Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[traincarswreck]

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

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)?
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?:

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?

Ideal Money signals the levation of a stable metric of value.  This is the most significant technology conceived to date. We will have it soon.  It is need to optimize the markets, read hayek, he'll tell.  all this is linked to in this thread and cited. You don't tell me to answer yes or no.

Nash's argument is premised on bitcoin as a gold, with the definition of gold he uses.

I use relative because its relevant  to what is needed as a catalyst: the introduction of something relatively stable, ie better than the alternatives, but not necessarily perfectly stable.

So you just need something better than gold (if gold is otherwise the best), it doesn't have to be perfectly stable. Gold failed as a defacto peg with the bretton woods and ended at the nixon shock.  Why should i teach you history? Issac Newton pegged the british pound to gold and it was a good thing and he had cosmological revelations also.

Yes we can decree bitcoin into gold, with intelligence and rational argument.   We cannot decree it into a coffee money, it won't happen and it will kill its gold like properties.

[1714010111]

1714010111

[1714010111]

1714010111

[1714010111]

1714010111

[traincarswreck]

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.

No you are wrong.  it was never going to be scaled this quote Satoshi I dare.  It doesn't matter that Satoshi tricked you and you are sad.  There is no reason to scale.  No reason to scale NO REASON TO SCALE. NO REASON.

NONE.  

ITS NOT HAPPENING.  

1mb1mb1mb1mb1mb1mb

[danda]

intended or not, the vast majority of investors agreed to a blocksize limit, because that is what the code (contract) says.   It is a generally accepted principle that failure to read and understand a contract is no excuse.   And anyway, this issue was known about and publically discussed as far back as 2010.  I certainly became aware of it within a month of getting involved with btc, back in 2013 and have made decisions based on this knowledge.

now one can make an interesting point that for a very few individuals (Roger Ver may be one of these I'm not sure) that invested before the blocksize cap was put in place, there has already been a breach of contract, when satoshi added it.  That is unfortunate indeed, and I would argue that it highlights the moral hazard of changing consensus code.

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.

[AgentofCoin]

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

So your belief is, that Bitcoin should be artificially restricted to its current form for eternity,
otherwise it will lose value as tps increases. You think mass adoption whether by the masses or by
the world financial systems can only occur (if it ever does) by keeping tps extremely low. Increasing
tps, whether by on chain or off chain actually prevents adoption.

[traincarswreck]

intended or not, that is what the vast majority of investors agreed to, because that is what the code (contract) says.   It is a generally excepted principle that failure to read and understand a contract is no excuse.   And anyway, this issue was known about and publically discussed as far back as 2010.  I certainly became aware of it within a month of getting involved with btc, back in 2013 and have made decisions based on this knowledge.

now one can make an interesting point that for a very few individuals (Roger Ver may be one of these I'm not sure) that invested before the blocksize cap was put in place, there has already been a breach of contract, when satoshi added it.  That is unfortunate indeed, and I would argue that it highlights the moral hazard of changing consensus code.

this is one argument and the real argument is that if i bring the rational path to the table, that was the path all along that the market knew of, because the markets god and all knowing.  Thats the real economic truth.  The rest is whining, from whiners that haven't read any books.

[traincarswreck]

So your belief is, that Bitcoin should be artificially restricted to its current form for eternity,
otherwise it will lose value as tps increases. You think mass adoption whether by the masses or by
the world financial systems can only occur (if it ever does) by keeping tps extremely low. Increasing
tps, whether by on chain or off chain actually prevents adoption.

Thats just your opinion.  My argument is scientifically founded.  Your's is just an expression of your ignorance on the subject, and all you have to back it up is a lot of other ignorant people. it's not, macro economics doesn't work like that. 

[AgentofCoin]

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.

No you are wrong.  it was never going to be scaled this quote Satoshi I dare.  It doesn't matter that Satoshi tricked you and you are sad.  There is no reason to scale.  No reason to scale NO REASON TO SCALE. NO REASON.

NONE.  

ITS NOT HAPPENING.  

1mb1mb1mb1mb1mb1mb

Satoshi placed the 1MB cap not as a economic parametr, but to prevent a spam attack vector in its early life.

[traincarswreck]

Satoshi placed the 1MB cap not as a economic parametr, but to prevent a spam attack vector in its early life.

Ya and people immediately protested because it was obviously going to be impossible to remove and he ignored them.  He said here's the code, all you have to do is all agree.

And we can't agree.

Satoshi lied to you, and you are sad because of it.

[AgentofCoin]

intended or not, that is what the vast majority of investors agreed to, because that is what the code (contract) says.   It is a generally excepted principle that failure to read and understand a contract is no excuse.   And anyway, this issue was known about and publically discussed as far back as 2010.  I certainly became aware of it within a month of getting involved with btc, back in 2013 and have made decisions based on this knowledge.

now one can make an interesting point that for a very few individuals (Roger Ver may be one of these I'm not sure) that invested before the blocksize cap was put in place, there has already been a breach of contract, when satoshi added it.  That is unfortunate indeed, and I would argue that it highlights the moral hazard of changing consensus code.

