Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[traincarswreck]

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

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

You sound stupid telling people I don't get the basics.  You will be remembered for this.

Listen, ver is doing EXACTLY what you are saying can't be sustainable, he is TRYING to mess with the value, and the mechanism he is using is the tp/s. THAT'S BASIC.

When we admit this OBVIOUS truth we can move on.

[1715388877]

1715388877

[1715388877]

1715388877

[1715388877]

1715388877

[1715388877]

1715388877

[1715388877]

1715388877

[franky1]

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

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

You sound stupid telling people I don't get the basics.  You will be remembered for this.

Listen, ver is doing EXACTLY what you are saying can't be sustainable, he is TRYING to mess with the value, and the mechanism he is using is the tp/s. THAT'S BASIC.

When we admit this OBVIOUS truth we can move on.

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)

[traincarswreck]

You dream of sth ideal that only exists in theory like an ideal gas. There is no ideal in real.

So you are suggesting that 20 years of writing and talks by John Nash is irrelevant because you say so?  Have you ever thought you are just ignorant maybe? Nash was a pretty smart guy you know...

Maybe, just maybe, he deserves a peak at his work before you open your mouth about it?

You are not a scientist either, but I am looking for one.  One that will read the source material before saying something stupid and ignorant about it.

[traincarswreck]

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

I didn't doomsday anything. You are a troll and too stupid to realize that you don't know what you are talking about.  And you keep conflating value and price, and you are too stupid to realize those words do not mean the same thing.

Leave this thread, grown ups are talking.  And pull your pants back up, no one wants to see your little wiener.

[pereira4]

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

Value of bitcoin without a conservative block size that allows for an easy setup of nodes by unrelated parties in individual computers across the world = 0

[franky1]

Value of bitcoin without a conservative block size that allows for an easy setup of nodes by unrelated parties in individual computers across the world = 0

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

[hv_]

You dream of sth ideal that only exists in theory like an ideal gas. There is no ideal in real.

So you are suggesting that 20 years of writing and talks by John Nash is irrelevant because you say so?  Have you ever thought you are just ignorant maybe? Nash was a pretty smart guy you know...

Maybe, just maybe, he deserves a peak at his work before you open your mouth about it?

You are not a scientist either, but I am looking for one.  One that will read the source material before saying something stupid and ignorant about it.

You ve found Nash. Put your energy into sth real than you might stop ranting and earn some honor.

[traincarswreck]

letting blockstream control blocksize = centralisation

OH.  I didn't know you were one of these people.  Ic.  ya i'm giving the missing argument that proves you to be wrong.  If the block size changes we kill bitcoin's store of value properties.  It's not "centralization".  Central banking I have shown, in a roundabout difficult to understand way, but absolutely true, would be to change the block size in order to increase tp/s.

Because the admission that increasing tp/s will increase the utility and therefore value, is an admission of inflation (value) control.

Value control over bitcoin, will turn it into keynesian money. 

We cannot target and change the tp/s.

[franky1]

letting blockstream control blocksize = centralisation

OH.  I didn't know you were one of these people.  Ic.  ya i'm giving the missing argument that proves you to be wrong.  If the block size changes we kill bitcoin's store of value properties.  It's not "centralization".  Central banking I have shown, in a roundabout difficult to understand way, but absolutely true, would be to change the block size in order to increase tp/s.

Because the admission that increasing tp/s will increase the utility and therefore value[desire], is an admission of deflation value(desire) control.

Value[price] control over bitcoin, will turn it into keynesian money.  

We can target and change the tp/s.
we should target and change the tp/s.

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

[toknormal]

If the block size changes we kill bitcoin's store of value properties.

Over time I've gradually come to this conclusion as well. It's almost academic and has nothing to do with "useability".

The thing is, at this point, messing with the blocksize kind of changes Bitcoin's value proposition from a monetary stock to a technology stock. Why stop at blocksize ? Why not fiddle with all kinds of stuff that needs 'fixed' ?

I know the difference is subtle at the moment but it won't be in 10 or 20 years. If Bitcoin is seen as a tech-stock (or even a 'payment system') its value proposition changes from something that's not interchangeable to something that is. Also, from a simple security point of view, it puts a ceiling on its ability to store value because if it can be 'messed with' now then it can be hyper messed with at any time in the future. It sets a precedent that is toxic and will just eat away at confidence.

I think bitcion's options for on-chain scaling are gone and it now needs to be scaled off-chain.

(Apart from anything else, the community is now so irrevocably divided that it will fork like Ether did. You'll have 2 bitcoins, so it's a non-starter. All that has to happen is that one exchange hosts a market in the old fork).

[traincarswreck]

If the block size changes we kill bitcoin's store of value properties.

Over time I've gradually come to this conclusion as well. It's almost academic and has nothing to do with "useability".

The thing is, at this point, messing with the blocksize kind of changes Bitcoin's value proposition from a monetary stock to a technology stock. Why stop at blocksize ? Why not fiddle with all kinds of stuff that needs 'fixed' ?

EXACTLY.  And so you admit, ver's proposal will kill bitcoin utility as a GOLD.  Which is BAD. And then it could no longer serve as Nash's premise for how to bring about a stable unit of value (which ISN'T bitcoin).

Now are we ready to discuss how core's is also acting irresponsibly in this regard? Because if CORE messing up bitcoin's gold like properties this would be EQUALLY as bad.  And so any one here that is a dev or seeks to understand the PROPER technical direction of bitcoin, NEEDS to listen up.

Can we continue on the same page?

