Greg Maxwell's economic ignorance on full display

[rogerver]

Greg, here is your ignorance of economics on full display:

it's remarkable and sad-- to own so much bitcoin and yet spend none of it to help further the development of Bitcoin...

Holding an asset like Bitcoin is what gives it value in the market, and directly furthers its development and use.

I'm sure you can run circles around me on coding and cryptography because you've spent your life studying those aspects.
I've spent a good portion of my life studying economics.
We should both listen to each other in our respective areas of expertise.
I'll gladly defer to you on matters of cryptography, but I assure you, if Bitcoin doesn't scale quickly enough to keep up with market demand, the market will switch to something else. We are already seeing that starting to happen with the rush to adopt Ethereum. As someone who is holding greater than 99% of my digital assets in Bitcoin, I'm more than a little upset by this.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Greg, here is your ignorance of economics on full display:

it's remarkable and sad-- to own so much bitcoin and yet spend none of it to help further the development of Bitcoin...

Holding an asset like Bitcoin is what gives it value in the market, and directly furthers its development and use.

I'm sure you can run circles around me on coding and cryptography because you've spent your life studying those aspects.
I've spent a good portion of my life studying economics.
We should both listen to each other in our respective areas of expertise.
I'll gladly defer to you on matters of cryptography, but I assure you, if Bitcoin doesn't scale quickly enough to keep up with market demand, the market will switch to something else. We are already seeing that starting to happen with the rush to adopt Ethereum. As someone who is holding greater than 99% of my digital assets in Bitcoin, I'm more than a little upset by this.

I have 3 problems:

1) I can't tell investors or traders to "hold" Bitcoin any longer as it's become risky from unknown dramatic price increases. I don't buy the media stories "Chinese are flocking to Bitcoin" because its not true. Investors such as yourself bought in at the beginning therefor day after day is a windfall for you. Although I do know you have expectations as where you see your investment. Investors should consider Bitcoin a short-term gain, at least for the near future.

2) That 1% of Ether you hold is going to be worth more than 30% of your Bitcoin holdings one day. Possibly even more, we'll have to let time run its course to make better predictions. If I were you, I'd make 5-15% of your portfolio Ether. It's cheap, it has healthy growth, a lot of attention is on it and Vitalik is quite a smart young guy.

3) Greg Maxwell, he is one of the main contributors to Bitcoin's problem, at least for the original Bitcoin which was renamed to Bitcoin Core and is now under a completely different direction. This guy is bad for business, there is no way I can make him sound better.

[arnoudk]

I get your points about Ether, but I have a major problem with 'voting with your feet' to another cryptocurrency.

The main argument against holding bitcoin, for me, is the fear that it would just be replaced by another cryptocurrency - and then you are left holding worthless bits. The run towards Ether shows this is not just a theoretical risk.

Bitcoin has value due to trust in the system. Like fiat, you accept bitcoin because you believe you can use it to make another purchase tomorrow. You keep bitcoin, because you believe it will have value 10 years from now. There's no good reason to want to have bitcoins themselves, other than for their purchasing power and the ability to spend them efficiently and cheaply - now or in the future.

If we show the world that, indeed, when things get a little rough we flock to another currency - and the people who did not are left holding the bag - than this just proves that crypto is MUCH riskier than gold.

There is only one way to 'move to another cryptocurrency' that does not destroy trust in crypto - that would have to be a hard fork using the same genesis block AND the same blockchain (up to a point). Yes, this is hard to pull off - not impossible - however the alternative is destroying trust in crypto. Then, the critics who say 'there is no real value, because you can just create another crypto that can displace the current' are correct.

If ARGUMENTS between a group of people can destroy a currency - I don't even know what to say about that.

We shouldn't all have to agree. We could fork into multiple bitcoins, and let the best chain win. We could make forks merge-mineable on the main chain so that it doesn't outright compete for hashing power. We can do a lot of things, but one thing we cannot afford to do, is to do nothing. And we can't cheat people who trusted their purchasing power to bitcoin, to be worthless bits bag-holders because we 'flocked due to a disagreement'.

[inBitweTrust]

Greg, here is your ignorance of economics on full display:

it's remarkable and sad-- to own so much bitcoin and yet spend none of it to help further the development of Bitcoin...

