Re: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
The reality is there is consensus for change on both sides, there just isn’t consensus on what that change will be or when.
In contrast, you have no sizable (or existent) consensus for capture.
That’s not consensus, BOTH sides need to agree with each other on the path forwards. That there are two sides that don’t agree is the opposite of consensus. Again I am using standard definitions and i am pointing to reality. And the division in perspectives is growing, entropy is increasing.
In contrast, you have no sizable (or existent) consensus for capture.
Capture doesn’t require consensus it requires the infighting you are highlighting as reality.
… There is no consensus for change and there never will be, because there are not enough people that are stupid as you.
The reality is there is consensus for change on both sides, there just isn’t consensus on what that change will be or when.
In contrast, you have no sizable (or existent) consensus for capture.
That’s not consensus, BOTH sides need to agree with each other on the path forwards. That there are two sides that don’t agree is the opposite of consensus. Again I am using standard definitions and i am pointing to reality. And the division in perspectives is growing, entropy is increasing.
In contrast, you have no sizable (or existent) consensus for capture.
Capture doesn’t require consensus it requires the infighting you are highlighting as reality.
Your statement was “consensus for change” not “consensus of/on a change”. “Consensus of/on a change” is bitcoin Consensus. Your words were of a simple form of agreement. If you intended “Consensus of/on a change” then so be it, but that isn’t what you wrote.
If “capture” ultimately comes about, you don’t understand that bitcoin failed in its experiment. Your dream of a Nashian Utopia currently rests upon bitcoin failing in its original premise, uncontrollably. And by logic, when that does occur, it is no longer an absolute value for Nash’s theory. So you fail in the long run as well.
Thus, you and this theory attached to bitcoin, is ultimately malicious.
I do not use this username (AgentofCoin) on any other forum or website. Ask for a signed message from my btc address if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
Legendary Offline
Activity: 1582
lose: unfind … loose: untight
When we agree the common goal is to levate a stable metric of value, which all rational players will, then it is easy to highlight which arguments are founded. Thus ideal money reveals players hands.
Once we understand this to be the goal, once enough people support an inquiry into Nash’s works and understand the relevance, I can begin to speak beyond it. It’s only the tip of the iceberg, but it sounds like irrational jibberish until we understand the concept of a stable metric of value AND that we can use bitcoin as a catalyst to bring such a concept to REALITY.
Your argument seems predicated upon ‘value’. I have asked several times in this thread for your definition of ‘value’. Have I missed your responsive reply, or have you refused to supply such definition?
You have stated an axiom that Nashian ideal money is one whose absolute value is unchanging. You have seemed to make a statement that bitcoin can never be Nashian ideal money. Why then, is it important that bitcoin be rendered as close to unchanging in value as possible?
Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature — for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated — is automatically deducted credibility points.
So with that out of the way, let me ask you as if anew: What is your definition of ‘value’?
This is the problem, remember, we don’t have a metric for it. Most people intuitively use either usd, or their respective fiat. But the usd is not stable in value either right? If you claimed it was, I would ask stable in relation to what?
There is a conjecture, that gold is fairly stable in value, but what is it a comparison too?
Value I can say, can go up or down, but I cannot point to you the “value” of something. That’s the problem. The problem is what i value one way, you value another way. So we use the markets to solve this problem…
But the markets haven’t solve this problem, because the mechanism they are using to price things CHANGES. It inflates.
We can say, some thing X is worth this many units of Y. That’s the best we have. There is no further definition of value.
Not without a stable metric for it.
That’s the very problem we need to solve. There is no definition for value. Nash’s has finally provided us with one, and we are to levate it.
The OP believes that bitcoin, in a non-consensus captured state, is almost a perfect asset. The “value” the OP is referring to is an abstract, which could never have existed naturally in this universe. It must be designed and programmed to be so.
The “Value” the OP is mostly referring to is like a Higgs Boson of Economics. That is why “value” in conjunction with “price” is irrelevant.
At least this is how I interpreted the OP.
Almost, but the crux is, you cannot design something with stable value. You can only design something with FAIRLY stable value. The rest is natural evolution. When you try to design something with actually stable value, you destroy all hope at even fairly stable value.
Ok, so in theory a volatile digital asset (bitcoin) can, due to evolution (time and non-consenous capture) may transfigure into an “accidental” stable value, which has the potential to bring about Nash’s Ideal Money?
The only thing I disagree with (besides everything we disagreed about prior) is that Thinking Machines should in theory be able to design and implement a PERFECT stable value, in the future.
I do not use this username (AgentofCoin) on any other forum or website. Ask for a signed message from my btc address if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
Nicht manipulierbar: Vonage-Tochter will Gesprächsdaten auf der Blockchain speichern Kommunikationssicherheit und Blockchain: Während Twitter, Facebook & Co. über dezentral organisierte Nutzerauthentifizierung und krypto-basierte Zahlungsprozesse diskutieren, erhält eine Tochterfirma des US-amerikanischen Unternehmens Vonage das Patent für […]
News – CCN Exclusive: 200 Million Users Messaging Giant LINE Partners Blockchain Project ICON ICON, the $1.6 billion blockchain project created by developers from South Korea, has secured an official partnership with LINE, Japan’s largest […]
No, bitcoin (BTC) is Not a Quick Rich Scheme, Price Approaching $4,000 bitcoin prices up 1.6 percent FCA Research paints crypto-asset owners as greedy Transaction volumes low, drive above $4,500 must be high-volume. The UK’s […]