[jonald_fyookball]

If the block size changes we kill bitcoin's store of value properties.

Over time I've gradually come to this conclusion as well. It's almost academic and has nothing to do with "useability".
 

You'll have to explain how you came to this conclusion, please.

I would say the store of value comes from bitcoins themselves being a scarce digital asset (there's only 21M of them).
How exactly does changing the block size kill this?

[toknormal]

And so you admit, ver's proposal will kill bitcoin utility as a GOLD.  Which is BAD.

Yes. I admit that.

Now are we ready to discuss how core's is also acting irresponsibly in this regard?

Could you recap what you feel they are doing "irresponsibly" in this regard ? (Since they are not promoting the hardfork - what's the other component to the erosion of the gold archetype ? Trying to control transaction fees or something ?)

[danda]

@traincarswreck... if you are saying that bitcoin should not have any further hard forks or soft forks and should instead continue as-is in terms of consensus level code, then I agree.

I believe that both soft and hard forks of a particular cryptocurency (eg bitcoin) are a moral hazard as they change the rules of the game that people already invested time/money/energy into.

The cryptocurrency system as a whole can be continually upgraded by the introduction of new software with brand-new genesis blocks.  Anyone that believes in the properties of the new system can then invest into it.  Eventually one or more systems with the most desirable/useful properties should emerge.

I believe this to be the only moral path forward.

If I understand the thrust of your argument correctly I think you may be in agreement though from a different angle/perspective.

[traincarswreck]

And so you admit, ver's proposal will kill bitcoin utility as a GOLD.  Which is BAD.

Yes. I admit that.

Could you recap what you feel they are doing "irresponsibly" in this regard ? (Since they are not promoting the hardfork - what's the other component to the erosion of the gold archetype ? Trying to control transaction fees or something ?)

Good. You admit it, and you clearly understand macro economics.  So you are helping others to be curious and realize I am not speaking jibberish.  

It's NOT a recap.  We haven't yet gone into why CORE can also be damaging bitcoin's gold like properties (type 2), by offering THEIR proposals to optimize bitcoin's tp/s.

edit: fuck sometimes i make key typos, in this case the word "NOT" was missing.

[toknormal]

If the block size changes we kill bitcoin's store of value properties.

Over time I've gradually come to this conclusion as well. It's almost academic and has nothing to do with "useability".
 

You'll have to explain how you came to this conclusion, please.

Cos it's a bit like saying..."hey, this gold's a bit heavy. It's a PITA to carry around and I'm always having to buy new trousers cos the pockets get holes from my coins. Lets just hardfork it and mix it with some aluminium so it's more convenient."

Over time, if the market values something as a monetary asset rather than a tech-stock then the above analogy increasingly applies. Maybe if Bitcoin had raised the blocksize back in 2010 they might have got away with it but I'd say it's too late now.

[traincarswreck]

@traincarswreck... if you are saying that bitcoin should not have any further hard forks or soft forks and should instead continue as-is in terms of consensus level code, then I agree.

I believe that both soft and hard forks of a particular cryptocurency (eg bitcoin) are a moral hazard as they change the rules of the game that people already invested time/money/energy into.

The cryptocurrency system as a whole can be continually upgraded by the introduction of new software with brand-new genesis blocks.  Anyone that believes in the properties of the new system can then invest into it.  Eventually one or more systems with the most desirable/useful properties should emerge.

I believe this to be the only moral path forward.

If I understand the thrust of your argument correctly I think you may be in agreement though from a different angle/perspective.

This exactly.  And you will understand better than others the significance of me saying that NASH  taught me what bitcoin was, not Satoshi. Core is being as irresponsible as VER.

[hv_]

If the block size changes we kill bitcoin's store of value properties.

Over time I've gradually come to this conclusion as well. It's almost academic and has nothing to do with "useability".
 

You'll have to explain how you came to this conclusion, please.

Cos it's a bit like saying..."hey, this gold's a bit heavy. It's a PITA to carry around and I'm always having to buy new trousers cos the pockets get holes from my coins. Lets just hardfork it and mix it with some aluminium so it's more convenient."

Over time, if the market values something as a monetary asset rather than a tech-stock then the above analogy increasingly applies. Maybe if Bitcoin had raised the blocksize back in 2010 they might have got away with it but I'd say it's too late now.

I m sure that greed will solve this in some months. The bounty in the mempools is just too attractive. So miners might launch some 10k nodes out of nowhere and might fork to BU or whatever... But who dares to predict the future?

[toknormal]

Increasingly, Bitcoin's value is based on its authenticity. That will only increase as time goes on.

By hardforking the blocksize you're diminishing the authenticity for the sake of convenience. Do the math:

Value gained by greater convenience: 5%
Value lost to diminished authenticity: 40%-95%

(My estimations obviously).

It isn't really a technology question. The market is already deciding what the priorities are and whatever the issues about backlogs, confirmation times etc, it's something that has to be lived with.

I don't think we have a choice. Altcoins are the appropriate way forward for augmenting on-chain functionality, features and alternative monetary models IMO.

[traincarswreck]

I m sure that greed will solve this in some months. The bounty in the mempools is just too attractive. So miners might launch some 10k nodes out of nowhere and might fork to BU or whatever... But who dares to predict the future?

That's why we need to talk about Ideal Money.  Because it is the rational founded argument for guarding bitcoin's properties as a gold (which miners are quite happy to do in general because the fees will stay high).

I am attempting to speak to rational sincere and influential members of the community.  And most of them are unreachable and think the introduction of Nash's argument is a joke (hint: who is the joke?).