Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[traincarswreck]

There is a growing body of literature that disputes the inflationary (and big-bang) models, I'm happy to report.

I find it interesting that nash brings up the notion of longitudinal (compression) waves in electricity and gravity... something that tesla also reported.   Sadly, I can't really follow the math myself.

seems we are getting off topic.  though.  sorry.

It's not off topic, thats the point.  And bohm and nash shared the same insight.

[1713531559]

1713531559

[1713531559]

1713531559

[1713531559]

1713531559

[1713531559]

1713531559

[1713531559]

1713531559

[1713531559]

1713531559

[traincarswreck]

Discussing such things at a time when dark matter is not understood but is responible for vast majority of all energy does not make sense at all. Look for math and try to get over Platons Cave issue.

Yes it does make sense dummy.

[danda]

care to elaborate on the connection?   I'm already firm disbeliever in inflation theories, and tend towards steady-state and/or infinite fractal cosmology, fwiw, with a touch of electric universe.

as above, so below.

It's not off topic, thats the point.  And bohm and nash shared the same insight.

[traincarswreck]

care to elaborate on the connection?   I'm already firm disbeliever in inflation theories, and tend towards steady-state and/or infinite fractal cosmology, fwiw, with a touch of electric universe.

https://steemit.com/physics/@jokerpravis/the-re-solution-of-nashian-and-bohmian-perspectives

its prob too big and off topic for now, and i won't feel comfortable going in depth.  But the relevant topic is the importance of a market driven metric in relation to the laws of the uni, and the relevance for example of a 'Newton' to a 'Nash'.

Newton also had insight and revelations in regard to 'light'.

[traincarswreck]

Oops the context is that newton pegged the british pound to gold sometime around 1717

[IadixDev]

Gold is a very old thing, even alchemist in the middle age often use gold as analogy to something of value, as in metaphor for spiritual value, as with the philosopher stone etc even plato associate gold with quality and value, philosopher = golden soul

But the idea to have absolute metric is a problem is relativistic physic, it has to ressort on planck unit, speed of light and quantum things to work around the many paradoxe it rise, and how to find absolute metric.

[traincarswreck]

Satoshi turned math into gold https://medium.com/@rextar4444/satoshi-the-alchemist-the-nature-and-value-of-gold-captured-by-mathematics-philosophy-and-55e9d87961e0#.glyz2cd01

[IadixDev]

Satoshi turned math into gold https://medium.com/@rextar4444/satoshi-the-alchemist-the-nature-and-value-of-gold-captured-by-mathematics-philosophy-and-55e9d87961e0#.glyz2cd01

Yes it's what I I used to say for kidding, bitcoin is like philosopher stone to turn cpu processing into gold


The people who invented asymetric crypto in the 70 though they invented it already, but it still missed many part to works well .

[traincarswreck]

i'll continue as soon as I have academic asylum.

[traincarswreck]

 

[traincarswreck]

So it seems of some interest, indeed, that a tensor equation of fourth order may have some possible eventual connection with some conceivable theoretical concept of quantized gravity but it is for me needed to find other reasons for justifying the study of an equation such as that given here.

It's a dead end.  And he showed it to be as such.

[IadixDev]

Related to the discussion I think

February 25, 2017. Class 2 of 12 of "Lyndon LaRouche's Economic and Epistemological Method" class series. Speaker: Jason Ross. Economic science is a science of composition, not components. Can the value of a new technology be expressed in a scalar relationship to the cost to develop it? No. In this discussion, Jason Ross takes up several of Lyndon LaRouche’s ironic economic concepts to provide an effective framework to understand economic “value”: physical chemistry, infrastructure as an economic “platform,” and the unique characteristics of the human mind that make it all possible. -

Part III, LaRouche's Method: The Value of Productivity

https://youtu.be/kmapZ8Niz-o

[traincarswreck]

Related to the discussion I think

February 25, 2017. Class 2 of 12 of "Lyndon LaRouche's Economic and Epistemological Method" class series. Speaker: Jason Ross. Economic science is a science of composition, not components. Can the value of a new technology be expressed in a scalar relationship to the cost to develop it? No. In this discussion, Jason Ross takes up several of Lyndon LaRouche’s ironic economic concepts to provide an effective framework to understand economic “value”: physical chemistry, infrastructure as an economic “platform,” and the unique characteristics of the human mind that make it all possible. -

Part III, LaRouche's Method: The Value of Productivity

https://youtu.be/kmapZ8Niz-o

read the thread though!

[Quickseller]

1 - I thought that I saw the OP write somewhere upthread that changing the technology/protocol to increase tps (on-chain or off-chain) would increase the value of bitcoin, and as a result would not be "ideal money" -- it is possible he was making the argument regarding Bitcoin (the protocol).

Regardless of the above, I believe that a decent amount of bitcoin's price is speculation that Bitcoin's utility will increase in the future, which would result in more people both buying and using bitcoin. Also, as mentioned before, if the cost of using Bitcoin continues to escalate, then I believe that an altcoin will eventually emerge that can handle more tps, and has other qualities desired by the market.

If you ignore the above, and assume the OP is right, then you would essentially have a situation in which local currencies are pegged to that of bitcoin. This is not a new concept as countries have pegged their local currency to gold (and silver) for centuries, with one unit of currency redeemable at the treasury for a fixed amount of gold, so that the country's treasury had sufficient gold to "buy back" all of the currency in circulation. The tradeoff for country's is that they give up the ability to control monitory policy while they get a relative stable currency. A country that employs this will be able to control fiscal policy with fairly broad limits. This kind of setup has similar tradeoffs of the Euro/Eurozone, although there are some small differences.

