Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[traincarswreck]

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 single minded outcome of improving, scaling, and mass adoption.

That is a lot of momentum.  A lot of flow to swim against.

Yes but I would suggest it was known from the start that the system would realize stability of this kind and that it would need to be initially designed so that the minority had a veto vs ignorant change.

The other point is that the debate arises because both sides are pursuing an irrational ends with an irrational means.  That would start an unwinnable war.

[1714063150]

1714063150

[1714063150]

1714063150

[xyzzy099]

Just out of curiosity:

While actual gold is not the 'perfect gold' that you envision that Bitcoin can be (is?), nevertheless actual gold is a near approximation, is it not?  And yet, the existence of actual gold does not force nations to adapt their currency to its value - in fact, they have evolved in the opposite direction, and have decoupled currencies from the value of gold completely.

If the existence of actual gold seems to have little or no effect on national currencies, why will the existence of 'perfect gold' in the form of Bitcoin be anything other than marginally more effective?

[danda]

That was not a change to the properties of bitcoin.   only to usage, perception.

The type of change you are talking about (and Ver, et al) is more like if gold was somewhat abundant and easy to find, then it mostly all got dug up and hoarded.  yet, it is a type of usage change, but the properties of gold remain the same, and also it was entirely forseeable to anyone that cared enough to do a small amount of research.

The fact that certain people had incorrect beliefs about the properties of bitcoin and were surprised when usage changed because of those properties does not mean that bitcoin itself changed.  

People need to see this clearly and get this incorrect thinking out of their heads.

Yes but its more so the CHANGE that the markets won't like. People ask why is 1mb the magic number.  its not, but whatever satoshi put it at, I think we need to consider leaving it there, in this case its 1mb

Now it may be useful to get back to the Economic Change Event. The idea in a nutshell: until about a year ago, the block size cap had no effect upon the system. Blocks were consistently well below 1MB in size. On the few occasions that the max size was hit, it did not create a persistent backlog of transactions awaiting inclusion in a block.

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?

[traincarswreck]

Just out of curiosity:

While actual gold is not the 'perfect gold' that you envision that Bitcoin can be (is?), nevertheless actual gold is a near approximation, is it not?  And yet, the existence of actual gold does not force nations to adapt their currency to its value - in fact, they have evolved in the opposite direction, and have decoupled currencies from the value of gold completely.

If the existence of actual gold seems to have little or no effect on national currencies, why will the existence of 'perfect gold' in the form of Bitcoin be anything other than marginally more effective?

There is a history of how and why gold worked and why it might not likely work.  Nash expounds on this and its been quoted i think at least three times in this thread.  Gold is not rare, the supply is throttled somewhat by the cost of digging it up and there are expensive regulations that keep it scare from production. In this gold is not politically neutral.

Also gold DID serve its purpose for this but bitcoin could be better (thus gold has begun to lost this nature recently)

[traincarswreck]

^^ yes to what danda wrote.

I called it he "implied future".

[xyzzy099]

Just out of curiosity:

While actual gold is not the 'perfect gold' that you envision that Bitcoin can be (is?), nevertheless actual gold is a near approximation, is it not?  And yet, the existence of actual gold does not force nations to adapt their currency to its value - in fact, they have evolved in the opposite direction, and have decoupled currencies from the value of gold completely.

If the existence of actual gold seems to have little or no effect on national currencies, why will the existence of 'perfect gold' in the form of Bitcoin be anything other than marginally more effective?

There is a history of how and why gold worked and why it might not likely work.  Nash expounds on this and its been quoted i think at least three times in this thread.  Gold is not rare, the supply is throttled somewhat by the cost of digging it up and there are expensive regulations that keep it scare from production. In this gold is not politically neutral.

Also gold DID serve its purpose for this but bitcoin could be better (thus gold has begun to lost this nature recently)

Yes, I understand and agree - but that only worked when nations intentionally created a peg between the value of their currency and gold, or used gold as currency outright, isn't that true?

It seems unlikely to me that any nation will voluntarily tie their currency to the value of Bitcoin - so what I am asking is a clarification of how the 'finger trap' works...  How can Bitcoin irresistibly cause change in existing currencies?

[IadixDev]

Just to send my two cents, i saw people putting in relation the notion of metrics with currency, but maybe that need to be put also in a more relativistic perspective with the use of metrics, as in there is no absolute immobility or motion with currency, and you can never really tell easily if it's the price of things that are increasing or the money inflating, or the opposite, currencies are not supposed to be absolute value in themselves, at least since the 70's, but even before, the whole purpose of using currency is that it has no value in itself, and as it come to the use of money in term of market buying power, it can never be seen as the absolute metric of the value of something. Even more as the economy shift to more and more chaotic looking system where value are constantly taken in complex schemes that become completely non deterministic.

