Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

[traincarswreck]

@iamnotback How does it feel to argue with someone that knows what they are talking about?

[1713898085]

1713898085

[1713898085]

1713898085

[1713898085]

1713898085

[dinofelis]

Eliminating trust applies to all centralized databases, not just those for monetary ledgers. The Internet is loaded to the gills with centralized databases whose closed and proprietary centralized control causes grave inefficiencies and retarded social scalability.

Bitcoin is only building a teeny, weeny tiny part of what blockchains are going to revolutionize. And Bitcoin is shooting itself in the foot by restricting itself to only a settlement layer for an archaic fractional reserve banking financial system which was only need in pre-scarcity industrial age.

I don't think you actually read this article.  The conclusion of it directly refutes every point you make:

Reverse-engineering our highly evolved traditional institutions, and even reviving in new form some old ones, will usually work better than designing from scratch, than grand planning and game theory. One important strategy for doing so was demonstrated by Satoshi – sacrifice computational efficiency and scalability -- consume more cheap computational resources -- in order to reduce and better leverage the great expense in human resources needed to maintain the relationships between strangers involved modern institutions such as markets, large firms, and governments.

The reason is because humans value other things, not money.

There is no one that will agree with you that humans don't value money, its the most ass-backwards thing I have ever heard someone assert.

Eric Raymond (the creator of the term "open source") wrote:

Yes he wrote a quote that you provided, but you didn't give any reason you provided it.

That is correct. An unlimited transaction scaling on chain design sacrifices some of the security properties, but they remain probabilistic and as Nick has also noted that all security is probabilistic even Bitcoin. There is no such thing as absolute security guarantees as Nick noted.

Nick is not advocating to sacrifice the security he is explaining why Satoshi is a genius for sacrificing efficiently and availability but NOT security.

For $billion transactions, you need Bitcoin's security. But for $10 transactions, society can accept security that is almost as good.

No, no one with pull in the industry is bending on security so you can have a coffee money.

Even Bitcoin had to sacrifice some security.

No it never did, and never will.  You are asserting this silly claim.

But Lightning Networks enables fractional reserve banking in BTC, which is a horrific thing that will harm Bitcoin and make it incompatible with the Knowledge age.

The Knowledge age will reject that yoyo of booms and busts, fraud, and bailouts of fractional reserve banking. It would ultimately require a world central bank, which is entirely unacceptable to the meritocracy in the Knowledge age. And besides, money just isn't the most important signal of value any more.

As I linked to in the other thread Szabo "tipped his hat" to me today for bringing to his attention a quote by finney which perfectly refutes your assertion:

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/846492284036145152

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

So Szabo and Finney disagree and you have twisted Szabo's conclusion to be exactly opposite of his conclusion THAT I QUOTED AT THE START OF THIS POST.

Sorry banksters. Your time is over. Goodbye.

Because you say so but every intelligent person that matters disagrees.

Nick got it. Lightning Networks isn't socially scalable.

I took a snapshot of Szabo's twitter that proves you are full of shit.

Amen Nick. Seems you do understand. I was told by some other fools that are dropping your name, that you don't understand. But I see that you do.

It was Szabo that dropped MY name when he tweeted a Finney quote that shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

He implied it by the context and what LN is (and that LN is not trustless):

YOU are implying it, Szabo and Finney both CLEARLY support micro-transactions/2nd layer solutions and a fractional banking style solution.

You can read this the way you want, but I see Nick essentially say that the only thing you can hope for bitcoin, is to become a reserve currency for inter-bank settlements for big banks, and that banking as usual is necessary ; only, they could eventually use bitcoin instead of SWIFT to settle their affairs.

My question is: why would regulated, official banks, do such a thing ?  What has bitcoin to offer that the standard systems of today can't ?    Bitcoin is a very wasteful, inefficient system, and that waste is a design error, not a genius move, although it looked like that.