Holding an asset like Bitcoin is what gives it value in the market, and directly furthers its development and use.

I'm sure you can run circles around me on coding and cryptography because you've spent your life studying those aspects.
I've spent a good portion of my life studying economics.
We should both listen to each other in our respective areas of expertise.
I'll gladly defer to you on matters of cryptography, but I assure you, if Bitcoin doesn't scale quickly enough to keep up with market demand, the market will switch to something else. We are already seeing that starting to happen with the rush to adopt Ethereum. As someone who is holding greater than 99% of my digital assets in Bitcoin, I'm more than a little upset by this.

If bitcoin needs to grow faster perhaps we should be focused on testing segwit and the many promising solutions in cores roadmap. Lets assume for a moment that you are indeed much more knowledgeable about economics than Greg and other developers and your main contention is that we need to scale immediately to gather significant marketshare and a network effect. If this is the case and you do respect Gregs and other developers technical opinions more than your own than why do we constantly see technical advice coming from you(Eg. how cores technical concerns are exaggerated and the future of technological innovation can scale quickly) . Wouldn't a compromise have you respecting their technical concerns while simultaneously assisting in every way possible to expedite the progress of scaling with their technical considerations in mind?

I really appreciate all the effort you have done in the past and Greg did assume too much in that post which was out of line, but you also have indeed been trolling daily and disrespecting the technical advice of many core developers for some time now. We all want bitcoin to succeed and even Greg has admitted that he is open to a future HF to increase capacity and perhaps there is a valid argument that core developers are a bit too conservative and may be trying to engineer an unnecessary, more perfect, solution but if this is the case than the solution is to assist them in expediting segwit/LN/MAST/schnorr signatures/ ect for us to exhaust these scalability improvements and than we can start talking about a HF to raise the blocksize and flexcap.

[inBitweTrust]

We are already seeing that starting to happen with the rush to adopt Ethereum. As someone who is holding greater than 99% of my digital assets in Bitcoin, I'm more than a little upset by this.

We really should also focus on educating users about the technical limitations of Ethereum and why it really isn't a viable alternative as well so they don't get suckered into a whole lot of marketing and hype with little future.

[rogerver]

We are already seeing that starting to happen with the rush to adopt Ethereum. As someone who is holding greater than 99% of my digital assets in Bitcoin, I'm more than a little upset by this.

We really should also focus on educating users about the technical limitations of Ethereum and why it really isn't a viable alternative as well so they don't get suckered into a whole lot of marketing and hype with little future.

Please feel free to help provide that education. Myself and many others are very skeptical of proof of stake as a consensus mechanism, and Paul Sztorc's point that proof of stake is no less wasteful than proof of work is super interesting too.

Regarding giving technical advice myself, I'm not. I've spoken to many many people on both sides of this issue that say that a 2MB block size today would be no problem. I'm following their advice on this matter. The only reason it seems to not be happening is due to an ego issue.

[inBitweTrust]

Please feel free to help provide that education. Myself and many others are very skeptical of proof of stake as a consensus mechanism, and Paul Sztorc's point that proof of stake is no less wasteful than proof of work is super interesting too.

Ethereum has a whole list of problems from having a centralized development (Bitcoin is not centralized at all with development) , Inflationary with a planned unlimited supply , Premine ICO, The DAO will soon be placing negative pressure when those ethers are sold for crowdfunding, overly complex script that leads to multiple security attack vectors, planned POS algo that is inherently insecure and will suffer from stake grinding attacks as well as other security vulnerabilities, planned POS algo that will unfairly benefit early developers with primined stake, competing DACs that can be used to waste or burn through others stake, an act of supererogation for little practical use cases in the real world as most everything can be done with simply multisig and simpler scripts already in bitcoin working with oracles, excessive forking and orphan rates due to insanely low confirmation averages, extreme scaling problems with a naive outlook in assuming sharding and pruning will be sufficient and won't introduce new problems, planned POS algo will give up the distinction of POW and will allow clones to appear that can bootstrap to wider userbases for cheaper and more secure chain to compete with Ethereum thus removing the need for anyone or any company to buy into EThereum. I could continue with the problems as many in the technical community are puzzled and dismayed many have been hoodwinked by this sloppy but glittering mess.

