Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cliff]

@NashGuy - Welcome. I'm enjoying some of your posts, not sure where I sit w/ them just yet - but I'm reading. Few questions:

1. In a few posts you have said something like " Because keeping as many of the parameters the same allow the markets to seek bitcoin like a gold, rather than a highly circulating currency. "

In short, you use personification/anthropomorphism of markets to justify money policy.

Question: Why? Markets don't exist as static objects. They don't seek, see, think, feel, perceive. Markets are a condition - they are made upon the existence of traders actively trading based on their objectives and desires at a given point in time - which are not necessarily shared exactly between counter-parties. Do you agree or disagree? Does it matter?

2. You asked: "Are you using the standard and accepted definition of fiat?"

Question: What is the standard and accepted definition of fiat money? Link would be helpful here. I've always assumed it was money the government considered legal tender via its own laws (i.e., the product of its own magic wand), but I've never looked it up - just going off my understanding of the word "fiat".

 

[NashGuy]

We should be clear about something. I have been suppressed by the /r/btc community. No media site will pick up this story and my insights. No elite players will discuss this topic with me.

But if you let me into this dialogue. And you make an assertion, I will ask you to back it up with a reference. If you ask me to back up my claims I am going to. If you imply a citation or reference to someone's work I am going to ask that you cite and reference it.

If you say you have read something I am going to scrutinize the assertion.

If we are ok with this, then we will get along. But if players here want to make unsubstantial claims without me refuting them then we will not get along.

it's lost some relevance.

This is incredibly subjective and you have nothing to show that this has to do with the transnational nature which was your initial implication. I don't need you to change your words so they "kinda" work. Gold is clearly relevant, gold clearly costs more than bitcoin to use.

Could you post the SHA256 checksums of the versions you have read?

Don't be silly, for what purpose? What are you accusing me of?

he had to design a system that relied on speculation

That reminds me:

There is a problem for the issuer of a currency, whether in coinage, paper, or electronic form, that if this currency (or money) is too good, then it could be exploited by all sorts of parties and interests that might simply wish to safely deposit a store of wealth or even to conservatively invest some assets for future good value.

…under extreme conditions the currency issued by a state could be exploited by parties not of that state as a sort of “safe-deposit box” on which they would not need to pay any rental fees or fees like those paid to the managers of mutual funds for investment.

If the value trend of a currency is such that a natural interest rate is not negative, then it is not an unattractive task for a central currency authority to mint or print the physical currency that would circulate. Then the issuer of currency would be partially in the position of a borrower not paying interest on borrowed money.

…the issuer of a currency also needs to be properly prepared for the possibility of speculation on the part of interests domiciled in foreign states, etc., etc.

But, simply to improve the conditions under which agreements regarding long-term lending and borrowing would be made, a money would be more or less equivalently good if it had a completely steady and constant rate of inflation. Then this inflation rate could be added to all lending an borrowing contracts. Hence, the problem of a money that would be too good is avoidable.

cypher doc... are you claiming you lied when you said you read all nash's papers on money, or were you mistaken?

Do we all agree Satoshi isn't a real person?

 

[Tomothy]

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.

Ok, so I'm having difficulty parsing your answer to my question as your response is open to interpretation. Can you elaborate please?

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?

Increasing from 1mb to 2mb. This will not make the price go from $600 to $1200. This does not mean a block transaction/propogation will be sped up or increased. If anything, this only means utility will increase. If anything, this would seem to be a value neutral proposition or net positive based on ancillary effects.

The nature of a direct change in block limit, in order to effect the future value/utility, is different than these options

I don't understand what you mean here. It seems, with this statement, you implicitly create an IMPLIED assumption regarding the purpose of a change in the block limit. When was it determined that a change in block limit was planned on effecting future value/utility? If anything, it impacts CURRENT utility. This involves on chain transactions.

Critically, the usage of value and utility seems to be suggested as interchangeable. When, why, and how was this determined? I do not see value as being equal to utility.

In similar fashion, lets look at Segwit and the impact on SOV. What does segwit do? Segwit increases transaction capacity. This change does allow bitcoin to be transacted at a significantly higher frequency.
I'm not sure what is meant by capacity but the assumption would also hold true that Segwit would also increase capacity. So segwit increases frequency and capacity but at the cost of not being bitcoin as transactions are not on chain but off chain. This involves off chain transactions.

We expect certain aspects of bitcoin to evolve, but there are certain aspects we should not evolve.

Ok, so how is this determined, who determines it? How do we know what aspects are expected to evolve how do we know what aspects are not expected to evolve? Do we have anywhere we can go for guidance? Do we have anyone we can go to for guidance?

I think the only agreed upon terms are, cap of coins at 21 million and the halving blocksize reduction schedule and time frame. I think everything else, is most likely, negotiable.

