Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[traincarswreck]

From an economic perspective, the hitting of the block size was in itself a change.

Many perceive the economic change as more significant then would be a technical change to the block size. The evaluation of the effect of either of these changes upon the value of Bitcoin would be significant towards purposing Bitcoin as a step towards Nashian ideal money, would it not?

The subjective opinion of the participants don't matter, the markets are clairvoyant and already acted upon no change to the Nashian sense. The ECE refers then to the idea that the markets know the 1mb can't be lifted and a fee even is inevitable, the change was implied all along.

Now its number 2 from the summary of the paper which is that core needs to declare this mandate, and the community needs to discuss why its important not to scale bitcoin in regard to tp/s

[1714819651]

1714819651

[1714819651]

1714819651

[1714819651]

1714819651

[1714819651]

1714819651

[AngryDwarf]

So forgive my brain block as it is still synchronising so I think your knowledgeable node will have to orphan it.

If Ideal Money is one that expands and contracts with the underlying economy.

In order to turn bitcoin into ideal money we need to freeze development in order to create a stable metric. Bitcoin will then destroy all other money through competition and become ideal money.

As bitcoin will eventually have a maximum coin supply, the economy must freeze for bitcoin to become Ideal Money and learn to live on its tps rate.

Want to die of hypothermia because your bitcoin payement for heating hasn't confirmed? No you can't it upsets the equilibrium.
Want to feed thy starving neighbour by gifting them some food? No you can't as it might be considered money and so upsets the equilibrium.

[traincarswreck]

In order to turn bitcoin into ideal money...

Bitcoin cannot be ideal money, its not a brain block you haven't read the thread, I have chewed people out over and over and over and over and over for this.  Bitcoin is deflationary.  It increases in value over time.  Increasing in value means its not stable.  Increasing in value means ITS NOT STABLE. Bitcoin is not stable in value, it never will be.  Ideal Money is stable in value, bitcoin is not stable in value its deflationary. 

I don't know how to be more clear.

[AngryDwarf]

In order to turn bitcoin into ideal money...

Bitcoin cannot be ideal money, its not a brain block you haven't read the thread, I have chewed people out over and over and over and over and over for this.  Bitcoin is deflationary.  It increases in value over time.  Increasing in value means its not stable.  Increasing in value means ITS NOT STABLE. Bitcoin is not stable in value, it never will be.  Ideal Money is stable in value, bitcoin is not stable in value its deflationary. 

I don't know how to be more clear.

But you have to freeze bitcoin development in order to create a stable metric, so it can become ideal money.
Maybe I've misread the thread as some of it appears to be contradictory. Maybe that is my lack of knowledge or maybe you are failing to clearly illustrate your point.

[AGD]

What happens when Bitcoin deflation ends in 2140? Wouldn't this be a factor to stabilize Bitcoin value and therefore could be Ideal Money in the long run?

[hv_]

In order to turn bitcoin into ideal money...

Bitcoin cannot be ideal money, its not a brain block you haven't read the thread, I have chewed people out over and over and over and over and over for this.  Bitcoin is deflationary.  It increases in value over time.  Increasing in value means its not stable.  Increasing in value means ITS NOT STABLE. Bitcoin is not stable in value, it never will be.  Ideal Money is stable in value, bitcoin is not stable in value its deflationary.  

I don't know how to be more clear.

But you have to freeze bitcoin development in order to create a stable metric, so it can become ideal money.
Maybe I've misread the thread as some of it appears to be contradictory. Maybe that is my lack of knowledge or maybe you are failing to clearly illustrate your point.

Yoooo  you have to freeeeze.

All

At 0 Klevin we have ideal state - nothing moves.  Hm academic?!

For science and all theories (describing parts of our real nature) - freeze is ideal - nice. You have not to change your theory once scientists captured that little thing of our nature (into what language ? Pure Math ? Code ? - everything else is NOT strict and you can dispute for ever) .

 Sadly


Very sadly


THERE IS a GAP (HUUUUGE)


to apply this little frozen nice ideal theory into REAL life.


This thread here is all about to understand this GAP -


Ideal science brains are soo frozen!  (With some heat they are running out of capacity - set to 1MB mostly)


Still Popcorn...