Regarding giving technical advice myself, I'm not. I've spoken to many many people on both sides of this issue that say that a 2MB block size today would be no problem. I'm following their advice on this matter. The only reason it seems to not be happening is due to an ego issue.

You see , this is a perfect example . Your statement is a classic statement that is either extremely misleading, sloppy or trollish. Core devs also want 2MB capacity right away. They just prefer the superior method of providing this capacity with segwit. The fact that this oversight has to repeatedly be pointed out and is constantly repeated by people like you can make some of us question your judgement.

[JalToorey]

Ver, how you study economics so much but you don't understand Gresham's law?

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Please feel free to help provide that education. Myself and many others are very skeptical of proof of stake as a consensus mechanism, and Paul Sztorc's point that proof of stake is no less wasteful than proof of work is super interesting too.

Ethereum has a whole list of problems from having a centralized development (Bitcoin is not centralized at all with development) , Inflationary with a planned unlimited supply , Premine ICO, The DAO will soon be placing negative pressure when those ethers are sold for crowdfunding, overly complex script that leads to multiple security attack vectors, planned POS algo that is inherently insecure and will suffer from stake grinding attacks as well as other security vulnerabilities, planned POS algo that will unfairly benefit early developers with primined stake, competing DACs that can be used to waste or burn through others stake, an act of supererogation for little practical use cases in the real world as most everything can be done with simply multisig and simpler scripts already in bitcoin working with oracles, excessive forking and orphan rates due to insanely low confirmation averages, extreme scaling problems with a naive outlook in assuming sharding and pruning will be sufficient and won't introduce new problems, planned POS algo will give up the distinction of POW and will allow clones to appear that can bootstrap to wider userbases for cheaper and more secure chain to compete with Ethereum thus removing the need for anyone or any company to buy into EThereum. I could continue with the problems as many in the technical community are puzzled and dismayed many have been hoodwinked by this sloppy but glittering mess.

Regarding giving technical advice myself, I'm not. I've spoken to many many people on both sides of this issue that say that a 2MB block size today would be no problem. I'm following their advice on this matter. The only reason it seems to not be happening is due to an ego issue.

You see , this is a perfect example . Your statement is a classic statement that is either extremely misleading, sloppy or trollish. Core devs also want 2MB capacity right away. They just prefer the superior method of providing this capacity with segwit. The fact that this oversight has to repeatedly be pointed out and is constantly repeated by people like you can make some of us question your judgement.

Roger has to act like a gentleman, I do not.

Perfect example of what? Your whole entire board is infested with scammers, your nickname is "InBitweTrust" but who are you anyways, you haven't told us shit? You haven't added anything to this community, all you do is defend Core.

Sloppy? Trolish? Roger Ver has invested more time and money into Bitcoin than Core's entire project combined. Do you know what shareholders are, he is a shareholder. I am a shareholder. We hold more Bitcoin than you could ever dream of. Do you know why companies have shareholder meetings? To keep companies in-line. To prevent fraud and malicious attacks like this one. Bitcoin is not suppose to have governance, though you have taken this over and created governance.

The more you go on about Segwit and how bad we need it, the more the public realizes that you are spewing a pure scam.

Roger is one of the most respected, if not THE MOST respected in the Bitcoin community. All of you guys are fly by night.

Investors aren't dumb, they saw coinbase pull out, Bitcoin's price crashed and then magically Bitcoin's price raised on "Chinese" buying which the Chinese have said, "it's not us". This weekend, it's "the price is up because of the jobs report". Do you know how stupid you sound? Real stupid.

I'd suggest before coming here with baseless allegations spewing complete bullshit that you get your facts straight. You are scamming your users by first attacking the network, encouraging a fee market with a goal of controlling peoples Bitcoin. I don't know what you signed up for, but I signed up for a peer 2 peer electronic cash system where I am in control. Not a controlled settlement layer.

Take your pipe dream scams and shove them up your ass, Vitalik will be here soon to put you in your place.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Ver, how you study economics so much but you don't understand Gresham's law?

How many millions have you made? What do you know about economics? Have you ever hassled bankers for a $50m wire??? Where is my wire??? Why is it delayed??? Because the bankers of SWIFT are lazy and they have to do everything manually. Bitcoin is instant, I can see why you hate it.

