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

[traincarswreck]

Now I want to suggest, that objective truth, as knowledge, is fungible, and I want to understand what you say to that.

[1714791800]

1714791800

[1714791800]

1714791800

[AngryDwarf]

Because the blockchain space market is wiping out people's savings. What is the point of an asset divisible to 8 places, when you cannot afford to move it?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1827068.msg18196886#msg18196886

So you are saying the fee for transactions is EXPECTED to increase over time to eat up people's ability to transact?  

Just so my question is clear...you have shown some wallets are such that they hold less than the cost to transact, have you shown that this trend will increase and never stop?

Miner's are charging based on their costs of production.  Will their costs increase decrease or stay the same over time? And, in regard to scarcity of transactions (ie 3tps), what will this do to the fee market over time?  

Lastly, if bitcoin is so valued by a certain group of people, that they will be an increased amount of fees, who are YOU to point to a smaller group of people, with no value to bring to the system, and fight for their socialistic rights to keep the system for the smaller and lesser economy?

Remember socialism leads to tyranny.

This has been a recently underlying trend, although as the number of UTXO's that cannot be spent decreases, some blockchain space demand will drop. Some people will just lose faith in bitcoin causing further demand drop. Maybe it will hit an equilibrium? I'm not sure this will ever be the case. Unfortunately, the demand for fluidity (token transference) will fluctuate despite the 21m coin limit and other fixed properties of bitcoin. I know in another thread you stated that you consider blockchain space to be a stable metric, but should it be really? The transaction rate demand is not fixed at 3 tps, it is either below it, or capped by it. When it hits the cap the behaviour of the system changes. Miners are not charging the fees, the users are in a fee race when the demand hits the capacity cap.
Satoshi did not put the transaction limit in his white paper. I am led to believe he was very reluctant to put the limit in, but was persuaded by other actors 'as a temporary anti-spam measure'. He even proposed ideas about how it could be increased before the blockchain cap was reached.
My concern about smaller bitcoin holders is not about socialism. A system which robs small holders of their wealth reminds me about the tyrannical neo-liberalism society we have today. Are these small holders just sacrificial lambs on the road to bringing about ideal money through bitcoin?
I am not a student of Nash economics as you are. In his idea of an international currency that could bring about ideal money by bringing the fiat system under control, which you state was similar to bitcoin, did he mention anything about capping transaction capacity?

[traincarswreck]

This has been a recently underlying trend, although as the number of UTXO's that cannot be spent decreases, some blockchain space demand will drop. Some people will just lose faith in bitcoin causing further demand drop. Maybe it will hit an equilibrium? I'm not sure this will ever be the case. Unfortunately, the demand for fluidity (token transference) will fluctuate despite the 21m coin limit and other fixed properties of bitcoin. I know in another thread you stated that you consider blockchain space to be a stable metric, but should it be really? The transaction rate demand is not fixed at 3 tps, it is either below it, or capped by it. When it hits the cap the behaviour of the system changes. Miners are not charging the fees, the users are in a fee race when the demand hits the capacity cap.
Satoshi did not put the transaction limit in his white paper. I am led to believe he was very reluctant to put the limit in, but was persuaded by other actors 'as a temporary anti-spam measure'. He even proposed ideas about how it could be increased before the blockchain cap was reached.
My concern about smaller bitcoin holders is not about socialism. A system which robs small holders of their wealth reminds me about the tyrannical neo-liberalism society we have today. Are these small holders just sacrificial lambs on the road to bringing about ideal money through bitcoin?
I am not a student of Nash economics as you are. In his idea of an international currency that could bring about ideal money by bringing the fiat system under control, which you state was similar to bitcoin, did he mention anything about capping transaction capacity?

The problem is that its very easy to start with the assumption that a good money has to be highly transactable.  This assumption comes from the belief that money's purpose and most valuable provision is  as a medium of exchange.  We get this assumption because we all use money and recognize it, yet it is a technology that arises naturally to solve a problem that the individual cannot have time to understand.

Simply put that problem is 'how to measure value'.  Money CAN provide this and has done so historically.  But when the underlying proposition or structure of it changes then the money like a measuring stick that arbitrarily changes length-not useful as such.

Satoshi had no choice but to put the limit in, and would have immediately philosophized about how to change or remove it, and instantly realized that its impossible. It's obvious then that bitcoin was destined to "change" as you say, which means that such change from a coffee money to a digital gold was implied all along in its underlying value proposition.

Free market theory, which I'm sure everyone believes Satoshi touted, suggests that its not tyrannical for investors that choose wrong to lose their investments. But its silly to suggest anyways because those people didn't lose their investments and probably never will, and many many people made a fortune.