However, bitcoin could serve for those "banking" systems that do not have access or cannot trust SWIFT like operations: everything of unregulated/illegal big finance.  That's the true market of crypto.  The burden of trustlessness pays off in those circumstances.  In regulated finance, it doesn't.  The burden of trustlessness makes for slow, inefficient and wasteful systems.

What crazy bank is going to put its fate in the hands of sleazy unknown whales possessing several % of the stash and able to do with them what they want ?  What crazy regulator is going to accept such a risky joke ?  (knowing tax payers are going to have to jump in whenever this bitcoin joke crashes because a few funny guys decide to hardfork because they are paid by the competition ?)

[iamnotback]

People, however, are made to confuse the new asset with the underlying base asset, and this is where the system looks like cheating.

That is the key problem. And because the public wants a single unit-of-account, then we end up always with a central bank backstopping these fractional reserves.

bitcoin whales making new altcoins of which they control the minting, and they pump (with their bitcoin stash) the price of their altcoin to a given level

They are doing that. Altcoins are pumped & dumped by whales so they can steal more money from n00bs and get more Bitcoins.

[traincarswreck]

The argument of Hayek And Nash Which Finney and Szabo clearly support is that it's the monopoly on the money printing which causes the inferior quality of and inferior operation of banks. Bitcoin changes that.  Bitcoin in a high value settlement system is not inferior, it is far superior to gold, which is a trillion dollar market, and its far superior to any existing system of today.  

   Starting with the idea of value stabilization in relation to a domestic price index associated with the territory of one state, beyond that there is the natural and logical concept of internationally based comparisons.
     The currencies being compared, like now the euro, the dollar, the yen, the pound, the swiss franc, the swedish kronor, etc. can be viewed with critical eyes by their users and by those who maybe have the option of whether or not or how to use one of them. This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened rate of inflationary deprecation in value.

Money printers (ie central banks) are now in a competition with alternative options in which they never had to compete with before, this means if they don't properly serve their customers want for a stable money then they will lose those customers.  This is the argument of how Ideal Money will now surface.

Bitcoin is not going to crash, it's going to grow into a digital gold like it was designed, but not like it was explained to be, expect by a few sparse quotes and articles by the men responsible for the different components that made it up.

And the only people that think bitcoin will be forked are those that have not read the supporting literature and do not have any understand of macro-economics theory.  No active devs believe bitcoin will be forked, it's just an annoying group of irrational exuberance and vocal loudmouth college kids and socialist that don't know what science is and don't know how to base an argument on it.

[traincarswreck]

That is the key problem. And because the public wants a single unit-of-account, then we end up always with a central bank backstopping these fractional reserves.

They are doing that. Altcoins are pumped & dumped by whales so they can steal more money from n00bs and get more Bitcoins.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT and I do, and I have shown this over and over in both these threads and everyone now knows it.

Evidence, proof, citations, and sources.

You linked to a paper that didn't even exist!  

[traincarswreck]

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I am not the well educated one in this battle in regard to some of these amazing minds, but I'll not that I also took some time to traverse Selgin's work and lectures that Finney referenced.

To refute this argument you have to traverse and refute Smith, Szabo, Finney, Nash, and Hayek.  These men are giants.  It will never happen.

[iamnotback]

You can read this the way you want, but I see Nick essentially say that the only thing you can hope for bitcoin

@traincarswreck has very poor reading comprehension. He even edited my text and removed words from what he quoted. I really would prefer if you didn't quote him, because I have no interest in reading his nonsense. The guy has very poor cognitive skills.

Indeed Szabo is saying that we need the most trustless systems we can get and that for the large value settlement we should maximize the security but even Szabo admitted that Bitcoin had sacrificed the absolute mathematical security of insuring that every client had received a copy of each block and the Bitcoin instead chose a probabilistic propagation. As well even the finality of the Bitcoin is only probabilistic and not absolutely secure.

