Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[traincarswreck]

What Nash was possibly envisioning was a World Government owned and controlled electronic
gold like fiat. So it would act like a gold, yet be transactable freely, guaranteed, and backed  by
the world government.

You don't tell  us, we tell you:

[1715166090]

1715166090

[BurtW]

Please explain what you mean by "scale it as gold".    

I also do not understand what you mean by "perfect stability in value".  The price of gold fluctuates as do all commodities.

That is exactly what he is saying:

   We want to maintain the "gold like" properties of Bitcoin (to the death)

   The price of Bitcoin fluctuates, will continue to fluctuate, we will embrace that.

   The thing that does not fluctuate (the ideal perfect money) is not Bitcoin.

[traincarswreck]

Please explain what you mean by "scale it as gold".    

I also do not understand what you mean by "perfect stability in value".  The price of gold fluctuates as do all commodities.

"scale it as gold" means basically not to scale it.  The price of gold fluctuates because of the quality fiat: http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2008/07/simulation-of-inflation-expectations.html

You have conflated price and value.  The value of gold is relatively stable.  This is why it is favored as an inflation hedge to fiat because fiat is not always stable in this sense.  You need a difference in your conceptualization, between value and price.

And this is what nash gives us in his argument, he introduces a CONCEPTUAL notion of a stable metric for value.  That is what the word "ideal" is significant, because ideal mean conceptual.

[traincarswreck]

   The thing that does not fluctuate (the ideal perfect money) is not Bitcoin.

yup.  and that bitcoin is "good" in this sense, in the nashian sense. but if we try to make it better we will actually just break it.  Its like muddy water, you don't make it clear by stirring it.

[jonald_fyookball]

Please explain what you mean by "scale it as gold".    

I also do not understand what you mean by "perfect stability in value".  The price of gold fluctuates as do all commodities.

"scale it as gold" means basically not to scale it.  The price of gold fluctuates because of the quality fiat: http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2008/07/simulation-of-inflation-expectations.html

You have conflated price and value.  The value of gold is relatively stable.  This is why it is favored as an inflation hedge to fiat because fiat is not always stable in this sense.  You need a difference in your conceptualization, between value and price.

And this is what nash gives us in his argument, he introduces a CONCEPTUAL notion of a stable metric for value.  That is what the word "ideal" is significant, because ideal mean conceptual.

You are conflating the issuance/supply of the scarce asset with scaling the transaction throughput/bandwidth.   When we say "scaling" we mean how much transactions can the network handle per second.

[BurtW]

Where does it state that Bitcoin's goal is a "stable unit of value"?

What he is saying agrees with you.  The goal of Bitcoin is not a stable unit of value.

His point goes beyond that.  Not only is Bitcoin not a stable unit of value it can never be a stable unit of value.

Beyond that:  we should not be trying in any way to make it what it is not and can never be.

Bitcoin should be bitcoin as it is.

This "stable unit of value" must be something else - almost by definition.

[BurtW]

You are conflating the issuance/supply of the scarce asset with scaling the transaction throughput/bandwidth.   When we say "scaling" we mean how much transactions can the network handle per second.

I do not think that is what he is saying.

He is saying any change which might break the "gold like" property of Bitcoin in order to do anything (more transactions, more convenience, better whatever) should not be done.  Any change.

Changes should all be vetted with the filter of preserving Bitcoin as it is functioning now.

[traincarswreck]

You are conflating the issuance/supply of the scarce asset with scaling the transaction throughput/bandwidth.   When we say "scaling" we mean how much transactions can the network handle per second.

I am not conflating anything.  If you fuck with the tp/s you will break bitcoin.

[traincarswreck]

This "stable unit of value" must be something else - almost by definition.

Yes you have it.  It's something else, and what should call this unit? And why is it important?

   The metric system does not work because french chefs de cuisine are constantly cooking up new and delicious culinary creations which the rest of the world then follows imitatively. Rather, it works  because it is something invented on a scientific basis…

    Our view is that if it is viewed scientifically and rationally (which is psychologically difficult!) that money should have the function of a standard of measurement and thus that it should become comparable to the watt or the hour or a degree of temperature.

    …this standard, as a basis for the standardization of the value of the international money unit, would remove the political roles of the “grand pardoners,”…

[BurtW]

You are conflating the issuance/supply of the scarce asset with scaling the transaction throughput/bandwidth.   When we say "scaling" we mean how much transactions can the network handle per second.

I am not conflating anything.  If you fuck with the tp/s you will break bitcoin.

Not everyone may be ready but I personally am ready to hear if you can prove that pretty strong statement.

[AgentofCoin]

What Nash was possibly envisioning was a World Government owned and controlled electronic
gold like fiat. So it would act like a gold, yet be transactable freely, guaranteed, and backed  by
the world government.

You don't tell  us, we tell you:

So what type of human governmental society will exist in Nash's theorized world?

[traincarswreck]

Not everyone may be ready but I personally am ready to hear if you can prove that pretty strong statement.

Do you feel that raising the tp/s will increase bitcoin's value?

[BurtW]

This "stable unit of value" must be something else - almost by definition.

Yes you have it.  It's something else, and what should call this unit? And why is it important?