[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!

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.

This is what I was looking for:

In this article I explain the movie biography, in relation to the REAL and ACCEPTED biography (because they are different since there are mistruths in the movie), and then I explain his REAL biography and everything is cited VERY well.  It's VERY dense, and so I have compressed it as best I can, but the article resonated with many general readers it seems: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/20-years-ago-john-nash-re-defined-our-understanding-of-economics-again-and-we-still-havent-4f3b7f09fd0e#.b17kzf2ol

You can read this meme board right to left and top to bottom like a book: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-new-era-of-nashian-economcis-meme-storyboard-for-john-nashs-proposal-for-ideal-money-dd529039f221#.f3tqj9t3u

A quick summary with quotes only: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/bitcoin-ideal-money-and-the-end-of-the-keynesian-centrally-banking-era-john-nash-predicted-this-6738b79f20ab#.4c491cgqf

A general summary by me with quotes from ideal money: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/a-general-summary-for-john-nashs-proposal-ideal-money/

And an esoteric summary which will make sense with the context of the above: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/the-totality-of-the-proposal-ideal-money/

[danda]

actually I've been eating popcorn during this whole debate and waiting for everyone else to figure out that bitcoin is ossifying like ipv4 and scaling is impossible, at least without 2nd layer solutions.  Of which cash can be one.

that's what I love about this thread.  seems like an awakening.

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.

[danda]

yes, personally I think that Satoshi knew *exactly* what he was doing with the 1Mb cap, and that it would most likely never be changed.  At least he had to consider that when he pulled his disappearing act.

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 single minded outcome of improving, scaling, and mass adoption.

That is a lot of momentum.  A lot of flow to swim against.

Yes but I would suggest it was known from the start that the system would realize stability of this kind and that it would need to be initially designed so that the minority had a veto vs ignorant change.

The other point is that the debate arises because both sides are pursuing an irrational ends with an irrational means.  That would start an unwinnable war.

[toknormal]

Look at the type of complete nightmare scenarios a contentious bitcoin hardfork can create.

This is why I think it will no longer ever happen.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/how-latest-coin-etf-amendment-could-hurt-its-investors-and-perhaps-harm-bitcoin-too/

[jbreher]

Now it may be useful to get back to the Economic Change Event.

That was not a change to the properties of bitcoin.   only to usage, perception.

The type of change you are talking about (and Ver, et al) is more like if gold was somewhat abundant and easy to find, then it mostly all got dug up and hoarded.  

I am not convinced. Your analogy is inapplicable. It has nothing to do with tps increase, and is more akin to the miners hoarding their spoils (which indeed may be occurring today, for all we know).

Do you have e better analogy to make your case?

[danda]

I might be able to think of one, perhaps something about transporting gold between vaults vs people on the streets, but I don't really feel a need to convince you.  Think about it for yourself.  or don't.   good luck.

bitcoin didn't change.  honey badger don't care.   'nuff said.

Now it may be useful to get back to the Economic Change Event.

That was not a change to the properties of bitcoin.   only to usage, perception.

The type of change you are talking about (and Ver, et al) is more like if gold was somewhat abundant and easy to find, then it mostly all got dug up and hoarded.  

I am not convinced. Your analogy is inapplicable. It has nothing to do with tps increase, and is more akin to the miners hoarding their spoils (which indeed may be occurring today, for all we know).

Do you have e better analogy to make your case?

[AngryDwarf]

yes, personally I think that Satoshi knew *exactly* what he was doing with the 1Mb cap, and that it would most likely never be changed.  At least he had to consider that when he pulled his disappearing act.

Depends if 1 MB cap was added as a missing property to his vision, or as a short term technical solution.

[jbreher]

the markets are clairvoyant

I would ask for evidence of this assertion.

The other point is that the debate arises because both sides are pursuing an irrational ends with an irrational means. 

It seems to me that for this to be irrational then:
a) there would need to be recognition that Bitcoin was indeed the best tool to be the alternative money of which Nash spoke; and
b) the collection of the sum of individual Bitcoin holders perceived more value in a stable-ish value for Bitcoin, than in an accelerated price increase for Bitcoin.

As far as a), I have not yet seen a compelling argument to this end, and as far as b), this seems counter-intuitive.

[Carlton Banks]

the whole purpose of using currency is that it has no value in itself

Indeed, the great paradox of money is that the less useful it is economically, the better it is as money. This is why grains and salt gave way to silver and gold, and aided a second stage in the evolution of monetary theory: of these useless materials, the better is that which is best at being itself (i.e. durability).