And Szabo is saying that for smaller valued transactions should use a lighter security with more efficiency, but he points out that systems which are not trustless (such as LN by implication) are not ideal for social scalability. He would of course like something more trustless than LN, but he doesn't know any better way to do it.

I guess I have to state all this because retards such as @traincarswreck are incapable of comprehending the issues unless they are spelled out.

My question is: why would regulated, official banks, do such a thing ?  What has bitcoin to offer that the standard systems of today can't ?    Bitcoin is a very wasteful, inefficient system, and that waste is a design error, not a genius move, although it looked like that.

Oh come on. I've only been telling everyone why for the past 4 years.

When you want to destroy nation-state central banking and start a new world central bank which swallows everything, what better way to start then planting a virus named Bitcoin.

However, bitcoin could serve for those "banking" systems that do not have access or cannot trust SWIFT like operations: everything of unregulated/illegal big finance.  That's the true market of crypto.  The burden of trustlessness pays off in those circumstances.  In regulated finance, it doesn't.  The burden of trustlessness makes for slow, inefficient and wasteful systems.

The trustlessness is so that it can swallow the dying fiat system. As the defaults proliferate as our global economy collapses over the next decade, nobody is going to trust any bank.

What crazy bank is going to put its fate in the hands of sleazy unknown whales possessing several % of the stash and able to do with them what they want ?  What crazy regulator is going to accept such a risky joke ?  (knowing tax payers are going to have to jump in whenever this bitcoin joke crashes because a few funny guys decide to hardfork because they are paid by the competition ?)

That is a huge flaw but maybe it is better than the alternatives as the global implosion ensues.

And maybe the whales are part of WoT that spanks any who get out of line (rubber hoses and all).

James Bond indeed. Take a look at MP. This appears to be our new reality.

[AngryDwarf]

@dinofelis, but what about his argument that unregulated fractional reserve banking without a central bank will be some panacea? He is citing Hayek and I am saying Hayek's theory is nonsense.

I'm a great admirerer of the Austrian school, even if I think that some of their views are outdated.  But I'm also convinced that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with fractional reserve banking.  The reason why people think it is wrong is because they don't really understand what it is about (and everything is done to confuse the issue, true).

What is fractional reserve banking ?   It is issuing a DIFFERENT ASSET that is kept on-par with a base asset through a fund that serves as a form of collateral for individual transactions.  People, however, are made to confuse the new asset with the underlying base asset, and this is where the system looks like cheating.

If you go to a bank X and have a bank account there in $, you don't hold "dollars".  You hold "bank X dollars", an asset that bank X issues.  An "alt coin".   In order for this to be CREDIBLE, bank X has to have a fund, so that it has enough reserves to settle with other banks, so that bank X dollars are also accepted in bank Y.  So what bank X has to do, is to make sure that the INBALANCE between bank X and all other banks, never becomes larger than its "collateral for inter-bank settling", its reserve of base dollars.

If, statistically, bank X dollars are about as much versed to bank Y, than bank Y dollars are versed to bank X *it doesn't matter how many X dollars bank X and Y dollars bank Y have brought in circulation* ; they can always settle with a small mutual collateral in base dollars.  But of course, for this to happen, bank X and bank Y must have about the ratio of scarcity of their X and Y dollars.  A big bank can emit more dollars than a small one, because it has more demand, more customers.
A bank that emits too much money will see more of its dollars go to the neighbours, than it will receive from the neighbours, and hence, will have to deplete its stash of base dollars in settlements.

Once the settlements are exhausted, its bank dollars will not be accepted any more by other banks, and hence, the market value of its dollars plummet.  *there is nothing wrong with that*.  Its customers were holding a coin that simply wasn't valuable !  They shouldn't complain !  They only think they have been cheated upon because they lived in the illusion to hold "real base dollars", while they only held Bank Y coins, that were kept on-par with base dollars as long as the bank had sufficient collateral to settle with neighbouring banks.

