Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[danda]

btw, all this posits that a deflationary money is not ideal money.   I think some austrians would disagree.  Can you point us to a specific nash writing that demonstrates that?  thx.

[1714863248]

1714863248

[traincarswreck]

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.

I'm only repeating myself.  The man himself argues if you introduce something that is relatively stable in relation to a Nash (relative meaning the best on the market) then then the market will accept it as its beacon for inflation hedging.  Every government fiat must now compete whereas before they didn't have to.  The argument used to be they would devalue our fiat in order to spur spending.  But this doesn't help create a stable unit of value which what we need (and therefore such measures create chaos).

NOW because of bitcoin's gold like properties as the new inflation hedge in town, that is FAIRLY stable in relation to a Nash, governments will have to tend to the QUALITY of their money, where quality refers now to stability in relation to a Nash.  So ultimate evolution of this game, is an tendency towards a CEILING of idealness which is a perfect relation to a Nash.

Bitcoin will force our central banks to print ideal money. And we will lock in a stable unit of value, a Nash.

This is needed for optimal efficiency of our global economy.

[traincarswreck]

btw, all this posits that a deflationary money is not ideal money.   I think some austrians would disagree.  Can you point us to a specific nash writing that demonstrates that?  thx.

You are lost.  Its not a whim of what the definition of ideal money is.  everybody doesn't get to choose then we fight over whether nash is right.  Nash gave the definition in his premise, and that is normal in academics don't look at the premise and don't "why is the premise right?" Its a premise, do you know what that is?

His definition of ideal is money that is stable in value and no Austrian economist or rational thinking person will tell you deflationary currency has stable value cause that would be fucking stupid to say.

a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.

[traincarswreck]

No Austrian economist would claim a deflationary currency is stable in value its a stupid thing to say and you are wasting our time.

[traincarswreck]

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.

You are asking me to prove if a coin that is expected to grow in value over time (ie the definition of deflationary ie bitcoin) is stable in value.  I don't have to prove it logical people because its tautologically correct.

And so you agree and understand our efforts will now be redirected.  Redacted. 

And so you have those that don't understand and they are saying that the markets will never accept this.  But they don't understand that Satoshi gave leverage to the few.  Bitcoin gives the minority veto, and so I only have to convince the rational people, and they are easy to convince.

And when the world gets a hold of Nash's ideal money and the TRUE story of his life.  You will never change this thing. It's done, there is just the short time to watch it unfold as he explained.

[traincarswreck]

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?

There is no such problem introducing a good medium of exchange solves.  Its silly.  No one needs that.  Money isn't a technology man designed with foresight.  It arose accidentally to solve the problem of needing a stable unit.  Do you understand?  Your question imply something untrue, that we need a medium of exchange.

[traincarswreck]

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?

For 20 years nash has been saying that an international ecurreny with a stable inflation rate that halves periodically is going to asymptotically take the power from central banks to arbitrarily print money.  This is an idea he had when he fled US in the 1950's or early 60's in order to change his usd to swiss franc (in which the navy tracked him down and took him back in chains).

[jonald_fyookball]

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.

Lets say for the sake of argument that I agree with you on that.

But what are bitcoin's fundamentals?  Remember, bitcoin is an open source software project, and thus is A) written by humans and B) is subject to change and evolution.  Some people have referred to an aspect of this called 'Bitcoin's social contract' which seems to be relevant here.  For example, certain things like the 21M coin amount seem to be a firm part of that social contract and are beyond questioning. 

I am simply suggesting that Bitcoin's social contract also contains an implicit assumption that transaction capacity was expected to scale in some form (whether onchain or offchain) -- at least beyond a few tx/sec.

You're of course free to disagree with that and I won't try to convince you otherwise.

[traincarswreck]

Lets say for the sake of argument that I agree with you on that.

