The difference between a good and bad economist.

[rogerver]

Recently several small block proponents have contacted me pointing to the the recent Bitcoin price rise as evidence, that myself, and other big block proponents were wrong. Perhaps, but I would like to point out to them the difference between a good economist, and a bad one: https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/741970503850549248
What is seen is that Bitcoin has quickly risen to $640 at the time I write this. What is not seen is what would have happened had BitcoinXT, Classic, or any of the other scaling via a block size increases had been successful. In reality, we don't know what would have happened, but we can speculate.

• Perhaps due to the limited transactional throughput capacity Bitcoin has at the moment, major players who were considering entering the space, have refrained.
• Perhaps Kakao Talk would have directly integrated Bitcoin wallets into their fifty million monthly active user's apps, rather than just investing in a Bitcoin related company.
• Perhaps major VC firms that were considering investing in the Bitcoin ecosystem directly, decided not to because of Bitcoin's limited transactional capacity at the moment.
• Perhaps existing Bitcoin companies would have been able to raise more money, at a higher valuation.
• Perhaps the mad rush into Ethereum and The DAO would have only been a trickle if Bitcoin had been allowed to scale fast enough to keep up with the current demand.
• Perhaps there would have never been a bitcoin civil war that split the community, with one side censoring the other from even being allowed to state their case in the most popular discussion venues.
• Perhaps my own Bitcoin Core wallet wouldn't have suggested a $35 transaction fee for a single transaction last week.
• Perhaps bitcoin would have been at $1,640, or $2,640 today, instead of $640.
• Perhaps the entire current Bitcoin Core team would have quit, the blockchain would be far too big, requiring far too much bandwidth, and much too expensive of a computer, for anyone to run a full node, and the entire project would be in shambles with mining even more centralized than it is already today.

All of these things are hard to know, but are worth taking into consideration. I suspect the positive outcomes were far more likely, but am still open to hearing why others don't think so. I'm not interested in hearing that $630 bitcoin is proof that the bigger block advocates were wrong, because it isn't proof of that at all.
It is however proof that we are all, small and big blockers alike, still headed generally in the right direction:


I'd like to thank Frederic Bastiat for pointing this concept out to me when I was a teenager.
Kindle version here.
Full Audio Book here.

[JalToorey]

I worry though you cherry pick the easy small blocker arguments to refute.

Myself I would never say such a thing as "Price is up you lose", but I do have some sentiments to this regard that are a lot more scientifically and academically based.

It also of course depends on the specifics of your stance, that you might not share the view that I think I can debunk quite easily, again, like the Gresham's law, with accepted economic principles.

Here I speak to the (weak) conjecture that "When blocks fill up, fees will rise, and bitcoin adoption will wane, and with it price will implode, and bitcoin will die as a result...." etc.

In order to understand why this is wrong, I levate, the fundamental understanding of economics and money, which is that the markets we have created have the specific purpose of valuating that which we cannot otherwise valuate.

That is to say, the markets provide our most OBJECTIVE valuation of a commodity or money that is possible. There is no other more scientific way to do such a thing.

This is quite accepted by those that are learned in the art of economics.

And so although the big-blocker conjecture I painted above, SEEMS rational, it is only because it paints a SNAPSHOT of the future at a particular time.

Rather, if we think about the events leading up to such a catastrophe, that is the price continues to climb until bitcoin changes course and dies because it is over-adopting a system that can't handle adoption, we can see that the markets would be valuating their own death higher and higher...

And of course such a course of events is clearly non-nonsensical and inconsistent with market theory.

The markets cannot rally to their death-because rallying and death are in opposite price directions.