So, in as much that people realize that when they have money at a bank, they don't possess "base money",  but only "bank money", and if they can have a CLEAR VIEW ON THE EMISSION of the bank money, they take the risk, or they don't.  They buy litecoin or they buy monero.  They buy citibank dollars or they buy HSCB dollars.  Knowing that these dollars are only kept on par with US FED dollars as long as the collateral reserves last.  Which can be considered an acceptable, or unacceptable risk.

By letting go broke banks that emit too much dollars, (and letting go broke their customers too), this system auto-regulates and kills of the most greedy ones regularly.  The only problem is the gullible masses that will complain that they are broke and should starve to death because of their ignorance.... As long as people will want to be compassionate (or pretend to be so), such autoregulating systems will always end up put a burden on the reasonable, to let the greedy reap in benefits when it works, and to let the reasonable pay for their mistakes when it goes wrong.

I don't know how valid the following analogy is, but you could see fractional reserve banking as bitcoin whales making new altcoins of which they control the minting, and they pump (with their bitcoin stash) the price of their altcoin to a given level.  As long as they have enough bitcoin stash to pump the price, this alt coin lives on happily a stable price level.  This can last very long, even if the market cap of the alt coin is way way larger than the bitcoin stash of the whale.

It's an interesting analogy, but we don't have a fractional reserve banking system. Banks will lend money (create new money credit and debt ledger entries simultaneously) and then seek the reserves later. That is they pull on the reserves string from the central bank. That is why QE is known as pushing on a string, it doesn't result in increased lending, the banks are simply restocking reserves on their previous over lending.
The reason banks aren't allowed to go bust in any significant way is because of the steaming derivatives pile. No one knows who owes who what, so the tax payer props up presumed failed banks so that the entire steaming pile of derivatives doesn't collapse. Only once that is unwound, would we really know who the survivors would be.

[freedomno1]

Explanation of the voting choices (read at least the 2 posts linked, if not also the prior few pages of discussion):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1819153.msg18284854#msg18284854

There doesn't appear to be any other choice. The linked thread explains why.

Please read the linked information and vote based on being fully informed. I want to know what people really think after they've been informed as to what is really the choice we have.

We are being lied to about the reasons for the standoff.

I voted Altcoin my loyalty to Bitcoin as the De-Facto currency remains if we can transition successfully to an asset-class over a transaction mechanism.
However at the point we are capping ourselves at the amount of transactions we process and this is a serious limitation on future growth and usage in the long run strangling Bitcoin.
Miners may profit in the short term but may well be F***ing themselves in the long run by limiting their growth and returns.
The block reward may decrease but capping transactions will also cap transaction fees to this volume forever instead of future exponential growth.

[traincarswreck]

You can read this the way you want, but I see Nick essentially say that the only thing you can hope for bitcoin

@traincarswreck has very poor reading comprehension. He even edited my text and removed words from what he quoted. I really would prefer if you didn't quote him, because I have no interest in reading his nonsense. The guy has very poor cognitive skills.

Indeed Szabo is saying that we need the most trustless systems we can get and that for the large value settlement we should maximize the security but even Szabo admitted that Bitcoin had sacrificed the absolute mathematical security of insuring that every client had received a copy of each block and the Bitcoin instead chose a probabilistic propagation. As well even the finality of the Bitcoin is only probabilistic and not absolutely secure.

And Szabo is saying that for smaller valued transactions should use a lighter security with more efficiency, but he points out that systems which are not trustless (such as LN by implication) are not ideal for social scalability. He would of course like something more trustless than LN, but he doesn't know any better way to do it.

I guess I have to state all this because retards such as @traincarswreck are incapable of comprehending the issues unless they are spelled out.

Every teacher I have ever had has described my reading comprehension as exceptional.  I didn't edit any of your text, and parsing quotes is standard forum use. My cognitive skills are stronger than yours by far.

Do you think there is anyone else on this forum that will publicly back your stance about Szabo Finney Nash Hayek Smith's view in light of all the evidence and sources I put forth?



