Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[traincarswreck]

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.

I know but the smartest man that ever existed spent 20 years explaining what will be the effects of an international e currency with a stable supply in relation to our legacy financial system and instead of reading it you typed a bunch of words.

That's why theymos is sort of reprimanding my attitude but I think you are the definition of ignorant.

ig·no·rant
ˈiɡnərənt/
adjective
adjective: ignorant

    lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

[1715050221]

1715050221

[mezzomix]

Economists know this because money stable in value needs to be able to expand and contract with its underlying economy.  

There is no single group of economists with a single _opinion_. Economics is a social science, most of the predictions are not falsifiable. A lot of economists drive the agenda of their masters. A good example for successfully using economics as a weapon is Ken Rogoff. A very good example of a failing economic model can be currently seen in india.

timeo oeconomicus et dona ferentes

[traincarswreck]

Economists know this because money stable in value needs to be able to expand and contract with its underlying economy.  

There is no single group of economists with a single _opinion_. Economics is a social science, most of the predictions are not falsifiable. A lot of economists drive the agenda of their masters. A good example for successfully using economics as a weapon is Ken Rogoff. A very good example of a failing economic model can be currently seen in india.

timeo oeconomicus et dona ferentes

no.  non bitcoiner economists will tell you the same thing, to have a stable value a money need to be able to contract and expand.  Your lack of knowledge on the subject doesn't change that.

And economic proposals are falsifiable now.  You put them to the bitcoin network and if they are accepted then they are rational.  I don't expect you to understand because you just suggest economics isn't a science. I don't think you know what science is.

Next.

[traincarswreck]

Sometimes people say me things like, "blah blah blah this and that blah blah" and I tell them they are wrong and ignorant. And eventually they say, "hey do you have any links about this ideal money thing"

[7queue]

Economists know this because money stable in value needs to be able to expand and contract with its underlying economy.  

There is no single group of economists with a single _opinion_. Economics is a social science, most of the predictions are not falsifiable. A lot of economists drive the agenda of their masters. A good example for successfully using economics as a weapon is Ken Rogoff. A very good example of a failing economic model can be currently seen in india.

timeo oeconomicus et dona ferentes

no.  non bitcoiner economists will tell you the same thing, to have a stable value a money need to be able to contract and expand.  Your lack of knowledge on the subject doesn't change that.

And economic proposals are falsifiable now.  You put them to the bitcoin network and if they are accepted then they are rational.  I don't expect you to understand because you just suggest economics isn't a science. I don't think you know what science is.

Next.

"Emulating complex business cycles by using an electronic analogue" chaos theory?

A.I. the "Game Theory", this 20 years of study mentioned might bring to light the control/influence/plan of debt swap for real property, or is this reaching a Nakamoto paradigm? (Think 'cook the books')


8  )

[Yogafan00000]

C'mon buddy, every bitcoiner knows that the triffin dilemma doesn't apply to Bitcoin.

DO YOUR RESEARCH!!

[traincarswreck]

C'mon buddy, every bitcoiner knows that the triffin dilemma doesn't apply to Bitcoin.

DO YOUR RESEARCH!!

bitcoin is the premise for nash's solution to the triffin dilemma.  Do yours.

[piotr_n]

The control of core developers (or any developers) over the future of bitcoin is hugely exaggerated.

Devs can add new features to the existing software, but they cannot change the blockchain protocol.
Only miners can.

So you're talking to the wrong people.

[traincarswreck]

The control of core developers (or any developers) over the future of bitcoin is hugely exaggerated.

Devs can add new features to the existing software, but they cannot change the blockchain protocol.
Only miners can.

So you're talking to the wrong people.

No I am not.

[piotr_n]

The control of core developers (or any developers) over the future of bitcoin is hugely exaggerated.

Devs can add new features to the existing software, but they cannot change the blockchain protocol.
Only miners can.

So you're talking to the wrong people.

No I am not.

Let me ask you this, then.

Let's say there is a cataclysm, or whatever and every single "code dev" (whichever criteria you use to tag them) dies...

What effect, in your opinion, would such an event have on the bitcoin as the currency?

[prezbo]

Putting aside what core devs can or cannot do, traincarswreck what concretely are you proposing they should do? Apart from them acknowledging bitcoin cannot be ideal money I have not seen any concrete proposals from your end.

