Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[franky1]

You don't fix it in bitcoin.   bitcoin is bitcoin.   just let it be bitcoin.   that's the point.

but when was bitcoin bitcoin

2009.
2013 pre sipa leveldb bug
2013 post sipa level db bug
2014 migration from satoshi-qt to core
2014 buyout of the main devs into blockstream and pushing other devs out of core

why is today out of 8 years.. the day that bitcoin is bitcoin and should remain in the exact form it is today without any other changes for the next couple centuries.

what is significant about this week that is getting the OP and others such as yourself so hopped up and endlessly ranting that bitcoin should stop all development right now

[1715379488]

1715379488

[1715379488]

1715379488

[BillyBobZorton]

TL;DR

Hey look at this!

Lmao im glad I didn't buy into the whole AMD ryzen hype. Looks like the markets don't give a fuck about their new GPU. What happened? from what I've heard ryzen was suppoed to be awesome.

Anyway I guess the people that bought in 2015 at 1 dollar are still up a good x10 in gains.. but Nvidia is looking better at least stock wise.

Anyway on topic... BU sucks, I dont like the idea, it will be a big fail.

UASF... too aggressive, and its just moving the problem from mining to running nodes.

The solution? I dont fucking know! If bitcoin keeps growing infinitely as it is, they don't touch it, fuck do I care? If fees get too high for regular usage, some other coin will be used for that, or LN assuming the risks. Just don't fuck with my digital gold or im dumping.

[jbreher]

I am a little charmed by this thread...

^ the real poke the bear topic derailer appears

[...off topic post regarding the Segwit proposal...]

There are plenty of other threads to debate the Segwit, BU or other schemes to "fix" bitcoin. 

Agreed. This is a very interesting topic in its own right. Let's focus on it in this thread, and leave the 'how is the right way to scale' battles elsewhere.

This thread is discussing the idea that Bitcoin does not need to be fixed by any of the proposed schemes. 

I'm still not convinced that this entire thread is anything but an elaborate troll perpetrated by a master. We seem to be talking about Nash's ideal money. And that the defining aspect of Nash's ideal money is that it is stable in value....

What is 'ideal' ...?

because the definition for deal we are using is 'stable in value of long periods of time'.

At least OP stopped using 'gold-like' as a term for this property, which s/he has stated is a property that gold does not possess.

OP dances around an implication that Bitcoin is our best shot at Nash ideal money, but never comes out and admits nor denies that this is the case. Yet OP continues to talk about Bitcoin:

bitcoin is not for the peoples daily use, its a finger trap for the meta-players.

But to what aim? Bitcoin is nothing if not spectacularly volatile in value.  If there is a case to be made for Bitcoin to be thought of, and directed to, the role of Nash ideal money, then OP ought to state that case, no?

[traincarswreck]

At least OP stopped using 'gold-like' as a term for this property, which s/he has stated is a property that gold does not possess.

OP dances around an implication that Bitcoin is our best shot at Nash ideal money, but never comes out and admits nor denies that this is the case. Yet OP continues to talk about Bitcoin:

bitcoin is not for the peoples daily use, its a finger trap for the meta-players.

'gold-like is the correct term and I think your want to tell me its not is your mistake, not mine.  Gold is fairly stable in value which is why it has been sought as an inflation hedge.  Its the cost of mining that is relevant here.  There is lots of gold but the cost of mining it throttles the supply favorably. 

Bitcoin has a different mechanism for this but the result is the same.

The relationship between the cost of production and the supply makes bitcoin and gold similar.  It keeps their value stable. 

But to what aim? Bitcoin is nothing if not spectacularly volatile in value.  If there is a case to be made for Bitcoin to be thought of, and directed to, the role of Nash ideal money, then OP ought to state that case, no?

You have conflated value and price.  Bitcoin's price is volatile but its underlying value is not at all expected to be. 

It's parameters are locked in and so the market valuation of it will be steady.  Stable. 

This is different than saying "Venuezuela's currency is hyperinflating and so bitcoin is rising versus the Venezuelan dollar".   