You have not refuted anything I have said.
http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html

Reverse-engineering our highly evolved traditional institutions, and even reviving in new form some old ones, will usually work better than designing from scratch, than grand planning and game theory. One important strategy for doing so was demonstrated by Satoshi – sacrifice computational efficiency and scalability

[traincarswreck]

It's an interesting analogy, but we don't have a fractional reserve banking system. Banks will lend money (create new money credit and debt ledger entries simultaneously) and then seek the reserves later. That is they pull on the reserves string from the central bank. That is why QE is known as pushing on a string, it doesn't result in increased lending, the banks are simply restocking reserves on their previous over lending.
The reason banks aren't allowed to go bust in any significant way is because of the steaming derivatives pile. No one knows who owes who what, so the tax payer props up presumed failed banks so that the entire steaming pile of derivatives doesn't collapse. Only once that is unwound, would we really know who the survivors would be.

This is the proper context....It is what Finney suggests that bitcoin could and should and would become:

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

A view purportedly supported by Szabo since he just tweeted it out in relation to his bitgold idea which has the same premise.

[iamnotback]

As expected, free banking has historically only worked for idealized scenarios for limited periods of time in only a few countries. For example, all those cases where it worked, all the bank notes traded at par, which is what I was asserting that people demand a single unit-of-account, and all cases had no significant interference by any outside force such as government or war. In essence for free banking to have any chance of working properly, government would need to remain benevolent all over the world (or there would not be a single global unit-of-account, i.e. not all notes would trade at par).

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/selgin-the-theory-of-free-banking-money-supply-under-competitive-note-issue#lf1544_head_007

So free banking is incompatible with a universal unit-of-account. And this is a very interesting insight, because I've noted that the plan of the globalists has been to create a high-powered money then have regional currencies float against the high-powered basket. Now I understand why. This is so the fractional reserve notes can be separate unit-of-account for each different governance regime, since governance will highly impact the quality of the fractional reserve system.

So this means if we want a globalized unit-of-account for the Internet then it can't be fractional reserve. A ha! This is all fitting in now with my theory of bifurcation of the currency system of the world with knowledge age money and industrial age money forking away from each other. So Bitcoin is the old world NWO money.

And so now I know what I am creating and why for my altcoin. And we are going to kick ass on Bitcoin.

[traincarswreck]

While you were concocting some wacky conspiracy theories Nash was attending to the problem of our financial system:

We of Terra could be taught how to have ideal monetary systems if wise and benevolent extraterrestrials were to take us in hand and administer our national money systems analogously to how the British recently administered the currency of Hong Kong.

What I have to suggest is not appropriate for the world empire context.

…this standard, as a basis for the standardization of the value of the international money unit, would remove the political roles of the “grand pardoners,”…

Here, evidently, politicians in control of the authority behind standards could corrupt the continuity of a good standard, but depending on how things were fundamentally arranged, the probabilities of serious damage through political corruption might becomes as small as the probabilities that the values of the standard meter and kilogram will be corrupted through the actions of politicians.

(Here I am thinking of a politically neutral form of a technological utility rather than of a money which might, for example, be used to exert pressures in a conflict situation comparable to “the cold war”.)

And he understands what prevailing faction controls it:

The script or plan for my talk linking the “ideal money” with the choices and actions of “thrift” or “savings” by persons or by “economic agents” was influenced by concerns that it would be wise not to speak too incautionsly of “the Keynesians” when the times are such that massive public opinions maybe supporting actions by which a state administration can act without going through the parliamentary processes to write new legislation.

Therefore, I had arranged for 2012 to talk more cautiously in relation to whatever would impact with “the Keynesians” and with the political interest relating also to the scholarly factions allied with (or forming) “the Keynesians”.

And Nash's definition of Keynesian is a central banking proponent that has no regard for the value proposition of the currency they control:

   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

BU supporters are Keynesian.   Nash's proposal for a monetary unit takes the power from money printers to arbitrarily control the value of the money we use.

