"https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5i ... o/db4jb2a/
The more Greg Maxwell talks about economics, the deeper he digs himself into a hole.
He has become so blinded and corrupted by his own power, that now he has everything upside-down:
He is now bad-mouthing Nakamoto Consensus, calling it:
"a majority hashpower cartel undermining the decentralization of the network" (?!?)
He doesn't see that the only one creating a cartel is Greg himself, in collusion with certain miners who want to induce artificially high fees by preventing more efficient / cheaper miners from entering the market, when he says:
"They can turn their nose up at fee paying transactions. Then the next miner after them sets their minimum to some tiny value 10nanobitcoin/byte, clears out the backlog and collects a bunch of funds that the earlier miner omitted."
This is the smoking gun where Greg proudly shows the world that he is anti-competition.
This is why Greg's views are tolerated only on a (heavily) censored forum like r\bitcoin - while on a (lightly) censored forum like r/btc his views are considered repugnant by most sane people.
Greg does not understand economics;
Greg has become the corrupt enabler of a cartel, artificially inflating fees by artificially limiting the supply of blockspace.
Greg (and the miners who support him) seized power by exploiting an accident of history.
As we know, due to a series of unfortunate historical accidents, Greg (and the miners who support him) became a "de facto" centralized influence on a certain vital aspect of the world's emerging dominant cryptocurrency, Bitcoin - namely:
its money velocity
This has given Greg a weird kind of power, which he is relishing (perhaps unconsciously) for who-knows-what unsavory reasons.
And so here we are, several years into the "blocksize debate"...
still arguing with Greg; and
still allowing Greg, one of the most economically ignorant dipshits the world has ever known, to centrally dictate Bitcoin's money velocity...
...via his unfair exploitation of certain accidental, temporary, "contingent", historical imperfections in Bitcoin's exising codebase and governance process.
Satoshi would be ashamed of Greg.
As the initial developer of Bitcoin, Satoshi certainly could have exploited (or even introduced) a bunch of "accidental, temporary, "contingent", historical imperfections in Bitcoin's codebase and governance process" - for his own advantage.
But Satoshi made extra efforts to not exercise centralized influence over the economic aspects of Bitcoin.
Satoshi made sure that the system he created was as minimal and clean as possible, confining itself to providing only what was needed:
a permissionless decentralized time-stamping (global sequentialization) service
based on a worldwide hashing competition for an economically valuable token.
Actually, as Greg pointed out at the time, such a system is indeed "mathematically impossible".
That was the first historical example of Greg's economic ignorance.
When Greg thought that Bitcoin would never work because he could prove that it was "mathematically impossible" - he was right - but only about the mathematics, not about the economics!
Bitcoin works because of certain subtle and clever economic incentives which Satoshi built into the system - incentivizing miners to build on the longest valid chain, where the value of switching to another chain becomes stochastically, vanishingly small as more blocks are appended to the "main" chain.
It is important to understand Greg's fundamental error there...
because it's also the same fundamental error which many centralized "banksters" commit when they misunderstand and inevitably mis-implement their "blockchain technology"...
when they just can't bring themselves to endow their "blockchain" with its own valuable token...
which is the essential thing providing the economic incentives for mining, which holds the whole system together...
because they just can't bring themselves to let go of the immense awesome Olympian power they get from being able to centrally print up unlimited quantities of their debt-based "fiat" currency.
Now, Greg just can't bring himself to let go of the immense awesome Olympian power he gets from being able to:
centrally control Bitcoin's minimum fees...
by centrally controlling its maximum blocksize...
by exercising "undue influence" over certain historical accidental imperfections in Bitcoin's codebase and governance.
It all comes down to the same thing: power corrupts.
Central bankers became corrupt due to certain historical accidents giving them undue influence over our "fiat" money supply.
Greg has become corrupt due to certain historical accidents sgiving him undue influence over our Bitcoin transaction supply.
It is also worth noting that it is an insurgent miner, u/ViaBTC, who is most outspoken in support of Bitcoin Unlimited, which decentralizes the decision about blocksize - away from would-be central planners like Greg, and away from any miners who run Greg's less-efficient code.
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/search?q=au ... rict_sr=on
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/search?q=vi ... =top&t=all
It's a good thing Satoshi and not Greg had control over Bitcoin's original codebase and governance and economics.
