Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Tomothy]

"yes you ask perfect questions. I think people won't like my answer, but you will understand it: not necessarily...."

Can you provide an answer?

I would assume, you would argue that bitcoin should not add segwit or ln as it detracts from it's ability to act as a store of value/hedge. Is that an accurate assessment?

Essentially, is it that these actions and changes go from turning it into something like gold into something like a scientific calculator? Which would facilitate and serve a different purpose then acting as a hedge/SOV(store of value).

 

[NashGuy]

Do such changes allow bitcoin's to be transacted at a significantly higher frequency, or is it that value can be exchanged at a higher capacity? The nature of a direct change in block limit, in order to effect the future value/utility, is different than these options. We expect certain aspects of bitcoin to evolve, but there are certain aspects we should not evolve.

We don't have a scientific basis for a transaction capacity target, and so we should be cautious in our proposals for them.

 

[cypherdoc]

@NashGuy

Lecture by John F. Nash Jr. Ideal Money and Asymptotically Ideal Money

http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf

Our view is that if it is viewed scientifically and rationally (which is psychologically difficult!) that money should have the function of a standard of measurement and thus that it should become comparable to the watt or the hour or a degree of temperature. And money, as an efficient practical means of transferring utility, naturally links directly with the game theoretic idea of “TU games” (games with transferable utility).

note that if Bitcoin is to only be used by the rich, wealthy, or banks as a "settlement layer" then it can never achieve "unit of account" status as Nash envisions above. IOW, little black kids digging up gold in Africa will continue to do so and maintain physical gold as "The Standard" for SOV and money. they will not have heard of nor care to transact in what they don't know or can't afford to use.

But it seems very likely that, although that scheme for arranging for a system of money with ideal qualities would work well, that, on the other hand, it would be politically difficult to arrive at the implementation of such a system. (One can observe, for comparison, the difficulties that are found in connection with issues of which national regions should or should not be included with the group making use of the new “euro” currency. For example, the Turks would like to become club members but the Scandinavians and the U.K. British are not convinced that they would be beneficiaries by inclusion.)

note here Nash describes the same attitude that you and kore dev propose; "Bitcoin is too good for little ppl".

The Keynesians implicitly always have the argument that some good managers can do things of beneficial value, operating with the treasury and the central bank, and that it is not needed or appropriate for the citizenry or the “customers” of the currency supplied by the state to actually understand, while the managers are managing, what exactly they are doing and how it will affect the “pocketbook” circumstances of these customers.

this sounds suspiciously like our beloved kore dev.


@NashGuy do you have a copy of his original Ideal Money paper. seems to be locked up behind a paywall. and yes, i have read all his writings on money and watched his videos. also, chunks of Hayek.
[doublepost=1469033504,1469032835][/doublepost]

Hehe, that's some euphemistic. If you take "Nashguys" comments as representing for Core's ideas and world building, you excessively underestimate core's ability to create "real theories" that connect cypherpunk and libertarism (what doesn't mean these theories are correct).

What nashguy / pokertravis is doing on and on and on is that he takes a term he finds ("Ideal money"), talks about a person he heard of ("Nash"), connects this to the most simplified version of the small-block-camp ("resisting change"), writes blog posts about it, tries to bring this posts to reddit - and now unfortunately this enlighenig thread - and calls everybody "unsincere" and a "troll" who doesn't cheer on his thoughts.

It is not even intellectually funny to break this thoughts.

Core's thought are similar, but dig much deeper into Adam Back's ossification theory and Luke-JRs pontification idea to create an idea of digital gold that has nothing to do with "nashguys" ideal money. don't want to attack, i just want this thread to not waste pages with this.

hmm, ok, maybe i did make a mistake.

 

[NashGuy]

There are about or more than, 10 different version of Ideal Money each saying different things. I am not sure I have any other access other than my account on Jstor, but the original version is very interesting.

