Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[traincarswreck]

I'm considering the "none" option far more carefully, given the information you're eliciting.

Yes, which is partially intuitive to you but you didn't have the argument to really nail it down.  My claim is others will agree when they hear the argument.  This suggests too, that while both sides are crying of censorship and bad communication practice, both sides have drowned out the relevant argument by the old man himself. It's a very good starting point for getting people to actually come to the table and LISTEN to each other because each side is forced to concede to having some ignorance. No?

[1714816771]

1714816771

[1714816771]

1714816771

[1714816771]

1714816771

[1714816771]

1714816771

[1714816771]

1714816771

[Carlton Banks]

I'm considering the "none" option far more carefully, given the information you're eliciting.

Yes, which is partially intuitive to you but you didn't have the argument to really nail it down.  My claim is others will agree when they hear the argument.  This suggests too, that while both sides are crying of censorship and bad communication practice, both sides have drowned out the relevant argument by the old man himself. It's a very good starting point for getting people to actually come to the table and LISTEN to each other because each side is forced to concede to having some ignorance. No?

Yes.

It's not so much that I didn't have any arguments (although certainly not Nash's), it was more a case of disinclination to heighten the (already raucous) discord, Danda essentially makes this point.

Could it be that Gavin and Mike's plan was not just to invoke a dialectic that pushes people to accept a small increase, but to blindside all to the fact that all increases are foolish?

[traincarswreck]

Do you mean Gavin purposefully played on peoples assumption that an increase is good, and nefariously tried to use ignorance to change bitcoin so it wouldn't finger trap central banks?

[traincarswreck]

   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

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

[traincarswreck]

I think Gavin and Mike had/have no idea what they are talking about.  And no one can hold a candle to me on this subject. Or bring them to the dialogue.

[AgentofCoin]

... And no one can hold a candle to me on this subject. Or bring them to the dialogue.

The real issue is not whether you are correct or not, the issue is whether
Bitcoin IS the device to facilitate your wish to complete Nash's theory. And
since many Bitcoiners think that Bitcoin will scale, whether on and/or off chain,
means that it IS NOT or WILL NOT be, in the future.

IMO, it is not about intelligence, it is about whether the whole community
will agree that the experiment has ended and we are at near perfection for
a higher purpose. I would argue, the Nashian purpose, was not our purpose.

[traincarswreck]

The real issue is not whether you are correct or not, the issue is whether
Bitcoin IS the device to facilitate your wish to complete Nash's theory. And
since many Bitcoiners think that Bitcoin will scale, whether on and/or off chain,
means that it IS NOT or WILL NOT be, in the future.

IMO, it is not about intelligence, it is about whether the whole community
will agree that the experiment has ended and we are at near perfection for
a higher purpose. I would argue, the Nashian purpose, was not our purpose.

No that isn't how bitcoin works.  I don't need to convince the whole community, because the minority gets a veto on changes to the system. I just have to convince the sincere rational players because that will be enough to block such change.

[AgentofCoin]

The real issue is not whether you are correct or not, the issue is whether
Bitcoin IS the device to facilitate your wish to complete Nash's theory. And
since many Bitcoiners think that Bitcoin will scale, whether on and/or off chain,
means that it IS NOT or WILL NOT be, in the future.

IMO, it is not about intelligence, it is about whether the whole community
will agree that the experiment has ended and we are at near perfection for
a higher purpose. I would argue, the Nashian purpose, was not our purpose.

No that isn't how bitcoin works.  I don't need to convince the whole community, because the minority gets a veto on changes to the system. I just have to convince the sincere rational players because that will be enough.

No, in reality that is how it works, because otherwise other forks will be created and we
will start a blockchain war where sides will specifically and maliciously target miners and
infrastructure to cripple the other coin. It would be an act of war. People will not hold hands
and hug the way that ETH & ETC did "for the sake of knowledge". The natural state is war
and currently we are all unified under one chain. You will break that "truce".

If you are successful in stopping TPS change indefinitely, IMO a war will begin that makes
CORE v BU arguments and positioning look like childsplay. The coldwar will end and a hot
war will begin and escalate.

You have confused "not reaching consensus" with "actualized malicious obstruction".

