Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[traincarswreck]

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.

WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE FUCKING MODERATORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO YOUR JOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[1714153430]

1714153430

[1714153430]

1714153430

[1714153430]

1714153430

[1714153430]

1714153430

[1714153430]

1714153430

[traincarswreck]

So both sides need to concede that they have each drowned out the significant argument.  This is a good starting point for dialogue and coherence.

[jonald_fyookball]

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.

I fear this discussion is not leading anywhere.  Markets are ultimately driven by fundamentals or at least human perception of fundamentals.  
As I've stated already, the value of bitcoin comes from its utility, including its expected widespread use and ultimately the ability to handle
large volume, which has been an assumption the whole time.

I'm stepping out for a while.  Enjoy.

[traincarswreck]

Why does a moron franky1 get to derail what is otherwise significant and productive dialogue? I need a moderator to explain to me the reasoning behind such stupidity.  I wanna understand what moderators think this is ok.

[traincarswreck]

I fear this discussion is not leading anywhere.  Markets are ultimately driven by fundamentals or at least human perception of fundamentals.  
As I've stated already, the value of bitcoin comes from its utility, including its expected widespread use and ultimately the ability to handle
large volume, which has been an assumption the whole time.

I'm stepping out for a while.  Enjoy.

Your feeling don't control the market, its the other way around, the stability of money effects the rationality of the participants.  Bitcoin's fundamental control you.  You don't control them. This is the basis of economic science you are rejecting, and I don't care to educate you on them.  I am looking for those that understand.

[traincarswreck]

I see this got moved from the technical discussion, and I know longer have any hope of reaching relevant people.  I refuse to debate with bitcoin enthusiasts, they don't understand economics and they don't read books.  I am only looking to speak to devs and bitcoin elite that have reach.

[jbreher]

Bitcoin can be scaled as a gold, but not an ideal money.  But if we scale it as gold, then the rest of the world's money systems well tend towards perfect stability in value.  This is a VERY good thing.

So the discussion from BOTH sides (all sides) needs to be how to do THAT.  And this changes the argument.  Everyone wants a stable metric of value.  No one will argue versus having that.  Big and small blockers alike.

Do you see now, where the division lies?  It's in the tacit assumption that we need to scale bitcoin to be ideal money.  both sides are guilty of this assumption.  nash's argument lifts this divide.

OK, now I am completely lost.

I thought you earlier claimed that Bitcoin _cannot_ be ideal money (I assumed you meant in a Nashian sense). I had a tacit assumption that you would eventually get around to claiming that some derivative of Bitcoin could be a Nash ideal money, and that the attributes of Bitcoin that enable the creation of this derivative are the important attributes that must be protected. Now I see I was wrong to jump ahead from your seemingly incomplete statements.

Now if 'bitcoin can be scaled as gold', and that is important in that it allows 'the rest of the world's money systems tend to stability in value', why do we need Bitcoin to fulfill this role? I mean, if anything, gold is likely to scale like gold, right? Why did gold fail in this role?

Maybe it would move the conversation if you define what it is you mean by 'scale like gold'. Note this may fall out from answering my previous inquiry.

[traincarswreck]

Now if 'bitcoin can be scaled as gold', and that is important in that it allows 'the rest of the world's money systems tend to stability in value', why do we need Bitcoin to fulfill this role? I mean, if anything, gold is likely to scale like gold, right? Why did gold fail in this role?

Maybe it would move the conversation if you define what it is you mean by 'scale like gold'. Note this may fall out from answering my previous inquiry.

You have to read my writing.  you can't just not read it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18055317#msg18055317

And the question of why gold failed (and to be clear the answer is in the link, by nash) is also a matter of history.  You are asking me to teach you history.  I am not your history teacher.  Its fact gold failed and both szabo and nash talk about why.

Gold isn't rare.

[danda]

I do not think OPs argument is inconsistent with layered solutions.  Indeed, he explicitly states it should be used as a settlement layer, eg by banks.

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.

[traincarswreck]

I do not think OPs argument is inconsistent with layered solutions.  Indeed, he explicitly states it should be used as a settlement layer, eg by banks.