Until you have done some real business, you aren't shit. Greshams law? Are you idiots relying on complete irreverent theories??? Good to know, while we make the millions, you are following historic advice updated by your introduction of attacks and scams.

We educate the people to make the correct decisions, not to follow a bunch of scammers such as yourselves.

It's too bad Gavin didn't have my number to call, I would have put you all in your places for scamming the wrong people a long time ago. Now you will live with your mistakes.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Scammers.

[inBitweTrust]

Ver, how you study economics so much but you don't understand Gresham's law?

I don't think Gresham's law applies much to bitcoin because the principle of bad money drives out good when the exchange rate is fixed by law doesn't have much relevance to currencies with floating exchange rates not fixed by law. Additionally, because of regulatory arbitrage and other advantages, consumers may prefer to spend their bitcoins instead of hoarding them---> Purse.io/foldapp/buying drugs and gambling on the web and simply retop on their btc savings afterwords.

[cypherblock]

Ver, how you study economics so much but you don't understand Gresham's law?

I don't think Gresham's law applies much to bitcoin...

We'll the general principal that people will hold on to Good money (not spend it) when they can, and spend their Bad money definitely applies to Bitcoiners and to Ver's statement at the top of the thread (his reply to Greg).

For us, Bitcoin is the Good money. We don't like spending it, we perceive it has higher value and that value may grow, we also don't have that much of it. Fiat is the Bad money. Given a choice to buy with fiat or buy with bitcoin many people will use fiat (I mean we like spending bitcoin once in a while but do we do it regularly?). So that makes it difficult for Bitcoin to replace fiat in a significant way (at least at this stage). The bad money is already dominant in this situation.

As bitcoin becomes more valuable though this may change. As people holding small amounts of bitcoin realize they can purchase significant goods/services with it, they will definitely start to spend it if they can. But if merchants don't see people spending it in the first place then the only place bitcoiners can 'spend' their coins will be at an exchange to convert back to fiat. This is sub-optimal in my view.

Spending bitcoin (and having places to do that) IMO increases its general value. If we are only hodling then we may never make that transition from a collectible into something grander. At some point we need to spend.

[JalToorey]

Ver, how you study economics so much but you don't understand Gresham's law?

How many millions have you made? What do you know about economics? Have you ever hassled bankers for a $50m wire??? Where is my wire??? Why is it delayed??? Because the bankers of SWIFT are lazy and they have to do everything manually. Bitcoin is instant, I can see why you hate it.

Until you have done some real business, you aren't shit. Greshams law? Are you idiots relying on complete irreverent theories??? Good to know, while we make the millions, you are following historic advice updated by your introduction of attacks and scams.

We educate the people to make the correct decisions, not to follow a bunch of scammers such as yourselves.

It's too bad Gavin didn't have my number to call, I would have put you all in your places for scamming the wrong people a long time ago. Now you will live with your mistakes.

Making millions does not make one an authority ESPECIALLY when it comes to bitcoin. I see nothing intelligible in this posters response. But this seems to represent the big block argument quite well. No content, simply calling people dumb and telling them to get educated, while showing no hint of education or understanding of economics. If this forum was sincere this poster would be told to stop this tirade/ranting. It's embarrassing for all of us.

[JalToorey]

Ver, how you study economics so much but you don't understand Gresham's law?

I don't think Gresham's law applies much to bitcoin because the principle of bad money drives out good when the exchange rate is fixed by law doesn't have much relevance to currencies with floating exchange rates not fixed by law. Additionally, because of regulatory arbitrage and other advantages, consumers may prefer to spend their bitcoins instead of hoarding them---> Purse.io/foldapp/buying drugs and gambling on the web and simply retop on their btc savings afterwords.

Your first point shows you don't understand Gresham's law and your 2nd verifies that.

[JalToorey]

Ver, how you study economics so much but you don't understand Gresham's law?

I don't think Gresham's law applies much to bitcoin...

We'll the general principal that people will hold on to Good money (not spend it) when they can, and spend their Bad money definitely applies to Bitcoiners and to Ver's statement at the top of the thread (his reply to Greg).