You are taking Nash's words out of context and not seeing them from the perspective he paints, which will probably change as you and others begin to traverse his works.

He is not saying a unit of "account" such as a ledger or a bank account. He is referring to a metric of valuation/measurement that does not degrade, or in other words is politically uncorruptable and immovable.

The metric system does not work because french chefs de cuisine are constantly cooking up new and delicious culinary creations which the rest of the world then follows imitatively. Rather, it works because it is something invented on a scientific basis…
Our view is that if it is viewed scientifically and rationally (which is psychologically difficult!) that money should have the function of a standard of measurement and thus that it should become comparable to the watt or the hour or a degree of temperature.~All quotes are from Ideal Money

For this, it doesn't matter if we are able to use bitcoin as a currency for daily purchases. And let us not conflate meanings, you are implying because bitcoin gets costly than someone is FORCING people not to use it. Force means something specific, where as people choosing to use something or not use something because of the cost of using it, is perfectly economically sound and the basis for capitalism.

Here is Nash:

In a large state like one of the "great democracies" it is reasonable to say that the people should be able, in principle, to decide on the form of a money (like a "public utility") that they should be served by, even though most of the actual volume of the use of the money would be out of the hands of the great majority of the people. But most typically the people would expect to be served by their elected representatives and not to make most of the relevant decisions in a direct fashion.

Interesting man isn't he?

The Keynesians implicitly always have the argument that some good managers can do things of beneficial value, operating with the treasury and the central bank, and that it is not needed or appropriate for the citizenry or the “customers” of the currency supplied by the state to actually understand, while the managers are managing, what exactly they are doing and how it will affect the “pocketbook” circumstances of these customers.

this sounds suspiciously like our beloved kore dev.

No lets be sincere, this is nothing like bitcoin. And the fact that you can debate greg on a daily basis is a major testament to this fact. Let's give Nash his due, no one believe him, and here we have the change he predicted.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Christoph Bergmann :

Bloomie said he'll let us know before when we run out of pages on this thread. /s
(I'm lying, Bloomie said no such thing - cypherdoc is procuring new pages for us all, thanks!!!)

Since I have some left-over space on my post, I will put this here because sometimes a well-written blog post illustrate a particular viewpoint better than some tit-for-tat forum posts:

http://www.coindesk.com/did-john-nash-help-invent-bitcoin/

Ah, now I know where all this pages come from

 

[NashGuy]

yes, i have read all his writings on money

How can you be sure and how many versions did you read?

 

[cypherdoc]

I would assume, you would argue that bitcoin should not add segwit or ln as it detracts from it's ability to act as a store of value/hedge. Is that an accurate assessment?

i would like to hear @NashGuy's answer to this too.
[doublepost=1469034129][/doublepost]

How can you be sure and how many versions did you read?

ah, now you ARE engaging in some serious bullshit here.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@NashGuy

Lecture by John F. Nash Jr. Ideal Money and Asymptotically Ideal Money

http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf

Our view is that if it is viewed scientifically and rationally (which is psychologically difficult!) that money should have the function of a standard of measurement and thus that it should become comparable to the watt or the hour or a degree of temperature. And money, as an efficient practical means of transferring utility, naturally links directly with the game theoretic idea of “TU games” (games with transferable utility).

note that if Bitcoin is to only be used by the rich, wealthy, or banks as a "settlement layer" then it can never achieve "unit of account" status as Nash envisions above. IOW, little black kids digging up gold in Africa will continue to do so and maintain physical gold as "The Standard" for SOV and money. they will not have heard of nor care to transact in what they don't know or can't afford to use.

But it seems very likely that, although that scheme for arranging for a system of money with ideal qualities would work well, that, on the other hand, it would be politically difficult to arrive at the implementation of such a system. (One can observe, for comparison, the difficulties that are found in connection with issues of which national regions should or should not be included with the group making use of the new “euro” currency. For example, the Turks would like to become club members but the Scandinavians and the U.K. British are not convinced that they would be beneficiaries by inclusion.)

note here Nash describes the same attitude that you and kore dev propose; "Bitcoin is too good for little ppl".