@iamnotback doesn't know what he is talking about.

[iamnotback]

Some ground rules have to be explained so that readers can make sense of this, so they can clearly discern who is the idiot with inkblot comprehension skills.

1. Nash's theory of Ideal Money has as its very foundation, the absolute requirement that the standard money (aka the high valued settlement money) must be absolutely honest, impartial, and have a predictable schedule of debasement. If this requirement is not met, then the entire theory crumbles to sand, because for example as Nash explained, the system of national currencies we have now is non-informational because there is no honest, predictable standard value which can enable the information of the free market to anneal. In other words, a totally relative system is a circle jerk of the blind leading the blind (bad money measured against bad money). But we know already from our upthread analysis of Bitcoin that it is completely controlled by the whales, and thus there is no reason to believe it will forever remain honest. Rothschild controls Bitcoin and when he is ready in future when the entire world is dependent on this standard money, then he can start to do dishonest things with it and bring the world to Revelation with all the wealth of the world concentrated on the hill in Jerusalem, as predicted in the Bible. Everything is proceeding exactly as predicted, so it is very easy for me to discern what is happening.

2. The good currencies are destined to wipe out the bad currencies over time as the public and the free markets anneal to the survival-of-the-fittest wherein those systems which had employed the good money as their unit-of-account will have prospered. But this means a lot of pain in the interim time while old systems fight against the good money and there booms and busts in bad money regimes. The private banking in Bitcoin off chain LN will be beholden to the (regulations, central banks, etc) regions wherein they do business, unlike the Bitcoin on chain money which will be global money immune to regulation because of the nature of its regulation being the secure/immutable protocol of the blockchain (and this is a key point!). This is entirely my point that unleashing unregulated fractional reserve banking on off chain Bitcoin transactions denominated in BTC (at par) globally would cause extreme distress just as the Greece borrowing in Euros when their industrial productivity is not as high as Germany has bankrupted Greece. This is the 10 Kings stage of regional currencies as predicted in Revelation in the Bible. This is the pain and chaos that precedes the final stage when the entire world submits to a single world currency and the 666 mark on everyone's forehead, as mentioned for item #1 above.


Bitcoin is the NWO coin. It was created by Rothschild and he controls it behind the scenes.

Now my point is that during the 10 Kings stage, these regional currencies (e.g. the Yuan for the Asian Union) and any private banking "BTC" derivative notes issued within those regimes, will not be a global unit, because they will have failures which are independent of each other (because they are not on chain protocol enforced money). Thus my point is that during that period, the knowledge age economy which is already globalized and to a large extent ignores and is immune to regional regulation, will desire a unit-of-account which is global and protocol enforced on chain. I intend to provide this unit with my project and our money will diverge from Bitcoin's universe. We will bifurcate away from Bitcoin's old world economy which is trying to convert the legacy political and financial systems of the world to the Ideal Money. Instead we will go directly to Ideal Money enforced on chain and ours will be even better than Bitcoin because it will be deflationary instead of only 0% inflation.

And we will kick ass. Those who want to suffer and moan in pain will go with the banksters and their Bitcoin lie. It is a lie because of that I wrote in #1.

And I don't care what that idiot writes, because it should be now very clear he is an idiot who deserves his appointment with his future pain and suffering.

In the Bible it says that the Beast is wounded. I am telling you I think our work is what wounds the Beast (just mentioned for entertainment value, not that I base anything unfalsifiable beliefs).

[traincarswreck]

Some ground rules have to be explained so that readers can make sense of this, so they can clearly discern who is the idiot with inkblot comprehension skills.

1. Nash's theory of Ideal Money has as its very foundation, the absolute requirement that the standard money (aka the high valued settlement money) must be absolutely honest, impartial, and have a predictable schedule of debasement.

