Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[traincarswreck]

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

No facts are things you can observe or have observed, they are not your feelings about the future you dumb mutt.

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

No.  Satoshi designed the fact that you are observing today.  and it gets harder to change not easier, thats why everyone was pissed the MOMENT he did it. Thats why he never talked about it after and that why he doesn't exist.

Satoshi is a lie, and a complex you subscribe to.  Your new religion: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@jokerpravis/the-satoshi-complex-the-greatest-trick-in-the-history-of-humanity

[jbreher]

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)?

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.

Simple 'yes' almost lost in superfluous verbosity duly noted. I think I may be on the verge of understanding your argument, though.

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

Yet you say that gold no longer has the gold like properties you seek. Stop saying 'gold' when you really mean 'as stable in value as humanity can muster'.

Yes we can decree bitcoin into gold a thing nearly stable in value, 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 value stability.

(apologies for the edit - if nothing else, it can serve to inform you of how I am reading your statement)

I can see that a Nash ideal money is a very important thing. If we had something that acted like Nash ideal money, I agree that it would be an important advance for humanity. I am skeptical of your seeming insistence that Bitcoin be the thing that fulfills this role. Indeed, it has several strikes against it already:
1) Its value has been increasing at an astonishing rate over its short history
2) Almost every stakeholder already wants to increase its utility, and thereby consequently its value

A) I don't think it can be decreed to make the value of Bitcoin stable
B) I think it likely inevitable that it will eventually serve as coffee money.

To clarify A) - the paltry fraction of humanity that is current stakeholders of Bitcoin have a natural incentive to increase the price of Bitcoin. Call it a tragedy of the commons if you wish, but human nature will conspire mightily against any attempt to freeze the value of Bitcoin as a whole. No matter how great a tool Nash ideal money would be for humanity as a whole.

I can see that increasing the tps will add value to Bitcoin. I can see that this impacts negatively on Bitcoin's ability to serve as Nash ideal money. But it already fails spectacularly at value stability. I think you need to look elsewhere for a candidate for Nash ideal money.

[BurtW]

Fact:  we have been discussing the block size limit for a long time
Fact:  no consensus has been reached

My opinion:  It is looking more and more like a consensus is impossible

Assume for the moment that Bitcoin will proceed from this time forward with only critical bug fixes that everyone can agree to (cryptographic changes in the face of a breaking cryptographic algorithm as an example)

I personally would not be that upset by locking it in as it is now.

Especially if it can be show to me that by doing so we can revolutionize the entire banking sector as a side effect.

[AgentofCoin]

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

No facts are things you can observe or have observed, they are not your feelings about the future you dumb mutt.

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

No.  Satoshi designed the fact that you are observing today.  and it gets harder to change not easier, thats why everyone was pissed the MOMENT he did it. Thats why he never talked about it after and that why he doesn't exist.

Satoshi is a lie, and a complex you subscribe to.  Your new religion: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@jokerpravis/the-satoshi-complex-the-greatest-trick-in-the-history-of-humanity

Lol. When Satoshi did it, the community at the time did not complain in the way in which you are insinuating.
I think you have an incorrect view on how Bitcoin exists and will exist into the future.

In a way, your view is possibly the most malicious viewpoint I have ever witnessed within the community.

[AgentofCoin]

Fact:  we have been discussing the block size limit for a long time
Fact:  no consensus has been reached

My opinion:  It is looking more and more like a consensus is impossible

Assume for the moment that Bitcoin will proceed from this time forward with only critical bug fixes that everyone can agree to (cryptographic changes in the face of a breaking cryptographic algorithm as an example)

I personally would not be that upset by locking it in as it is now.

Especially if it can be show to me that by doing so we can revolutionize the entire banking sector as a side effect.

The problem is you are assuming that the banking sector will use it and not their
own government approved cryptocurrency version.

If we restrict ourselves now, with dreams of world banking use and that doesn't occur,
then what is the course of action?

[BurtW]

Joe,

I think you are confusing price and value.  From what I can tell Bitcoin is the thing with "relatively stable value".  The other thing, the thing that approximates ideal money would change in relation to Bitcoin.