Yes but we are left with no motivation to layer in pursuit of t/s. And no, their sentiments that are mistaken don't determine bitcoin's value.  They are not driving the market for bitcoin.  That poster just has no understanding of the definition and meaning of economics and its relevance as a social science.

To be clear, a bunch of irrational people not understanding money, do not determine bitcoin's value.

[jbreher]

Why does a moron franky1 get to derail what is otherwise significant and productive dialogue? I need a moderator to explain to me the reasoning behind such stupidity.  I wanna understand what moderators think this is ok.

I'm still catching up with the head of the thread. However, with the most sincere good intentions...

You seem to frequently get frustrated with your fellow earthians. This is the internet. Unproductive dialogue will occur.

Further, in this particular sub, almost anything is on-topic, as long as it pertains to Bitcoin. I would not expect any moderator to leap to your request.

The thread starter (that would be you) has the ability to make a thread self-moderated. Or rather _had_, at the inception of the thread. This would have given you the power to delete posts you don't want in the thread. But as I understand it, that opportunity is now past.

[traincarswreck]

thanks bear, im terrible with systems and I never realized that.  would have been helpful (ha).  thx for the sincerity.  the original topic was posted in the tech section, where it belongs.  because any dev needs to understand this.  the whole community needs to bring it to attention.

[AgentofCoin]

...  the original topic was posted in the tech section, where it belongs.  because any dev needs to understand this.  the whole community needs to bring it to attention.

Just for my own understanding, are you saying even an on-chain tps increase potentially
violates the "gold like properties" and this is where you are coming from?

[traincarswreck]

Just for my own understanding, are you saying even an on-chain tps increase potentially
violates the "gold like properties"?

Obviously if you alter the tps (and especially if you believe it affects the value) then you mess with its gold properties. Obviously on chain this is true.  The difficult argument is to convince you and others (core) that off chain endeavor are a "fatal conceit". The world is not looking for a better medium of exchange. We need a stable metric for value.  tps doesn't attend to the latter.

[danda]

I can't speak for OP but I woud say that any change to the concensus layer code (the "agreement") is altering bitcoin's fundamental properties and the contract that investors jointly agreed to.  Changing it without consent of 100% of presently-alive investors is breach of contract, and thus an immoral act.

In the gold sense, it would be like if we could change gold's atomic number or any other aspect defined by physics.  It is a god-like power, and the fact that no one can do it is a key component of what has made gold valuable historically.

likewise, bitcoin is very hard to change and this is what initially made it exciting to me.  thus, I find it strange that so many people are surprised by that now.

...  the original topic was posted in the tech section, where it belongs.  because any dev needs to understand this.  the whole community needs to bring it to attention.

Just for my own understanding, are you saying even an on-chain tps increase potentially
violates the "gold like properties" and this is where you are coming from?

[traincarswreck]

yup

[AgentofCoin]

Just for my own understanding, are you saying even an on-chain tps increase potentially
violates the "gold like properties"?

Obviously if you alter the tps (and especially if you believe it affects the value) then you mess with its gold properties. Obviously on chain this is true.  The difficult argument is to convince you and others (core) that off chain endeavor are a "fatal conceit". The world is not looking for a better medium of exchange. We need a stable metric for value.  tps doesn't attend to the latter.

Gold properties are gold properties.
TPS is only a measure as to how those gold properties disburse or transact as
a medium of exchange for commerce or storage. TPS can affect value, but it only
does so speculatively for future possibilities and not as an inherent property of the
currency itself. For example, would you argue that the gold properties of a gold bar was
hurt/ruined/altered when humans transferred those bars from a horse and carts compared
to when they done so years latter by boats, cars, and planes? I would say no.

But overall I see what you are saying. Your only concern throughout the whole debate is having
a new currency type that all other financial systems will peg and defer to and you believe Bitcoin
as it is in its current form is the likely cryptocurrency to do so. And that is your whole point.

I would just like to add that I disagree that tps violates the gold properties and that your argument,
which is valid on its face, is not what bitcoin started out to be. It may be what it could become or has
now become in its current form, but no matter what, all parties agree now that scaling will occur,
whether done so on-chain or off-chain. I think no scaling ever will never be agreed to nor entertained.