[rogerver]

JalToorey,

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I'd like to point out that:

• I've lost track of how many small blockers have contacted me in the last 36 hours asking when I'm going to admit I was wrong because the price is going up. Maybe I'm wrong, but the price going up doesn't prove it, because we don't know what would have happened in the other case. We can still only speculate.
• I 100% agree that prices are the best method we have for objectively determining something's value.
• I don't think many big blockers are making the argument that Bitcoin is going to rally upwards in price until it causes it's own death. My fear is that Bitcoin's current limited transactional capacity will allow some other currency to get the upper hand, and Bitcoin will be relegated to the sidelines. All the Bitcoin infrustructure that has been built will still exist, so some people will be using it, but the vast majority of the world will have switched to something else that is much less freedom oriented than Bitcoin.
• Crypto anarchists will always have a crypto anarchy coin to play with. We likely have just one shot and getting the whole world onto a payment system that crypto anarchists would be happy with, and that one chance is with Bitcoin right now. I fear we are squandering that chance by not keeping up with the demand.
• I don't think many serious people think that 2MB blocks would cause any meaningful additional centralization for Bitcoin.

[JalToorey]

I sympathize with your inbox, and don't doubt the enthusiasm or hysteria of each “side” especially in volatile times etc.

My fear is that Bitcoin's current limited transactional capacity will allow some other currency to get the upper hand, and Bitcoin will be relegated to the sidelines. All the Bitcoin infrustructure that has been built will still exist, so some people will be using it, but the vast majority of the world will have switched to something else that is much less freedom oriented than Bitcoin.

Again you are conflating circulation with value and quality. We do not circulate good money; We hoard good money. This is the thesis of Ideal Money and it is based on Gresham's law, historical data, and observable reality (The Keynesian system is built on the principle of inflating currencies to incite spending).

So where we might agree is that people will turn to a different medium for their CURRENCY requirements, in regard to circulation and spending...

But that is not to saying, for any reason whatsoever, that bitcoin should lose any value because of it...

In fact the US Congressional Report on bitcoin explicitly states:

Regarding the velocity of money, if the increase in the use of Bitcoin leads to a decrease in need for holding dollars, it would increase the dollar’s velocity of circulation and tend to increase the money supply associated with any given amount of base money (currency in circulation plus bank reserves held with the Fed).

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43339.pdf

I don't think many serious people think that 2MB blocks would cause any meaningful additional centralization for Bitcoin.

Unfortunately for big-blockers, there is no scientific basis to do this, so it cannot be shown to be worth any concern or risk (security etc.).

Lastly, we have an established price, and so without any basis for needing to change the block-size, it can only be said the markets (price) shows an expectation that bitcoin does in face have a future perceived value.

Price shows the future of bitcoin is not broken, there is nothing but conjecture, doubt, uncertainly, and fear that suggests otherwise.

[rogerver]

It's interesting how much more people love to post on Reddit. Over 100 comments on my original post were made there:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4 ... economist/

[JalToorey]

Yes and regardless of what "side" they are on none of them understand macro-economics. None of them understand the importance of Ideal Money, or what it is, and none of them are able to know how we could bring about Ideal Money.

I don't think anyone has an argument worth considering, unless their intent is to bring about Ideal Money.

They will tell me I don't know economics, they will tell me I have no argument, they will tell me I am insincere....they tell me a lot of things...

But they don't engage in sincere dialogue...its just trolls trolling...

I'm not playing that game, I am not them...

I know what I am talking about...I know what I am doing. I have read the associated material...

I know what this is ALL about.

I understand the problem of our global economy and I understand how Nash solved it.

This is what is important Roger, but I cannot levate the truth of this on my own.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Recently several small block proponents have contacted me pointing to the the recent Bitcoin price rise as evidence, that myself, and other big block proponents were wrong. Perhaps, but I would like to point out to them the difference between a good economist, and a bad one: https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/741970503850549248
What is seen is that Bitcoin has quickly risen to $640 at the time I write this. What is not seen is what would have happened had BitcoinXT, Classic, or any of the other scaling via a block size increases had been successful. In reality, we don't know what would have happened, but we can speculate.

