Do any active/reputable devs support no scaling pressure as a direction for btc?

[traincarswreck]

I am thinking about trying to open and sustain a dialogue that questions whether addressing tx throughput or capacity is even the right approach to bitcoin at all.  I think I can give a strong argument that bitcoin's most valuable use case is as a settlement layer and that scaling pressure only damages the aspects that idealize this mechanism.  https://medium.com/@rextar4444/bitcoins-most-valuable-usecase-7f5c6e95be22

Since development usually implies change I think it might be argued that the users role should not be to pressure developers to scale bitcoin, but rather to pressure the dev team to NOT change bitcoin but without incredibly good reason.

There is also a problem of our global economy spelled out here: http://www.economist.com/node/166471

And since I believe it can be shown that bitcoin's status quo were basically locked in, or that the political instability were removed that bitcoin could serve as the asymptotic catalyst to bring our global financial system into order.  This suggests that the most important consideration would be that changing bitcoin did not negatively affect this aspect of it.

This is a consideration I have never previously read or heard of being discussed.

So I'm just looking to see if there are any devs or reputable members that are willing to open dialogue on this possible direction for the future of the project. 

[gmaxwell]

Some people to provide pressure to not change things. Fortunately, these days they don't need to provide much because most developers have already been won over to that way of thinking (or started there)-- because it's pretty sensible once you really understand how subtle the trade-offs are in the system.

I can't speak to bringing global fiance into order beyond saying that I think Bitcoin is much more useful to the world as lower capacity but immutable and decentralized than it would be as paypal 2.0.

All the attacks and insults and pressure won't change that; what it does do a bit is slows down other improvements. For some people-- ones who don't want to see Bitcoin successful-- that is probably victory enough.  So I think it's on every user to fight against that effect.

[traincarswreck]

Thx.

I can't feel it is very true that many devs have already taken such a stance.  Well I'd be happen to know there are enough behind the scenes to hold steady, but publicly we see many core devs and proponents wanting to offer a scaling compromise and sometimes a solution.  On the one hand I will argue that the general public has not much business telling active developers what they can and should do, but on the other hand there are economic ramifications that SOME developers might not have a strong understanding of.  

I don't know if that is silly of me to suggest, I don't know if i have any such understanding...but...

I have argued, which is inline with what finney was projecting for bitcoin in regard to george selgins commodity money (and szabo hayek smith), that bitcoin already has the capability to arise to function as a high value settlement system, and that if the properties that allow it to do so are preserved then such a system will spark the events as described by John Nash.

When we understand the argument and the ends Nash explains it is the only clearly rational and optimal path for humanity.  And so this is the FOUNDED argument for the direction we should take bitcoin.  This suggests the conflict exists solely because we are ignorant to the insight Nash has left us NOT because one side is correct and the other is not.

Our goal is wrong.  

The goal shouldn't be to optimize bitcoin, but rather to align it was the Nashian observation.

Lastly, I suggest that the want to somehow increase, or effectively increase, bitcoin's transactional capacity comes about from a tacitly held belief that such a change would increase the value and utility of the network.  Obviously to some extent you disagree with this faction of supports of this argument....

Dialogue, specifically bohmian dialogue, is a protocol for relieving groups of their tacitly held beliefs.  I call for a small handful (perhaps more than 5 and less than 10) of, at least fairly reputable, members to enter into dialogue and open the discussion of whether or not bitcoin should be scaled for tx throughput and whether or not it can be direction to function as the premise of Nash's argument.

[traincarswreck]

There is also a certain admission in your post.  If you and other devs are running somewhat on the same conclusion that I have arrived at, but from different arguments then its quite likely there is great insight in the works "Ideal Money".  How could it be that, if I learned what bitcoin is to be from Nash and Not satoshi (or Szabo), I come to the same conclusion that a very large % and population within the bitcoin community cannot but the technical experts do?

I don't have technical knowledge or expertise.  My understanding is purely philosophical. But the argument proposed is completely logical and coherent.  It simply seems like it involves a leap of logic because there is ("mathematical" (ie not philosophical) induction involved.

And then furthermore we can ask how can it be seen as irrelevant and not useful to bring into the awareness of the general (bitcoin) public, a complete philosophical and founded argument for what bitcoin is to be?

You are fighting a conflict with no ammo or means for resolution, yet there it is, packaged.

[The One]

I am thinking about trying to open and sustain a dialogue that questions whether addressing tx throughput or capacity is even the right approach to bitcoin at all.  I think I can give a strong argument that bitcoin's most valuable use case is as a settlement layer and that scaling pressure only damages the aspects that idealize this mechanism.  https://medium.com/@rextar4444/bitcoins-most-valuable-usecase-7f5c6e95be22

Since development usually implies change I think it might be argued that the users role should not be to pressure developers to scale bitcoin, but rather to pressure the dev team to NOT change bitcoin but without incredibly good reason.

There is also a problem of our global economy spelled out here: http://www.economist.com/node/166471

And since I believe it can be shown that bitcoin's status quo were basically locked in, or that the political instability were removed that bitcoin could serve as the asymptotic catalyst to bring our global financial system into order.  This suggests that the most important consideration would be that changing bitcoin did not negatively affect this aspect of it.

This is a consideration I have never previously read or heard of being discussed.

So I'm just looking to see if there are any devs or reputable members that are willing to open dialogue on this possible direction for the future of the project. 