So TLDR
1mb - 2mb = increased utility? on chain.
segwit = increased capacity, increased frequency? Off chain.

If anything, it seems that 1mb to 2mb would be an expected increase and consistent with SOV while segwit, results in off chain transactions, and would be inconsistent with SOV? Is segwit detrimental to SOV? WTF!?

disclaimer, segwit/ln gets me confused. I know they are different but essentially off chain transactions vs on chain transactions

 

[cliff]

@NashGuy - define "real person" - that will help generate answers. As a straw, am I a real person or just a character from a show about a bar where everybody knows your name?

 

[NashGuy]

Question: Why? Markets don't exist as a static object. They don't seek, see, think, feel, perceive. Markets are a condition - they are made upon the existence of traders actively trading based on their objectives and desires - which are not necessarily shared exactly between counter-parties. Do you agree or disagree? Does it matter?

Yes the markets are made up of an aggregate of players sentiments, adam smith describes this. Nash's works allows us to observe and relate the markets and participants like players in a game. The markets are made up of humans, why should we not refer to the preferences of the players etc? The prices are in fact an expression of human sentiment aren't they?

2. You asked: "Are you using the standard and accepted definition of fiat?"

Question: What is the standard and accepted definition of fiat money? Link would be helpful here. I've always assumed it was money the government considered legal tender via its own laws (i.e., the product of its own magic wand), but I've never looked it up - just going off my understanding of the word "fiat".

fiat means "let it be". In regard to a standard accepted definition I would point to wiki. Now to be clear, we don't always have to be standard, but if we are going to have meaningful dialogue we should be clear when we are using standard definitions and when we are not. Words for this reason are useful when we can convey a shared meaning right?

 

[freetrader]

@NashGuy :

Don't be silly, for what purpose? What are you accusing me of?

LOL wut? I just want to

a) have some evidence that there are more than the 2 versions you linked to, because you said "There are about or more than, 10 different version of Ideal Money each saying different things" - remember?

b) come to some agreement on which versions there are and have a chance to know if we've read the same things. Since copyright law possibly prohibits us from sharing the content, we can at least compare the checksums to verify we are on the same page for meaningful dialogue.

 

[NashGuy]

define "real person" - that will help generate answers. As a straw, am I a real person or just a character from a bar where everybody knows your name?

You don't understand the nature of my question? do think I might think you are a character from a show? Satoshi is an image, not the person behind the image. Nash is/was a real person.

 

[Zarathustra]

I must ask the same question you avoided, are you using your own definition or the accepted definition. Can you cite your sentiments here in regard to accepted scientific/academics? Or are you saying something that is not generally accepted?

What does that even mean? The different theologies (keynesianism, austrianism, marxism etc.) don't accept the same definitions. And they are all wrong.

https://bitco.in/forum/search/39528/

 

[cliff]

Link to wiki article on "fiat" that contains standard definition please.

 

[NashGuy]

a) have some evidence that there are more than the 2 versions you linked to (because you said "There are about or more than, 10 different version of Ideal Money each saying different things")

b) we need to come to some agreement on which versions there are and have a chance to know if we've read the same things

a) you are asking if there are 3 or more versions now?

b) I have claimed to read two versions, which is one more than cypherdoc admitted even existed when they said they have read all nash's works on money. Are you claiming to have read three?

Are you suggesting I am lying?
[doublepost=1469037201][/doublepost]

Link to wiki article on fiat w/ standard definition please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money

Really?

 

[cypherdoc]

We should be clear about something. I have been suppressed by the /r/btc community. No media site will pick up this story and my insights. No elite players will discuss this topic with me.

But if you let me into this dialogue. And you make an assertion, I will ask you to back it up with a reference. If you ask me to back up my claims I am going to. If you imply a citation or reference to someone's work I am going to ask that you cite and reference it.

If you say you have read something I am going to scrutinize the assertion.

If we are ok with this, then we will get along. But if players here want to make unsubstantial claims without me refuting them then we will not get along.

This is incredibly subjective and you have nothing to show that this has to do with the transnational nature which was your initial implication. I don't need you to change your words so they "kinda" work. Gold is clearly relevant, gold clearly costs more than bitcoin to use.

Don't be silly, for what purpose? What are you accusing me of?

That reminds me:



cypher doc... are you claiming you lied when you said you read all nash's papers on money, or were you mistaken?

Do we all agree Satoshi isn't a real person?

you are a piece of work.

i've read everything i could find on the net, so yeah, i think i've read it all. but since you're claiming there are multiple versions of his Ideal Money you need to prove it. you just said you'd back all your claims with references, so i'm asking you to do so. also, backup the claim you were the first to relate Bitcoin to Nash's work.

