Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[BurtW]

You can quote this all you want but it doesn't state his intentions.  That's why the debate exists.

Does this speak to his intentions?

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.

[1715192860]

1715192860

[1715192860]

1715192860

[traincarswreck]

Ya, bitcoin as a high powered settlement system.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

On the topic of value, the only reason for me to hold any bitcoin is because it has value.

For me, bitcoin only has value when it has utility.

That utility is the ability to spend it through a transparent, balanced blockchain.

If the blockchain can not handle the TPS needed for me to spend it at a reasonable cost, then bitcoin has no utility for me and thus no value for me, and there is no point in me holding any. I'll use a different crypto-currency.

That is why I want bigger blocks. Without bigger blocks, bitcoin loses the utility for me that it use to have just a year ago, and it loses value regardless of the price.

You are being disingenuous.  You very well know that one of bitcoin's utilities that you find useful is that it's deflationary and thus a good savings/sov.

And yes you will use a different current for your everyday spending.

I'm pointing to reality folks.  1mb is here, email satoshi if you want him to change it.

Bitcoin is only deflationary when demand grows faster than supply.

Demand grows faster than supply when it has utility.

Gold, for example, has utility in both manufacturing and in the creation of jewelry. Gold is not of much interest to me because I can not easily spend it, which is why the only gold I hold is gold that is in jewelry or in electronics. I do have some silver coins, but because I like them - what they look like.

Bitcoin has no utility in manufacturing or jewelry.

If you want a crypto-currency where the utility is a settlement layer, find some financial backers who see the value and design one, you can come up with a much better design than bitcoin for that purpose - especially with your superior understanding of macro-economics.

That's not what people are into bitcoin for, nor is it what bitcoin was designed for, and if you try to change bitcoin so it only serves that purpose then you will either lose, or if you succeed - people will leave for another currency and suddenly the market will be flooded with supply resulting in inflation.

[AlexGR]

I read the thread for 3-4 pages and the last two. Although I'm not 100% sure of the issue, I think it boils down to this:

"Bitcoin is deflationary, deflationary currencies don't work as ideal money, therefore we need to fix bitcoin economics to make it so" - or something to that effect. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This is not the first time that I've heard the deflationary argument, however it is a problematic argument because it makes one basic assumption: That bitcoin is the only currency in the economy.

The deflationary argument flaw is based on an assumption: That Bitcoin must somehow play the role of the primary currency of entire states/economies and that these will be destroyed by its deflationary nature. However Bitcoin is not an exclusive currency that will dominate state economies. It's a supplementary currency that will co-exist with fiat, gold, silver, altcoins, etc. Thus countries will always be repaying their ever-inflating debts, by printing more fiat, paying govt wages and pensions through freshly printed money, etc etc. They will also be adjusting the money supply according to growth. But if you want an alternative to fiat, you can buy gold, silver, bitcoins, altcoins, etc.

The problem stated would be significant if we had a global body trying to enforce a deflationary global currency on the entire world, while also eliminating the use of alternative currencies by force. If this scenario plays out, it will be probably be with an inflationary, not a deflationary currency. Whatever the case, there is no problem to solve as far as Bitcoin is concerned: Its role is not to replace the entire global money supply, nor will governments ever adopt it as they would instantly go bankrupt by converting their debt to a currency they cannot issue.

This is precisely why non-exporting countries which have adopted the Euro, suffer. By converting their debt to a currency they can't issue, they have become insolvent to repay their debt with own means. This has in turn converted what was easily managed as an internal debt, to an impossible to handle external debt (debt refinancing, by necessity, has to come from abroad - since the country can't issue money).

[traincarswreck]

blah

Your subjective thoughts about what the markets value gold and bitcoin for do not drive the markets. It's already been shown through szabo's work in this thread that much of gold and oils price has historically consisted of the want for an inflation hedge.

[traincarswreck]

ignorance

Every post in this thread explains the same thing.  A deflationary currency is not stable in value by definition.  In this thread "ideal" means "stable in value", therefore bitcoin cannot be ideal because its deflationary.