• Perhaps due to the limited transactional throughput capacity Bitcoin has at the moment, major players who were considering entering the space, have refrained.
• Perhaps Kakao Talk would have directly integrated Bitcoin wallets into their fifty million monthly active user's apps, rather than just investing in a Bitcoin related company.
• Perhaps major VC firms that were considering investing in the Bitcoin ecosystem directly, decided not to because of Bitcoin's limited transactional capacity at the moment.
• Perhaps existing Bitcoin companies would have been able to raise more money, at a higher valuation.
• Perhaps the mad rush into Ethereum and The DAO would have only been a trickle if Bitcoin had been allowed to scale fast enough to keep up with the current demand.
• Perhaps there would have never been a bitcoin civil war that split the community, with one side censoring the other from even being allowed to state their case in the most popular discussion venues.
• Perhaps my own Bitcoin Core wallet wouldn't have suggested a $35 transaction fee for a single transaction last week.
• Perhaps bitcoin would have been at $1,640, or $2,640 today, instead of $640.
• Perhaps the entire current Bitcoin Core team would have quit, the blockchain would be far too big, requiring far too much bandwidth, and much too expensive of a computer, for anyone to run a full node, and the entire project would be in shambles with mining even more centralized than it is already today.

All of these things are hard to know, but are worth taking into consideration. I suspect the positive outcomes were far more likely, but am still open to hearing why others don't think so. I'm not interested in hearing that $630 bitcoin is proof that the bigger block advocates were wrong, because it isn't proof of that at all.
It is however proof that we are all, small and big blockers alike, still headed generally in the right direction:


I'd like to thank Frederic Bastiat for pointing this concept out to me when I was a teenager.
Kindle version here.
Full Audio Book here.

They're wrong, there is no question about that.

Just make money while you can and keep under consideration that Bitcoins price is realistically $280 - $300.

When I invest in small-cap stocks, even if it looks doubtful, I can go in and make a 200 - 300% gain (on rare occasions, even more) and then I'm out. Don't get greedy, have a goal and stick to it. Sometimes I'll keep 5% of the shares just for the gamble, but that's all it is - a gamble.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I worry though you cherry pick the easy small blocker arguments to refute.

Myself I would never say such a thing as "Price is up you lose", but I do have some sentiments to this regard that are a lot more scientifically and academically based.

It also of course depends on the specifics of your stance, that you might not share the view that I think I can debunk quite easily, again, like the Gresham's law, with accepted economic principles.

Here I speak to the (weak) conjecture that "When blocks fill up, fees will rise, and bitcoin adoption will wane, and with it price will implode, and bitcoin will die as a result...." etc.

In order to understand why this is wrong, I levate, the fundamental understanding of economics and money, which is that the markets we have created have the specific purpose of valuating that which we cannot otherwise valuate.

That is to say, the markets provide our most OBJECTIVE valuation of a commodity or money that is possible. There is no other more scientific way to do such a thing.

This is quite accepted by those that are learned in the art of economics.

And so although the big-blocker conjecture I painted above, SEEMS rational, it is only because it paints a SNAPSHOT of the future at a particular time.

Rather, if we think about the events leading up to such a catastrophe, that is the price continues to climb until bitcoin changes course and dies because it is over-adopting a system that can't handle adoption, we can see that the markets would be valuating their own death higher and higher...

And of course such a course of events is clearly non-nonsensical and inconsistent with market theory.

The markets cannot rally to their death-because rallying and death are in opposite price directions.

I had confidence in Bitcoin's market (shortly before November 2015) when other markets could relate to it. For example, Stocks Down - Bitcoin Down, Stocks Up - Bitcoin Up. This made me comfortable and it aligned with current market conditions.

Just last week we saw someone drop 200BTC causing the price to crash, which is not a lot of Bitcoin. It's now best to treat Bitcoin like a volatile small-cap stock. To take advantage of this, have a strategy: buy at 650, sell at 670. Don't buy at 650 and hold to 900 or 1200, that's too risky. You can sell and then re-invest.

Don't hold all of your Bitcoin or invest your life-savings hoping it will go into the thousands. Set goals, stick to the goals and re-invest as needed.

This advice goes for any investment, be smart!

