Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[traincarswreck]

(edit: to be fair Gmax told me 'afaik there are no core devs in that slack)

I was in core’s slack for 2 days. I had dialogue with about 10 players including Adam Back. Each of them (excluding Back) made fun of me as soon as I started talking. Some of them were disgustingly cruel. One of them berated me for quite some time about how value and price are the same thing (hint: they aren’t).

But over some period of time I was able to convince the sincere ones, that I absolutely know what I am talking about when it comes the macro-economics implications of bitcoin. I suspect Back is one of them because he said I might be able to convince Ver to lift his tacit assumptions and that Trace Mayer would probably be really interested in the subject of the macro-economic implications of bitcoin (Trace would be FAR more interested in my understanding of David Bohm’s work).

But the berating of me wouldn’t stop, and so when I bit back I was warned. I was in a private dialogue with shino who asked me to calm down, I explained I am calm but not being treated fairly when another “mod” moved me to the troll thread and said I am only welcome there.

I refuse to speak from that position. It’s terrible treatment, simply for the fact that I have something to offer that brings awareness to core’s ignorance.

Shinmonkey knows that I know what I am talking about, and yet they have decided that they understand Nash’s argument while simultaneously confessing that they haven’t read it. They DON’T understand. But shino understands enough to confirm that I know what I am talking about, and they were also one that was making fun of my intelligence. But then started to defend me and tell others to spend time with the points I am making because they are clearly (supra-)rational.

I watched brg444 as they allowed tdny to continually bash me about value and price. tdny I don’t know if they are a core dev but I do know if they are they are a security leak. Their ignorance is astounding and they think value and price are the same thing.

Core is being irresponsible. You cannot decide the fate of bitcoin while ignoring the macro-economic implications of it. This is a very important technology and the direction we take it matters.

I did not find a single scientist in that group (save Back). Every person was willing to argue against Nash argument without hearing it. And when I suggested they read the source material the general consensus was there is no need to (WHEN is this acceptable?).

I showed a superior communication protocol and explained why it is relevant, and not a single developer there can recognize a communication protocol when they see it. That’s a problem.

For 20 years John Nash expounded on what could happen if an international e-currency with a stably issued supply was released unto our global financial system. He was incredibly methodical in his explanation and his works will have a profound impact on how our global civilization will unfold. It is an argument Nash had been refining for nearly 70 years.

Core remains willfully ignorant of his works.

I say willfully because enough players in that group are now aware that they are wrong about how they view the macro-economic implications of bitcoin. Even the player that thinks value and price are the same thing and thinks that my arguments are unfounded illogical and backwards knows that they cannot hold a candle to me on this subject.

It cannot be that in the face of truth there is only fear, attack, and rejection of it.

I was told my tone is bad and so my argument is wrong. It’s not my argument, it’s John Nash’s and it’s not wrong. It’s certainly not wrong because core is unwillingly to learn about it.

I have shown that core is making haphazard choices with the direction they are taking bitcoin. I have shown that if core doesn’t consider Nash’s argument when making choices there is great potential to destroy bitcoin’s gold like qualities. This would affect bitcoin’s value and could endanger the project.

Core’s ignorance is it’s biggest security leak.

[achow101]

Just because what some people say in that channel does not mean that it is Core's position on something. Just because people are in that channel does not mean that they are part of the Core dev team. Just because someone supports Core does not mean that they are affiliated with Core in any way. Please stop spreading misinformation about what "Core does ...", "Core's position...", "Core's willfulness/understanding of/etc...". Those people in the slack channel are not Core, do not represent Core.

Very few, of the actual developers who work on Bitcoin Core actual frequent that slack channel (or any other public forum to communicate with the general populace) and post there. You may find one, maybe 2 people who frequently contribute to Core there, so please don't attribute everything that is being said there to what the people on the Core dev team actually think, know, or believe.

