Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[BurtW]

In regard to agent.  There is no such quote with satoshi explicitly stating a block size increase is eminent. Any quote you have provided or will provide will not have satoshi saying.  Every quote you provide will imply it only in your opinion.  

That is what i am saying.  And its a falsifiable claim, because you could produce evidence to the contrary.  Keep in mind, I don't have to convince you.  You have to convince us,  with proof. Not implication.

I think this quote comes pretty darn close:

Forgot to add the good part about micropayments.  While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.

Taken at face value it means that Satoshi envisioned Bitcoin to eventually have a high TPS.

Now this does not take away from all your Nashian arguments as to why it might be a good idea to leave the block size alone.

I think it does mean that you should stop claiming Satoshi actually created what you/Nash are looking for on purpose.  It looks more like it was created as a happy coincidence due to a temporary bug fix.

[1715065805]

1715065805

[1715065805]

1715065805

[1715065805]

1715065805

[1715065805]

1715065805

[xyzzy099]

It can't be a peg because then nixon could just end the peg based on a political whim.  It the system needs a new compass that entices rational self interest to work towards the desires of the people.  Not altruistic cooperative interest, rational SELF-INTEREST.

I think maybe I am not framing my question properly.  I was not suggesting any 'peg' or otherwise, just referring to what was done in the past.  Let me fully characterize the thing I don't understand:

1) Real gold exists.
2) Real gold is not as perfect as Bitcoin might be as a standard of value, but it is a reasonable approximation.
3) The existence of real gold does not currently appear to have any effect at all of pushing fiat currencies toward embodying the properties of a more "ideal currency".
4) The use of gold in the past to make fiat currencies relied on the issuer to voluntarily link the value of the currency to gold.
5) It seems unlikely that any fiat currency issuer would establish any such linkage between their currency and Bitcoin.

So how does the "finger trap" that will supposedly compel fiat currencies to converge asymptotically to "ideal" currency work?  If these fiat issuers are not influenced by the existence of real gold, why would a more "perfect" gold, in the form of Bitcoin, be any thing more than marginally more successful in that regard?

I know the answer should be that they will get there by acting in their own rational interest - but I can't seem to piece together how that will work exactly.


PS - You must be using a different version of "Ideal Money" than any I can find on the web...  I cannot find the quote below in my copy.

I think of the possibility that a good sort of international currency might EVOLVE before the time when an official establishment might occur.

…my personal view is that a practical global money might most favorably evolve through the development first of a few regional currencies of truly good quality. And then the “integration” or “coordination” of those into a global currency would become just a technical problem. (Here I am thinking of a politically neutral form of a technological utility rather than of a money which might, for example, be used to exert pressures in a conflict situation comparable to “the cold war”.)

[BurtW]

xyzzy099: I think the fact that Bitcoin is not physical, can be pretty easily owned, can be bought and sold with little friction, can be electronically transferred, has an abolute cap in quantity, etc. - all the things we know and love about it that make it so much better than physical gold - are the reasons it has a chance to persuade the fiat markets where physical gold has failed.

[franky1]

xyzzy099: I think the fact that Bitcoin is not physical, can be pretty easily owned, can be bought and sold with little friction, can be electronically transferred, has an abolute cap in quantity, etc. - all the things we know and love about it that make it so much better than physical gold - are the reasons it has a chance to persuade the fiat markets where physical gold has failed.

forget stalling/halting its tx/s ... that wont affect fiat.

how about something revolutionary...
we stop basing bitcoin on the Dollar value.

wait. dont through my post aside read on.

imagine we measure bitcoin against COST OF LIVING. (minimum wage hours for instance)

and make it so right now its ~160 hours (equivalent of ~$1200 now) so no real big disaster change.
then slowly let the fiat markets realise:

160 cuban hours or 160 nigerian hours come at different fiat value.
thus let the fiat markets arbitrage each other until cuba nigeria, ukrain, (180+ countries) duke it out arbitrarily until it forces fiat of all countries to even out to each other. where peoples living costs and value of labour and life all stabilise...

that alone would change fiat markets perception of bitcoin more than stalling a bitcoin code feature.

[xyzzy099]

xyzzy099: I think the fact that Bitcoin is not physical, can be pretty easily owned, can be bought and sold with little friction, can be electronically transferred, has an abolute cap in quantity, etc. - all the things we know and love about it that make it so much better than physical gold - are the reasons it has a chance to persuade the fiat markets where physical gold has failed.

You certainly don't need to sell me on the idea that Bitcoin is in many ways superior to gold

What you suggest is certainly possible, I'm just not sure there are any fingers in the trap just yet.  I hope (as you suggest above) that the bait  is sufficient this time

[BurtW]

franky1:  Your very interesting idea sounds very difficult to implement.

xyzzy099:  The interesting thing about the idea being presented here is that it is extremely easy to implement - simply leave the block size alone and see what happens.

