Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[traincarswreck]

Guys, what is the ideal currency? What should it be? After all, I agree that Bitcoin and Fiat have their qualities needed by users. I'm not exaggerating. Fiat is also needed. But bitcoin with full legalization can completely destroy the statehood and will rule the corporation.

In this thread "ideal" refers to stable in value.  Nothing else. 

if you are asking "hey whats a good kind money in regard to different qualities money has" thats  stupid question that doesn't solve any useful problem.

I wrote these words, did you read them?  Right above ^^^

There is a whole thread explaining this you just participated in.

[1714798770]

1714798770

[1714798770]

1714798770

[1714798770]

1714798770

[AgentofCoin]

...
The moment Satoshi added the 1mb people immediately realized that it would be next to impossible to change.  
Satoshi and finney knew it before they did it.  That's obvious.
And Nash didn't need that information to extrapolate from it.  Nash's doesn't need you to tell him how the system works.  
He just know, read his biography.
Nash knew all this in the 50's.  It's what fucked him up so bad. extremely rational foresight.

There is no doubt that Hal knew of Nash, but there is no evidence he conspired with Satoshi
to purposefully add the 1MB for an Nashian intention. Hal spoke of additional tech to Bitcoin
that if applied, and can still be applied even with a 1MB limit indefinitely, would render bitcoin
useless in Value to compel the "Ideal Money". So if they intended to be "Alternative Options",
it has not reached the point yet where it is now guaranteed, because you still need to stop
other forms of TPS flow.

See my prior statement as to this issue here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18090488#msg18090488

[traincarswreck]

Agent do you admit that it was obvious to others, immediately, that the 1mb would be near impossible to remove?  If so do you admit Satoshi and Hal knew this, if not then can you quote me the link where satoshi added the cap.

[AgentofCoin]

Agent do you admit that it was obvious to others, immediately, that the 1mb would be near impossible to remove?  If so do you admit Satoshi and Hal knew this, if not then can you quote me the link where satoshi added the cap.

I admit that others "thought" it "may" be impossible to remove the 1MB way into the future.
I am not aware that they "thought" it "would" be impossible.

Satoshi himself said that it could be technically removed, when the time arrived.
I do not think he was speaking purposefully with omission, meaning he knew Consensus-ly,
that it could not be removed. At this time in Bitcoin history, hardforks and Consensus was not understood fully.

The 1MB cap ("blocksize") debate only stems from the communities realization due to years of experimentation.
In theory, as Node numbers drop, hardfork consensus should become easier to perform,
and Satoshi assumed node count would go down in time.

So it would be massively contradictory that Satoshi (and Hal) intended this, when he says everything contrary.

...
The threshold (1MB CAP) can easily be changed in the future.  We can decide to increase it when the time comes.  It's a good idea to keep it lower as a circuit breaker and increase it as needed.  If we hit the threshold (1MB CAP) now, it would almost certainly be some kind of flood (SPAM/ATTACK) and not actual use.  Keeping the threshold (1MB CAP) lower would help limit the amount of wasted disk space in that event.

EMPHASIS MINE.


But remember, blocksize is only one form of TPS increase, there are second layers that can not be restricted as easily.
If Satoshi and Hal had true intention, they would have easily known that second layers prevent the "Alternative Options".

Thus, they may have know of Nash, and enjoyed the ideas, but didn't create Bitcoin with that intention, nor add the 1MB.

[IadixDev]

Yes Nash's works about Ideal Money have cosmological implications (ie e = mc^2) which is why Nash tried to talk to einstein about his insights because in the 50's.

The very basics of bitcoin is based on the idea that certain computation take time, and have a price, and is very rooted also in idea of thermodynamics as the more energy is put on the network , the more secure and stable it is, with certain idea of the entropy of hash computation give faire distribution, there is still a good intellectual thinking on how to give it more stable absolute value, the metrics of emission is block solving time'& non deterministic but still keep in certain distribution which still try to keep it stable.

I wonder what kind of implication there can be between the concept of mass/mateer being absolute metrics vs kinetic energy/speed being relative metrics as they cant have absolute measure, only measure relative to another object, and only have a value in this referential, like different markets can be different referential to measure the value of currency against something else.

But the thing I find weird with the idea of currency being a metric, is let say to simplify you use your money mostly to exchange it against a certain product like banana, and that for some reason, climatic or social or anything, the production of banana become more difficult, how can you keep a fixed ratio of value exchange if the product become harder or more expansive to make for any reason, and if you would buy only this product, how could you say the value of the currency can remain stable if in the end you can buy less things with it.

If you want to say in this case the currency is to be a constant metrics, even if you can buy less things with it, what is it a metrics of ?

It's where maybe there is this concept of weight as in intrinsic value of the currency tokens themselves , that can be measured in absolute manner without going through market estimation against another valuable, but that seem hard to imagine how something could represent absolute same intrinsic value for everyone, and then it's the question of how this value should be estimated if it's not based on universally recognized intrinsic value.