The Keynesians implicitly always have the argument that some good managers can do things of beneficial value, operating with the treasury and the central bank, and that it is not needed or appropriate for the citizenry or the “customers” of the currency supplied by the state to actually understand, while the managers are managing, what exactly they are doing and how it will affect the “pocketbook” circumstances of these customers.

this sounds suspiciously like our beloved kore dev.


@NashGuy do you have a copy of his original Ideal Money paper. seems to be locked up behind a paywall. and yes, i have read all his writings on money and watched his videos. also, chunks of Hayek.
[doublepost=1469033504,1469032835][/doublepost]
hmm, ok, maybe i did make a mistake.

Don't mind. If this brings some insight into nash and ideal money into this thread and some connections to hayek and satoshi, it will be a win. If not - don't mind.

 

[cypherdoc]

Are you suggesting there was someone discussing Nash's Ideal Money before me, especially in regard to bitcoin? Because that is what I claimed as being first at.

when are you claiming you were the first to discuss it? b/c i and others discussed it here in this thread years ago.

 

[NashGuy]

ah, now you ARE engaging in some serious bullshit here.

I dug VERY deep to find the multiple versions of nash's ideal money. I am asking you how you know that you read them all, and how many versions you read. I am asking for substantiation on your claims. How is that bs?

(also I attended to tomothy's question twice)
[doublepost=1469034412][/doublepost]

when are you claiming you were the first to discuss it? b/c i and others discussed it here in this thread years ago.

Over two years ago. Do you want me to provide evidence of the timeline. I'm quite confident I was the first. Or in other words I have searched and never found any discussion that wasn't ultimately linked to me.

 

[cypherdoc]

>Over two years ago. Do you want me to provide evidence of the timeline.

yes.

> I'm quite confident I was the first. Or in other words I have searched and never found any discussion that wasn't ultimately linked to me.

and please provide the link.

 

[solex]

Just about kicks three years of Bitcoin block limit debate into touch.
ETH devs delivering while BS-Core navel-gazing unicorn-believers are dithering.

 

[NashGuy]

>Over two years ago. Do you want me to provide evidence of the timeline.

I am claiming to have spoken first on the relation. You have claimed otherwise, which needs to be cited. How can I prove I spoke before you otherwise?

I'm quite confident I was the first. Or in other words I have searched and never found any discussion that wasn't ultimately linked to me.

and please provide the link.

What are you specifically asking for here? I cannot disprove your claim by providing an early link if you will not tell me which timeline I need to "beat".

In regards to my BS, how many versions of Ideal Money are you claiming to have read? And how can you know that you have read them all?

If you substantiate your claims, only then can I prove the contrary.

 

[cypherdoc]

@NashGuy

i'm not claiming i was the first to relate Nash's work to Bitcoin. i never said that. you did. so please link to the first time you spoke about it so we can check if your claims are true. very simple request.

and how many versions of his initial paper can you prove exist? i know i've read one. you're the first to claim such multiple versions so prove it.

 

[Jonathan Vaage]

central planning isn't necessarily bad. Rather the type of central planning hayek warned us about is trying to target something through design that cannot be achieve. So for this central planning the 1mb limit, in the way big block proponents talk about, is NOT what Hayek warns us about, but trying to target bitcoin's value through raising the transaction capacity IS. It won't do what players are suggesting, rather it will destory bitcoin's gold like properties.

Low-grade doublethink: "Arguing for the removal of a centrally-planned production constant is itself an attempt to centrally plan bitcoin's value" SMH...