[traincarswreck]

Ah, where is the slack channel dedicated to core?  And why is core trying to make bitcoin ideal money when its obviously impossible?

[achow101]

Ah, where is the slack channel dedicated to core? 

The Bitcoin Core developers don't use slack because it is not conducive to open source development work. They use #bitcoin-core-dev on Freenode IRC to communicate.

And why is core trying to make bitcoin ideal money when its obviously impossible?

There is no roadmap like "We are going to force these things to happen to Bitcoin because we think that is how it should be". For that matter, there is no unified "This is what Bitcoin should be". Even the concept of "Bitcoin Core Developer" is extremely nebulous; anyone who has contributed to the project could be considered a "Core dev".

[traincarswreck]

Ah, where is the slack channel dedicated to core? 

The Bitcoin Core developers don't use slack because it is not conducive to open source development work. They use #bitcoin-core-dev on Freenode IRC to communicate.

And why is core trying to make bitcoin ideal money when its obviously impossible?

There is no roadmap like "We are going to force these things to happen to Bitcoin because we think that is how it should be". For that matter, there is no unified "This is what Bitcoin should be". Even the concept of "Bitcoin Core Developer" is extremely nebulous; anyone who has contributed to the project could be considered a "Core dev".

So there is no place to explain to the people that are working on the direction of bitcoin, that they are wholly ignoring the macro-economic implications of it?

[achow101]

So there is no place to explain to the people that are working on the direction of bitcoin, that they are wholly ignoring the macro-economic implications of it?

Did you not read what I wrote? You can go to the IRC channel and talk there. You can also go to the #bitcoin-dev channel and talk there generally to anyone working on anything related to Bitcoin, not just Core. You can also post on the bitcoin-dev mailing list. There are many places to discuss economic implications of technical details. However you may not get any response as most of the people who work on Core (or any Bitcoin software) are software developers, not economists.

[HostFat]

@traincarswreck
Many key people in the Core dev team are probably ignorant of what you are saying and/or in a position of conflict of interest (so their mind will deny everything that can go against their salary), but ... if you give a full proof about their ignorance, then Core will become a magic pure entity, full open source, completely transparent, where everyone is free to contribute ...

Traincarswreck, do not waste your time on complaining.
When things don't work as you think that they should do, help to build an alternative

[traincarswreck]

So there is no place to explain to the people that are working on the direction of bitcoin, that they are wholly ignoring the macro-economic implications of it?

Did you not read what I wrote? You can go to the IRC channel and talk there. You can also go to the #bitcoin-dev channel and talk there generally to anyone working on anything related to Bitcoin, not just Core. You can also post on the bitcoin-dev mailing list. There are many places to discuss economic implications of technical details. However you may not get any response as most of the people who work on Core (or any Bitcoin software) are software developers, not economists.

I read it, I just an unfamiliar with it, and am not convinced it's an appropriate place for me to be since i'm not a dev.

[traincarswreck]

@traincarswreck
Many key people in the Core dev team are probably ignorant of what you are saying and/or in a position of conflict of interest (so their mind will deny everything that can go against their salary), but ... if you give a full proof about their ignorance, then Core will become a magic pure entity, full open source, completely transparent, where everyone is free to contribute ...

Traincarswreck, do not waste your time on complaining.
When things don't work as you think that they should do, help to build an alternative

I reject your notions.  Core should be rational scientists and there should be no reason to "build an alternative".

[theymos]

I don't use Slack, and I don't know anything about what happened in this case. But although I've seen you bring up good points before, I've also seen you communicate non-constructively on many occasions. Oftentimes, if someone is disagreeing with you, you will start berating them with non-arguments. You also tend to monopolize the discussion, posting far more than anyone else. If you want people to take you seriously (and not ban you from places), then you need to stop this.

