Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[danda]

I wonder how many years of bickering it will take for the community to finally realize the truth of this statement.

It just means you won't be scaling the block size...

[1713567156]

1713567156

[1713567156]

1713567156

[1713567156]

1713567156

[traincarswreck]

I wonder how many years of bickering it will take for the community to finally realize the truth of this statement.

It just means you won't be scaling the block size...

It will be right around the time a dialogue about Ideal Money opens up.

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-block-chain-keynesian-why-pushing-to-scale-bitcoin-to-be-a-coffee-money-is-keynesian-central-c5bdf32a5e4d#.dk5cfjzhu

It's humorous point but its also significant:

There can be Keynesians Neo-Keynesians New-Keynesians Post-Keynesians. Even the Post-Keynesians are still Keynesians~Lecture, Ideal Money

He makes a very explicate point that the Keynesian view is prevalent.

And he's clear about what it means:

    The label “Keynesian” is convenient, but to be safe we should have a defined meaning for this as a party that can be criticized and contrasted with other parties.

    So let us define “Keynesian” to be descriptive of a “school of thought” that originated at the time of the devaluations of the pound and the dollar in the early 30’s of the 20th century. Then, more specifically, a “Keynesian” would favor the existence of a “manipulative” state establishment of central bank and treasury which would continuously seek to achieve “economics welfare” objectives with comparatively little regard for the long term reputation of the national currency…~Ideal Money

This is where I show how this is extended to those that believes its crucial to scale bitcoin as a better medium of exchange, they are not properly about the longer term proposition, they aren't trying to solve the goal of a stable metric of value:

…favor the existence of a “manipulative” state establishment of [the block-chain ledger] which would continuously seek to achieve “economics welfare” objectives with comparatively little regard for the long term reputation of [bitcoin]….

These people demanding change are believers of the Keynesian faith that has been sold to them all their lives and education.  Until now there was no real accepted school of thought in the countries that subscribed to the Keynesian philosophy.  People can't think out side it, especially if bitcoin didn't exist.

Nonetheless the faith has been extended to those that want to scale at all costs.

This is all why its a leap of logic for people think beyond, their core beliefs, the framework from which they see the world runs tangential to the truth of it.

[traincarswreck]

And the big block crowd (r/btc) often cries that core is "central-planning" and that 1mb is the ultimate centrally-planned parameter and that it is an artificial limit.

Of course artificial limit has no meaning because all the parameters are artificial in the same way the 1mb limit is like the 21 million cap.

More importantly, as I understand its more so Szabo who spoke of decentralization and central-planning which is basically part of Hayek's teaching that centrally-planned institutions and markets fail. But Hayek never said anything that could be construed as something that could point to Core and the 1mb limit to be central-planning. 

Central-planning of the Hayekian definition is akin to trying to stir water clean.  Some sort of continual involvement that claims to be beneficial but can only do harm.  There are SOME systems that fail to this problem because they run optimally without such continuous intervention.

…the sort of knowledge with which I have been concerned is knowledge of the kind which by its nature cannot enter into statistics and therefore cannot be conveyed to any central authority in statistical form. The statistics which such a central authority would have to use would have to be arrived at precisely by abstracting from minor differences between the things, by lumping together, as resources of one kind, items which differ as regards location, quality, and other particulars, in a way which may be very significant for the specific decision. It follows from this that central planning based on statistical information by its nature cannot take direct account of these circumstances of time and place and that the central planner will have to find some way or other in which the decisions depending on them can be left to the “man on the spot.”~Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society

Big blockers and r/btc-er's don't know that their use of the word is wrong, because they don't know to attribute the definition to Hayek.

Here my better definition for centrally planning that is far more of what Hayek warned us against:

This “targeting” we can understand also to be “continuous” which means that there is to be a constant readjustment of something in order to hit an arbitrary or non-sensical goal.