[traincarswreck]

Agent everything in your quote of satoshi suggests that he knew it would be problem if he told people it probably can't be changed in the future.  So the way he put it suggests to me he says "you COULD do this....we COULD do it....heres how we WOULD do it...." etc.

The rest is your implication.

 IadixDev, can you give me some context of your exp and knowledge/education so I can speak to what you know?

[franky1]

which is why Nash tried to talk to einstein about his insights because in the 50's.

your admiration of nash overpowers the logical understanding of bitcoins new paradigm that sits outside the concept of money.

your admiration of nash makes you overstate nash and make him sound bigger than he is by these name drop games. an example being " he has tried to talk to"..
meaning nash did not succeed. meaning whats the point even mentioning it.

i want a banana. i tried to eat one...

but what the hell does what i try to and fail at getting, have to do with bitcoins new paradigm.
screw it.
my grandfather tried to talk to einstein. and although i admire the old guy( my relation) . it has no relevance to bitcoin.

in short trying to stop bitcoin by endlessly showing your adoration to nash and talking about nashes philosophy of money. wont cause bitcoin to be stable value(utility/desire) because you are forgetting the logic and features of bitcoin and only thinking about it from the narrow old principles of money.

bitcoin is beyond money

34 pages and you still havnt even got to the summary of the topic. instead its turning into a game of how many times you can mention his name and bitcoins name at the same time

[AgentofCoin]

Agent everything in your quote of satoshi suggests that he knew it would be problem if he told people it probably can't be changed in the future.  So the way he put it suggests to me he says "you COULD do this....we COULD do it....heres how we WOULD do it...." etc.

The rest is your implication.
...

No, you are incorrect. Your statement is entirely an implication.
Everything I stated, is backed by referenceable information on this forum and other places.
Your statements as to this boarders on conspiracy, which you stated prior you do not believe in.

Why do you want them to have done this purposefully?
Don't you understand that IF they DID, then bitcoin will never manifest "Ideal Money"?

[BurtW]

Guys, what is the ideal currency? What should it be? After all, I agree that Bitcoin and Fiat have their qualities needed by users. I'm not exaggerating. Fiat is also needed. But bitcoin with full legalization can completely destroy the statehood and will rule the corporation.

But for me currency cant be an absolute metrics, and it's always estimated in relation to something else, either it's another currency, price of oil, gold, or banana, the goal of currency is not necessarily to have intrinsic absolute value to be used as a metrics for anything. And you can only say what it worth in relation to another thing, much like speed/energy metrics with relativity.

Both of you: please go back and read the thread then ask questions.

[traincarswreck]

which is why Nash tried to talk to einstein about his insights because in the 50's.

your admiration of nash overpowers the logical understanding of bitcoins new paradigm that sits outside the concept of money.

your admiration of nash makes you overstate nash and make him sound bigger than he is by these name drop games. an example being " he has tried to talk to"..
meaning nash did not succeed. meaning whats the point even mentioning it.

i want a banana. i tried to eat one...

but what the hell does what i try to and fail at getting, have to do with bitcoins new paradigm.
screw it.
my grandfather tried to talk to einstein. and although i admire the old guy( my relation) . it has no relevance to bitcoin.

Listen dummy, what i am saying is fact, Nash tried to tell einstein about his cosmological insight, which was based on ideal money.  The reason I am saying it is it is PROOF that nash knew about ideal money in the 50's and that it had relevance to einstein's theories.  The rest is you being an idiot.

[traincarswreck]

Both of you: please go back and read the thread then ask questions.

Thank you.

[traincarswreck]

No, you are incorrect. Your statement is entirely an implication.
Everything I stated, is backed by referenceable information on this forum and other places.
Your statements as to this boarders on conspiracy, which you stated prior you do not believe in.

Why do you want them to have done this purposefully?
Don't you understand that IF they DID, then bitcoin will never manifest "Ideal Money"?

No i didn't imply anything.  Satoshi never said we will increase the blocksize or we must, or we are going to, or anything of the sort.  He said "could".

I am talking about his quotes, that you quoted, and I am not implying anything.  You are implying he said these things when he didn't and if he did you would have quoted him saying them and you haven't cause he didn't.

[BurtW]

34 pages and you still havnt even got to the summary of the topic. instead its turning into a game of how many times you can mention his name and bitcoins name at the same time

Back on page 30 or so a pretty good summary was developed:

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].

[AgentofCoin]

No, you are incorrect. Your statement is entirely an implication.
Everything I stated, is backed by referenceable information on this forum and other places.
Your statements as to this boarders on conspiracy, which you stated prior you do not believe in.

Why do you want them to have done this purposefully?
Don't you understand that IF they DID, then bitcoin will never manifest "Ideal Money"?

No i didn't imply anything.  Satoshi never said we will increase the blocksize or we must, or we are going to, or anything of the sort.  He said "could".

I am talking about his quotes, that you quoted, and I am not implying anything.  You are implying he said these things when he didn't and if he did you would have quoted him saying them and you haven't cause he didn't.