For us, Bitcoin is the Good money. We don't like spending it, we perceive it has higher value and that value may grow, we also don't have that much of it. Fiat is the Bad money. Given a choice to buy with fiat or buy with bitcoin many people will use fiat (I mean we like spending bitcoin once in a while but do we do it regularly?). So that makes it difficult for Bitcoin to replace fiat in a significant way (at least at this stage). The bad money is already dominant in this situation.

As bitcoin becomes more valuable though this may change. As people holding small amounts of bitcoin realize they can purchase significant goods/services with it, they will definitely start to spend it if they can. But if merchants don't see people spending it in the first place then the only place bitcoiners can 'spend' their coins will be at an exchange to convert back to fiat. This is sub-optimal in my view.

Spending bitcoin (and having places to do that) IMO increases its general value. If we are only hodling then we may never make that transition from a collectible into something grander. At some point we need to spend.

You make a sincere honest and decent effort at understand the application of Gresham's law in regard to bitcoin. But like others you fail to be scientific. You start with a conclusion bitcoin must be a coffee money, and then you bend and twist simple logic and common knowledge to make it fit to bitcoin.

People do not spend that which they are hoarding. This is simple and obvious, and no sincere player would argue this.

Spending bitcoin (and having places to do that) IMO increases its general value. If we are only hodling then we may never make that transition from a collectible into something grander. At some point we need to spend.

Sure but you have no mechanism to encourage spending with bitcoin, fiats mechanisms is increasing inflation, bitcoin does not have this luxury. It is not a very spendable currency and it never will be. This is obvious observable reality.

The only thing big blockers are, is people that ignore science, economics, and reality, and they spend their time censoring people on forums, berating people, and calling them idiots. They spend their time telling others they don't understand economics, and need education, when the reality is that this is all big blockers do, call other people out. They don't actually write intelligible scientific based arguments.

They aren't winning a debate, they aren't convincing anyone, they are simply and ignorant mass that cannot accept that they don't understand bitcoin, and they cry to a false Satoshi, and cite a paper but no lines from it.

Gresham's law reveals their ignorance.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Ver, how you study economics so much but you don't understand Gresham's law?

How many millions have you made? What do you know about economics? Have you ever hassled bankers for a $50m wire??? Where is my wire??? Why is it delayed??? Because the bankers of SWIFT are lazy and they have to do everything manually. Bitcoin is instant, I can see why you hate it.

Until you have done some real business, you aren't shit. Greshams law? Are you idiots relying on complete irreverent theories??? Good to know, while we make the millions, you are following historic advice updated by your introduction of attacks and scams.

We educate the people to make the correct decisions, not to follow a bunch of scammers such as yourselves.

It's too bad Gavin didn't have my number to call, I would have put you all in your places for scamming the wrong people a long time ago. Now you will live with your mistakes.

Making millions does not make one an authority ESPECIALLY when it comes to bitcoin. I see nothing intelligible in this posters response. But this seems to represent the big block argument quite well. No content, simply calling people dumb and telling them to get educated, while showing no hint of education or understanding of economics. If this forum was sincere this poster would be told to stop this tirade/ranting. It's embarrassing for all of us.

I provided you with a pretty good example of economics.

You aren't just dumb, you are a bunch of scammers stealing from people.

Remember, you attacked my nodes. When someone comes on my property and attacks me, you can guess what the response is.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Ver, how you study economics so much but you don't understand Gresham's law?

I don't think Gresham's law applies much to bitcoin because the principle of bad money drives out good when the exchange rate is fixed by law doesn't have much relevance to currencies with floating exchange rates not fixed by law. Additionally, because of regulatory arbitrage and other advantages, consumers may prefer to spend their bitcoins instead of hoarding them---> Purse.io/foldapp/buying drugs and gambling on the web and simply retop on their btc savings afterwords.

Your first point shows you don't understand Gresham's law and your 2nd verifies that.

You guys are wasting your time, any debate is long over.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I don't think Gresham's law applies much to bitcoin...

We'll the general principal that people will hold on to Good money (not spend it) when they can, and spend their Bad money definitely applies to Bitcoiners and to Ver's statement at the top of the thread (his reply to Greg).

For us, Bitcoin is the Good money. We don't like spending it, we perceive it has higher value and that value may grow, we also don't have that much of it. Fiat is the Bad money. Given a choice to buy with fiat or buy with bitcoin many people will use fiat (I mean we like spending bitcoin once in a while but do we do it regularly?). So that makes it difficult for Bitcoin to replace fiat in a significant way (at least at this stage). The bad money is already dominant in this situation.