[BurtW]

In order to turn bitcoin into ideal money...

Bitcoin cannot be ideal money, its not a brain block you haven't read the thread, I have chewed people out over and over and over and over and over for this.  Bitcoin is deflationary.  It increases in value over time.  Increasing in value means its not stable.  Increasing in value means ITS NOT STABLE. Bitcoin is not stable in value, it never will be.  Ideal Money is stable in value, bitcoin is not stable in value its deflationary.  

I don't know how to be more clear.

But you have to freeze bitcoin development in order to create a stable metric, so it can become ideal money.
Maybe I've misread the thread as some of it appears to be contradictory. Maybe that is my lack of knowledge or maybe you are failing to clearly illustrate your point.

AngryDwarf,

Your brain block is simple.  You have to give up on the idea that Bitcoin is going to be the money you use ever day to buy your coffee at Starbucks.  The proposal here is that everyday money, the ideal money, will not be Bitcoin.

Want to die of hypothermia because your bitcoin payment for heating hasn't confirmed?
Want to feed thy starving neighbor by gifting them some food?

You would not be using Bitcoin for these things.  You still want to believe you could.  In order to understand this you need to, at least temporarily, suspend your desire to have Bitcoin be able to do these things.

Read this sequence of events over very carefully keeping track of the terms like mathematical items until you see it:

So, if bitcoin maintains current gold like properties,
including not increasing the TPS whether on-chain or off-chains, then:
(1) bitcoin will increase in value [by design].
(2) bitcoin is the "other alternative" due to its increase in value [all other currencies decrease in value by design].
(3) bitcoin cannot be the "ideal money".
(4) "other alternatives" [=Bitcoin] existence is to force fiat to compete in value.
(5) "other alternative" [=Bitcoin] ushers in the "ideal money".
(6) "Ideal money" is the end result of the competition [and it will NOT be Bitcoin].

As plain as I can express it:

The mere existence of an alternative to all the constantly devalued currencies will cause all of the constantly devalued currencies to either a) asymptotically become ideal money or b) die a horrible death at the hands of market forces.

Cool, eh?

[BurtW]

What happens when Bitcoin deflation ends in 2140? Wouldn't this be a factor to stabilize Bitcoin value and therefore could be Ideal Money in the long run?

I thought this myself.   The way I picture it in my mind is that if you represent ideal money as a flat line then Bitcoin would approach ideal money asymptotically from the top and all other currencies are forced to asymptotically approach from the bottom.  This means that Bitcoin can never be ideal money, fiat (or whatever wins the value competition) can never be ideal money, but they both approach it from different directions.

The question was asked whether, after all this happens, we would still need Bitcoin and my thought is yes, you still need the alternative on the "top of the line", no mater how close it approaches the line, in order to force all the currencies (or the remaining currency) on the bottom of the line to remain honest.  

[l8orre]

I did not find a single scientist in that group (save Back). Every person was willing to argue against Nash argument without hearing it. And when I suggested they read the source material the general consensus was there is no need to (WHEN is this acceptable?).
 
Core’s ignorance is it’s biggest security leak.

interestingly- these kinds of fiefdoms creep in ultra fast in any new method or invention... can you please post some link to which part of Nashs work you are referring too specifically?
I would like to dig into it, but I am not sure whether to start with the definition of Nash equilibrium itseelf, or if Nash made some specific allusions to BTC like eCurrency as you imply ...
Thanks!

[BurtW]

I did not find a single scientist in that group (save Back). Every person was willing to argue against Nash argument without hearing it. And when I suggested they read the source material the general consensus was there is no need to (WHEN is this acceptable?).
 
Core’s ignorance is it’s biggest security leak.

interestingly- these kinds of fiefdoms creep in ultra fast in any new method or invention... can you please post some link to which part of Nashs work you are referring too specifically?
I would like to dig into it, but I am not sure whether to start with the definition of Nash equilibrium itseelf, or if Nash made some specific allusions to BTC like eCurrency as you imply ...
Thanks!

Did you just read the first post, quote one part of it, skip 30 pages of discussion and explanation and then ask for an explanation?  I hope not, because that would be rude.