But what are bitcoin's fundamentals?  Remember, bitcoin is an open source software project, and thus is A) written by humans and B) is subject to change and evolution.  Some people have referred to an aspect of this called 'Bitcoin's social contract' which seems to be relevant here.  For example, certain things like the 21M coin amount seem to be a firm part of that social contract and are beyond questioning.  

I am simply suggesting that Bitcoin's social contract also contains an implicit assumption that transaction capacity was expected to scale in some form (whether onchain or offchain) -- at least beyond a few tx/sec.

You're of course free to disagree with that and I won't try to convince you otherwise.

There are too many rational people in the world for you to convince that John Nash was an idiot and they shouldn't read his writing.  It's all perfectly laid out, its just matter of bitcoin getting the attention to the right academic people which it hasn't yet.  It needed to be given to the public as a toy money, a trick.

And you clearly don't understand the framework of the constitution which is something you were supposed to learn by reading Szabo works on it.

Satoshi said you COULD change the blocksize, he even gave the code, and yes IMMEDIATELY after people complained and he ignored them.  It was obvious when he did it that the entropy is such that it gets more difficult over time, not less.

YOU have to convince the markets to change bitcoin, not me. It's locked in place as far as I am concerned.

[franky1]

its just matter of bitcoin getting the attention to the right academic people which it hasn't yet.

MIT
cornell
duke
stanford
princeton
NYU
just to name a few universities that have bitcoins attention

YOU have to convince the markets to change bitcoin, not me. It's locked in place as far as I am concerned.

not locked. but SOCIALLY halted using FALSE scare stories and FALSE reasons not to develop

[traincarswreck]

It's locked.  It can't be changed because satoshi set the veto limit so that a minority could block change.  And there are far more rational people than the limit he set the threshold for change at. I've done my homework.  No one can hold a candle to me on the subject.  All they can do is ignore me.

[franky1]

It's locked.  It can't be changed because satoshi set the veto limit so that a minority could block change.  And there are far more rational people than the limit he set the threshold for change at. I've done my homework.  No one can hold a candle to me on the subject.  All they can do is ignore me.

lol the veto limit?

lol there is not official veto limit. apart from the natural 51% which is not something satoshi wrote in.. its just nature
the end result is LOTS of orphan drama until it settles down to reveal a single chain after the orphan drama if close to 51%
the end result is little amount of orphan drama until it settles down to reveal a single chain after the orphan drama if closer to 100%

pools dont like to change unless nodes accept the change.. and devs have set recent thresholds at 95% to reduce as much orphan temporary drama as possible. but any number above 50% can cause a change,

again for emphasis. the lower the % from 100% the more orphan drama there is.
most say something between 75%-95% could be acceptable. but expect more orphan drama at 75%, with less orphan drama at 95%

issues such as this soft fork drama is that pools dont like to change if nodes are not ready to accept it. which is why 60% of pools are undecided. which is where going soft went wrong..

however..
if there was a REAL hard CONSENSUS* (nodes first and then pools SECOND) changes can happen more officially and constructively.
especially if organised and planned where ALL different brand versions pre agreed to release the code for the same change. to ALL allow their loyal users to have the choice

it could be done where lets say nodes get to 75% to then trigger a pool consensus.. thus giving nodes further time to add to that 75%.. by being inspired/enticed to upgrade during the pool consensus... where that 75% gets higher by the time a pool reaches a certain limit.

thus when pools get to a certain limit the pools then have the node count there to accept what pools then produce.

its about network confidence, and consent

pools wont do anything if they feel a certain amount of nodes will orphan their efforts. so just going soft was a bad idea.

note.
* DO NOT confuse a soft consensus or a hard consensus.. with a soft bilateral split or hard bilateral split.

[AgentofCoin]

It's locked.  It can't be changed because satoshi set the veto limit so that a minority could block change.  And there are far more rational people than the limit he set the threshold for change at. I've done my homework.  No one can hold a candle to me on the subject.  All they can do is ignore me.