And thats how we start to show and understand that what I'm presenting is founded is not only Nashian but also Hayekian economic perspectives, and that each of them is aligned with each other in this regard:

Subsequent to that time [1997], after consulting with some of the economics faculty at Princeton, I learned of the work and publications of Friedrich von Hayek. I must say that my thinking is apparently quite parallel to his thinking in relation to money and particularly with regard to the non-typical viewpoint in relation to the function of the authorities which in recent times have been the sources of currencies (earlier “coinage”).)~Ideal Money

[danda]

there is a related thread on reddit today.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5yvkck/what_if_bitcoin_isnt_what_we_thought_it_was/

[franky1]

so trainwreck wants to halt developmnt and the have core set up as the regulator to stop anyone else from development..


and he doesnt think thats centralising the project as a FIAT. and only allow the coins to be openly distributed (via contracted LN services that require counterparty signing (banks))

....
45 pages of failed attempts to try nashifying people.. just to attempt to make people(wrongly) think that centralising bitcoin into a controlled centralist currency is good?

seriously!!

looks like brain washing to me
'if i throw economists quotes at a crowd 800 times people will think they need to be controlled by economics and code that becomes closed off and regulated by core.. rather than grow and be revolutionary open code currency beyond the mindset of FIAT

[jonald_fyookball]

so trainwreck wants to halt developmnt and the have core set up as the regulator to stop anyone else from development..


and he doesnt think thats centralising the project as a FIAT. and only allow the coins to be openly distributed (via contracted LN services that require counterparty signing (banks))

....
45 pages of failed attempts to try nashifying people.. just to attempt to make people(wrongly) think that centralising bitcoin into a controlled centralist currency is good?

seriously!!

looks like brain washing to me
'if i throw economists quotes at a crowd 800 times people will think they need to be controlled by economics and code that becomes closed off and regulated by core.. rather than grow and be revolutionary open code currency beyond the mindset of FIAT

ehh let him think whatever he wants.  I doubt that much of what is said on bitcointalk really affects the miners' decisions, least of all this thread.

[QuestionAuthority]

so trainwreck wants to halt developmnt and the have core set up as the regulator to stop anyone else from development..


and he doesnt think thats centralising the project as a FIAT. and only allow the coins to be openly distributed (via contracted LN services that require counterparty signing (banks))

....
45 pages of failed attempts to try nashifying people.. just to attempt to make people(wrongly) think that centralising bitcoin into a controlled centralist currency is good?

seriously!!

looks like brain washing to me
'if i throw economists quotes at a crowd 800 times people will think they need to be controlled by economics and code that becomes closed off and regulated by core.. rather than grow and be revolutionary open code currency beyond the mindset of FIAT

ehh let him think whatever he wants.  I doubt that much of what Nothing that is said on bitcointalk really ever affects the miners' anyone's decisions because people only care about profit, least of all this thread.

FTFY

[Carlton Banks]

ehh let him think whatever he wants.  I doubt that much of what is said on bitcointalk really affects the miners' decisions, least of all this thread.

Any possibility of you abiding by your own maxim? i.e. shut your mouth jonald, no-one cares what comes out

[pbleak]

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.

How about writing our your main points in 500 words and just leaving them there for people to figure out. It is quite clear your current approach is not convincing people so even if you are correct you are not adept at demonstrating this to others.

[Carlton Banks]

FTFY

And you're another one who does far too much self-important talking to say that with a straight face


If no-one cares about what people say here, then why are you permanently here talking your subversive lying rhetoric

[jbreher]

so trainwreck wants to halt developmnt and the have core set up as the regulator to stop anyone else from development..

I think traincarswreck is actually saying that it doesn't matter whether or not anyone continues development of Bitcoin, because it is currently fixed in its final form.

I'm not sure I agree with that, and I quite disagree with his reasoning for this (which I believe to be "because Nash foretold an 'other alternative, and dagnabbit, Bitcoin is obviously that thing"). But it is something that may actually be true.

We'll have to see how the future plays out.

Meantime, I continue to advocate BU.

[traincarswreck]

How about writing our your main points in 500 words and just leaving them there for people to figure out. It is quite clear your current approach is not convincing people so even if you are correct you are not adept at demonstrating this to others.

500 words?  This thread is me repeating over and over the ideal money is money stable in value and bitcoin cannot be stable in value.  The rest is me laughing at everyone because they don't understand what it means to have a scientifically founded argument.

[traincarswreck]

Meantime, I continue to advocate BU.

BU is founded on a tacit assumption not science and so it can't actually be accepted by the markets.