Countries have also pegged their local currency to the dollar, sometimes having full reserves (as described above), and sometimes having the ability to exchange only a portion of their local currency for dollars. The later is often made possible when a country has a capital surplus, as the government simply needs to sell it's local currency for foreign currency, and keep the foreign currency on deposit at central banks as foreign exchange reserves. A country employing this setup will enjoy a stable currency as long as the central bank has sufficient foreign reserves, and will have a little bit of control over monetary policy, although there is the risk of high inflation when the central bank starts to draw down foreign exchange reserves. If countries with major economies started doing this with bitcoin, then the global economy would likely destabilize, IMO.

2 - Yes, I saw that the OP said that increasing Bitcoin's tps will cause it to destroy it's gold-like properties, although I think I also saw that he said it will increase the utility of Bitcoin. I also thought that he said it would cause the value of Bitcoin to increase, causing it to no longer have a stable value.

[AgentofCoin]

1 - I thought that I saw the OP write somewhere upthread that changing the technology/protocol to increase tps (on-chain or off-chain) would increase the value of bitcoin, and as a result would not be "ideal money" -- it is possible he was making the argument regarding Bitcoin (the protocol).

My understanding is that a TPS increase would raise the value as a currency device,
but at the cost of its value as gold. The value of the currency is speculative, where the
value as a gold is stable and predicable due to TPS restriction. OP has stated multiple times,
"Bitcoin will not be the "Ideal Money". Bitcoin needs to stay put now, to bring about the
creation of the "Ideal Money" later.

Regardless of the above, I believe that a decent amount of bitcoin's price is speculation that Bitcoin's utility will increase in the future, which would result in more people both buying and using bitcoin. Also, as mentioned before, if the cost of using Bitcoin continues to escalate, then I believe that an altcoin will eventually emerge that can handle more tps, and has other qualities desired by the market.

I personally fully agree. I think there needs to be a balancing over time.
OP thinks bitcoin with a TPS restriction will gain immeasurable value and usher in a new
future monetary policy, because bitcoin has remained as gold, and not turned into currency.

If you ignore the above, and assume the OP is right, then you would essentially have a situation in which local currencies are pegged to that of bitcoin. ...

... If countries with major economies started doing this with bitcoin, then the global economy would likely destabilize, IMO.

If OP is right, than in theory, some governments will peg to bitcoin UNTIL a world body forms
to create their own mimic. This mimic version would be the "Ideal Money" that came about only
to compete against bitcoin and the other "Alternative Options".

Yes, if major economies started all taking on bitcoin as like a "One World Currency", it wouldn't
work, thus they need to create their own, aka the "Ideal Money".

2 - Yes, I saw that the OP said that increasing Bitcoin's tps will cause it to destroy it's gold-like properties, although I think I also saw that he said it will increase the utility of Bitcoin. I also thought that he said it would cause the value of Bitcoin to increase, causing it to no longer have a stable value.

Yes, it seems very contradictory because he is using terms that must be only read in the context
of how they are written. If you could point me to the specific point he said, I could either explain it
or see that there is indeed some contradiction.

I agree with the first part, he has said that, but the second part may be incorrect. I would assume
with the second part the OP meant that "as TPS increases, it no longer has a stable value". Stable
value is not "stable" in the way that the word is normally defined. The word in his context means
steady increase that is predicable. So, when bitcoin becomes a currency, it is no longer stable because
there is no fixed cap that controls the predictable flow of transference.

[traincarswreck]

1 - I thought that I saw the OP write somewhere upthread that changing the technology/protocol to increase tps (on-chain or off-chain) would increase the value of bitcoin, and as a result would not be "ideal money" -- it is possible he was making the argument regarding Bitcoin (the protocol).

You've implied bitcoin could be ideal money again, and I don't know how fuck you all can keep doing this cause i must have said it like 100 times in this thread that it can't be ideal money.  Bitcoin can't be stable in value.

[traincarswreck]

If OP is right, than in theory, some governments will peg to bitcoin UNTIL a world body forms
to create their own mimic. This mimic version would be the "Ideal Money" that came about only
to compete against bitcoin and the other "Alternative Options".

No.  Listen.  Think about reality.  Governments already provide a money.  Its called "fiat".  And they have money policies that increase or decrease the value.  The issuers of the money COULD choose to print stable money, but there is no incentive to when they are the monopoly.  Now they are no longer the monopoly and so there is incentive for them to print better money. 

As money gets better and better, it will eventually be ideal.  this means in the future governments will print ideal money.

[AGD]

If OP is right, than in theory, some governments will peg to bitcoin UNTIL a world body forms
to create their own mimic. This mimic version would be the "Ideal Money" that came about only
to compete against bitcoin and the other "Alternative Options".

No.  Listen.  Think about reality.  Governments already provide a money.  Its called "fiat".  And they have money policies that increase or decrease the value.  The issuers of the money COULD choose to print stable money, but there is no incentive to when they are the monopoly.  Now they are no longer the monopoly and so there is incentive for them to print better money. 

As money gets better and better, it will eventually be ideal.  this means in the future governments will print ideal money.

This will only be possible when we have a world regime that sets the fixed and unchangable value of ideal money. Though I think we will be heading to this situation of a big brother like world government, I would not like to live in a world like this. To me Nash's Ideal Money has nothing to do with Bitcoin, because it has to be centralized and Bitcoin is not.

[sidhujag]

Printing money is already done a more ideal coin will adjust based on public metric of economic health. Printing money would not offer any more of an ideal money than what currently exists

[David Rabahy]

@traincarswreck:  So, you're saying, Bitcoin could be/will be Nashian ideal money soon.  Based on this I should increase my speculation.

=== spoiler below ===

I just love yanking people's chains.