Bitcoin will prosper much more when Greg no longer has control over Bitcoin's current codebase and governance and economics.
Greg didn't understand the economics of Bitcoin when Satoshi first explained it to him - and he still doesn't understand certain key aspects of the economics of Bitcoin as explained these days by people such as JohnBlocke, ForkiusMaximus, awemany, tsontar, pecuniology, ferretinjapan, Capt Roger Murdock, jtoomim, Peter R - and the many, many others who have been repeating the same simple and well-known economic axiom for these past few years:
The market determines demand (transactions), supply (blockspace), price (in CNY, USD, EUR etc.), and fees.
Note, in the above scenario, that "supply" in this case corresponds to "blockspace" or "space on the blockchain" - ie, the supply of transactions, which is a commodity (a generic good or service) provided by miners, in return for fees and new coins.
This number has grown continuously throughout the history of Bitcoin - determined in decentralized fashion, by the market - as miners make their own decisions on fees versus space, trying to maximize their profits and minimize their orphans.
(Meanwhile, is has been observed that the square of Bitcoin's throughput or transactional supply - which could be taken as a rough proxy for adoption - has historically corresponded to the price - which may be an interesting instance of Metcalfe's law. Conversely, this would mean that suppressing the Bitcoin blocksize is a way of suppressing Bitcoin adoption, which in turn is a way of suppressing Bitcoin price.)
The supply of space on the blockchain is the number Greg now wants to control by imposing his own artificial, arbitrary, centrally planned limit.
It doesn't matter what the "specific" number is (currently it's 1 MB every 10 minutes) - what matters is that Greg wants to centrally limit this number - a number which should be set by the market, not by Greg.
Central planning is damaging - making BitcoinCore vulnerable to competitors not limited by central planning.
Attempting to centrally control Bitcoin's blocksize could lead to the following scenarios:
At the appropriate time (eg, a "Schelling point", perhaps motivated by one or more crisis events involving network congestion, transaction delays, unacceptably high fees, falling market cap), Bitcoin may fork to another implementation (such as Bitcoin Unlimited) where supply is determined by the market and not by Greg; or
An alt-coin could take over Bitcoin's market dominance.
In other words, "Bitcoin maximalism" could be threatened if we let Greg centrally control the blocksize, instead of letting the decentralized market control the blocksize.
Yes, it really is that simple, folks.
And, yes, Greg really is that stupid (about economics) to the point where he is now actually publicly and proudly declaring that he should be able to centrally impose a maximum on the supply of space on the blockchain - and thus also centrally impose a minimum on the fees for space on that blockchain.
Plus he also has stated elsewhere that he recognizes that he is actively suppressing price and adoption - and he thinks it's ok for him to have have that power also!
Greg Maxwell has now publicly confessed that he is engaging in deliberate market manipulation to artificially suppress Bitcoin adoption and price. He could be doing this so that he and his associates can continue to accumulate while the price is still low (1 BTC = $570, ie 1 USD can buy 1750 "bits")
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4w ... d_that_he/
Power corrupts - and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Whether it's a "constitutional blindspot" - or whether Greg is personally (perhaps unconsciously) relishing the vast power he now enjoys by being able to control the "transaction supply" (and the "transaction price") for the world's first major cryptocurrency - it's irrelevant.
Greg should not have all this power.
The market should have this power.
If Greg continues to have this power, it could seriously hurt Bitcoin.
Let the market decide.
Of course, maximums for blocksizes - and minimums for fees - will inevitably be determined by somebody (or "somebodies).
In this debate, we need to decide who that "somebody" should be:
Greg Maxwell, or
the users of Bitcoin
Economics is an area where Greg displays extreme ignorance.
Greg is apparently ignorant about economics than the average person who has a cursory understanding of basic economic concepts such as markets, competition, supply, demand, pricing and elasticity.
Greg does have a "constitutional gift" for understanding the mathematics of cryptography and the dynamics of C++ programs running on computers.
But he also seems to have a "constitutional blindspot" when it comes to understanding the dynamics of free markets made up of real human beings competing in terms of supply and demand, price and fees.
This is easy for anyone to see!
You don't need a degree in Economics to understand economics better than Greg!
This is why it can be said that Greg displays "extreme economic ignorance".