Your whole theory is flawed because of mining.
The banking sector will never accept Bitcoin because of how mining is performed.
If they ever think it has merit to attach itself upon, it will be a new coin where nation
states are the sole miners in competition with other nation states.

You have taken Nash's theories and placed them into something that was created
without that original intention and now attempting to argue for capture and hold it
to your ideal. The truth of the matter is you are talking out of your ass in an attempt
to create a new type of extremism within the Bitcoin community. Its borderline Psy-Ops.

You are a true "1MB4EVA" extremest. We should call your kind a Fundamental IMB Jihadist.
Instead of the "Unlimited blocksize" extreme, you want "Smallest blocksize" extreme.

Bitcoin should be balance over time.

People like you are one of the reasons there can't be consensus on certain things.
You are being purposefully malicious, whether consciously or unconsciously.

[traincarswreck]

Does everyone see these last two posters.  They haven't read anything on anything.  They have no education on any of these subjects.  And let me you tell.  Central banks hate this argument.  The intelligence agencies around the world KNOW this truth, because I emailed it to all relevant players.  Do we believe in the NSA?

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/ideal-money-and-esoteric-hidden-meaning-writing-139861c31c83#.wd3ohb3eg

Nash left us the truth:

   The script or plan for my talk linking the “ideal money” with the choices and actions of “thrift” or “savings” by persons or by “economic agents” was influenced by concerns that it would be wise not to speak too incautionsly of “the Keynesians” when the times are such that massive public opinions maybe supporting actions by which a state administration can act without going through the parliamentary processes to write new legislation.

    So in the rush of political campaigns and elections (for example in the USA) it is difficult to sell a national monetary policy which, if followed consistently on a “long run” level, would result in the specific nation state existing as if on a higher level of economic civilization.

    (For example, Sweden and Argentina might be usable, over a long time comparison, to represent comparable “economic civilizations”.)

    Therefore, I had arranged for 2012 to talk more cautiously in relation to whatever would impact with “the Keynesians” and with the political interest relating also to the scholarly factions allied with (or forming) “the Keynesians”.

    And this caution carries over naturally to 2013 also.

    ~public note from John Forbes Nash’s university homepage

    The label “Keynesian” is convenient, but to be safe we should have a defined meaning for this as a party that can be criticized and contrasted with other parties.

    So let us define “Keynesian” to be descriptive of a “school of thought” that originated at the time of the devaluations of the pound and the dollar in the early 30’s of the 20th century. Then, more specifically, a “Keynesian” would favor the existence of a “manipulative” state establishment of central bank and treasury which would continuously seek to achieve “economics welfare” objectives with comparatively little regard for the long term reputation of the national currency…~Ideal Money

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/some-interesting-notes-from-nashs-homepage-977f1970f37#.tw3b4dwch

I am speaking about a research project that is not fully complete since I have not yet written up and submitted for publication any paper or papers describing the work. Also the details of what axioms to use and how to select the basic set theory underlying the hierarchical extension to be constructed are not fully crystallized. I have also a great fear of possible error in studying topics in this area. It is not rare, historically, for systems to be proposed that are either inconsistent or that have unexpected weaknesses. So I feel that I must be cautious and proceed without rushing to a goal. And this psychology of fear has also inhibited me from consulting other persons expert in logic before I could feel that I had gotten my own ideas into good shape.

And here's his insight on the axiom he realized was missing:

   I think there is a good analogy to mathematical theories like, for example, “class field theory”. In mathematics a set of axioms can be taken as a foundation and then an area for theoretical study is brought into being. For example, if one set of axioms is specified and accepted we have the theory of rings while if another set of axioms is the foundation we have the theory of Moufang loops.

    So, from a critical point of view, the theory of macro-economics of the Keynesians is like the theory of plane geometry without the axiom of Euclid that was classically called the “parallel postulate”. (It is an interesting fact in the history of science that there was a time, before the nineteenth century, when mathematicians were speculating that this axiom or postulate was not necessary, that it should be derivable from the others.)