So the value of Bitcoin priced in the ideal money would be changing.

The value of Bitcoin is relatively constant, the price of Bitcoin priced in "ideal money" would vary over time.

[BurtW]

The problem is you are assuming that the banking sector will use it and not their
own government approved cryptocurrency version.

If we restrict ourselves now, with dreams of world banking use and that doesn't occur,
then what is the course of action?

I think the totally cool part of his argument is that whether the banking sector actually uses Bitcoin or not is immaterial.  The argument is that as people (and maybe the smarter institutions) use Bitcoin more and more as a store of value the entire monetary system is changed through economic forces outside of their control.  They may use Bitcoin or not, makes no difference.

What is new to me here is the idea that mass adoption as a medium of exchange - what we have all talked about for so long - may not be the most expedient way to use Bitcoin to revolutionize the system.  If fact the argument goes farther:  pushing Bitcoin as a medium of exchange is counterproductive to the revolution and in fact may be lethal.

I still have not found the proof of this assertion but if true we should all immediately stop trying to create a medium of exchange and in fact focus on supporting Bitcoin on the "store of value" front.

[danda]

Question for OP:

What are your thoughts regarding present or future cryptocurrencies with demonstrably better "sound money" properties such as real fungibility?   An example of this today is Monero, although very likely in the future there could be one that retains bitcoin's properties, is fungible, and is also scaleable to "coffee money".

In theory and removing certain present technical limitations, I do not see a contradiction between a currency that can be both a settlement system and coffee money.    Do you?

[jbreher]

I think you are confusing price and value.  From what I can tell Bitcoin is the thing with "relatively stable value".  The other thing, the thing that approximates ideal money would change in relation to Bitcoin.

So the value of Bitcoin priced in the ideal money would be changing.

The value of Bitcoin is relatively constant, the price of Bitcoin priced in "ideal money" would vary over time.

Oh dear. Just when I was starting to think I understood OP...

So we're back to some non-Bitcoin being our best approximation of a Nash ideal money? While it is an interesting conversation, why are we conducting it in a Bitcoin-centered venue?

Is there some nexus between Bitcoin and some posited Nash ideal money? Is the latter a former a derivative of the former in some manner?

[BurtW]

Worse (for anyone who wants Bitcoin to be/become a medium of exchange) he says "Bitcoin cannot be ideal money" is a provable statement.

I am still looking for the proof of that but, assuming that statement is true efforts should be redirected.

Assuming the statement is provably true then I personally would not want to beat my head against the wall trying to make it a medium of exchange and in the process destroy it.

Still processing.

[BurtW]

Question for OP:

What are your thoughts regarding present or future cryptocurrencies with demonstrably better "sound money" properties such as real fungibility?   An example of this today is Monero, although very likely in the future there could be one that retains bitcoin's properties, is fungible, and is also scaleable to "coffee money".

In theory and removing certain present technical limitations, I do not see a contradiction between a currency that can be both a settlement system and coffee money.    Do you?

It appears that a fundamental part of the OPs claim is:

You can be an ideal store of value
You can be an ideal medium of exchange
You cannot be both
Any crypto that tries to do both will fail at both

[traincarswreck]

I think a great dialogue has opened and I am going to get to your questions, as there are great points.  But the problem and the difficulty is that we are conflating value and price. I am going to use the concept of a stable unit of value to explain, just as a thought experiment.  But we need a name for this unit.  Like Watt Celsius a Newton Satoshi (is a bitcoin unit) etc.  Someone gimme a name for this unit of stable value so I can use it to explain?

[franky1]

Worse (for anyone who wants Bitcoin to be/become a medium of exchange) he says "Bitcoin cannot be ideal money" is a provable statement.

I am still looking for the proof of that but, assuming that statement is true efforts should be redirected.

Assuming the statement is provably true then I personally would not want to beat my head against the wall trying to make it a medium of exchange and in the process destroy it.

Still processing.