Instead of constantly ranting about how we're all fools for not understanding Ideal Money, I suggest that you write a single complete post on how Nash's ideas relate to Bitcoin. In this post:

- Don't actually say Nash's name more than once. You tend to assume that everything Nash says is automatically correct, but the rest of us aren't super familiar with him, and certainly don't view him as omniscient. Your constant appeals to Nash's authority just weaken your arguments.
- Don't tell people to go read Ideal Money. Nobody's going to do that, even if it's a fairly short paper. Summarize the points from Ideal Money that you think are important here. Don't assume that things are correct just because they're in Ideal Money; instead, using the same arguments as Nash (or your own), convince us that they're correct.
- Make logical arguments which advance your case.

I've read many of your posts, but I only have a vague idea of what your underlying points are because you hardly ever give any details. You just keep referencing Nash and Ideal Money constantly, and telling people that they're obviously wrong because they contradict Ideal Money. This is not an effective way of communicating.

[traincarswreck]

I've read many of your posts, but I only have a vague idea of what your underlying points are because you hardly ever give any details. You just keep referencing Nash and Ideal Money constantly, and telling people that they're obviously wrong because they contradict Ideal Money. This is not an effective way of communicating.

Thank you theymos.  I think I just don't have a proper forum and the proper people to address. Honestly I'd rather just give the link to the lecture and walk away forever, but at this point I realize its not going to work.

I need you know this...

Bitcoin cannot be ideal money.  Economists know this because money stable in value needs to be able to expand and contract with its underlying economy.  

This means that its an irrational pursuit from both sides of the debate.  

This is happening because both sides are functioning on the tacit assumption that a good medium of exchange solves an important problem.  It doesn't.

The REAL problem we need to solve is creating a stable unit of value for the markets so they can optimally distribute our commodities.

Money can help play this role, but this creates pressure, and the pressure has always historically corrupted the metric.

Core's mandate needs to be (if it is possible) to use bitcoin to facilitate the creation of a stable unit of value.  This is wholly different than trying to idealize bitcoin as a currency.  In fact the latter will destroy the possibility of the former.

Core's misunderstanding of this is what is perpetuating the debate, not Ver ignorance.  It's both sides. And that's why the debate is unending.

I propose a protocol by David Bohm, Einstein's protege, called On Dialogue.  It's specific quality is that it lift's tacit assumptions.

This is related to why Adam Back said Trace Mayer would be interested (and he knows who Bohm is and that Bohm is relevant) and that Roger Ver would probably be receptive to this.

[OgNasty]

Bitcoin cannot be ideal money.  Economists know this because money stable in value needs to be able to expand and contract with its underlying economy.  

1) Why do you believe the goal of Bitcoin is to become ideal money?
2) Do you know people who got involved in Bitcoin because it was going to be stable in value?

[Holliday]

Bitcoin cannot be ideal money.  Economists know this because money stable in value needs to be able to expand and contract with its underlying economy.  

This means that its an irrational pursuit from both sides of the debate.  

This is happening because both sides are functioning on the tacit assumption that a good medium of exchange solves an important problem.  It doesn't.

The REAL problem we need to solve is creating a stable unit of value for the markets so they can optimally distribute our commodities.

Money can help play this role, but this creates pressure, and the pressure has always historically corrupted the metric.

Core's mandate needs to be (if it is possible) to use bitcoin to facilitate the creation of a stable unit of value.  This is wholly different than trying to idealize bitcoin as a currency.  In fact the latter will destroy the possibility of the former.

Core's misunderstanding of this is what is perpetuating the debate, not Ver ignorance.  It's both sides. And that's why the debate is unending.

I propose a protocol by David Bohm, Einstein's protege, called On Dialogue.  It's specific quality is that it lift's tacit assumptions.

This is related to why Adam Back said Trace Mayer would be interested (and he knows who Bohm is and that Bohm is relevant) and that Roger Ver would probably be receptive to this.