As bitcoin becomes more valuable though this may change. As people holding small amounts of bitcoin realize they can purchase significant goods/services with it, they will definitely start to spend it if they can. But if merchants don't see people spending it in the first place then the only place bitcoiners can 'spend' their coins will be at an exchange to convert back to fiat. This is sub-optimal in my view.

Spending bitcoin (and having places to do that) IMO increases its general value. If we are only hodling then we may never make that transition from a collectible into something grander. At some point we need to spend.

You make a sincere honest and decent effort at understand the application of Gresham's law in regard to bitcoin. But like others you fail to be scientific. You start with a conclusion bitcoin must be a coffee money, and then you bend and twist simple logic and common knowledge to make it fit to bitcoin.

People do not spend that which they are hoarding. This is simple and obvious, and no sincere player would argue this.

Spending bitcoin (and having places to do that) IMO increases its general value. If we are only hodling then we may never make that transition from a collectible into something grander. At some point we need to spend.

Sure but you have no mechanism to encourage spending with bitcoin, fiats mechanisms is increasing inflation, bitcoin does not have this luxury. It is not a very spendable currency and it never will be. This is obvious observable reality.

The only thing big blockers are, is people that ignore science, economics, and reality, and they spend their time censoring people on forums, berating people, and calling them idiots. They spend their time telling others they don't understand economics, and need education, when the reality is that this is all big blockers do, call other people out. They don't actually write intelligible scientific based arguments.

They aren't winning a debate, they aren't convincing anyone, they are simply and ignorant mass that cannot accept that they don't understand bitcoin, and they cry to a false Satoshi, and cite a paper but no lines from it.

Gresham's law reveals their ignorance.

Take your scams somewhere else.

[helloworld]

We are already seeing that starting to happen with the rush to adopt Ethereum. As someone who is holding greater than 99% of my digital assets in Bitcoin, I'm more than a little upset by this.

We really should also focus on educating users about the technical limitations of Ethereum and why it really isn't a viable alternative as well so they don't get suckered into a whole lot of marketing and hype with little future.

LOL. Is this a BlockstreamCore troll?

How about educating people about the dire state of Bitcoin?

[JalToorey]

Take your scams somewhere else.

Yup this is the attitude synonymous with big blockers. No dialogue; No science.

[arnoudk]

Take your scams somewhere else.

Yup this is the attitude synonymous with big blockers. No dialogue; No science.

So you are saying all people who support big blocks have two things in common: No dialogue & No science.

Very generalizing. Very unscientific. And not an argument.I guess you should look in the mirror.

[JalToorey]

Take your scams somewhere else.

Yup this is the attitude synonymous with big blockers. No dialogue; No science.

So you are saying all people who support big blocks have two things in common: No dialogue & No science.

Very generalizing. Very unscientific. And not an argument.I guess you should look in the mirror.

Yes this exactly. This is all this group does. You didn't add content you just copied my sentiments and threw them back at me. But I was quoting someone who's only words were "take your scam elsewhere". What scam lol?

Now you come in to what? Offer dialogue? No, you mean to bury my character, and completely side step any dialogue. You are a no content account this is clear.

I already offered discussion about Gresham's law which is BASIC economics. And the only comments we can get on it are dismissal from those that clearly don't understand the relevance.

Is there anyone here who will not continually attack my character and will instead enter dialogue on the content I bring forth?

I am WELL known for bringing scientifically based content to these and many discussions. No one sincere accuses me of being a content-less troll.

Is anyone here interested in reason?

[arnoudk]

Yup this is the attitude synonymous with big blockers. No dialogue; No science.

So you are saying all people who support big blocks have two things in common: No dialogue & No science.

Very generalizing. Very unscientific. And not an argument.I guess you should look in the mirror.

Yes this exactly. This is all this group does. You didn't add content you just copied my sentiments and threw them back at me. But I was quoting someone who's only words were "take your scam elsewhere". What scam lol?

Now you come in to what? Offer dialogue? No, you mean to bury my character, and completely side step any dialogue. You are a no content account this is clear.