Every word you wrote speaks to nothing.

[AlexGR]

ignorance

Every post in this thread explains the same thing.  A deflationary currency is not stable in value by definition.  In this thread "ideal" means "stable in value", therefore bitcoin cannot be ideal because its deflationary.

Every word you wrote speaks to nothing.

I never said Bitcoin is ideal money, nor stable in value. I said it's supplementary / alternative money and that deflationary criticism makes an erroneous assumption that bitcoin is the only currency available - when clearly it is not (it has to compete with metals, fiat, altcoins, etc).

If you are in a quest to find ideal money, you won't find it anywhere because stable value (in monetary terms) is in itself an "ideal".

[franky1]

summary of 44 pages

trainscarwreck "bitcoin needs to stop development to stablise value.. b'coz nash nashafide it in his nashpaper"

.. but halting value(utility) will decrease value(desire) and decrease value(usefuleness) so im guessing you mean stabalise value(price)
which
"ETF denied" (unrelated to real bitcoin utility or blocksize,etc) but value(price) tanks

how about stop caring about value(price) and allow value(utility) to grow naturally.

you cannot make Apple Inc have more stable value(utility, desire, price, usefulness) by telling them to stop making anything better than 2001's apple ipod  
you cannot make Nintendo have more stable value(utility, desire, price, usefulness) by telling them to stop making anything better than NES

all you'll end up doing is killing the projects slowly.

predicting rebuttle
"guess you didnt read nash"

i think its time trainscarwreck. came to a conclusion.

he should write a summary of the last 44 pages (without streams of nash quotes or sprinkling his name) and just made one post with the ultimate summary of judgement and definition of 'value'.

oh and no insults

[traincarswreck]

I never said Bitcoin is ideal money, nor stable in value. I said it's supplementary / alternative money and that deflationary criticism makes an erroneous assumption that bitcoin is the only currency available - when clearly it is not (it has to compete with metals, fiat, altcoins, etc).

If you are in a quest to find ideal money, you won't find it anywhere because stable value (in monetary terms) is in itself an "ideal".

Now that you understand what is being proposed, I can use words to explain to you:  in this thread I explain how John Nash spent 20 years using esoteric lecture and writing to explain to our future civilization exactly how a stable money is going to come about, and that his argument is based on bitcoin as its premise.

[AlexGR]

I never said Bitcoin is ideal money, nor stable in value. I said it's supplementary / alternative money and that deflationary criticism makes an erroneous assumption that bitcoin is the only currency available - when clearly it is not (it has to compete with metals, fiat, altcoins, etc).

If you are in a quest to find ideal money, you won't find it anywhere because stable value (in monetary terms) is in itself an "ideal".

Now that you understand what is being proposed, I can use words to explain to you:  in this thread I explain how John Nash spent 20 years using esoteric lecture and writing to explain to our future civilization exactly how a stable money is going to come about, and that his argument is based on bitcoin as its premise.

Ok, where does that leave us - in practical terms. Meaning, if you had the power to implement change of some kind, in some sectors, what would that be?

[traincarswreck]

Ok, where does that leave us - in practical terms. Meaning, if you had the power to implement change of some kind, in some sectors, what would that be?

Basically no change is needed, it just means there is no founded argument to scale bitcoin's transaction capacity, certainly not on-chain.  I'd also update core's mandate to guard bitcoin's value proposition rather than it being in regard to any attempt to idealize bitcoin as a medium of exchange. 

Although most of core developers probably feel their priority is to guard its security which is kind of a less political equivalent.  But the goal should be to guard the parameters of bitcoin that allow it to fit as the premise of Nash's Ideal Money, so it can be the compass and catalyst that invokes central banks to target fiat for stable value.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Ok, where does that leave us - in practical terms. Meaning, if you had the power to implement change of some kind, in some sectors, what would that be?

Basically no change is needed, it just means there is no founded argument to scale bitcoin's transaction capacity, certainly not on-chain.  I'd also update core's mandate to guard bitcoin's value proposition rather than it being in regard to any attempt to idealize bitcoin as a medium of exchange. 