   The metric system does not work because french chefs de cuisine are constantly cooking up new and delicious culinary creations which the rest of the world then follows imitatively. Rather, it works  because it is something invented on a scientific basis…

    Our view is that if it is viewed scientifically and rationally (which is psychologically difficult!) that money should have the function of a standard of measurement and thus that it should become comparable to the watt or the hour or a degree of temperature.

    …this standard, as a basis for the standardization of the value of the international money unit, would remove the political roles of the “grand pardoners,”…

Personally don't care what it is called at this point.  If what you are saying is true this thing (ideal money) will be asymptotically approached and provided by the current system, correct?

[traincarswreck]

So what type of human governmental society will exist in Nash's theorized world?

You came in to tell me I am wrong and you knew nash's argument better I won't address you until you approach like a scientist

…we can’t really logically assume that human civilization has found the ultimate ideal of forms of social government in the times of the twentieth century. (One can imagine a future form of government where a highly advanced automaton (or array of computers) would function like the office of a City Manager with the human input to the government passing through the analogue of a City Council.)

I'm really good at this.

[AgentofCoin]

Where does it state that Bitcoin's goal is a "stable unit of value"?

What he is saying agrees with you.  The goal of Bitcoin is not a stable unit of value.
His point goes beyond that.  Not only is Bitcoin not a stable unit of value it can never be a stable unit of value.
Beyond that:  we should not be trying in any way to make it what it is not and can never be.
Bitcoin should be bitcoin as it is.
This "stable unit of value" must be something else - almost by definition.

But is Op saying that Maxwell and Core Devs think BTC is  or will becomes a "stable unit of value"?

[BurtW]

Not everyone may be ready but I personally am ready to hear if you can prove that pretty strong statement.

Do you feel that raising the tp/s will increase bitcoin's value?

Honestly I cannot answer this question.  Not trying to avoid it.  I have no basis upon which to make a decision.

The best I can do is to state I believe that raising the t/s might change the perceived value of Bitcoin.  I wish I could do better but it is not my area of expertise.

[traincarswreck]

Personally don't care what it is called at this point.  If what you are saying is true this thing (ideal money) will be asymptotically approached and provided by the current system, correct?

No the name we decide for this stable unit of value is important.  It's like a Newton.  It will change our mathematics and our psychical understanding of the cosmos.

And yes.  If bitcoin remains FAIRLY stable in value, and we don't touch that property, when fiat around the world will be forced to adjust its supply to compete with bitcoin.  As this starts to happen, nash explains, the people will begin to naturally demand money of a higher quality (quality he says in the gresham sense, but I call it the nashian cause he redefines it and update is as I have already explained).

And so its important to note there is a ceiling.  This ceiling is a MASSIVE technological advance. MASSIVE. (Nofx rules!)

    “Keynesian” players in this game have natural opponents (or co-players, beyond zero-sum perspectives) who are interested in not being themselves “outsmarted” by those who control the options that determine, say, the quantity supplied of the national currency.
   
And so the various currencies managed with “inflation targeting” would be comparable by users or observers who would be able to form opinions about the quality of the currencies.  And what I want to suggest is that “the public” or the users, those for whom a medium of exchange functions as a basic utility, may develop opinions that are critical of currencies of lower “value quality”.  That is, the public may learn to demand better quality of that which CAN be managed to be of better quality or which can be manged to be lof the lower quality observed in so many of the various national currencies in the 20th century.

[AgentofCoin]

So what type of human governmental society will exist in Nash's theorized world?

You came in to tell me I am wrong and you knew nash's argument better I won't address you until you approach like a scientist

…we can’t really logically assume that human civilization has found the ultimate ideal of forms of social government in the times of the twentieth century. (One can imagine a future form of government where a highly advanced automaton (or array of computers) would function like the office of a City Manager with the human input to the government passing through the analogue of a City Council.)

I'm really good at this.

But then there is no true need for humans in this world, so the ideal money is
actually a computer intelligence money for a computer intelligence government.

[traincarswreck]

Honestly I cannot answer this question.  Not trying to avoid it.  I have no basis upon which to make a decision.

The best I can do is to state I believe that raising the t/s might change the perceived value of Bitcoin.  I wish I could do better but it is not my area of expertise.

Then there is no other reason to do so.  If it doesn't increase the value.

[BurtW]

Where does it state that Bitcoin's goal is a "stable unit of value"?

What he is saying agrees with you.  The goal of Bitcoin is not a stable unit of value.
His point goes beyond that.  Not only is Bitcoin not a stable unit of value it can never be a stable unit of value.
Beyond that:  we should not be trying in any way to make it what it is not and can never be.
Bitcoin should be bitcoin as it is.
This "stable unit of value" must be something else - almost by definition.

But is Op saying that Maxwell and Core Devs think BTC is  or will becomes a "stable unit of value"?

He is saying that when considering what to change they are not considering the proposed changes from the correct frame of reference.  They are not even considering if the change will enhance or damage the "gold like" property of Bitcoin.  His belief/point/argument is that all changes should be considered within this framework:  will this change enhance or damage (or be neutral) to the "gold like" property of Bitcoin.