would you buy a marked quantum scifi bitcoin for above par?

[rogerver]

Lets conduct a scifi thought experiment, and talk about Bitcoin at a requirement level assuming some magical quantum scifi tech that can make it real sometime during the next 100 years: using the really high level definition that Bitcoin is a global process of converting electricity into some physical coin via transmogrification/energy to physical object or sufficiently advanced scifi to look like magic today, and its called a bitcoin and it can be easily inspected to see how many Joules it took to make (and the time at which it was made); and where all of these bitcoins are produced globally such that the process somehow magically knows (via non-local quantum communication?) the number of bitcoins created globally and the Joules/bitcoin consumed and which then adjusts the Joules/proof required to produce bitcoins over time to hold production interval on target at 10mins every 2016 blocks, starting with 50 bitcoins from its earlier incarnation before a few upgrades, origination back in 2009, and then halving every 4 years and currently running ag 11.921bits/per block.  Its all a bit scifi but maybe the coin contains a globally unique proof of work, its somehow magically turing universal and cryptographic AI and it doesnt matter what algorithm is used for the proof and any will be accepted, just the mining is an optimally efficient process, and what counts is the amount of electricity used, and the verifier can understand and easily verify any proof (and obviously the AI is going to see through any short-cuts).

When you look at it like that, the 2015 bitcoin cant quite do that global non-local communication, universal cryptographic AI nor electricity to matter transmogrification, but thats really just an implementation limitation, that maybe we can fix with quantum sci-fi in the next 100 years future, and the current bitcoin is a pretty close facsimile.

One day a fellow named Bob had an idea, he could stamp an F on the bitcoins and call them foocoins and persuade people they were better!  He choose some different interval of parameters and split the bitcoins into different sizes and stamped F on top them and talked up a good spiel so that others started playing too.

However they were still fractions of actual bitcoins because the proof is universal due to the cryptographic AI, there was nothing Bob could do that could change that fact, no supply parameter changes, hash function used, software feature, not even a retro pacman game (loaded into the FHE processor in the coins), branding etc would change that because the universal cryptographic AI was measuring Joules expended, and unlike humans was not easily swayed by marketing and logos: a proof of joules mined is a proof joules mined, whatever letter or logo you stamp on the coin!  

Because it started at difficulty 1 and ideal quantum processors are fast, foocoin difficulty adapted really fast (2016 blocks were over in a femtosecond), but as few found Bobs ruse plausible difficulty stabilised and by some creative marketing Bob found he could sell smaller and smaller fragments of bitcoins with F stamped on them and exchange them for whole bitcoin.  As this was profitable Bob and his friends ramped up production and used the proceeds to go on a marketing drive!

One day some people started complaining that these coins were F crazy because they were the same material as bitcoin, in fact they were bitcoin, but Bob was selling them above par and they started demanding their money back.  Naturally Bob had spent a lot of the money on marketing and flashy objects.  The price crashed to true value, which unfortunately for the holders was really close to zero.  Bob made some money, but unfortunately he didnt hide his identity very well and he was convicted and given some community service and had to make reparations (it seems pyramid scams and stock pump & dump scams and currency skimming/debasement are still illegal in the 22nd century.)

We have that same problem in current times.  The universal AI is called common sense: changing hash functions does not change the joules expended per coin, a hash with half the gate count results in a difficulty twice as high but the same Joules/coin.  A hash with a lower power density (say because it uses more RAM) can be run at a higher clock rate within thermal limits, and still use the same Joules/coin.  Changing the supply function to 2x as many coins doesnt change the value it halves the price expressed in 1/2 bitcoins.  Having a shorter halving schedule just makes the price change to 4x as many coins at price expressed in 1/4 bitcoin after the earlier halving etc.  The pacman game doesnt change things either because if it was useful to play pacman on bitcoin, someone would fork the code and add it; an arms race of cutting and pasting each others code doesnt create value.  Chances are the reason bitcoin doesnt have a pacman game is it isnt that useful or you dont need bitcoin to play pacman.  The 2015 Bitcoin doesnt yet know about users mining coins stamped with creative logos is because it lacks quantum non-local communication, we'll fix that one day, but in the mean time humans can convert one supply function to another with simple math and measure average electrical efficiency and when measured this way people are paying way over par, no rational entity would put money into marked coins, never mind a cryptographic universal AI.

A bitcoin is a proof of Joules spent, no matter what branding or features you market with a bitcoin its still a bitcoin, and can no more change than a clump of gold atoms will cease to be gold atoms and start a floating price against gold if stamped with a letter F (assuming free instant assay like bitcoin has).

Adam

[rogerver]

I don’t agree that bitcoin derives any value at all because of the amount of electricity spent on mining it.
It is because bitcoins are already useful that people are willing to use electricity to mine them.
Bitcoin's value is derived solely from its utility, not from the amount of work that was required to produce them.

The mistake of thinking that Bitcoins are valuable because of the amount of electricity that’s used in producing them seems to be a variant of the long since discredited Labour Theory of Value from Karl Marx.