No, that's not an appropriate response.
I do not need to quote everything Satoshi said that points toward my belief.
It is overwhelming and voluminous. I don't need to build the case.

But your belief is based on conspiracy, so you need to show more evidence.


Edit: Added for sake of argument.

Forgot to add the good part about micropayments.  While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.

In the above quote, Satoshi is discussion possibility of micropayments. They would not be possible with a 1MB cap.
Thus Satoshi did not intend 1MB forever, since he is discussion a future point where even micropayments may be On-Chain.
(Side note: I disagree with his 5 to 10 years, since that would lead to centralization of the network, another topic.)

[BillyBobZorton]

Satoshi said a lot of things including how he would reject something like BUcoin:

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.  Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of.  The problem was, each thing required special support code and data fields whether it was used or not, and only covered one special case at a time.  It would have been an explosion of special cases.  The solution was script, which generalizes the problem so transacting parties can describe their transaction as a predicate that the node network evaluates.  The nodes only need to understand the transaction to the extent of evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

yet I see people quoting satoshi to defend BUcoin. People use satoshi quotes in their advantage, it is funny/sad.

[BurtW]

yet I see people quoting satoshi to defend BUcoin. People use satoshi quotes in their advantage, it is funny/sad.

There are plenty of other threads where you can go to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of the various schemes to raise the block size.  Please go to those threads and express your opinions there.  That is not what this thread is about.  If you want to join this thread then read it before you post.

[traincarswreck]

Satoshi said a lot of things including how he would reject something like BUcoin:


yet I see people quoting satoshi to defend BUcoin. People use satoshi quotes in their advantage, it is funny/sad.

Hold up.  Burt is correct to defend the topic of this thread.  However, BBZ here made a proper and on topic counter point.  thank you BBZ.

In regard to agent.  There is no such quote with satoshi explicitly stating a block size increase is eminent. Any quote you have provided or will provide will not have satoshi saying.  Every quote you provide will imply it only in your opinion. 

That is what i am saying.  And its a falsifiable claim, because you could produce evidence to the contrary.  Keep in mind, I don't have to convince you.  You have to convince us,  with proof. Not implication.

[traincarswreck]

...

I want to talk about the physics and why a market driven metric is better than any other metric (kilo newton Celsius etc.) but not to some who doesn't have a clue and is just using words.

Anyways in regard to something you said.  I think you said a stable metric or money would buy less bananas in the future, which isn't true.  in the future bananas come to the market with less cost, and satoshi says price gravitates towards cost.  And a stable money will buy MORE bananas in the future because technology will lower the cost to produce them.

This paragraph was awesome to write.

[AgentofCoin]

Satoshi said a lot of things including how he would reject something like BUcoin:


yet I see people quoting satoshi to defend BUcoin. People use satoshi quotes in their advantage, it is funny/sad.

Hold up.  Burt is correct to defend the topic of this thread.  However, BBZ here made a proper and on topic counter point.  thank you BBZ.

In regard to agent.  There is no such quote with satoshi explicitly stating a block size increase is eminent. Any quote you have provided or will provide will not have satoshi saying.  Every quote you provide will imply it only in your opinion.  

That is what i am saying.  And its a falsifiable claim, because you could produce evidence to the contrary.  Keep in mind, I don't have to convince you.  You have to convince us,  with proof. Not implication.

Please, you have become transparent.

BillyBob's comment is worthless in conjunction with the topic at hand.
You are attempting to outmaneuver my argument without proof, by claiming he was not specific.
That is not truth, that is playing games that children do.

See my prior statement above where Satoshi talks about micropayments and comment.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18092571#msg18092571

[IadixDev]

...

I want to talk about the physics and why a market driven metric is better than any other metric (kilo newton Celsius etc.) but not to some who doesn't have a clue and is just using words.

Anyways in regard to something you said.  I think you said a stable metric or money would buy less bananas in the future, which isn't true.  in the future bananas come to the market with less cost, and satoshi says price gravitates towards cost.  And a stable money will buy MORE bananas in the future because technology will lower the cost to produce them.

This paragraph was awesome to write.

I have read some more of the thread, and you mention this ideal money would be ideal as in conceptual, which i assume being in the platonic sense of the term ( ideal can have meaning also in experimental physics), so it would be in a sense an utopia, and if you think computer algorithm are able to have this sens of ideal and utopia, it's total science fiction

I think i remember there is this connexion between Nash & kant on idea of common good, and how currency or economic ethics should be based on this perception of common good, but from there to make such kind of algorithm to determine the currency dynamic  based on economic theory or utopic concept, it needs more than blockchain technology

Some theory would say hedonism and pleasure seeking is what drive the market economy more than research for common good. Plato theorized a lot on this too. Ideal never mix up with material interest, which money is all about.


Even if there is more banana and the price decrease, it still mean the currency has un stable value, if the metric is the number of banana you can get out of it. Or then it get back to what it is measured against to measure it's stability, how it's is détermined. .


Larouche wrote lot of theory of this stuff of economic metrics, he gets very deep into it I will try to find some links latter.