I am not a student of Nash economics as you are. In his idea of an international currency that could bring about ideal money by bringing the fiat system under control, which you state was similar to bitcoin, did he mention anything about capping transaction capacity?

Yes its not very sacrificial when some individuals lose their ability to use bitcoin but the world financial system is brought into order is it?  And yes, Nash taught me all this in his essays. Nash taught me the significance of bitcoin, not Satoshi.

[iamnotback]

But I brought it forth to show Szabo's use of the word POTENTIAL (which is bolded in my original writing I believe).  Szabo didn't miss this, search for the word "redundancies".  He is not stating the formulated value for a network, he is simply saying that metcalfe's law is extendable.  It makes perfect sense that a reduction in transport cost as a dramatic effect on the value of the network.  But neither metcalfe nor Szabo imply that such efficiency is perfectly transcribable to market cap of a network.  That's not either of their mistake, its others' mistake.

Disagree.

Szabo is referring to redundancies that reduce the need for transport between every pair of nodes in the network and thus reducing the exponent to lower than four, but he is still relying on transport costs being the value limitation in the network. He is not recognizing that value is relativistic and the transport costs may not be a significant factor at all in some cases as I pointed out.

You say fungible money.  What is un-fungible money? Money becomes money only because of our definition which is somewhat related to "the most fungible good".  Otherwise its just barter right?

I don't disagree that money is relating to fungible transfer of utility. The point I am making is that fungible transfer of utility can occur by transferring a fungible intermediate good (i.e. money) or by adding knowledge to an Inverse Commons. The fungible transfer of utility within the Inverse Commons is a shared rise in utility for all participants of the Inverse Commons, i.e. although each unit of knowledge added to the Inverse Commons might be of a different kind (thus non-fungible if were applied to a barter trade between parties), the units of knowledge don't have to be matched to another same kinded unit of knowledge in order to transfer the utility within an Inverse Commons. Given my explanation of how the Internet has raised the degrees-of-freedom of (the nodes which are the individuals in) humanity's access to a plurality of Inverse Commons, there is magnificent increase in the (knowledge) value (and thus utility) that can be fungibly transferred without money (i.e. without a fungible traded intermediate good). Nobody owns the Inverse Commons, because it is open for everyone to see. It gains value the more people contribute to it and the marginal utility of adding more participants doesn't decline precipitously as in other forms of knowledge exchange because it due to the decentralized access control (i.e. everyone can see and fork it without any top-down permission required) there is not the top-down management coordination problem known as the Mythical Man Month. We see that the more degrees-of-freedom an Inverse Commons has for the participants to harmonize their contributions yet not be bound to coordination gridlock, the faster the value grows and the less slowly the marginal utility declines.

Inverse Commons are usually specialized so that only those interested or expert in the subject matter of that particular case of an Inverse Commons, are gaining value from contributing to it, because only they can understand or utilize the increase in shared knowledge in it. Because of this maximum division-of-labor, Inverse Commons can't be entirely captured by finance. Because participants can transact directly and instead via Firms (thus bypassing the Theory of the Firm), it becomes less plausible for finance to gain the economies-of-scale to consolidate everything in corporations and the winner-take-all weakness of fungible finance that I explained upthread is (I posit) ameliorated.

@traincarswreck, your four-color theorem theory of tripartite essential resources for human life is the most basic example of the fact that fungible money increases degrees-of-freedom over barter. The increase in efficiency of fungible money w.r.t. barter, increases as the diversity of physical resources (tangible goods) increases. With three bartered resources and no fungible money, one has a 1/3 chance of holding the resource that another may want to trade for, i.e. being bordered on one of the other two colors in your four color theory. The probability fraction decreases and complexity of risk mitigation increases as the diversity of goods to be bartered increases.

Yes its a generalization.  The reason I think it is worth something is that you present it without the four color theorem and we weren't able to proof the theorem without computers.  Is a flat plane, and changes to the topology would increase the complexity and possibly outcomes for equilibriums.  As does the addition of money as you say.  

But we can also think earlier for example in a transition from water to land, or that underwater examples of such relationship between entities, wouldn't have gravity so to speak (or near as much of an effect of it), so the equilibriums form in a different way.  

Yet it's conceivable that there is some transition to different orders (ie water to land, land to internet).  In this sense money serves as the lubricant for transition, and natural arises as such.