That isn't bitcoin's value jumping around, that is the Venezuelan dollar's value tanking.

Price and value are NOT the same thing.

[danda]

valid question.

From a practical standpoint, it is the day that you try to change it, and find that you cannot.  ie, today.    :-)

From a moral standpoint, I beieve it is wrong to change consensus level code (unless for a bug fix that everyone agrees on) at any point after other people have invested time/money/energy into it.  So really, 2009.

I don't say that development should stop.  I say that it should be done and released with a new blockchain.  Satoshi could have done that and started the tradition for upgrades.  would've been better, in my view.

but when was bitcoin bitcoin

2009.
2013 pre sipa leveldb bug
2013 post sipa level db bug
2014 migration from satoshi-qt to core
2014 buyout of the main devs into blockstream and pushing other devs out of core

why is today out of 8 years.. the day that bitcoin is bitcoin and should remain in the exact form it is today without any other changes for the next couple centuries.

what is significant about this week that is getting the OP and others such as yourself so hopped up and endlessly ranting that bitcoin should stop all development right now

[AgentofCoin]

But to what aim? Bitcoin is nothing if not spectacularly volatile in value.  If there is a case to be made for Bitcoin to be thought of, and directed to, the role of Nash ideal money, then OP ought to state that case, no?

You have conflated value and price.  
Bitcoin's price is volatile but its underlying value is not at all expected to be.  
It's parameters are locked in and so the market valuation of it will be steady.  Stable.  
Price and value are NOT the same thing.

The price is volatile because the value is speculative and not locked it.

If the parameters are locked in, what would be the valuation of bitcoin if
miners stop including all txs? So if the valuation drops, then bitcoin's price
dumps and you can not transact, and if the valuation increases then bitcoin's
price pumps and you still can not transact.

Your theory of "locked in" stagnation is malicious to a real world system.

[sidhujag]

Bitcoin is more ideal than rate targeted fiat in nash terms.. however price is all you need it determines underlying value at the time.. if you need larger picture of value scale out on your chart.. slowly real value catches up as price rises but today its value is 1200ish so is price.

[traincarswreck]

The price is volatile because the value is speculative and not locked it.

If the parameters are locked in, what would be the valuation of bitcoin if
miners stop including all txs? Is that already considered in the current value?
So if the valuation drops, then bitcoin's price dumps and you can not transact,
and if the valuation increases, then bitcoin's price pumps and you can not transact.

Your theory of "locked in" stagnation is malicious to a real world system.

What are you talking about miners ceasing to including all txs?

There is nothing malicious.  The world is looking for some gold like, in the sense that it doesn't change.  We want to think about expanding the unchanging parameters of bitcoin.  We don't want to expand the things that change about bitcoin. The latter would be good for increase the number of utilities, but NOT for stability of value.

Put another way, IF bitcoin's value was fairly stable, it would be easier to see when governments manipulate the quality of our respective fiats because it would show up in market price, and you could be REST ASSURED that the change in price was the fiats value changing not bitcoin.  Thats the phenomenon we want.

[traincarswreck]

Bitcoin is more ideal than rate targeted fiat in nash terms.. however price is all you need it determines underlying value at the time.. if you need larger picture of value scale out on your chart.. slowly real value catches up as price rises but today its value is 1200ish so is price.

Don't conflate these things.  You can have multiple exchanges with different prices, and you can have different prices for bitcoin in different currencies.  It's then absurd to suggest bitcoin has different values.

Price is how we discover the underlying value, but it is not correct to assert the value is the price.  

Furthermore, if for example we made the assumption (as a thought experiment) that bitcoin is fairly stable or actually stable in value, when the price changes, this is a reflection of the FIAT value changing not at all (necessarily) bitcoin's value.

Please spend some time with this, and understand that the difficultly we are having in dialogue and conception is that we don't already have a stable metric for value.  So it is difficult to convey that value and price are not at all the same.

[jonald_fyookball]

would be nice if you provide your definition of 'value'.

