing spammers to continue spamming and also opens a new attack vector via 'anyonecanspnd'

gmaxwell, sipa and matt corallo tried to hide the attack vector by centralising segwit nodes as upstream filters to automate not allowing native nodes from getting segwit unconfirmed transactions. but.. manually copy&pasting is a short microsecond task meaning the new attack vector is not even 'fixed' either.

the end result is this
1. blocks will still contain mealleated tx's
2. blocks will still contain sigop quatratic bloated tx's
3. blocks that have messed with segwit tx's via 'anyonecanspend'
4. not everyone will move funds over to segwit keys and so dont expect anywhere near 2x.. expect atbest 1.3x

FTFY

we shouldnt target just a price increase.
we shouldnt care about just a price increase.
that should just be the side effect of making bitcoin better for everyone, after everyone has sound ideal money

if a node cannot cope with X it wont flag to say it will allow X so CONSENSUS will see nodes cannot cope with X and wont move to X.

NODES USING CONSENSUS ensure NODES survival.
however
letting blockstream control blocksize = centralisation where lets say 100 FIBRE server nodes run the network as upstream filters. making the downstream nodes unneeded relayers. causing the value(desire) to be a node decline

LOL now your just fake doomsdaying. you have got the wrong kings in mind as to who is playing with the PRICE

you are doing it by subtly confusing the umbrella term "value" when you use the term without the context of utility or price.. they are different things. and cause different results
tx/s is not about value(price)
tx/s is about value(utility)

increasing tx/s value(utility) increase value(desire) which along with deflation (value desire) sustainably increases value(price)

trainscarswreck obsession with inflation means he is not grasping the basics.

BITCOIN IS DEFLATIONARY

non blockstreamers
as for value(desire/utility)
by increasing its value(utility) you increase value(desire) which increases its value(price)

blockstreamers
by halting its value(utility) and then forcing its value(price) up, with fee filters and coded fee wars. does not mean its value(desire) can sustainably last.

trying to artificially mess with the value(price) to hope it maintains value(desire) is not a sustainable long term. which is where boom and busts/pumps and dumps occur

bitcoin is and always will be DEFLATIONARY which is of value(desire)
having it usable spendable without headache or unknown costs, delays, etc= value(utility) which adds further value(desire). which causes the value(price) to increase sustainably without boom or bust / pump and dump

to add to toknormals point.

trainscarswreck is the one not defining the proper concepts
value=price
value=desire/need

are 2 different things

you are not grasping the big picture of economics. you have simply got yourself reading a few articles but not spent time to sit back and let the context and content sink into your mind to understand them. you have just took the words on face value of how you perceive the words mean based on your quick to judge, slow to process personality.

VALUE (up or down, controlled or not controlled) is the RESULT of deflation/inflation. not the mechanism

no
inflation control is about adding more coins endlessly with no cap.. and LIMITING utility while producing endless coins.
bitcoin is deflationary over time so EXPANDING or limiting utility over time is deflationary control.