[traincarswreck]

No, in reality that is how it works, because otherwise other forks will be created and we
will start a blockchain war where sides will specifically and maliciously target miners and
infrastructure to cripple the other coin. It would be an act of war. People will not hold hands
and hug the way that ETH & ETC did "for the sake of knowledge". The natural state is war
and currently we are all unified under one chain. You will break that "truce".

If you are successful in stopping TPS change indefinitely, IMO a war will begin that makes
CORE v BU arguments and positioning look like childsplay. The coldwar will end.

You have confused "not reaching consensus" with "actualized malicious obstruction".

none of what you are saying changes bitcoin and its all fud.

[AgentofCoin]

No, in reality that is how it works, because otherwise other forks will be created and we
will start a blockchain war where sides will specifically and maliciously target miners and
infrastructure to cripple the other coin. It would be an act of war. People will not hold hands
and hug the way that ETH & ETC did "for the sake of knowledge". The natural state is war
and currently we are all unified under one chain. You will break that "truce".

If you are successful in stopping TPS change indefinitely, IMO a war will begin that makes
CORE v BU arguments and positioning look like childsplay. The coldwar will end.

You have confused "not reaching consensus" with "actualized malicious obstruction".

none of what you are saying changes bitcoin and its all fud.

What you just said, doesn't address anything.
You are ignoring a possible future of your theory manifested, because it doesn't fit your final conclusion.

[traincarswreck]

What you just said, doesn't address anything.
You are ignoring a possible future of your theory manifested, because it doesn't fit your final conclusion.

No I am pointing to reality, the 1mb block size cap exists, and changing it gets harder over time, not easier.  And all I have to do, is convince a few scientists that the scientific argument is scientific (hint: it is), and then it will be impossible for ignorance to prevail (or change bitcoin).

[AgentofCoin]

What you just said, doesn't address anything.
You are ignoring a possible future of your theory manifested, because it doesn't fit your final conclusion.

No I am pointing to reality, the 1mb block size cap exists, and changing it gets harder over time, not easier.  And all I have to do, is convince a few scientists that the scientific argument is scientific (hint: it is), and then it will be impossible for ignorance to prevail (or change bitcoin).

But then the scientists that you can not capture will likely fork the chain and
invisible community members will maliciously attack and invade the systems
of your miners. A cyber war will begin because you captured the honey badger.

You and your chain will be the enemy of all sides who find interest in Bitcoin,
other than the Nashians.

[traincarswreck]

What you just said, doesn't address anything.
You are ignoring a possible future of your theory manifested, because it doesn't fit your final conclusion.

No I am pointing to reality, the 1mb block size cap exists, and changing it gets harder over time, not easier.  And all I have to do, is convince a few scientists that the scientific argument is scientific (hint: it is), and then it will be impossible for ignorance to prevail (or change bitcoin).

But then the scientists that you can not capture will likely fork the chain and
invisible community members will maliciously attack and invade the systems
of your miners. A cyber war will begin because you captured the honey badger.

You and your chain will be the enemy of all sides who find interest in Bitcoin,
other than the Nashians.

No scientists will reject nash's argument.  Not even gavin would come with you on your irrational scheme:

http://gavinandresen.ninja/a-definition-of-bitcoin

“Bitcoin” is the ledger of not-previously-spent, validly signed transactions contained in the chain of blocks that begins with the genesis block (hash 000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f), follows the 21-million coin creation schedule, and has the most cumulative double-SHA256-proof-of-work.1

[AgentofCoin]

What you just said, doesn't address anything.
You are ignoring a possible future of your theory manifested, because it doesn't fit your final conclusion.

No I am pointing to reality, the 1mb block size cap exists, and changing it gets harder over time, not easier.  And all I have to do, is convince a few scientists that the scientific argument is scientific (hint: it is), and then it will be impossible for ignorance to prevail (or change bitcoin).

But then the scientists that you can not capture will likely fork the chain and
invisible community members will maliciously attack and invade the systems
of your miners. A cyber war will begin because you captured the honey badger.

You and your chain will be the enemy of all sides who find interest in Bitcoin,
other than the Nashians.