What I want you to see that we don't have to actually individually (selfishly) own the medium where the transfer of fungible value takes place, which is the case with money. This is why the Inverse Commons is new form of fungible utility transfer which ameliorates the monopoly formerly held by money. But the fungibility is not in the form of a barter trade between two owners of the good. If knowledge units were to be traded as barter, they would be non-fungible and thus can't be modeled (nor financed) with the concept of money.

Now I want to suggest, that objective truth, as knowledge, is fungible, and I want to understand what you say to that.

There is no such thing as a grand objective truth. We live in a relativistic universe. There is unbounded diversity of perspectives that can be formed. Humans will tend to cluster around specialties. Within those Inverse Commons of specialized interests and expertise, there will exist fungible value transfer, but there is no overall fungibility. And even within an Inverse Commons, the value that each participant gains from portions of the Inverse Commons will vary.

The idea that there could be one fungible money that accurately reflected all that complexity of value transfer is preposterous. I think this is why Nash was speaking of asymptotic approximation where there would be many stable currencies, but again I have shown upthread that is impossible. I know you will reply and claim I have not, but I simply won't reply any more. I have more important work to do than argue with you about the preposterous notion that there could exist any stable fungible good or goods which could be an accurate value or utility transfer system for all the complexity in nature. Fungible money was something man used which was the best fit for the technology available at the time. We have the Internet now. We are leaving the fungible money era.

[sidhujag]

Where does Nash state that asymptotic ideal money is where there are multiple competing currencies at one time? Thats not at all what I vot from reading his stuff.

[btcbug]

I probably shouldn't interject and I have been following, but can't remember in all the pages of text what was said exactly, so forgive me  

...If knowledge units were to be traded as barter, they would be non-fungible and thus can't be modeled (nor financed) with the concept of money.

Seems obvious with knowledge, but aren't we using fungible money to exchange knowledge presently? Value is subjective, so why can't somebody decide how much that knowledge is worth in units of a tangible good?

...There is no such thing as a grand objective truth.

Clearly a self-defeating statement there isn't it?

[iamnotback]

I probably shouldn't interject and I have been following, but can't remember in all the pages of text what was said exactly, so forgive me  

...If knowledge units were to be traded as barter, they would be non-fungible and thus can't be modeled (nor financed) with the concept of money.

Seems obvious with knowledge, but aren't we using fungible money to exchange knowledge presently? Value is subjective, so why can't somebody decide how much that knowledge is worth in units of a tangible good?

I think you should read my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance, if you believe that you can finance future knowledge creation. How do you predict who will create which knowledge? What interest rate can you assign if you can't predict anything about knowledge creation?

I am not referring to selling knowledge which was already created. Yes some may try to sell intellectual property, but closed source doesn't scale. Open source is kicking ass because it doesn't have the Mythical Man Month coordination problem. Scaling trumps non-scaling so emphatically and by such orders-of-magnitude that isn't even funny. Pitiful is a better term to apply to those who try to scale closed source.

...There is no such thing as a grand objective truth.

Clearly a self-defeating statement there isn't it?

How so? I didn't propose a grand objective truth. I proposed that each Inverse Commons would be non-fungible with the other. There isn't this globalized linkage of "objectivity" required with a fungible money. (Actually money is never a grand objective truth, it is always competing imperfect stores of value which the free market attempts to anneal into an accurate information system, and thus fungible money remains manipulable, which is what Nash was trying to fix. Nash has conflicting concepts.)

Your question was malformed because I know what you were thinking. You were thinking that if no one can know the absolute truth, then how can I speak any truth. That is logical fallacy (which I had already refuted once upthread and I repeat again here for you). There is distinction between claiming that total orders don't exist and claiming partial orders do exist.

[btcbug]

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying!

[traincarswreck]

Szabo said it is potential and noted redundancies. Here is how I understand it.  You create a series of connected tunnels, the more tunnels connected to tunnels the more specifically you can direct more traffic.  But that doesn't mean that more tunnels are useful. 

Metcalfe never implied this either.  When Roger Ver says more users equals more value equals higher price because Metacafe, he's being an idiot, metcalf never said such a thing.  Neither did szabo.

But more connections equals more POTENTIAL for value, as in, the value COULD flow in more places and more ways.  But that doesn't mean it will.  Buy your friend a fax machine, and see if the networks value increases exponentially because japan can now fax your friend.

 


 

[traincarswreck]

If we cannot agree there is objective truth, how can we hope to see eye to eye on anything?

[traincarswreck]

Where does Nash state that asymptotic ideal money is where there are multiple competing currencies at one time? Thats not at all what I vot from reading his stuff.