And this is why he has become very unliked in the free parts of the Bitcoin ecosystem now: because of his "extreme economic ignorance" - and his general lack of empathy and self-awareness where he has actually come to think that he likes "shreaking [sic] masses" which he can ignore.
People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4k ... c_gregory/
Wikipedians on Greg Maxwell in 2006 (now CTO of Blockstream): "engaged in vandalism", "his behavior is outrageous", "on a rampage", "beyond the pale", "bullying", "calling people assholes", "full of sarcasm, threats, rude insults", "pretends to be an admin", "he seems to think he is above policy"…
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45 ... ow_cto_of/
In other words (in his own words) he is so accustomed to being generally disliked due to his anti-social, anti-free-market behaviors, that he has now come to accept and embrace this as his lot in life, and he now wears it perversely and proudly.
Greg should instead try to wrap his head around some of the writings of John Blocke:
John Blocke: Bitcoin Economics in One Lesson
https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5i ... ne_lesson/
Or some of the writings of guys like u/ForkiusMaximus - who understands the "market dynamics" of Bitcoin in a way which Greg will never be able to.
Unfortunately, Greg seems to think that "economic stuff" is irrelevant - as it's based on stuff involving the "shreaking [sic] masses" - but that's just because Greg doesn't get stuff involving economics.
Economics is largely a social science, an area where Greg's skills are woefully inadequate - to the point where the epithet "idiot savant" perhaps really does apply to him.
In this latest display of his profound ignorance of market dynamics:
Greg is openly proposing a supply-limiting and price-fixing CARTEL.
And cartels are so frowned upon by people who understand society and economics that they are often made illegal.
That statement from Greg linked at the start of this OP is seriously one of the most ignorant things ever publicly uttered in the history of economics.
Greg has become so breathtakingly arrogant, so accustomed to "centrally planning" all the code for this cryptocurrency, that he has somehow fallen into believing that he should be able to centrally dictate parameters that depend on factors outside the code, in the marketplace.
Greg is in an incredibly powerful position - due to his prominence, he really is able to exert a vast amount of (undue) influence over certain parameters of the world's emerging dominant cryptocurrency which should be market-based, not centrally planned.
Satoshi would be ashamed of Greg's cartel creation and currency manipulation.
Satoshi wisely understood that the role of the coder is merely to provide a certain minimal framework.
Satoshi never specified any centrally planned blocksize that would override the market-based blocksize.
Satoshi understood that the only function of the Bitcoin network was to provide:
a permissionless decentralized time-stamping (global sequentialization) service, based on a hashing contest for a valuable token
The system that Satoshi had designed was bigger than what Greg could wrap his mind around.
Greg is "constitutionally gifted" to be able to understand things like:
the (deterministic) mathematics of cryptography
the (deterministic) behavior of a von Neumann architecture computer executing C++ programs
And Greg does possess enough "game theory" understanding to be able to understand:
the (largely non-deterministic) behavior of a peer-to-peer network running crytpocurrency mining and validating nodes under Nakamoto Consensus
But Greg is apparently "constitutionally blind" about certain other things too - and generally those are things involving more "social" sciences, including economics.
A toxic feedback loop has developed between Greg's central planning and certain miners' natural greed for higher fees - and their natural tendency to desire to prevent additional, more efficient miners from competing with them by offering lower fees.
Where we are now
Greg Maxwell is imposing a cartel and engaging in centralized artificial supply-limiting and price-fixing...
by imposing his own centrally planned, artificially high minimum price for fees...
by imposing his own centrally planned artificially low blocksize...
by unfairly taking advantage of a "random" (accidental) accident in Bitcoin's legacy code: the "friction" induced by a legacy, temporary 1 MB anti-spam kludge...
which by the way, let us recall, Satoshi said we should have eliminated by now via an ultra-simple & safe fixed-flag-day hard fork.
Central planner Greg Maxwell has colluded with the centralized mining cartel for so long, he now thinks that competition is a bad thing - and limiting supply and doing price-fixing is a good thing!
He was already an economic idiot who knew nothing about markets - now as the corrupt enabler of a centralized cartel, Greg wants to prevent more-efficient miners from out-competing less-efficient ones.
Please, for the sake of Bitcoin, Greg: Stick to mathematics and coding, which is what you do best. And let the market continue to do what it does best.
The miners should determine the blocksize. Not Greg Maxwell." - ydtm