Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[traincarswreck]

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

No their definition of  ideal is different, they are discussing how to make it a better medium of exchange. But that isn't a goal bitcoin should have.

[traincarswreck]

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.

Yes.  The mandate needs to be updated, and discussed. And this will stop the infighting with Ver and miners and all parties.

[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"?

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.

I assumed they were doing this already, its like maintaining the "social contract" of Bitcoin.
(Like don't touch the halving amounts, number of coins, block times, etc.)

Ok, but are there any proposed changes that we are currently aware of that either
Core or BU and others are entertaining that hurts the gold like properties, and which is
the reason for this thread?

[jonald_fyookball]

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.

With all due respect, that is ridiculous.  Please provide a rationale for this assertion if you expect me to take it seriously.

Bitcoin's value arises from it's utility as money, having the following characteristics:

1. Scarcity
2. Durability
3. Portability
4. Divisibility
5. Verifiability
6. Storability
7. Fungibility
8. Difficult to Conterfeit
9. Widespread use

Increasing the number of transactions per second allows greater widespread use, thus making it
more valuable.  By contrast, limiting its widespread use compromises and hampers this property
and thus its overall utility and value.

Both small block advocates and big block advocates agree we all want to somehow increase
the number of transactions that bitcoin can handle.  But we want to do it in different ways.

[traincarswreck]

Ok, but are there any proposed changes that we are currently aware of that either
Core or BU and others are entertaining that hurts the gold like properties, and which is
the reason for this thread?

We are just now beginning to ask these questions TOGETHER. THAT'S the reason for this thread.

[BurtW]

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.

OK, possibly better.  Everyone proposing a block size increase (by their favorite pet method) must be believing it will increase the value of Bitcoin, more specifically possibly their personal Bitcoin holdings.  Otherwise why would they propose such a change?

So there are a lot of people who believe that increasing t/s will increase the value of Bitcoin.

For example:

Increasing the number of transactions per second allows greater widespread use, thus making it
more valuable.  By contrast, limiting its widespread use compromises and hampers this property
and thus its overall utility and value.

Both small block advocates and big block advocates agree we all want to somehow increase
the number of transactions that bitcoin can handle.  But we want to do it in different ways.

[traincarswreck]

With all due respect, that is ridiculous.  Please provide a rationale for this assertion if you expect me to take it seriously.



Increasing the number of transactions per second allows greater widespread use, thus making it
more valuable.

You are being fucking ridiculous if you make changes to bitcoins VALUE you break it as something that has FAIRLY STABLE VALUE.

[traincarswreck]

OK, possibly better.  Everyone proposing a block size increase (by their favorite pet method) must be believing it will increase the value of Bitcoin, more specifically possibly their personal Bitcoin holdings.  Otherwise why would they propose such a change?

So there are a lot of people who believe that increasing t/s will increase the value of Bitcoin.

No no, don't change the context.  I asked YOU what the reason for changing the t/s if its doesn't increase the value. There is no reason to do so. It doesn't need to scale like that.

[jonald_fyookball]

You are being fucking ridiculous if you make changes to bitcoins VALUE you break it as something that has FAIRLY STABLE VALUE.

No...Because people's belief in Bitcoin and confidence in Bitcoin are and have been underlied with the assumption that eventually the network will scale in one form or another.
 

[traincarswreck]

You are being fucking ridiculous if you make changes to bitcoins VALUE you break it as something that has FAIRLY STABLE VALUE.

No...Because people's belief in Bitcoin and confidence in Bitcoin are and have been underlied with the assumption that eventually the network will scale in one form or another.
 

Your mistaken beliefs don't fuel the markets silly, what kinds economics do you think that is?

[traincarswreck]

I can't find it right now.  But there is a very relevant quote by Nash explaining how the people will be faced with a choice.  And that they should able to decide the fate of their money, even though ultimately it might be out of their hands as far as users goes.