    So I feel that the macroeconomics of the Keynesians is comparable to a scientific study of a mathematical area which is carried out with an insufficient set of axioms. And the result is analogous to the situation in plane geometry, the plane does not need to be really flat and the area within a circle can expand hyperbolically as a function of the radius rather than merely with the square of the radius. (This picture suggests the pattern of inflation that can result in a country, over extended time periods, when there is continually a certain amount of gradual inflation.)

   The missing axiom is simply an accepted axiom that the money being put into circulation by the central authorities should be so handled as to maintain, over long terms of time, a stable value.

Who will people believe?  My cited argument that John Nash is correct and relevant.  Or a couple of yahoos that clearly can't read books.

[franky1]

traincarswreck

you have spent MONTHS obsessing about nash

your conclusion is that bitcoin is NOT nashes ideal money..

ok its not NASHES ideal money..
end of.

bitcoin is something else.. something new.. something that does not fit the category of "money"

bitcoin is its own NEW paradigm and it will leave "money" in the past.
people will evolve and treat "money" as the scam stuff government used.

where as the future is about ASSET CURRENCIES. where its an asset and a currency.


now here is a tip
if you want to talk about "money".. in regards to a blockchain currency being ideal money.. go talk to the bankers at hyperledger.

bitcoin is not about letting governments or any centralised entity manage and halt bitcoin. bitcoin should remain as a new open paradigm that can grow and develop naturally

[AgentofCoin]

...
Who will people believe?  My cited argument that John Nash is correct and relevant.  Or a couple of yahoos that clearly can't read books.

You have all those quotes sitting in a word document at the ready like a good manic fundamentalist.

Continue with your incoherent statements that never end in a true conclusion because your only goal
is to maintain 1MB at all costs, including preventing second layered solutions.

[traincarswreck]

I see a couple of 10 year olds have come in to derail derail derail and ignore reality, and derail.  Go for it punks.  There are plenty of participants and lurkers that read what just transpired in this thread.  My articles are being read and people are understanding the truth of the matter and why the block size debate exists and has been unending.

I don't argue with idiots.  But just don't think that everyone here can't see your childish foolish intellects.

[AgentofCoin]

I see a couple of 10 year olds have come in to derail derail derail and ignore reality, and derail.  Go for it punks.  There are plenty of participants and lurkers that read what just transpired in this thread.  My articles are being read and people are understanding the truth of the matter and why the block size debate exists and has been unending.

I don't argue with idiots.  But just don't think that everyone here can't see your childish foolish intellects.

No, the blocksize debate exists because some think we can scale now and others think we need to scale later.
Then you come along and say we can never scale and we should try to market directly to world banks.

You are advocating we solicit the very institutions that Satoshi created Bitcoin to counteract.
You are an extremist with possible mania, who can not argue without personally attacking people.

[BurtW]

The truth of the matter is you are talking out of your ass in an attempt
to create a new type of extremism within the Bitcoin community. Its borderline Psy-Ops.

You are a true "1MB4EVA" extremest. We should call your kind a Fundamental IMB Jihadist.
Instead of the "Unlimited blocksize" extreme, you want "Smallest blocksize" extreme.

How can "if it ain't broke don't fix it" be labeled extreme?  Even if dead wrong it is the most conservative course of action and, in my opinion, the most likely outcome of this entire years long debate.

You seem to agree:

People like you are one of the reasons there can't be consensus on certain things.

[traincarswreck]

No, the blocksize debate exists because some think we can scale now and others think we need to scale later.
Then you come along and say we can never scale and we should try to market directly to world banks.

You are advocating we solicit the very institutions that Satoshi create Bitcoin to counteract.
You are an extremist with possible mania, who can not argue without personally attacking people.

At least you understand my argument.  You are just sad Satoshi lied.  You never would have participated if he told you the truth.  Bitcoin is a finger trap for nations and banks:



The more they struggle the tighter things will get. Thx for bumping my thread lots!