What you are suggesting, if it can even be accomplished, is something so drastically different from Bitcoin that it would have to be created from the ground up. I honestly think your efforts would be best directed towards that end. Trying to modify Bitcoin in an attempt to achieve what you are suggesting seems to me like destroying a functional system which already has a viable purpose, in the hopes of achieving the impossible. There is simply no reason to start from Bitcoin when you can start from scratch.

[traincarswreck]

Please take these as serious questions although you could interpret them otherwise.

1) Why do you believe the goal of Bitcoin is to become ideal money?
2) Do you know people who got involved in Bitcoin because it was going to be stable in value?

1)I was very explicit in my post to theymos when I said bitcoin CANNOT be ideal money.
2)It can't be. It's deflationary.

[traincarswreck]

What you are suggesting, if it can even be accomplished, is something so drastically different from Bitcoin that it would have to be created from the ground up. I honestly think your efforts would be best directed towards that end. Trying to modify Bitcoin in an attempt to achieve what you are suggesting seems to me like destroying a functional system which already has a viable purpose, in the hopes of achieving the impossible. There is simply no reason to start from Bitcoin when you can start from scratch.

This is where I get in trouble from theymos.  But I'm just being accurate. 

You are wrong.  Firstly bitcoin CANNOT be Ideal Money.  Secondly the relevant of bitcoin and john nash's lecture is such that bitcoin fits PERFECTLY as the premise which is an international e-currency with a stably issued supply that has an inflation rate that halves periodically.

You are confused, and I am not confused. Please re read my post to theymos. 

[traincarswreck]

...

Theymos, is there anyone smarter I can reach out to?  Adam Back realized it was intelligible near instantly as I understand. If core moves bitcoin's direction without attending to this, they will break the project.

[Holliday]

You are wrong.  Firstly bitcoin CANNOT be Ideal Money.

I never suggested as much.

Secondly the relevant of bitcoin and john nash's lecture is such that bitcoin fits PERFECTLY as the premise which is an international e-currency with a stably issued supply that has an inflation rate that halves periodically.

I've read the Nash lecture and I don't see it.

You are confused, and I am not confused.

I guess I ain't gots 'nuff brains!

There was a fellow named Etlase2 who used to post here about money as measurement and tying a token's value to a basket of global commodities, et cetera. He, too, had it all figured out and I think he even tried to create his own thing. Maybe you can find a way to contact him. He used lots of big words and was always right! You two will get along great...

[traincarswreck]

Theymos, what kind of a world do we live in if I have to explain what Nash's already explained? Why won't anyone read it?  I mean I know but, I'm pretty sure he did a perfect job of explaining.  What is the culture of refusing to read the source documents?

[traincarswreck]

I've read the Nash lecture and I don't see it.

That means you've read less than 10% of the material. Listen.  You are wrong and I am right, and I have read the material.

[buwaytress]

So there is no place to explain to the people that are working on the direction of bitcoin, that they are wholly ignoring the macro-economic implications of it?

Did you not read what I wrote? You can go to the IRC channel and talk there. You can also go to the #bitcoin-dev channel and talk there generally to anyone working on anything related to Bitcoin, not just Core. You can also post on the bitcoin-dev mailing list. There are many places to discuss economic implications of technical details. However you may not get any response as most of the people who work on Core (or any Bitcoin software) are software developers, not economists.

I read it, I just an unfamiliar with it, and am not convinced it's an appropriate place for me to be since i'm not a dev.

While I can empathise with you on what I myself have found to be (what I guess I might call) premature pre-emptive defensive attitudes of many otherwise knowledgeable technical people - you should also realise when someone is trying to sincerely help you out. You're pointed in the right direction but insist that you're unfamiliar and unconvinced - then where do we go from there?

In any case, implying that only one dev is sincere and rational by the title of the thread isn't a show of sincerity in itself. I think most technically knowledgeable people (including non devs) in crypto are sincere and rational, if not always friendly and open to what they deem is unacceptable ignorance on the part of the majority.