[traincarswreck]

Putting aside what core devs can or cannot do, traincarswreck what concretely are you proposing they should do? Apart from them acknowledging bitcoin cannot be ideal money I have not seen any concrete proposals from your end.

Yes you have.  Stop trying to make bitcoin ideal money cause its a stupid thing to try to do.  It's NOT possible, anyone with any understanding of money and macro economics KNOWS this. Is there any scientists here that read source documents?  Has anyone here read a book on economics?

[prezbo]

Putting aside what core devs can or cannot do, traincarswreck what concretely are you proposing they should do? Apart from them acknowledging bitcoin cannot be ideal money I have not seen any concrete proposals from your end.

Yes you have.  Stop trying to make bitcoin ideal money cause its a stupid thing to try to do.  It's NOT possible, anyone with any understanding of money and macro economics KNOWS this. Is there any scientists here that read source documents?  Has anyone here read a book on economics?

I can see why people are making fun of you. You keep saying the same stuff over and over and have either a serious problem with reading comprehension or are not even trying.

[piotr_n]

Putting aside what core devs can or cannot do, traincarswreck what concretely are you proposing they should do? Apart from them acknowledging bitcoin cannot be ideal money I have not seen any concrete proposals from your end.

Yes you have.  Stop trying to make bitcoin ideal money cause its a stupid thing to try to do.  It's NOT possible, anyone with any understanding of money and macro economics KNOWS this. Is there any scientists here that read source documents?  Has anyone here read a book on economics?

I'm sure the central bakers have read loads of books on economics.

Perhaps you will have better chances teaching them how to make a better money?

[pennywise]

The control of core developers (or any developers) over the future of bitcoin is hugely exaggerated.

Devs can add new features to the existing software, but they cannot change the blockchain protocol.
Only miners can.

So you're talking to the wrong people.

No I am not.

Let me ask you this, then.

Let's say there is a cataclysm, or whatever and every single "code dev" (whichever criteria you use to tag them) dies...

What effect, in your opinion, would such an event have on the bitcoin as the currency?

Right on!!!
The devs may write the code as much as they want, but if the miners won't like it, it will not be used. A nice example of this is SegWit code which is not accepted: https://blockchain.info/sl/charts/bip-9-segwit

This guy thinks that Bitcoin is centrally planned by core devs, which is fairly stupid.

[Bitinvestor]

... to have a stable value a money need to be able to contract and expand ...

True, but Bitcoin wasn't designed to have a stable value. It was designed to be deflationary and you won't be able to change that. Go and start your own coin, but don't be surprised if nobody uses it.

[misterbigg]

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.

False.

[LoyceV]

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?

You're posting at a discussion forum. You got me curious with the "Open Letter to Core Devs" title, and while reading through your post I was hoping you would tell me what it's all about. Unfortunately, you don't explain that.
As theymos told you already: you mention Nash a few times. It's not my field of study, I've seen the name before, but I don't know more than just the name.
What is the point of posting: "read Nash"? What do you expect from this thread, a confirmation from people who read it? That's not helping anybody.

It would be very interesting if you could share your point of view without complaining about people you spoke to in "slack" (another term I've seen, but don't know what it is exactly). Write a complete post about it, explain your point of view, and convince me why a. you are right and b. why it matters whether or not Bitcoin is "ideal money".

[traincarswreck]

I'll get more specific but gimme a bit to think and write. But to those who say I don't explain.  You don't know I have a history in the community of writing 100's of article citing and expounding on every aspect of his works.  I was as meticulous and articulate as I am capable of, and its very easy to use google to search for it.

So what's happening is I did my homework ya'll haven't done yours.  Which is ok.   But I'm not the one that is guilty of not explaining.

That said I will try to answer those with sincere questions (ie just got home).

[traincarswreck]

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.

False.

Here's the first.  Why wouldn't you explain.  I think I know why you wouldn't explain.

Here is the thing. Ideal Money is money that has stable value over LONG periods of time. 

A deflationary currency does not have that quality. 

Bitcoin is deflationary.

Bitcoin's inflation schedule cannot be altered.

Bitcoin cannot be ideal money.

Now.  Tell us.  Refute it, or never return.