It's important bitcoin be a settlement layer for our legacy system.  Bitcoin should be for the big banks and nations and large financial entities.  It will evolve to stabilize our global financial system:

…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,”…

…intrinsically free of “inflationary decadence”..a true “gold standard”, but the proposed basis for that was not the proposal of a linkage to gold

[jbreher]

I read this thread with great interest and this post seems to summarize things for me at least.  To recap my understanding of the thread so far:

  Bitcoin is good for some purposes and is not good for others purposes (all the "gold" versus "currency" posts).
  ALL sides in the great block size increase debate may kill Bitcoin by trying to "fix" it.
  Bitcoin is not really broken, it is what it is.
  Just leave all the fundamental arbitrary parameters (total number of Bitcoins, current block size, current block generation rate, etc.) as is.
  It is too late to change anything now.
  If you must make a change to any parameter, create an alt coin and see how the market responds to it.
  If we need something with attributes that Bitcoin does not have and can/will never have, create it, don't mess with Bitcoin to do it.

Is that basically what you are saying?

Yes it is, but its only the beginning of the dialogue.  You see we haven't yet asked the question, together, as a group, what parameters guard bitcoin's gold like characteristics.  

I almost hate to wade in at this point, but the thread is growing at a rate I fear I will never catch up with...

What is your definition of 'gold-like'?

You seem to assert that 'gold-like characteristics' are desirable for bitcoin. Without a working definition, I can neither agree nor disagree.

[jonald_fyookball]

You are being fucking ridiculous if you make changes to bitcoins VALUE you break it as something that has FAIRLY STABLE VALUE.

No...Because people's belief in Bitcoin and confidence in Bitcoin are and have been underlied with the assumption that eventually the network will scale in one form or another.
 

Your mistaken beliefs don't fuel the markets silly, what kinds economics do you think that is?

Well...perhaps we are finally getting to the heart of the matter and the point where we can agree to disagree.

If you look back on this forum, for years everyone has been talking about mainstream adoption and its accompanying high transaction
volume, so that is what my belief is based on.  Also if look at the current debate over how to scale the network, both
sides desire more transactions.  The 'core crowd' wants segwit, LN, and other layered solutions, while BU wants
miners to control the size of blocks.  You are literally the only person I am aware of that is saying the transaction
throughput should not increase in any way , shape, or form.

[franky1]

ok..

if trainswrck thinks bitcoin is ideal money right now.

when was it ideal money

was it ideal money at 2013 when sipa changed to leveldb and caused issues that were a hard consensus.. but chose to stick with a plan which then allowed blocks over 500kb to be made

was it ideal money when libsecp256k1 replaced the other mechanism

was it ideal money before CLTV and CSV were introduced
was it ideal money before RFB and CPFP were introduced..

let me guess every time core propose to change it trainwreck will quietly sit by. but if anyone else want to add extra ability to it trainwreck will want to bring up the nash argument as to why no one but core should change bitcoin.

the only issue is by appealing to core like kings/government. rather then using bitcoins built in feature since 2009 (consensus) trainwreck is not wanting ideal money he is wanting core controlled money.

the feature of bitcoin known as consensus is part of bitcoin. not using it (such as core bypassing it) is worse than using it

[traincarswreck]

I almost hate to wade in at this point, but the thread is growing at a rate I fear I will never catch up with...

What is your definition of 'gold-like'?

You seem to assert that 'gold-like characteristics' are desirable for bitcoin. Without a working definition, I can neither agree nor disagree.

No its a perfect time.  Others would want the re-visit.  It means relatively stable in value (relatively means more than most or all other things).  but you see we have no metric for it, so it SOUNDS meaningless.

So Nash builds a metric in his argument.  But readers of mistake his conceptual device for his proposal.  He just explains if you took a basket of fairly stable commodity prices then this would be a fairly close approximation to a stable value metric.  And gold its fairly stable in relation to it, and bitcoin is probably going to be too.

So I call this the nashian sense for short.  Nash calls is gresham's sense but that has caveats (he introduces).