In the section called "currencies in competition":

So here is the possibility of "asymptotically Ideal Money". 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.

[iamnotback]

Szabo said it is potential and noted redundancies. Here is how I understand it.  You create a series of connected tunnels, the more tunnels connected to tunnels the more specifically you can direct more traffic.  But that doesn't mean that more tunnels are useful.  

Metcalfe never implied this either.  When Roger Ver says more users equals more value equals higher price because Metacafe, he's being an idiot, metcalf never said such a thing.  Neither did szabo.

But more connections equals more POTENTIAL for value, as in, the value COULD flow in more places and more ways.  But that doesn't mean it will.  Buy your friend a fax machine, and see if the networks value increases exponentially because japan can now fax your friend.

Your conceptualization isn't incorrect, although not as complete as mine because you haven't accounted for opportunity cost. However, none of what you wrote exonerates the fact that Szabo tied value to limitation by transport costs. Thus Szabo was making a claim that is not compatible with the concept of opportunity cost driven relative value which I have postulated.

Sorry Szabo makes many mistakes. I caught him in another mistake of logic this week where he denies your concept of Bitcoin being ideal immutability money.

[traincarswreck]

All things equal, the economic efficiency of a network certainly is affected by the cost of transportation, or the friction.  Any system will show this.

[traincarswreck]

You implied you linked to a szabo quote and you did not.

[iamnotback]

All things equal, the economic efficiency of a network certainly is affected by the cost of transportation, or the friction.  Any system will show this.

You need to re-read the prior page of this thread. You haven't understood. Transportation costs can become entirely irrelevant as I explained.

You implied you linked to a szabo quote and you did not.

I did. Look up in the thread to find the twitter link to it.

Sorry Szabo makes many mistakes. I caught him in another mistake of logic this week where he denies your concept of Bitcoin being ideal immutability money.

[traincarswreck]

You need to re-read the prior page of this thread. You haven't understood. Transportation costs can become entirely irrelevant as I explained.

You implied you linked to a szabo quote and you did not.

I did. Look up in the thread to find the twitter link to it.

Sorry Szabo makes many mistakes. I caught him in another mistake of logic this week where he denies your concept of Bitcoin being ideal immutability money.

"Secret mining advantage is expected. The problem is incentive to oppose incompatible upgrades for secret reasons."

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/849800229696045058

He didn't imply we need to solve this by forking away the miners profits.

I think we can jump ahead by suggesting that that Metcalfe didn't realize that there could be a system of nodes that serve the network which is not a topology that is "everyone to everyone".

Is that what you mean to say?

I don't think what you are suggesting proves Szabo wrong, I think you have change or made the context more specific and shown for example "its not ALWAYS true" what he relates.

[iamnotback]

"Secret mining advantage is expected. The problem is incentive to oppose incompatible upgrades for secret reasons."

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/849800229696045058

He didn't imply we need to solve this by forking away the miners profits.

He implied that miner's morals have any thing to do with Bitcoin. Come on, now you are arguing against your own theories. Inconsistency.

I think we can jump ahead by suggesting that that Metcalfe didn't realize that there could be a system of nodes that serve the network which is not a topology that is "everyone to everyone".

Is that what you mean to say?

I don't think what you are suggesting proves Szabo wrong, I think you have change or made the context more specific and shown for example "its not ALWAYS true" what he relates.

I've lost interest in this discussion.

I've already made my points. I am done.

Thank you for the discussion. I appreciated it very much.

[traincarswreck]

No he didn't.  He framed the problem.  It's reasonable to adjust to, it doesn't imply that jihan is immoral.

[traincarswreck]

No I'm planning on reading your essay, I am just clarifying your jargon for ease and time.

Understanding your use of fungibility and knowledge etc.

[iamnotback]

Regards to the topic and Nash Equilibrium reminds me his criticism to Adam Smith theory about the 'individual ambition' ;-)

Agreed the murdered John Nash (aka Satoshi) is correct that we should not fight over the blonde, because we maximize our individual strategies in that case with a group strategy.

In the case of Bitcoin, Nash designed such that the whales have a crab bucket mentality w.r.t. any one whale being able to mutate the protocol and thus get an advantage over any other whale.

But I posit the mistake he made, is that I've shown the math that PoW eventually centralizes into one whale (or colluding set of whales) who can then at the point change the protocol and fuck over everyone else. Analogously, if one person was able to mathematically monopolize the blonde, he could force everyone else to take a second pick.

Game theory is complex. And Nash can make mistakes. He isn't perfect. Or perhaps Nash was just the symbolic face of Satoshi and not the one who made the actual PoW design.