Paper money, of course, embodies the uselessness property almost perfectly, explaining partly it's attraction. Bitcoin comes even closer to truly useless than any other money so far, not least because economic uses for the others gradually emerged over time.


I don't think you've quite grasped the consequences of this, however: the desired uselessness of money is a true and pure paradox, as it's precisely gold or fiat bill's relative uselessness that made them so useful. Hence why their value was more stable than that of the monies that came before them.

[sidhujag]

the whole purpose of using currency is that it has no value in itself

Indeed, the great paradox of money is that the less useful it is economically, the better it is as money. This is why grains and salt gave way to silver and gold, and aided a second stage in the evolution of monetary theory: of these useless materials, the better is that which is best at being itself (i.e. durability).

Paper money, of course, embodies the uselessness property almost perfectly, explaining partly it's attraction. Bitcoin comes even closer to truly useless than any other money so far, not least because economic uses for the others gradually emerged over time.


I don't think you've quite grasped the consequences of this, however: the desired uselessness of money is a true and pure paradox, as it's precisely gold or fiat bill's relative uselessness that made them so useful. Hence why their value was more stable than that of the monies that came before them.

Isn't that the exact opposite of what Nash is saying in his Ideal Money paper? The ideal currency would be of the highest transfer utility and that is solved by linking it to a metric that is publically auditable (GDP, energy efficiency etc) some kind of economic unit would create inflation/deflation scenario's to achieve economic stability through the monetary unit. The uselessness idea is new since the gold standard and has led us to this massive bubble where prosperity has not really been achieved because it has been on on the backs of future work.

Central bank inflation targetting is asymptotically closer ideal than what gold was just because they had the ability to target inflation/deflation gauging econonmic activity, however it is nor publically auditable nor trustless and thus crypto-currency is a better and asymptotically more ideal monetary choice than fiat today. To answer OP's value question about value, the market will continue to adjust to the more ideal choice soon as it realizes it is more ideal, and that is what is happening now, perhaps bitcoin is a stepping stone to the another more ideal currency but it usually takes alot of effort to take over network affect once one has been chosen by the market.

[BurtW]

I really like the useless paradox!

Ideal money would need to be even less useful than paper money and would probably not be paper money.  At least you can wipe your ass with paper money.  Have you ever tried to wipe your ass with a credit or debit card?  But you can chop up your coke with a credit card.  So what would be less useful than a credit card?

[Carlton Banks]

the whole purpose of using currency is that it has no value in itself

Indeed, the great paradox of money is that the less useful it is economically, the better it is as money. This is why grains and salt gave way to silver and gold, and aided a second stage in the evolution of monetary theory: of these useless materials, the better is that which is best at being itself (i.e. durability).

Paper money, of course, embodies the uselessness property almost perfectly, explaining partly it's attraction. Bitcoin comes even closer to truly useless than any other money so far, not least because economic uses for the others gradually emerged over time.


I don't think you've quite grasped the consequences of this, however: the desired uselessness of money is a true and pure paradox, as it's precisely gold or fiat bill's relative uselessness that made them so useful. Hence why their value was more stable than that of the monies that came before them.

Isn't that the exact opposite of what Nash is saying in his Ideal Money paper? The ideal currency would be of the highest transfer utility and that is solved by linking it to a metric that is publically auditable (GDP, energy efficiency etc) some kind of economic unit would create inflation/deflation scenario's to achieve economic stability through the monetary unit. The uselessness idea is new since the gold standard and has led us to this massive bubble where prosperity has not really been achieved because it has been on on the backs of future work.

Central bank inflation targetting is asymptotically closer ideal than what gold was just because they had the ability to target inflation/deflation gauging econonmic activity, however it is nor publically auditable nor trustless and thus crypto-currency is a better and asymptotically more ideal than fiat today.

Money is conceived and used as a universal good. And that's the paradox: paper with people's faces printed on is universally useless, as a good. It has no purpose. Except as money. Useful, because it's useless.

However, having not read Nash (yes, I'm currently bracing myself...), it's possible that he alighted on a revolutionary idea: that in actual fact, a genuinely universal good (such as energy itself, of which all other goods are patterns of composition) is in fact ideal money. trainscarwreck?

[IadixDev]

I really like some idea of larouche around this kind of idea that there should be some kind of universal metrics with economy, either based on energy or some physics behind industry , like all valuable is the result of deterministic process, or work, and the metrics can be based on the difficulty/energetic cost of this process, and energy become the universal metrics of economy, and it also need to integrate  the level of human psychology, needs and aspiration as the real metrics for the value of something. There are some good video on this on youtube, maybe I can find the link latter.

The whole idea of gold as absolute stability for currency value is also moot imo.