2. The good currencies are destined to wipe out the bad currencies over time as the public and the free markets anneal to the survival-of-the-fittest wherein those systems which had employed the good money as their unit-of-account will have prospered.

This is good and fine and correct.  The rest you don't need.  Bitcoin does these things and Nash's argument is premised on it.

[dinofelis]

People, however, are made to confuse the new asset with the underlying base asset, and this is where the system looks like cheating.

That is the key problem. And because the public wants a single unit-of-account, then we end up always with a central bank backstopping these fractional reserves.

bitcoin whales making new altcoins of which they control the minting, and they pump (with their bitcoin stash) the price of their altcoin to a given level

They are doing that. Altcoins are pumped & dumped by whales so they can steal more money from n00bs and get more Bitcoins.

The point is that people buying altcoins don't think they buy bitcoins.  While people having $10 000,- in their bank account don't realize they have bank dollars, and not "dollars".

[iamnotback]

Some ground rules have to be explained so that readers can make sense of this, so they can clearly discern who is the idiot with inkblot comprehension skills.

1. Nash's theory of Ideal Money has as its very foundation, the absolute requirement that the standard money (aka the high valued settlement money) must be absolutely honest, impartial, and have a predictable schedule of debasement.

2. The good currencies are destined to wipe out the bad currencies over time as the public and the free markets anneal to the survival-of-the-fittest wherein those systems which had employed the good money as their unit-of-account will have prospered.

This is good and fine and correct.  The rest you don't need.  Bitcoin does these things and Nash's argument is premised on it.

Bitcoin does not do those things. It is centralized by whales'. Trusting those whales to be honest is not an objective standard. One day it will fail. It is not anti-fragile.

I've taken @traincarswreck off ignore because he decided to finally start making substantive arguments instead of appealing only to authority. Seems he has to learn what open source and meritocracy mean in our hacker culture. I guess he is not a hacker.

[iamnotback]

People, however, are made to confuse the new asset with the underlying base asset, and this is where the system looks like cheating.

That is the key problem. And because the public wants a single unit-of-account, then we end up always with a central bank backstopping these fractional reserves.

bitcoin whales making new altcoins of which they control the minting, and they pump (with their bitcoin stash) the price of their altcoin to a given level

They are doing that. Altcoins are pumped & dumped by whales so they can steal more money from n00bs and get more Bitcoins.

The point is that people buying altcoins don't think they buy bitcoins.  While people having $10 000,- in their bank account don't realize they have bank dollars, and not "dollars".

Yes, but altcoins are not a single unit-of-account and the public demands a single unit-of-account.

For the legacy economy that Bitcoin is aiming form, the regional regimes apply to the private banking variants.

But for the knowledge age, we need one global unit-of-account (because we do our activity on the Internet which has changed everything for us).

The legacy economy is larger, but our knowledge age hacker economy is growing faster. And we have primarily a gift economy with an Inverse Commons and thus we don't primarily encode our value exchanges with money.

Thus the winning blockchain in the knowledge age economy sector will be one with very high transaction rates and scaling.

And we will kick ass on Bitcoin, because our economy is growing faster and is much more important. The legacy economy would collapse without us. We run all their technology.

[traincarswreck]

Yes, but altcoins are not a single unit-of-account and the public demands a single unit-of-account.

Not a single unit, a stable unit, and its more so for meta players.

[iamnotback]

Yes, but altcoins are not a single unit-of-account and the public demands a single unit-of-account.

Not a single unit, a stable unit, and its more so for meta players.

That is okay for the power money because high finance knows how to arbitrage, but for the simpleton end users of money, they want a single unit-of-account wherein their expenses and income are in the same unit.

We hackers and knowledge age producers are simpletons when it comes to money. We have our minds in creating, not finance. Yet we are very, very important in the new (not legacy) economy. And traditional finance can't access our value. It is non-fungible.

As in the Invisible Hand and Hayek's magic, our value interacts informationally with the overall economy, yet you can't capture it fungibly or at least not completely.