No scientists will reject nash's argument.  Not even gavin would come with you on your irrational scheme:

http://gavinandresen.ninja/a-definition-of-bitcoin

“Bitcoin” is the ledger of not-previously-spent, validly signed transactions contained in the chain of blocks that begins with the genesis block (hash 000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f), follows the 21-million coin creation schedule, and has the most cumulative double-SHA256-proof-of-work.1

No scientist would reject human eugentic arguments.
Yet due to the Nazis, scientists stay far away from such scientific discussions.
They are taboo and go down a road most do not wish to travel.

Not all scientific arguments whether provable, deserve to be realized.
That is what you do not understand.

Your theory is 100% malicious, until you have high consensus.

[traincarswreck]

No scientist would reject human eugentic arguments.
Yet due to the Nazis, scientists stay far away from such scientific discussions.
They are taboo and go down a road most do not wish to travel.

Not all scientific arguments whether provable, deserve to be realized.
That is what you do not understand.

Your theory is 100% malicious, until you have high consensus.

No its observable reality.  Your faction has already tried to fork, and go ahead, fork, leave.  It's bitcoin. What we have is bitcoin and none of the attacks are working.  I'm just pointing out why there can be no consensus for changing.  Its observable reality.  Quote hitler all you want. Scream, shout.  SCIENCE and REASON prevails.

[AgentofCoin]

No scientist would reject human eugentic arguments.
Yet due to the Nazis, scientists stay far away from such scientific discussions.
They are taboo and go down a road most do not wish to travel.

Not all scientific arguments whether provable, deserve to be realized.
That is what you do not understand.

Your theory is 100% malicious, until you have high consensus.

No its observable reality.  Your faction has already tried to fork, and go ahead, fork, leave.  It's bitcoin. What we have is bitcoin and none of the attacks are working.  I'm just pointing out why there can be no consensus for changing.  Its observable reality.  Quote hitler all you want. Scream, shout.  SCIENCE and REASON prevails.

Lol, obviously you do not understand.
I support conservation scaling, both on-chain and off-chain.
It is not the Anti-CORE people you need to worry about, it is the CORE supporters.

Consensus will come when the time arrives in which it must.
Consensus never ends or freezes, it is a long negotiation.

You are asking the community to give in and accept capture.
Very anti-Bitcoin, IMO.

[traincarswreck]

Lol, obviously you do not understand.
I support conservation scaling, both on-chain and off-chain.
It is not the Anti-CORE people you need to worry about, it is the CORE supporters.

Consensus will come when the time arrives in which it must.
Consensus never ends or freezes, it is a long negotiation.

You are asking the community to give in and accept capture.
Very anti-Bitcoin, IMO.

You are confused, consensus for change gets harder over time, not easier.  The reason you are "lol'ing" is because you are an idiot, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you are ignoring reality. bitcoin is what it is.  It is not what you think it will be.  REALITY.

[AgentofCoin]

Lol, obviously you do not understand.
I support conservation scaling, both on-chain and off-chain.
It is not the Anti-CORE people you need to worry about, it is the CORE supporters.

Consensus will come when the time arrives in which it must.
Consensus never ends or freezes, it is a long negotiation.

You are asking the community to give in and accept capture.
Very anti-Bitcoin, IMO.

You are confused, consensus for change gets harder over time, not easier.  The reason you are "lol'ing" is because you are an idiot, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you are ignoring reality. bitcoin is what it is.  It is not what you think it will be.  REALITY.

No you are confused. You think you understand Bitcoin.
The REALITY is no one does and it is in a state of continual evolution.
Everyday in Bitcoin world is like a year.

A TPS high consensus could come tomorrow or 5 years from now.
It doesn't matter when since time is irrelevant.

Your arguments that consensus is dead or too hard now, is based in wishful thinking.
You can't know the future based on the limited info you have now.
Tomorrow is a new day.

[traincarswreck]

No its based on science and observable reality.  There is no consensus for change and there never will be, because there are not enough people that are stupid as you.

[AgentofCoin]

No its based on science and observable reality.  There is no consensus for change and there never will be, because there are not enough people that are stupid as you.

Actually, there is consensus on multiple sides for change.
CORE wants change and BU wants change.
YOU are the only public party who is advising capture.

Change will come eventually.
Just no one knows what it will manifest as.

But if I am wrong, so be it, let this forum record my "stupidity" for all time.