[traincarswreck]

Even if there is more banana and the price decrease, it still mean the currency has un stable value, if the metric is the number of banana you can get out of it.

no.  give this up.  we don't measure things in bananas.

[xyzzy099]

franky1:  Your very interesting idea sounds very difficult to implement.

xyzzy099:  The interesting thing about the idea being presented here is that it is extremely easy to implement - simply leave the block size alone and see what happens.

No arguments there, friend.  I'm not arguing against OP, just trying to understand it all.  This is the most interesting topic I think I have ever seen on BCT

[traincarswreck]

...

Your question is what are the RELEVANT difference between bitcoin and gold. and nash outlined them.

[jbreher]

Back on page 30 or so a pretty good summary was developed:

So, if bitcoin maintains current gold like properties,
including not increasing the TPS whether on-chain or off-chains, then:
(1) bitcoin will increase in value [by design].
(2) bitcoin is the "other alternative" due to its increase in value [all other currencies decrease in value by design].
(3) bitcoin cannot be the "ideal money".
(4) "other alternatives" [=Bitcoin] existence is to force fiat to compete in value.
(5) "other alternative" [=Bitcoin] ushers in the "ideal money".
(6) "Ideal money" is the end result of the competition [and it will NOT be Bitcoin].

I agree that this seems a pretty good summary of the thread. I question whether any evidence has been presented that supports assertion number two. And of course if (2) ends up being false, the parentheticals in (4) and (5) would need removal.

[traincarswreck]

 I question whether any evidence has been presented that supports assertion number two. And of course if (2) ends up being false, the parentheticals in (4) and (5) would need removal.

get fucked.

[traincarswreck]

PS - You MUST be using a different version of "Ideal Money" than any I can find on the web...  I cannot find the quote below in my copy.

FYP. grats for paying attention.  Nash hid his meaning.

[jbreher]

 I question whether any evidence has been presented that supports assertion number two. And of course if (2) ends up being false, the parentheticals in (4) and (5) would need removal.

get fucked.

No. What evidence has been provided that 'Bitcoin is the 'other alternative'?

[traincarswreck]

No. What evidence has been provided that 'Bitcoin is the 'other alternative'?

What are the other fucking possibilities that take the power from central banking like nash described?  That are international e-currencies with a stable supply with a halving inflation rate?

Give me ONE example.

[traincarswreck]

Where is the example?

WHO HAS DONE THEIR HOMEWORK?

[sidhujag]

Governments are probably going for some sdr backed fiat currency since us and eu are colloborating and backing it..the market may be forced to use less than ideal money but it may take a few decades for market to finally breakthrough as people are generally resistant to change.. esp those that have the most money.. if it threatens their business models they will go down foghting unless their peers switch over in which case we might see a seamless transition.. however i do expect some sdr backed currency first

[traincarswreck]

Governments are probably going for some sdr backed fiat currency since us and eu are colloborating and backing it..the market may be forced to use less than ideal money but it may take a few decades for market to finally breakthrough as people are generally resistant to change.. esp those that have the most money.. if it threatens their business models they will go down foghting unless their peers switch over in which case we might see a seamless transition.. however i do expect some sdr backed currency first

if anyone is wondering, this is blah non-sense.

[sidhujag]

Governments are probably going for some sdr backed fiat currency since us and eu are colloborating and backing it..the market may be forced to use less than ideal money but it may take a few decades for market to finally breakthrough as people are generally resistant to change.. esp those that have the most money.. if it threatens their business models they will go down foghting unless their peers switch over in which case we might see a seamless transition.. however i do expect some sdr backed currency first

if anyone is wondering, this is blah non-sense.

Im paraphrasing his ideal money paper btw sorry you cant pick it up.
If anonymint was ever good for anything around here for this kind of stuff its probably this.. id trust his judgement on the subject

[traincarswreck]

Im paraphrasing his ideal money paper btw sorry you cant pick it up.
If anonymint was ever good for anything around here for this kind of stuff its probably this.. id trust his judgement on the subject

I'd make a fool of satoshi.

[jonald_fyookball]

Do we understand how irrational and silly it sounds to me to hear core supporters and elite say "we gotta stop fitting and figure out how to scale responsibly!"?

Given everything you have said, yes, any changes to scale Bitcoin would sound irrational to you.

The problem is that everyone else here, myself included, have been working very hard for years before you showed up with the direction of improving, scaling, adding value, and mass adoption.

That is a lot of momentum.  A lot of current to swim against and stop.

Lucky for you/Nash/Satoshi(?) consensus is nearly impossible.

Perhaps a fork is inevitable.

Any way you slice it, it would be extremely unlikely that a 3 TPS cryptocurrency could remain dominant in the long run.