Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[traincarswreck]

I think he is saying that all of the arbitrary parameters (21 M, 10 min, 4 TPS) lead to a certain value proposition for Bitcion.  Changing any of these  parameters would change the value proposition of Bitcoin.  In this case changes to TPS would change the value.  Most believe that increasing TPS will lead to a higher utility, value and price.  I do not think there is any argument there.  TPS is only one of the parameters which feeds into the entire value proposition of Bitcoin.

Then you are convinced, and you are just being cautiously hesitant.

you want a stable price. but do not realise that halting utility wont cause a stable price

HE DOES NOT WANT OR INTEND A STABLE PRICE.  He never said that.  Why do you keep saying that?

Yes franky is conflating these things.  And as this dialogue opens to more participants you will find that to a be common theme among those that don't yet understand.  And this is a symptom of not having a stable metric, a nash, in the first place. As our money tends towards stability in the nashian sense, people will understand what we have been "missing" and how it effected our "arguments".

[1714128700]

1714128700

[1714128700]

1714128700

[1714128700]

1714128700

[1714128700]

1714128700

[Carlton Banks]

you need  to understand this in order to participate properly in the dialogue, and there are multiple participants who understand this very well.

Don't expect a Franky to understand something if his job depends on him not understanding it

[traincarswreck]

Don't expect a Franky to understand something if his job depends on him not understanding it

The nature of the problem is such that its not easy or intuitive for any of us:

Our view is that if it is viewed scientifically and rationally (which is psychologically difficult!) that money should have the function of a standard of measurement and thus that it should become comparable to the watt or the hour or a degree of temperature.

[BurtW]

I am saying if we don't make the Nashian consideration every step of the way then we are being irresponsible.

Then you must define TPS as on chain TPS only.

If you cannot do that then you are dead in the water because there is absolutely no way to control the off chain TPS.

Example:  A large Bitcoin deposit provider allows off chain "ledger" transfers directly between its customers, for free.  For all practical purposes they can handle any number of these transactions as they are all simply database entries.  More transaction volume?  Buy more hardware.

Now it can be argued that all of these off chain transactions are not really Bitcoin transactions.  In that case we are back to the original statement:  the TPS you are discussing must be on chain transactions only.

[danda]

ok, fair enough.

I'm not sure OP is saying it can't have secondary layers.

In fact, it seems to me that usage by the big banks as a settlement layer, as OP envisions, would itself be creating secondary layers, and that eventually fiat itself would be a secondary layer.

So I don't see how lightning is much different from that...

OP, what say you?

I am saying if we don't make the Nashian consideration every step of the way then we are being irresponsible.

[traincarswreck]

The you must define TPS and on chain TPS.

If you cannot do that then you are dead in the water because there is absolutely no way to control the off chain TPS.

Example:  A large Bitcoin deposit provider allows off chain "ledger" transfers directly between its customers, for free.  For all practical purposes they can handle any number of these transactions as they are all simply database entries.  More transaction volume?  Buy more hardware.

Now it can be argued that all of these off chain transactions are not really Bitcoin transactions.  In that case we are back to the original statement:  the TPS you are discussing must be on chain transactions only.

If we are not in control of something (ie a subset of txs) then why would it be implied that I am speaking about not controlling it/them?

[BurtW]

Then you must define TPS as on chain TPS only.

If you cannot do that then you are dead in the water because there is absolutely no way to control the off chain TPS.

Example:  A large Bitcoin deposit provider allows off chain "ledger" transfers directly between its customers, for free.  For all practical purposes they can handle any number of these transactions as they are all simply database entries.  More transaction volume?  Buy more hardware.

Now it can be argued that all of these off chain transactions are not really Bitcoin transactions.  In that case we are back to the original statement:  the TPS you are discussing must be on chain transactions only.

If we are not in control of something (ie a subset of txs) then why would it be implied that I am speaking about not controlling it/them?

OK, we all agree then that we are only talking about the on chain TPS.  So that is settled.  This is all in response to this comment:

Burt, I think you missed something important.

In prior statements, the OP is arguing that even LN or other off-chain
systems for bitcoin would also be considered a TPS increase. When I
started talking about TPS, I was not referencing the blocksize specifically
since a TPS increase and a blocksize increase are two separate things.
For value to remain stable for the proposed "future currency" bitcoins
will be TPS restricted on chain and can not have proxies off chain as
a secondary pegged token for any exchange or whatever.

What OP is saying without saying it is that Bitcoin must stop now and
can't have second layers, since that also erodes value through time.

An "absolute" value must be isolated and constant in all ways.
(And I think Bitcoin can never be a constant with human mining.
It needs to be fully automated. "Set it and forget it!".)

[traincarswreck]

OK, we all agree then that we are only talking about the on chain TPS.  So that is settled.

Unless there are changes needed in order to facilitate 2nd layers.

[danda]

OP  (and I) are saying that bitcoin's consensus code should not be changed.  I don't think anyone has asserted that off-chain tx should be limited somehow.   seems irrelevant.

you must define TPS as on chain TPS only.

[Carlton Banks]

Don't expect a Franky to understand something if his job depends on him not understanding it

The nature of the problem is such that its not easy or intuitive for any of us:

Our view is that if it is viewed scientifically and rationally (which is psychologically difficult!) that money should have the function of a standard of measurement and thus that it should become comparable to the watt or the hour or a degree of temperature.

Relax those trouser creases, it was a joke I agree, you're presenting us with difficult subject matter. Nothing like a challenge IMO. As you were

[traincarswreck]

OP  (and I) are saying that bitcoin's consensus code should not be changed.  I don't think anyone has asserted that off-chain tx should be limited somehow.   seems irrelevant.