"ideal money" is a vision of Nash.

medium of exchange can be anything.

bitcoin does not need to be Nashs ideal money. bitcoin can be something new beyond the scope of nashes thoughts.
it can sit in its own new category where its still medium of exchange. but as a deflationary digital asset currency.

anything can be a currency/medium of exchange. the attributes of a currency can differ.
in history golds attributes were only for decoration... today its for circuitry tomorrow who knows some martian air purifier..

bitcoins attributes can change..
2009 speculative experiment.
2012 deflationary digital asset currency.
2018 smart contract trigger

we should not halt bitcoins progress much like we didnt say no to using gold in circuitry.

we should not really care about bitcoins value(price).. let that be the side effect
what we should be concentrating on is
the cause which is its value(utility) which will cascade to its action value(desire) which will gain more adoption and cascade more value(utility) which has an end result of value(price) as a result.

halting utility is just as bad as expanding utility

no point with halting development to play around with value(price) as only playing with value(price) is not sustainable

[jbreher]

Someone gimme a name for this unit of stable value so I can use it to explain?

Isn't it obvious? Just call it a Nash.

[danda]

1 Valor.

or...

1 Nash.

you pick.   :-)

I think a great dialogue has opened and I am going to get to your questions, as there are great points.  But the problem and the difficulty is that we are conflating value and price. I am going to use the concept of a stable unit of value to explain, just as a thought experiment.  But we need a name for this unit.  Like Watt Celsius a Newton Satoshi (is a bitcoin unit) etc.  Someone gimme a name for this unit of stable value so I can use it to explain?

[BurtW]

Someone gimme a name for this unit of stable value so I can use it to explain?

Isn't it obvious? Just call it a Nash.

Yes, I am very interested in the relationship between the Nash and the Satoshi

[traincarswreck]

Someone gimme a name for this unit of stable value so I can use it to explain?

Isn't it obvious? Just call it a Nash.

1 Valor.

or...

1 Nash.

you pick.   :-)

I think a great dialogue has opened and I am going to get to your questions, as there are great points.  But the problem and the difficulty is that we are conflating value and price. I am going to use the concept of a stable unit of value to explain, just as a thought experiment.  But we need a name for this unit.  Like Watt Celsius a Newton Satoshi (is a bitcoin unit) etc.  Someone gimme a name for this unit of stable value so I can use it to explain?

You see, a stable unit of value, is now called "a nash".

https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2016/12/22/a-standard-unit-of-value/

[danda]

It seems to me that 1 Satoshi *is* a unit of value, representing the energy/investment that was used to produce and secure it.  

There is no price associated with it until one wishes to buy or sell that unit for another currency.   So I don't see the need to introduce 1 nash or whatever.   But curious to hear OP's argument...

[traincarswreck]

It seems to me that 1 Satoshi *is* a unit of value, representing the energy/investment that was used to produce and secure it.  

There is no price associated with it until one wishes to buy or sell that unit for another currency.   So I don't see the need to introduce 1 nash or whatever.   But curious to hear OP's argument...

A Satoshi doesn't stay stable in value versus a Nash, because Satoshi's are deflationary.  They gain value over time.  Satoshi explained this, especially when we said we all again from the entropy of people losing their coins.

Bitcoin cannot be ideal money because ideal money is units of money stable in relation to a Nash

[danda]

conceded, a deflationary unit will tend to gain in value as surrounding economy grows.

So you (or Nash) is positing a value unit that stays exactly constant with the economy?  This seems impossible to me, as the surrounding economy is ever changing.  second by second even.

Also, it is very different from the other constants you mention such as watts or satoshi, as those are things that remain immutable regardless of surrounding environment.

these are just my initial thoughts.  I am not arguing.... I want to hear how the Nash unit can be achieved, and how it relates to bitcoin / satoshi unit.

It seems to me that 1 Satoshi *is* a unit of value, representing the energy/investment that was used to produce and secure it.  

There is no price associated with it until one wishes to buy or sell that unit for another currency.   So I don't see the need to introduce 1 nash or whatever.   But curious to hear OP's argument...

A Satoshi doesn't stay stable in value versus a Nash, because Satoshi's are deflationary.  They gain value over time.  Satoshi explained this, especially when we said we all again from the entropy of people losing their coins.