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.

The vast majority of investors can go to hell.
No one cares about what they say, unless they run a node.

Contract law does not apply to this argument, especially within unregulated decentralized systems.

[danda]

To adapt a popular meme:  honey badger don't care about your reasons.

In other words, bitcoin is what it is.  too much inertia to change now.   I suggest you accept that and move on...

Satoshi placed the 1MB cap not as a economic parametr, but to prevent a spam attack vector in its early life.

[AgentofCoin]

Satoshi placed the 1MB cap not as a economic parametr, but to prevent a spam attack vector in its early life.

Ya and people immediately protested because it was obviously going to be impossible to remove and he ignored them.  He said here's the code, all you have to do is all agree.

And we can't agree.

Satoshi lied to you, and you are sad because of it.

What did Satoshi lie to me about? I have no problem with what he did at the time.

Satoshi was correct to do it at the time and if we can not get consensus to change it, so be it.

[traincarswreck]

The vast majority of investors can go to hell.
No one cares about what they say, unless they run a node.

Contract law does not apply to this argument, especially within unregulated decentralized systems.

The markets are rational.  They won't scale bitcoin because that is irrational. And they know, because I have propagated the rational argument.

[traincarswreck]

Satoshi was correct to do it at the time and if we can not get consensus to change it, so be it.

Yes and so be it.  The pressure to scale is off.  Bitcoin won't be a world coffee money.  It's a digital gold, a settlement system that is a finger trap for our central banks and nations.

Nash wins.

[BurtW]

Let's back up a notch. Is it axiomatic in your estimation that the world would benefit from the existence of Nash ideal money?

Ideal money is a foil for the argument, like "perfect circle" in a mathematical proof.  There is no such thing.  

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

His assertion is Bitcoin cannot will not ever be or approximate ideal money

What is your definition of 'gold-like'?

It means relatively stable in value

Bitcoin = stable value upon which to base an ideal money
Ideal Money = not stable value by definition, value has to change to match the economy

[danda]

Seems to me that anyone that wishes to change any of bitcoin's core properties including blocksize limit can go to hell.  ie, aint gonna happen.

have fun moaning and bitching about it though...

The vast majority of investors can go to hell.
No one cares about what they say, unless they run a node.

Contract law does not apply to this argument, especially within unregulated decentralized systems.

[AgentofCoin]

To adapt a popular meme:  honey badger don't care about your reasons.

In other words, bitcoin is what it is.  too much inertia to change now.   I suggest you accept that and move on...

Satoshi placed the 1MB cap not as a economic parametr, but to prevent a spam attack vector in its early life.

Accept what?
You do understand that in a moments notice, we may have to make emergency changes, right?
Your argument ignores the realities in which we live. You assume there will be no trouble ahead.

Sounds like a bad investor with his head in the sand. You better sell bags buddy.

[franky1]

trainscarwreck
weeks ago you were stating bitcoin was ideal money and Nash was satoshi.. now your saying bitcoin is not and cant be ideal money

if bitcoin never has been and never can be ideal money.
why should we suddenly stop developing bitcoin and do as you say and do nothing more to bitcoin to grow bitcoin.

if it never is was will be nashes ideal money. then it doesnt matter..

just accept that bitcoin is not Nashes ideal money.. but also accept that bitcoin can be something else. something new

beyond the scope of your king nash

[AgentofCoin]

Seems to me that anyone that wishes to change any of bitcoin's core properties including blocksize limit can go to hell.  ie, aint gonna happen.

have fun moaning and bitching about it though...

The vast majority of investors can go to hell.
No one cares about what they say, unless they run a node.

Contract law does not apply to this argument, especially within unregulated decentralized systems.

A blocksize increase will occur one day in the future, that is a fact.
To prevent that from happening is almost impossible.

[AgentofCoin]

Satoshi was correct to do it at the time and if we can not get consensus to change it, so be it.

Yes and so be it.  The pressure to scale is off.  Bitcoin won't be a world coffee money.  It's a digital gold, a settlement system that is a finger trap for our central banks and nations.
..

Yes, but that only holds true in 2017.
It is only a digital gold now because of technological restrictions, not due to design.

[danda]

Your definition of "fact" is very different from mine.  That's a polite way of saying you use the word absolutely incorrectly.

Time will tell who is right.  Given that bitcoin was designed to be resistant to change, and the community has gotten quite large with many diverging interests, I suspect it will be I, not you.  

blocksize increase will occur one day in the future, that is a fact.
To prevent that from happening is almost impossible.