If an alt coin is able to have a similar or greater utility than Bitcoin, including Bitcoin’s current network effect, people will begin to use that alt coin, and will be willing to spend resources to procure it.

By limiting the transaction throughput of Bitcoin, we are limiting its utility, and creating a larger chance for something else to have a greater utility than Bitcoin.
If that happens, people will switch, and we will have successfully fragmented the ecosystem.

[arnoudk]

I don’t agree that bitcoin derives any value at all because of the amount of electricity spent on mining it.
It is because bitcoins are already useful that people are willing to use electricity to mine them.
Bitcoin's value is derived solely from its utility, not from the amount of work that was required to produce them.

You nailed it.

[helloworld]

I have a hard time deciding if Adam Back, luke-jr or Peter Todd is the bigger idiot.

[rogerver]

Adam Back is a super smart guy.
I spent four hours at dinner with him earlier this week in NYC, and learned a lot of amazing things that he has planned for Bitcoin on the technological side. He can obviously run circles around most people in the world when it comes to this.
I think it would be a bit unfair to expect him to also be an expert in other areas as well.
I spent most of my education studying economics. Adam spent his studying computers and cryptography.
I think that shows in our difference of opinions above.
The good news is that I think we have a much better understanding of each other after the four hours we spent together.
We both have the same final goals, but we see different strategies to get there.
It's also very clear that we are both willing to listen to the other side and consider their positions.
I don't think that is true of a lot of the people on the small block side, and maybe not for some of the big block people as well.

[grabberfish]

I spent four hours at dinner with him earlier this week in NYC, and learned a lot of amazing things that he has planned for Bitcoin on the technological side...We both have the same final goals, but we see different strategies to get there.

Please do tell us everything. From my position, I see Adam Back as highly toxic and an existential threat to the bitcoin ecosystem. I would be relieved to learn that this is not the case.

[helloworld]

Adam Back is a super smart guy.
I spent four hours at dinner with him earlier this week in NYC, and learned a lot of amazing things that he has planned for Bitcoin on the technological side. He can obviously run circles around most people in the world when it comes to this.
I think it would be a bit unfair to expect him to also be an expert in other areas as well.
I spent most of my education studying economics. Adam spent his studying computers and cryptography.
I think that shows in our difference of opinions above.
The good news is that I think we have a much better understanding of each other after the four hours we spent together.
We both have the same final goals, but we see different strategies to get there.
It's also very clear that we are both willing to listen to the other side and consider their positions.
I don't think that is true of a lot of the people on the small block side, and maybe not for some of the big block people as well.

Have you asked him why he spreads lies (bigger blocksize limit = centralization and XT/Classic = contentious forks)?

Also, I wonder how can a smart guy upvote and retweet the filth Samson Mow produces?

[hellobitcoinworld]

Adam Back is a super smart guy.
I spent four hours at dinner with him earlier this week in NYC, and learned a lot of amazing things that he has planned for Bitcoin on the technological side. He can obviously run circles around most people in the world when it comes to this.
I think it would be a bit unfair to expect him to also be an expert in other areas as well.
I spent most of my education studying economics. Adam spent his studying computers and cryptography.
I think that shows in our difference of opinions above.
The good news is that I think we have a much better understanding of each other after the four hours we spent together.
We both have the same final goals, but we see different strategies to get there.
It's also very clear that we are both willing to listen to the other side and consider their positions.
I don't think that is true of a lot of the people on the small block side, and maybe not for some of the big block people as well.

I am very curious to hear from Roger, after that 4 hour dinner, if he feels Adam Back's approach to scaling Bitcoin is done selflessly, or if Roger feels the solution is not being done fully in Bitcoin's best interest and possibly with other motivations playing into it (such as profiting the company Blockstream or its investors with the layer 2 solution of LN).

I know Roger supports larger blocks and I trust his judgment.

My question stated another way: is Adam's approach blindsided by lacking economic wisdom and being approached purely on a technical basis? That would at least be excusable on the basis of ignorance. Or does Roger believe there are factors (however slight or great) of Blockstream company/investor profit playing in here which contribute to a less-than-optimal scaling solution being envisioned for Bitcoin?

It would be somewhat more comforting to know that the current Bitcoin scaling decisions were being made based on ignorance as opposed to maliciousness or greed, because education can resolve ignorance.

Education and discussion cannot necessarily resolve greed.

[johnyj]

Technically maybe he is smart, but socially not so smart, he definitely split the community, and what did he do to stop the censorship on major forums?

In fact, he can let those very old now almost obsolete payment channel model (LN) go into core's roadmap, indicated that his knowledge in finance is almost zero

[rogerver]

I'll post a more detailed summary very soon.

[grabberfish]

I'll post a more detailed summary very soon.

"Two weeks"? Just kidding.

[rogerver]

I'll post a more detailed summary very soon.

"Two weeks"? Just kidding.

Thanks for the extra motivation.
I just wrote most of it up and posted it here: topic7823.html