[traincarswreck]

would be nice if you provide your definition of 'value'.

You have, wrapped in this question, the very problem humanity faces.  Value is subjective right?  Be we need to valuate things, in order to optimally use them.  The market prices, rather than a central authority, are needed in order to signal where the optimal distribution of our commodities lies.

When the markets, the collective all the available information, puts a price on something, the price is a discovery of the underlying value.  There is no other way to solve this problem of subjectively.  

There is no other meaningful definition.  And no other way to define something's value that is not fully subjective.

But value can't mean price, and mt gox is a perfect example because the price was being manipulated but the underlying fundamentals of bitcoin were not changing.  

Now we have more exchanges and so the price is more real in relation to the actual underlying value, but this phenomenon needs to unfold more so the markets can continue to discover the actual underlying value.

[jonald_fyookball]

would be nice if you provide your definition of 'value'.

You have, wrapped in this question, the very problem humanity faces.  Value is subjective right?  Be we need to valuate things, in order to optimally use them.  The market prices, rather than a central authority, are needed in order to signal where the optimal distribution of our commodities lies.

When the markets, the collective all the available information, puts a price on something, the price is a discovery of the underlying value.  There is no other way to solve this problem of subjectively.  

There is no other meaningful definition.  And no other way to define something's value that is not fully subjective.

But value can't mean price, and mt gox is a perfect example because the price was being manipulated but the underlying fundamentals of bitcoin were not changing.  

Now we have more exchanges and so the price is more real in relation to the actual underlying value, but this phenomenon needs to unfold more so the markets can continue to discover the actual underlying value.

There is a subjective element to what is valued, sure. 

So what problem exactly do you think humanity needs to solve?

[QuestionAuthority]

I can't believe I read this whole thread. What a fucking waste of time. OP has no clue what bitcoin is, how it operates, what devs do, how the security system works (mining) or how complex macroeconomic systems really are. The rest of you remind me of the meme below.

[jbreher]

At least OP stopped using 'gold-like' as a term for this property, which s/he has stated is a property that gold does not possess.

OP dances around an implication that Bitcoin is our best shot at Nash ideal money, but never comes out and admits nor denies that this is the case. Yet OP continues to talk about Bitcoin:

bitcoin is not for the peoples daily use, its a finger trap for the meta-players.

'gold-like is the correct term and I think your want to tell me its not is your mistake, not mine.  Gold is fairly stable in value which is why it has been sought as an inflation hedge.  Its the cost of mining that is relevant here.  There is lots of gold but the cost of mining it throttles the supply favorably. 

Yet you posted this (which, while not attributed in your post, I assume is attributable to Nash?):

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.

So "Gold is fairly stable in value", so you aspire to "gold like properties", even though Nash argues "right now platinum would be even better than gold".

Bitcoin has a different mechanism for this but the result is the same.

The relationship between the cost of production and the supply makes bitcoin and gold similar.  It keeps their value stable. 

But to what aim? Bitcoin is nothing if not spectacularly volatile in value.  If there is a case to be made for Bitcoin to be thought of, and directed to, the role of Nash ideal money, then OP ought to state that case, no?

You have conflated value and price. 

Fair enough. Kindly direct me to a statement of the definition for 'value' you wish to employ.

Bitcoin's price is volatile but its underlying value is not at all expected to be.

"expected to be"? Expected by whom?

[traincarswreck]

There is a subjective element to what is valued, sure. 

So what problem exactly do you think humanity needs to solve?

Without clear direction from a god the only unbiased argument that can be made is one which affects the freedom of the generic individual.  We are each free to pursue our own desires provided we don't encroach on another persons freedom.  

This pursuit then is limited by the resources available AND therefore by our efficient use of them.

The market prices tell us how to optimally use these resources in regard to procuring the most freedom (ie raises the average standard of living for everyone).

In order for the markets to function optimally they need an ultra stable unit of value.  

That is our goal.