So in this, we have "ideal money" in the sense of a conceptual notion of stability.  If we can share this notion in our discussion then it gets easier to explain everything. 

I know this because that's how nash gave his argument, he introduced a conceptual theoretical notion of stability.  He is know for this kind of problem solve method. Its just an advanced form of mathematical induction (not philosophical!)

[traincarswreck]

ok..

if trainswrck thinks bitcoin is ideal money right now.

Can someone get this numb nuts out of the fucking thread.

[franky1]

answer the question..

when did bitcoin become ideal money.

was it 2009... meaning nothing should have changed after 2009.
or is it suddenly ideal money right at the point where people have woke up that segwit is losing its "promises" and now ur scraping the barrel to prevent non core changes

give us a date when you think bitcoin should have stopped making changes

[traincarswreck]

throughput should not increase in any way , shape, or form.

I know.  And I have been saying the whole time, that I have the argument that will end the debate. And others are figuring this out.  You are just slow.  

Your sentiments to not value the markets.  Nor does the ignorance of the crowd.  When something has a proper relationship to its cost of production and supply, it is valued as a inflation hedge.  It is not your sentiments that make it worthy.  You are being absolutely ridiculous.

Your irrational excuberence is not sending bitcoin to the moon, thats your ignornance that thinks that.  Nash gave a full discourse on why gold is valueable in the nashian sense. and bitcoin fits perfectly:

It is a coincidental fact that the inherent nature of mining and mining technology makes it possible for the prices of certain commodities that are produced as a result of the devotion of labor and capital to the effort of mining to increase less (or decrease more) than might be expected.  There is a “dimension paradox”: Agricultural products are produced by using the two-dimensional resource of the earth surface, so the “disappearing frontier” creates a limitation. In contrast, some mining, particularly for elemental metals, can essentially be done in three dimensions, although, of course, there are increasing costs for deep digging. So, really there is lots and lots of gold, silver, platinum, tungtsten, and so forth out there and more can be found by digging deeper.

If we then consider which commodities would be optimally suitable for providing a basis for a means of transferring utility, and if we specifically consider the possibility that the trading partners may be located in different nations and perhaps on different continents, than the suitability of such commodities with regard to the ideal function of facilitating utility transfer depends on the extent to which such a commodity seems to have a value independent of its geographical location.

Clearly, in terms of this geographical perspective, gold has historically been optimal, largely because the labor cost of moving it over great distances is so small relative to the value of what is being transported.  Thus, gold formed a very efficiently movable medium for the transportation of a value exchangeable for other values, ultimately deriving, in one way or another, from human labor (with the achievements of warriors here also being viewed as involving labor).

Nowadays, however, few would propose a return to the actual use of simply the metal gold as a standard, for the following reasons.

(i) The cost of mining gold effectively does depend on the technology. Recent cyanide leaching techniques have made it possible again to profitability mind gold at formerly abandoned sites in the U.S. so that it is now a big producer.  However, the unpredictability of the cost is a negative factor.
(ii) The location of potential gold-mining locations may not be “politically appealing.” so it would seem undesirable to make a political choice to enhance the economic importance of those particular areas.
(iii) There is some negative psychology about gold such tat even if it were the most logical choice after all, the unpopularity of the idea could be very obstructive.

However, right now platinum would be even better than gold, because it has more value per unit of weight.

[traincarswreck]

answer the question..

when did bitcoin become ideal money.

everyone but you knows I am saying bitcoin cannot ever be ideal money.  you are fucking stupid GTFO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[franky1]

so
1.your saying bitcoin cant ever be nashes ideal money.
so why even waste 8 pages talking about nashes ideal money if it has nothing to do with bitcoin

bitcoin cant be a banana so no one talks about bitcoin being a banana

2. you keep saying bitcoin and inflation...
you really have no clue about bitcoin

but atleast we know bitcoin cant be nash's ideal money. so end of debate.