[jbreher]

Now if 'bitcoin can be scaled as gold', and that is important in that it allows 'the rest of the world's money systems tend to stability in value', why do we need Bitcoin to fulfill this role? I mean, if anything, gold is likely to scale like gold, right? Why did gold fail in this role?

Maybe it would move the conversation if you define what it is you mean by 'scale like gold'. Note this may fall out from answering my previous inquiry.

You have to read my writing.  you can't just not read it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18055317#msg18055317

And the question of why gold failed (and to be clear the answer is in the link, by nash) is also a matter of history.  You are asking me to teach you history.  I am not your history teacher.  Its fact gold failed and both szabo and nash talk about why.

Gold isn't rare.

Chill, willya? At the point I replied, you had not yet written that post, nor linked the Szabo post.

More germane, nothing in that addresses my questions.

Let's back up a notch. Is it axiomatic in your estimation that the world would benefit from the existence of Nash ideal money? Simple yes or no will do here - I can work with that as a foundation.

Why is it that Bitcoin be used to fulfill this role (or the role of a best-effort approximation of Nash ideal money)?

In an earlier reply, you stated:

What is your definition of 'gold-like'?

It means relatively stable in value

If you mean 'relatively stable in value', then please use that term. Otherwise you seem to be saying that 'gold does not possess gold-like qualities', which is confusing.

Is this the 'history lesson' you are referring to to illustrate why gold failed in this role?:

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.

It seems to me that the assertion is that gold would not again be able to fulfill this role (note that this is not the same as 'why did it fail to begin with') because (i) new technologies were invented that caused supply instabilities. There seems to be an implication that a simple decree can prevent technological advances from being applied to Bitcoin. Do I understand that correctly?

Is it your assertion that the reasons "few would propose a return to the actual use of simply the metal gold as a standard" are identical to the reason gold failed in this role to begin with?

[AgentofCoin]

I can't speak for OP but I woud say that any change to the concensus layer code (the "agreement") is altering bitcoin's fundamental properties and the contract that investors jointly agreed to.  Changing it without consent of 100% of presently-alive investors is breach of contract, and thus an immoral act.

In the gold sense, it would be like if we could change gold's atomic number or any other aspect defined by physics.  It is a god-like power, and the fact that no one can do it is a key component of what has made gold valuable historically.

likewise, bitcoin is very hard to change and this is what initially made it exciting to me.  thus, I find it strange that so many people are surprised by that now.

Increasing tps, even by a 2MB blocksize increase, does not violate its "gold properties".
It would not be a contract breach nor an immoral act since it was never intended to restrict tps forever.

It would require a hardfork with high consensous, yes, but don't go as far to say it would be a violation
of the "social contract". That would be incorrect.

[traincarswreck]

Gold properties are gold properties.

TPS can affect value, but it only does so speculatively for future possibilities and not as an inherent property of the currency itself.

would you argue that the gold properties of a gold bar was hurt/ruined/altered when humans transferred those bars from a horse and carts compared to when they done so years latter by boats, cars, and planes?

 I think no scaling ever will never be agreed to nor entertained.

When we talk about gold's property we are specifically referring to its fairly stable value.  The old is your admission of my truth.  

Your question is answered here: http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2014/10/transportation-divergence-and.html

Metcalfe's Law states that a value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of its nodes.  In an area where good soils, mines, and forests are randomly distributed, the number of nodes valuable to an industrial economy is proportional to the area encompassed.  The number of such nodes that can be economically accessed is an inverse square of the cost per mile of transportation.  Combine this  with Metcalfe's Law and we reach a dramatic but solid mathematical conclusion: the potential value of a land transportation network is the inverse fourth power of the cost of that transportation. A reduction in transportation costs in a trade network by a factor of two increases the potential value of that network by a factor of sixteen. While a power of exactly 4.0 will usually be too high, due to redundancies, this does show how the cost of transportation can have a radical nonlinear impact on the value of the trade networks it enables.  This formalizes Adam Smith's observations: the division of labor (and thus value of an economy) increases with the extent of the market, and the extent of the market is heavily influenced by transportation costs (as he extensively discussed in his Wealth of Nations).

The cost of transportation effects the value of the network.

Your conclusion follows your false premise