[traincarswreck]

I can't believe I read this whole thread. What a fucking waste of time. OP has no clue what bitcoin is, how it operates, what devs do, how the security system works (mining) or how complex macroeconomic systems really are. The rest of you remind me of the meme below.

You didn't actually refute anything.

[jonald_fyookball]

I can't believe I read this whole thread. What a fucking waste of time.

   95% of the threads on this forum accomplish absolutely nothing.  What else is new? lol.  At least we are having fun.

[jonald_fyookball]

There is a subjective element to what is valued, sure. 

So what problem exactly do you think humanity needs to solve?

Without clear direction from a god the only unbiased argument that can be made is one which affects the freedom of the generic individual.  We are each free to pursue our own desires provided we don't encroach on another persons freedom.  

This pursuit then is limited by the resources available AND therefore by our efficient use of them.

The market prices tell us how to optimally use these resources in regard to procuring the most freedom (ie raises the average standard of living for everyone).

In order for the markets to function optimally they need an ultra stable unit of value.  

That is our goal.

I'm all for liberty but I think you are looking in the wrong places for it.  Markets are already pretty efficient if not perfect.   Regardless, perfecting the 'unit of value' isn't going to magically solve political problems.

[AgentofCoin]

The price is volatile because the value is speculative and not locked it.

If the parameters are locked in, what would be the valuation of bitcoin if
miners stop including all txs? Is that already considered in the current value?
So if the valuation drops, then bitcoin's price dumps and you can not transact,
and if the valuation increases, then bitcoin's price pumps and you can not transact.

Your theory of "locked in" stagnation is malicious to a real world system.

What are you talking about miners ceasing to including all txs?
... We want to think about expanding the unchanging parameters of bitcoin.  
We don't want to expand the things that change about bitcoin.
The latter would be good for increase the number of utilities, but NOT for stability of value.
...

Miners have the power to create blocks that contain no txs, other than the coinbase.
If they did this on purpose as an attack or as a protest, wouldn't that automatically violate
your premise that Bitcoin is already "locked in" and in an unchangeable state and thus nothing
should be done about TPS from this point forward? You previously alluded to TPS increases in
any manner hurts the value and leads to an ultimate devaluation to near zero.

[traincarswreck]

Yet you posted this (which, while not attributed in your post, I assume is attributable to Nash?):

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.

So "Gold is fairly stable in value", so you aspire to "gold like properties", even though Nash argues "right now platinum would be even better than gold".


Fair enough. Kindly direct me to a statement of the definition for 'value' you wish to employ.

Consider rather this statement by Nash that proceeds what you highlight:

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.

You see there is a natural throttle of the supply because of the cost of digging deeper that increases.  Bitcoin has the same result, but a different mechanism for keeping the supply stable (which is related to the difficulty and the power of the network).  In either case you can't actually just decide to mine "more".  

Gold however, as Nash points out, is not locked in this sense (and Szabo writes about this too http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2007/02/mining-vasty-deep-i.html)

So gold served well, but technological advance will eventually show gold to be not scarce, and so just because gold was scare in the past, and useful as an inflation hedge, it is unlikely to stay true for much longer (especially with an alternative inflation hedge available).

Platinum is good in this sense too but it has other limitations gold and bitcoin do not.  So Nash is making a comment about a specific quality to highlight it, he isn't suggesting we use platinum as our basis for standard value.

I use "gold-like" because most people identify with it the easiest.  We could say "stable in value like" but that's not really an example or metaphor.

There is no more useful definition for value.  What I am suggesting is there is "some" underlying value, to be discovered the pricing system of the markets, and only god knows what that value is.  There is no other way to define or find it, than the price of an EFFICIENT market, but that means that market needs a stable metric for value otherwise the price will fluctuate and not properly represent the underlying value.

Bitcoin's price is volatile but its underlying value is not at all expected to be.

"expected to be"? Expected by whom?

If bitcoin's parameter remain unchanged, then any rational person would expect its value (not necessarily its PRICE!) to be fairly stable. If you dramatically change its underlying nature, why would you expect its value to stay stable?