The 1mb transaction ceiling is precisely an attempt to target something through design that can't apodictically be known. I'm at a loss for where you got the idea that anyone is even remotely proposing any kind of target for bitcoin's value. Predicting that the removal of the transaction cap will make bitcoin more attractive as a monetary instrument is no where close to the same thing as arguing for some kind of value target or CPI peg. (Again, both value targeting and price stability are entirely nonsensical ideals - see the section by Mises from Human Action I linked to earlier).

You are implying if bitcoin cannot be highly transacted it will lose its relevance, but gold has not lost its relevance and it is relatively costly and inefficient to transact.

Yes, gold has lost its relevance, again, precisely because it's inefficient to transact!

 

[freetrader]

Indeed, we should look toward improving it, like a technology.

Harder, Better, Faster !
[doublepost=1469035562][/doublepost]

@NashGuyyou're the first to claim such multiple versions so prove it.

I can substantiate this. If you go to SciHub, you will find at least the more original version of his Ideal Money talk which has not been edited down and still contains the more "out there" aspects of aliens teaching humanity about better money, comments about the empire etc. Or so I've heard.
I suppose those version or versions are locked up behind JSTOR and other centralized "bastions of science" and the more "acceptable" edited version is presented. Custodians trying to keep us from freaking out about aspects which most would dismiss as fringe science if not seen in the proper context. Not saying that's entirely justified, but that is the state of science.

Source of the image above:

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-new-era-of-nashian-economcis-meme-storyboard-for-john-nashs-proposal-for-ideal-money-dd529039f221#.ye51fib0p

 

[NashGuy]

@NashGuy

i'm not claiming i was the first to relate Nash's work to Bitcoin. i never said that. you did. so please link to the first time you spoke about it so we can check if your claims are true. very simple request.

and how many versions of his initial paper can you prove exist? i know i've read one. you're the first to claim such multiple versions so prove it.

My reddit account pokertravis has been around for two years and was created to facilitate discussion about the relation between bitcoin and nash's works. Thats the best I can remember and cite at the moment. If you can beat it with evidence of someone discussing it before hand then I will search further.

1 version: http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf

a different version:https://www.jstor.org/stable/1061553?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

This proves you have not read, and are not even aware of the multiple versions that exist.
[doublepost=1469035936][/doublepost]

The 1mb transaction ceiling is precisely an attempt to target something through design that can't apodictically be known.

You view it as an attempt, but its not an attempt to do this. Where is your citation, of who said, it is such an attempt? Satoshi left it as a security measure.

Yes, gold has lost its relevance, again, precisely because it's inefficient to transact!

As I understand golds market cap is in the trillions which perfectly refutes your assertion.

 

[cypherdoc]

This is something both sides seem to accept, that capping bitcoin means it won't be used by the average joe, but only large meta/whale players.

yep, and this is a strategy that just won't work. you still haven't addressed my example where all poor ppl's of the world continue to value gold over Bitcoin in a 1MB world b/c they haven't either heard of it or it's too expensive.

But designing bitcoin so be implemented as Ideal Money in itself is a central planning folly. It cannot be done. Thats why Satoshi didn't try to do it.

excuse me. Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be like gold and a p2p ecash as in the title of the WP. and his work is not done yet as brilliantly designed by his asymptotic release of 21M coins until 2140. b/c gold is not physical and cannot be desired for it's beauty and luster, he had to come up with a design that encouraged widespread adoption. instead of using a commodity that conformed to the Regression Theorum, he had to design a system that relied on speculation since Bitcoin is digital. IOW, he needed to attract guys like me early on who recognized the potential for investment appreciation of the coin and who would trade fiat for bits. miners are also speculators in this regard.

 

[Jonathan Vaage]

Relative to it's position as the foundation for an international monetary standard, yeah - I'd say gold has lost some relevance.

 

[freetrader]

I dug VERY deep to find the multiple versions of nash's ideal money. I am asking you how you know that you read them all, and how many versions you read.

Could you post the SHA256 checksums of (all) the versions you have read?