Although most of core developers probably feel their priority is to guard its security which is kind of a less political equivalent.  But the goal should be to guard the parameters of bitcoin that allow it to fit as the premise of Nash's Ideal Money, so it can be the compass and catalyst that invokes central banks to target fiat for stable value.

People don't use Bitcoin because they want to see Nash's vision, and core should be about meeting the needs of its users.

[traincarswreck]

...core should be about meeting the needs of its users.

Every ignorant and uninformed person thinks this which is why satoshi made it impossible to overthrow core and why satoshi lied to you.  And every informed person knows this is true. You just don't understand economics and you are speaking about something you don't know anything about.  You don't understand what you are using, you don't understand money. You didn't read szabo, you didn't read hayek, you didn't read smith, you didn't read dawkins, you didn't read nash.  You NO CLUE what you are talking about...because you are a stupid person that asserts opinions and argues about things you aren't informed on.

I put out a scientifically founded argument, you are just arguing out your ass. Lulz.

[traincarswreck]

The same reasons the users can't decide a disastrous fate of bitcoin is the same reason the US presidential election is not a pure democracy.

[Quickseller]

You can quote this all you want but it doesn't state his intentions.  That's why the debate exists.

Does this speak to his intentions?

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.

Ya, bitcoin as a high powered settlement system.

Now you are just ignoring the evidence.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

...core should be about meeting the needs of its users.

Every ignorant and uninformed person thinks this which is why satoshi made it impossible to overthrow core and why satoshi lied to you.  And every informed person knows this is true. You just don't understand economics and you are speaking about something you don't know anything about.  You don't understand what you are using, you don't understand money. You didn't read szabo, you didn't read hayek, you didn't read smith, you didn't read dawkins, you didn't read nash.  You NO CLUE what you are talking about...because you are a stupid person that asserts opinions and argues about things you aren't informed on.

I put out a scientifically founded argument, you are just arguing out your ass. Lulz.

You fit the profile of a narcissist to a a fucking t.

Go the fuck away.

[traincarswreck]

You fit the profile of a narcissist to a a fucking t.

Go the fuck away.

This how people react when you point out their arguments are just an opinion that isn't at all founded in science. Because before you point it out they are unaware of what science is.

[traincarswreck]

Now you are just ignoring the evidence.

No that's why i think its likely Szabo and I've already shown him to be inline with what I am saying.  His works are part of my argument, and part of what I have cited in this thread.  He wrote a lot on micropayments.

[AGD]

You fit the profile of a narcissist to a a fucking t.

Go the fuck away.

This how people react when you point out their arguments are just an opinion that isn't at all founded in science. Because before you point it out they are unaware of what science is.

It is not science to call people liars without a proof. This is just dumb. You have no socials skills, buddy and you ignore plain proofs of any antithesis that was presented here. You just keep repeating your insults and have nothing to add to your own discussion. You even act like a troll in your own discusion!
Remember: Your OP is an open letter to the core devs (only the sincere ones of course, because the rest are also liars like Satoshi, right?) and I don't see many developers discussing this topic here with you. Why do you think is that? They are all idiots? Why you have chosen Bitcoin which is supported by a bunch of liars and idiots instead of finding smart people like you to create a smarter coin?

You know why? Because you think Bitcoin is the most important e-coin and you want to be a big player in the Bitcoin community!
Why do you think Bitcoin turned into this important coin? Who made it to be the important coin that caught your attraction? Was it Nash?

Look. Nash's theory about Ideal Money is NOT APPLICABLE to Bitcoin and my argument is, that Ideal Money is also NOT APPLICABLE to our current society, because the events that would have to occur to make Ideal Money possible are at least centuries far away, if not even permanently unrealistic.

"The perfect circle" (Thx @BurtW for that analogue) does NOT exist in reality.

[traincarswreck]

Yes opinions are not founded arguments.

Anyways, bitcoin fits the premise of Nash's argument perfectly, no one needs to create something else.  It just means you won't be scaling the block size and Satoshi lied to you.