Good. Tell Core developers not to change Bitcoin into a settlement layer.

[traincarswreck]

Good. Tell Core developers not to change Bitcoin into a settlement layer.

It already is a settlement layer, it always was.

[gmaxwell]

traincarswreck, I think you can make yourself be understood without the insult.

I dunno wtf people think settlement means.   Settlement is a payment of final recourse, not an IOU or other promise to pay but the final transfer of value itself.  Bitcoin is settlement because it's a true electronic cash not a system of IOUs like most electronic payment systems.  It's also a batch settlement system in that you get blocks as periodic events that arrive minutes to an hour apart.

[traincarswreck]

traincarswreck, I think you can make yourself be understood without the insult.

I dunno wtf people think settlement means.   Settlement is a payment of final recourse, not an IOU or other promise to pay but the final transfer of value itself.  Bitcoin is settlement because it's a true electronic cash not a system of IOUs like most electronic payment systems.  It's also a batch settlement system in that you get blocks as periodic events that arrive minutes to an hour apart.

Well, I cleaned it up but it's an obviously ignorant person that intends only to disrupt.  Yes cash is a settlement tool, clear as well.  There is a great description by George Selgin of how a commodity can arise to be the settlement device among the higher value banks that otherwise compete against each other: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/draft-notes-on-george-selgin-the-theory-of-free-banking-60ed1d44e2be

It can be shown that bitcoin and and should arise to play that role.  I believe this needs to be discussed and taught so that people properly understand what the goal is.  Not to idealize bitcoin as a medium for transaction, but to address the problem outlined here:  http://www.economist.com/node/166471 It is the founded argument and understand that will end the conflict.

[gmaxwell]

an obviously ignorant person that intends only to disrupt.

Maybe, but many readers may not realize that.  Humoring trolls by pretending they are merely ignorant denies them their power (because they want to make us upset) and also is more enjoyable for other readers... it is also a safer option since sometimes someone who looks like a troll really is just misguided. Thanks for the links.

[traincarswreck]

The link to the economist article explains the problem of our global economy (not likely completely new to you) which is exactly what Nash explicitly defines over 20 years of talks and writing (in far more depth).  What is significant about Nash's presentation is that he describes the problem from a SOLVABLE perspective.  It is the triffin dilemma essentially, and he is said have proposed a solution, although I'm shocked that someone else extrapolated that point and that it made its way to wiki, because I have found no person that also sees the truth of this.

Hal Finney touted Selgin's works as the proper direction for bitcoin, which I have shown is in fact in line with Nash's proposal. But even Selgin (and nearly ALL other significant economic philosophers/economists I could connect with) misinterpreted Nash's perspective and proposal.  

His immediate reaction was that Nash's ICPI could not be implemented.  I immediately was able to respond with a quote from Nash explaining how Ideal Money would come about WITHOUT the adoption of an ICPI.

Nash introduces the concept as a form of MATHEMATICAL (as opposed to philosophical which as apparently different if I have this right) induction, like using a form for a bridge, which when builts stands on its own without the form.

He builds and explains his reasoning using an objectively stable standard for value (ICPI) and then from there reverse extrapolates the need for a catalyst that will begin the process of asymptotically ideal money which is effectively created by the introduction of an international e-currency with a stably issued supply schedule.  This puts the respective fiats onto a stage of competition and so forth.

It might not seem novel  but the two important points are (1) that he came up with this in the 50's and promptly was called crazy for saying he was going to save the people from the otherwise colluding governments and fleeing to europe to exchange his usd for the swiss franc and (2) there are ramifications of the inevitability of Ideal Money coming about that we can begin to build towards and extrapolate from today, well before it even is brought about. (the latter is something of value not to be underestimated but I cannot show the significance of until we have arrived at the general understand of the relevance of Ideal Money together)

You tried to allude to me that perhaps some or many involved in bitcoin are aware of this.  After four or so years of trying to open the dialogue, I don't believe you, in fact I think you are simply mistaken.  I'm not convinced you or any of them have even read the main 8 page lecture.

Most important of all, and I believe this comes as such a surprise and a shock to everyone of you, perhaps right up to Szabo but certainly all devs involved that I know of and all the personalities surrounding the movement, Nash gives the entire founded academic argument that ends the block size debate.

I think it's too big of a pill to swallow for everyone, but its clear as day to anyone that has read his works.  It's how I know these people haven't read it, and I've yet to be shown I am wrong even on this simple assumption.  We've honestly done it, we ignored the worlds smartest man (for many years and AGAIN!) and he's having the last laugh about it.

You once told me the awkward time of conflict would soon pass, but that was I think a year maybe 2 ago (can't remember the timeline).  When will you address the life's work of the world's smartest man, that explained the events that would unfold if bitcoin was released unto the world?   When will we sincerely address the problem of our global economy and put an end to the perpetuated conflict that keeps bitcoin in flux?

[danda]

gmaxwell and traincarswreck:   I'm glad the two of you are dialogging.

You both consistently articulate positions that I find myself in agreement with.

I hope this exchange of ideas continues, especially as I am eager to hear Greg's thoughts on Nash's writings and applicability to bitcoin.

For my own part, I see additional reasons for conservatism and caution in modifying consensus rules, but am thankful to traincarswreck for being so tenacious in advancing these economic ideas/arguments.