I already offered discussion about Gresham's law which is BASIC economics. And the only comments we can get on it are dismissal from those that clearly don't understand the relevance.

Is there anyone here who will not continually attack my character and will instead enter dialogue on the content I bring forth?

I am WELL known for bringing scientifically based content to these and many discussions. No one sincere accuses me of being a content-less troll.

Is anyone here interested in reason?

I pointed out that you are attacking the character of an entire group, without any supporting evidence.

And then you complain that this other group does not use arguments and science.

Come on!

I'm not arguing any of the points in your discussion with ifixbtcmemissues. He's more than capable of responding to those himself.

I don't need to defend him. But when you start including me, and anyone else who thinks bitcoin should scale on chain immediately, in your slander, I must point it out. YOU are the one doing mass character assisinations here.

Yes, I am interested in reason and evidence. So please, support your claim using only facts and logically consistent arguments to support that ALL big blockers use No dialogue and No science. You must prove this, if you claim to use reason and evidence as your tools.

[SettasitBueban]

เริ่มยังไดี

%5Bright%5D%5B/right%5D

[JalToorey]

Yes, I am interested in reason and evidence. So please, support your claim using only facts and logically consistent arguments to support that ALL big blockers use No dialogue and No science. You must prove this, if you claim to use reason and evidence as your tools.

Yes I came here to discuss the economic implication of bitcoin and you have charged me with the task of proving that no one here is willing to engage dialogue on the subject of the economic implication of bitcoin?

You are the proof. and it is clear you have nothing intelligent to add to the subject at hand. I have only ever found trolls on the big block side, is there anyone here that wants to discuss economic and scientific implication of "block size"

Anyone? Even one person?

[arnoudk]

You cannot expect to have a discussion, while simultaniously doing character assasinations of the group you pretend you want to have a discussion with.

I keep pointing this out to you and you keep doing it. If you generalize to 'all big blockists' and then proclaim something negative about that entire group - you are not engaged in a discussion.

I asked you to provide facts and use logic. What do you do? You attack my character.

I'm going to assume you are young and you do not understand what reason and evidence is. I don't think you know what it means to make an argument. Perhaps you were never taught. I'd recommend this excellent explanation by Stefan Molyneux.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rItm9j4vg_Q

Please come back to discuss, when you are ready to make an argument.

[JalToorey]

Is there anyone here that will engage in sincere dialogue in regard to the implications of block size? One person? I have no interest in games or trolls etc.

[fluidvoice]

Ver, how you study economics so much but you don't understand Gresham's law?

I don't think Gresham's law applies much to bitcoin...

We'll the general principal that people will hold on to Good money (not spend it) when they can, and spend their Bad money definitely applies to Bitcoiners and to Ver's statement at the top of the thread (his reply to Greg).

For us, Bitcoin is the Good money. We don't like spending it, we perceive it has higher value and that value may grow, we also don't have that much of it. Fiat is the Bad money. Given a choice to buy with fiat or buy with bitcoin many people will use fiat (I mean we like spending bitcoin once in a while but do we do it regularly?). So that makes it difficult for Bitcoin to replace fiat in a significant way (at least at this stage). The bad money is already dominant in this situation.

As bitcoin becomes more valuable though this may change. As people holding small amounts of bitcoin realize they can purchase significant goods/services with it, they will definitely start to spend it if they can. But if merchants don't see people spending it in the first place then the only place bitcoiners can 'spend' their coins will be at an exchange to convert back to fiat. This is sub-optimal in my view.

Spending bitcoin (and having places to do that) IMO increases its general value. If we are only hodling then we may never make that transition from a collectible into something grander. At some point we need to spend.

There are many debit card accounts now that allow you to hold BTC and spend anywhere Visa/MC is accepted. Higher fees of course.

[zju]

Greg, here is your ignorance of economics on full display:

it's remarkable and sad-- to own so much bitcoin and yet spend none of it to help further the development of Bitcoin...

I'm tired of all the personal attacks.

Greg's statement painting Roger as someone that does not further the development of Bitcoin is ridiculous and insulting.

Roger's response was childish. I would have expected Roger to take the high road instead of responding with his own insults.

Resorting to personal attacks is evidence that your arguments are just not good enough. If you have to resort to insults, you should be more disappointed in yourself than the other person.