We have to define and understand the Nashian standard, and then guard bitcoin's parameters that hold it as good as possible in that sense.  All proposed changes need to be held up to this to make sure they don't affect this quality.

[jonald_fyookball]

I think he is saying that all of the arbitrary parameters (21 M, 10 min, 4 TPS) lead to a certain value proposition for Bitcion.  Changing any of these  parameters would change the value proposition of Bitcoin.  In this case changes to TPS would change the value.  Most believe that increasing TPS will lead to a higher utility, value and price.  I do not think there is any argument there.  TPS is only one of the parameters which feeds into the entire value proposition of Bitcoin.
 

Yes, I realize that that is what he is saying, but I think it is a poor model of value.

Imagine a publicly traded railroad company that, early in its inception, issued press releases with its business plan to service passengers
all around the country.  Now imagine that it currently it only services 57 stations railway stations, but investors know there are major plans
for expansion.  The stock price for the past 12 months has been trading between $15 and $20.   Suddenly the CEO announces that instead
of servicing the thousands of stations around the country,  they will simply stick to the 57.  Does the stock price tank?  Of course it does.



 

[BurtW]

OK, we all agree then that we are only talking about the on chain TPS.  So that is settled.

Unless there are changes needed in order to facilitate 2nd layers.

Hold the phone.

Here I may disagree, not sure exactly what you meant.  Why would a change that make something that is inevitable easier/safer/more efficient be a problem for you.

We cannot stop second layer solutions.

We cannot limit or even count off chain transaction.

Off chain transactions are inevitable.

If a change to Bitcoin makes off chain transactions easier/safer/more efficient then that should not be an issue.

[traincarswreck]

Yes, I realize that that is what he is saying, but I think it is a poor model of value.

Imagine a publicly traded railroad company that, early in its inception, issued press releases with its business plan to service passengers
all around the country.  Now imagine that it currently it only services 57 stations railway stations, but investors know there are major plans
for expansion.  The stock price for the past 12 months has been trading between $15 and $20.   Suddenly the CEO announces that instead
of servicing the thousands of stations around the country,  they will simply stick to the 57.  Does the stock price tank?  Of course it does.
 

But this isn't how market theory works.  The markets are god, they are clarivoyent, they KNOW the outcome and this is what they invested in.  They didn't invest in the promise, they KNOW the truth because they are god.  The markets knew from the start the project would stick at 57 and invested as such. 

Your argument is not accepted market theory and mine is based effectively on the efficient market hypothesis.  It doesn't matter how butt hurt, irrational, or mistaken you and other investors are. The market knows the truth, it knows the future.

[traincarswreck]

Here I may disagree, not sure exactly what you meant.  Why would a change that make something that is inevitable easier/safer/more efficient be a problem for you.

We cannot stop second layer solutions.

I am asking if you need to propose a protocol change through consensus in order for 2nd layer's to happen?  What change are you refering to?

[BurtW]

Yes, I realize that that is what he is saying, but I think it is a poor model of value.

Imagine a publicly traded railroad company that, early in its inception, issued press releases with its business plan to service passengers
all around the country.  Now imagine that it currently it only services 57 stations railway stations, but investors know there are major plans
for expansion.  The stock price for the past 12 months has been trading between $15 and $20.   Suddenly the CEO announces that instead
of servicing the thousands of stations around the country,  they will simply stick to the 57.  Does the stock price tank?  Of course it does.
 

But this isn't how market theory works.  The markets are god, they are clarivoyent, they KNOW the outcome and this is what they invested in.  They didn't invest in the promise, they KNOW the truth because they are god.  The markets knew from the start the project would stick at 57 and invested as such. 

Your argument is not accepted market theory and mine is based effectively on the efficient market hypothesis.  It doesn't matter how butt hurt, irrational, or mistaken you and other investors are. The market knows the truth, it knows the future.

This argument could just a easily be used to state that we are going to adopt BU and the markets know that.  So the current price/value of Bitcoin has already factored in that we will be accepting <insert your favorite or least favorite change here>

[traincarswreck]

This argument could just a easily be used to state that we are going to adopt BU and the markets know that.  So the current price/value of Bitcoin has already factored in that we will be accepting <insert your favorite or least favorite change here>

But there is no scientifically founded reason then for change.  And you need to change bitcoin for bu to be relevant.  Don't you see this?

[BurtW]

Here I may disagree, not sure exactly what you meant.  Why would a change that make something that is inevitable easier/safer/more efficient be a problem for you.

We cannot stop second layer solutions.

I am asking if you need to propose a protocol change through consensus in order for 2nd layer's to happen?  What change are you refering to?

This is not important.  Assuming all protocol changes were vetted though your proposed filter then a change to the protocol that enables more efficient second layer solutions will be OK by definition since it passed muster and therefore does not hurt the value proposition of Bitcoin itself.

[traincarswreck]

I don't need to present science for bitcoin to stay the same, if you want it changed you need a founded argument.  You cannot then say "but to not change IS to change, therefore trainscarswreck needed a founded argument".

If no side produces a founded argument then bitcoin cannot be changed. I win.

[traincarswreck]

This is not important.  Assuming all protocol changes were vetted though your proposed filter then a change to the protocol that enables more efficient second layer solutions will be OK by definition since it passed muster and therefore does not hurt the value proposition of Bitcoin itself.

Yes but proposed changes to bitcoin for the reason of facilitating a 2nd layer don't pass.