 

[NashGuy]

Ok, so how is this determined, who determines it? How do we know what aspects are expected to evolve how do we know what aspects are not expected to evolve? Do we have anywhere we can go for guidance? Do we have anyone we can go to for guidance?

You want me to explain bitcoin's consensus mechanism? If you want to quote me saying segwit will destroy bitcoin's nature as a gold then feel free. I think it's a valid question you suggest and I haven't put a lot of time into the technical proposals. I think we are supposed to turn to empirical evidence if we want to change things. I think we can seek experts and discuss their arguments, but not turn to authorities for decisions in this regard.

Remember you have to convince core and the major players, that is all, but if your argument is not based on empirical evidence and accepted scientific principles you will not bend the block size or the parameters of bitcoin.

 

[cliff]

You don't understand the nature of my question? do think I might think you are a character from a show? Satoshi is an image, not the person behind the image. Nash is/was a real person.

Well, right now, having just stepped into this thread today - I'm having a hard time following you. You pack a lot into your statements and questions. For example, your Satoshi question presumed you didn't think he was a real person without saying what you think he is - how can anyone agree or disagree w/ you if they don't know what you're talking about b/c certain info is omitted? Elsewhere, there are other loaded statements that need quite a bit of unpacking. So, for now, I'm just trying to unpack some verbal baggage so I can understand your POV.

 

[NashGuy]

you are a piece of work.

i've read everything i could find on the net, so yeah, i think i've read it all. but since you're claiming there are multiple versions of his Ideal Money you need to prove it. you just said you'd back all your claims with references, so i'm asking you to do so. also, backup the claim you were the first to relate Bitcoin to Nash's work.

It's already been verified that there is one more version than you claimed.

I have already verified that I have been discussing the subject for over two years. If you have proof to the contrary, then YOU need to bring it forth.

 

[freetrader]

@NashGuy :

I quoted your statement that there are "about or more than, 10 different version of Ideal Money each saying different things".

You are asserting that you've seen (and read) these, otherwise you wouldn't claim they are "saying different things".

You are accusing cypherdoc of lying :

cypher doc... are you claiming you lied when you said you read all nash's papers on money, or were you mistaken?

But you refuse to acknowledge that perhaps he said so because he's not seen all the versions you have?
Neither have I - I am curious.

Please supply some more checksums, best with information on how we can verify these.

Because we cannot have a dialogue on "different things" if we are unable to get to a common basis for discussion. It seems to me that common basis could be Nash's writings which you have read.

And to be clear, I am asking you:

Are you claiming you lied when you stated that there are about 10 versions, or more, of Ideal Money?

 

[NashGuy]

@cliff, others here are more familiar with me, my works, and my point of view, from various writings and communities. I can only attend to you specifically with the questions you ask. Otherwise yes, it is quite fair to say all my comments are 'packed' (especially with citations and references).
[doublepost=1469037807][/doublepost]@freetrader

But you refuse to acknowledge that perhaps he said so because he's not seen all the versions you have?

Yes we have successfully publically shown that @cypherdoc made an unsubstantiated claim that turned out to be not true. They have NOT read all Nash's works on Ideal Money, we know this because they thought there was only one essay. I proved the claim wrong, by showing 2 essays.
[doublepost=1469037902][/doublepost]@freetrader

Are you claiming you lied when you stated that there are about 10 versions, or more, of Ideal Money?

No but feel free to PROVE me wrong.

 

[freetrader]

I think we can seek experts and discuss their arguments, but not turn to authorities for decisions in this regard.

Remember you have to convince core and the major players, that is all

I'm just going to go for an audience with the Pope.

Oh wait, I forgot you said anyone can hard fork Bitcoin. Cancel my appointment!

 

[cliff]

@NashGuy - Thanks for fiat link - seems we have similar understandings. I haven't read much Nash - I've read tons and tons and tons of Foucault, though. You should check this article when you get some time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_an_Author?
http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/Gustafson/FILM 162.W10/readings/foucault.author.pdf

----------
EDIT - Other article that's pretty good and possibly relevant to . . . IRL - its an oldie, but a goodie in some circles:

139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 801 (1990-1991)
Normativity and the Politics of Form

Text
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3741&context=penn_law_review

 

[cypherdoc]

I proved the claim wrong, by showing 2 essays.

i must have missed this proof. please repost and state exactly what it is you're claiming has been duplicated/manipulated.

also, you're still refusing to link to the whatever it is you're claiming to have done in regards to Nash. why?

 

[freetrader]

No but feel free to PROVE me wrong.

Stop.
Goto https://bitco.in/forum/threads/commandments-of-rational-debate.1185/#post-21349
Reflect.
If (you have realized which of the first 12 you have already violated in this brief time here)
Then
Resume providing evidence of your claim. It's on you to prove, not me to disprove.
Else
Halt.