And to the other monkeys, I don't need to convince anyone, what I am saying is that what Nash said will happen, is going to happen. Nothing about bitcoin needs to change for this to be true.  YOU have to change it and convince people not me

[jonald_fyookball]

Meantime, I continue to advocate BU.

BU is founded on a tacit assumption not science and so it can't actually be accepted by the markets.
 

If you were 10% as adept at knowing what can actually be accepted by the markets as you think you are, you'd be the richest man on earth.

[traincarswreck]

If you were 10% as adept at knowing what can actually be accepted by the markets as you think you are, you'd be the richest man on earth.

It's a basic economic premise that the free markets act rationally.

[jonald_fyookball]

If you were 10% as adept at knowing what can actually be accepted by the markets as you think you are, you'd be the richest man on earth.

It's a basic economic premise that the free markets act rationally.

ok... and fish swim in the ocean and the sky is blue...

[traincarswreck]

If you were 10% as adept at knowing what can actually be accepted by the markets as you think you are, you'd be the richest man on earth.

It's a basic economic premise that the free markets act rationally.

ok... and fish swim in the ocean and the sky is blue...

Yup so it standard to reasons that the markets won't accept a proposal that isn't scientifically founded.

[jonald_fyookball]

If you were 10% as adept at knowing what can actually be accepted by the markets as you think you are, you'd be the richest man on earth.

It's a basic economic premise that the free markets act rationally.

ok... and fish swim in the ocean and the sky is blue...

Yup so it standard to reasons that the markets won't accept a proposal that isn't scientifically founded.

like I said... if you know what the markets will accept you'd be a billionaire.

The fact that you pretend to know what the markets will do with certainty tells me you're a noob when it comes to actually understanding markets.

[traincarswreck]

like I said... if you know what the markets will accept you'd be a billionaire.

The fact that you pretend to know what the markets will do with certainty tells me you're a noob when it comes to actually understanding markets.

Oops I lost you.

1) It's basic accepted science the free markets act rationally
2) The markets won't accept an scientifically unfounded proposal

Which of these two do you deny?

[joey007]

I follow this board along time, never thought I would register but this thread just made me register.

Let me sum up a few non-topic things first that I find out after reading 45 pages.

traincarswreck, I am totally unbiased and at first I had some compasion for you and was very open to hear what you have to say. That the people on other forums just mute you or move you to trash folders seemed uncalled for. However when I continue reading your posts I have noticed 2 things.

1) You are oblivious to your own way of communicating. The things you accuse others of doing like looking down on you and mocking you, you do these to almost anyone that questions your point of view. I dont think you notice that you do this a lot and this is probably an understatement. How can I take you serious?

2) you hardly bring any new evidence or proof to the discussion. Its always what someone else wrote in this or that book/essay. What if they were wrong? Some of these texts have been written in a time when the world was a diffrent place. Theories can not always apply to each period in the history of time. Heck in my personal theory I believe economical theories can work in the west but for example not in africa or in asia during the same period of time. Basic theories like supply/demand/price. Things that are proven to be correct over and over in the west, just keep on being proven not to work in for example south east asia. Just doesnt work, is my humble personal opinion. But on top of this you repeat everything like a parrot. again and again.

So now, to me you come across as a very scary religious fanatic that sees his copy of the holy bible as the only true one and all others are wrong. Yes,I can now fully understand that people have put you into trash forums. I dont agree with it and its childish but yes I understand why this happened. Infact this kind of behavior will only harm your case and the way people look at you. You should really take this in consideration. I am curious how your additude works/gets you anywhere in normal day to day issues like talking to your spouse or dealing with an employer.

Now to be abit more on topic.

I think the reason you are ignored is that you are the only one that sees macro-economics implications of bitcoin as a critical issue that has to be dealt with asap. In my opinion bitcoin has far more important things to deal with on the near future. Your debate is too early, I am not saying you are wrong or right but this topic should best be locked and maybe reopen it in about a year or 2.

And to end this all in a very childish tone - sorry for this - I think the bitcoin did quite well without any of your contributions in the past, it has a good track record. I am not a single bit worried if you arnt involved in the future. Thanks and again I am sorry to be so rude but you are a horrible person to reason with.