[traincarswreck]

But you have to freeze bitcoin development in order to create a stable metric, so it can become ideal money.

Freeze the development (of a certain kind) so SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS NOT BITCOIN can become ideal money.  bitcoin CANNOT become ideal money.

[traincarswreck]

What happens when Bitcoin deflation ends in 2140? Wouldn't this be a factor to stabilize Bitcoin value and therefore could be Ideal Money in the long run?

deflation is not the correct word in this sentence. bitcoin's value will NEVER be stable.  BITCOIN CANNOT BE IDEAL MONEY. Bitcoin is deflationary, which means "increases in value over time", things that increase in value over time are not stable in value, because stable in value means that its value DOESN'T CHANGE.

[traincarswreck]

interestingly- these kinds of fiefdoms creep in ultra fast in any new method or invention... can you please post some link to which part of Nashs work you are referring too specifically?
I would like to dig into it, but I am not sure whether to start with the definition of Nash equilibrium itseelf, or if Nash made some specific allusions to BTC like eCurrency as you imply ...
Thanks!

Nash spent 20 years explaining "ideal money" that is the title of the work.  Every single sentence in it is relevant to bitcoin.

[traincarswreck]

Did you just read the first post, quote one part of it, skip 30 pages of discussion and explanation and then ask for an explanation?  I hope not, because that would be rude.

There is not a person here that hasn't tried repeatedly asking me how bitcoin could be ideal money when I have repeated and bolded and caps BITCOIN CANNOT BE IDEAL MONEY.

[AngryDwarf]

But you have to freeze bitcoin development in order to create a stable metric, so it can become ideal money.

Freeze the development (of a certain kind) so SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS NOT BITCOIN can become ideal money.  bitcoin CANNOT become ideal money.

Good morning. I think I understand this.

So really you should  be thinking about getting a development team together to create nashcoin. No need to speak to the bitcoin devs who have their own ideas and agenda.

The thought I have, is that if you create a stable metric for a currency, for ideal money, then it has to be linked with a stable metric for the global economy. At the moment I don't think any economist has a stable metric for the economy.

[traincarswreck]

Good morning. I think I understand this.

So really you should  be thinking about getting a development team together to create nashcoin. No need to speak to the bitcoin devs who have their own ideas and agenda.

The thought I have, is that if you create a stable metric for a currency, for ideal money, then it has to be linked with a stable metric for the global economy. At the moment I don't think any economist has a stable metric for the economy.

you have not understood anything.  No one can create stable money, its impossible.  But  Nash explains you can create "fairly" stable money, then he goes on to describe bitcoin PERFECTLY but long before bitcoin was ever invented.

He says if you introduce bitcoin into the world, but he doesn't call it bitcoin, he calls in an international e-currency with a stable supply and a halving inflation rate, then this will act as a catalyst that makes our fiat money tend towards stability.

[AngryDwarf]

He says if you introduce bitcoin into the world, but he doesn't call it bitcoin, he calls in an international e-currency with a stable supply and a halving inflation rate, then this will act as a catalyst that makes our fiat money tend towards stability.

It's nice to think of Satoshi Nakamoto as a nash economics inspired visionary who desired to stabilise fiat to save the world, rather than some poker playing gambling addict.

[traincarswreck]

It's nice to think of Satoshi Nakamoto as a nash economics inspired visionary who desired to stabilise fiat to save the world, rather than some poker playing gambling addict.

Yup I think one of those is far more likely than the other. Regardless, bitcoin fits nash's premise perfectly.

[traincarswreck]

Do we understand how irrational and silly it sounds to me to hear core supporters and elite say "we gotta stop fighting and figure out how to scale responsibly!"?

[BurtW]

Do we understand how irrational and silly it sounds to me to hear core supporters and elite say "we gotta stop fitting and figure out how to scale responsibly!"?

Given everything you have said, yes, any changes to scale Bitcoin would sound irrational to you.

The problem is that everyone else here, myself included, have been working very hard for years before you showed up with the direction of improving, scaling, adding value, and mass adoption.

That is a lot of momentum.  A lot of current to swim against and stop.

Lucky for you/Nash/Satoshi(?) consensus is nearly impossible.