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

JalToorey,

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I'd like to point out that:

• I've lost track of how many small blockers have contacted me in the last 36 hours asking when I'm going to admit I was wrong because the price is going up. Maybe I'm wrong, but the price going up doesn't prove it, because we don't know what would have happened in the other case. We can still only speculate.
• I 100% agree that prices are the best method we have for objectively determining something's value.
• I don't think many big blockers are making the argument that Bitcoin is going to rally upwards in price until it causes it's own death. My fear is that Bitcoin's current limited transactional capacity will allow some other currency to get the upper hand, and Bitcoin will be relegated to the sidelines. All the Bitcoin infrustructure that has been built will still exist, so some people will be using it, but the vast majority of the world will have switched to something else that is much less freedom oriented than Bitcoin.
• Crypto anarchists will always have a crypto anarchy coin to play with. We likely have just one shot and getting the whole world onto a payment system that crypto anarchists would be happy with, and that one chance is with Bitcoin right now. I fear we are squandering that chance by not keeping up with the demand.
• I don't think many serious people think that 2MB blocks would cause any meaningful additional centralization for Bitcoin.

I've lost track of how many small blockers have contacted me in the last 36 hours asking when I'm going to admit I was wrong because the price is going up.

This is the problem with investors, greed takes over and then they don't see clearly. I have seen it with stocks, commodities - you name it. This is why I tell people to be practical and set goals, don't go "All-in" on something that is risky. Set your goals, stick to them and sleep well at night!!!!!!

In penny stock pump and dumps, stock promoters hire tons of hustlers to go around spreading false news, posting good comments "hold, hold, hold!!!" (if people rush to sell, the ring-leaders won't be able to hold the stock or market in this case, causing it to crash), etc. etc. This is the same as to whats going on in Bitcoin.

Under these circumstances, when people are rushing to convince you of something, be cautious.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I sympathize with your inbox, and don't doubt the enthusiasm or hysteria of each “side” especially in volatile times etc.

My fear is that Bitcoin's current limited transactional capacity will allow some other currency to get the upper hand, and Bitcoin will be relegated to the sidelines. All the Bitcoin infrustructure that has been built will still exist, so some people will be using it, but the vast majority of the world will have switched to something else that is much less freedom oriented than Bitcoin.

Again you are conflating circulation with value and quality. We do not circulate good money; We hoard good money. This is the thesis of Ideal Money and it is based on Gresham's law, historical data, and observable reality (The Keynesian system is built on the principle of inflating currencies to incite spending).

So where we might agree is that people will turn to a different medium for their CURRENCY requirements, in regard to circulation and spending...

But that is not to saying, for any reason whatsoever, that bitcoin should lose any value because of it...

In fact the US Congressional Report on bitcoin explicitly states:

Regarding the velocity of money, if the increase in the use of Bitcoin leads to a decrease in need for holding dollars, it would increase the dollar’s velocity of circulation and tend to increase the money supply associated with any given amount of base money (currency in circulation plus bank reserves held with the Fed).

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43339.pdf

I don't think many serious people think that 2MB blocks would cause any meaningful additional centralization for Bitcoin.

Unfortunately for big-blockers, there is no scientific basis to do this, so it cannot be shown to be worth any concern or risk (security etc.).

Lastly, we have an established price, and so without any basis for needing to change the block-size, it can only be said the markets (price) shows an expectation that bitcoin does in face have a future perceived value.

Price shows the future of bitcoin is not broken, there is nothing but conjecture, doubt, uncertainly, and fear that suggests otherwise.

I haven't read one good argument of yours as to why Roger is wrong.

He is right, I am right - we have the experience to say this. You, don't. I am sorry if you think that is ego talking, it's not. It's experience.

Go make money from Bitcoin by trading it right now, build some businesses for Ethereum. Do something constructive with your time!!!!!! All this talk from you, if invested into work, you would be a gazillionaire

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I sympathize with your inbox, and don't doubt the enthusiasm or hysteria of each “side” especially in volatile times etc.

My fear is that Bitcoin's current limited transactional capacity will allow some other currency to get the upper hand, and Bitcoin will be relegated to the sidelines. All the Bitcoin infrustructure that has been built will still exist, so some people will be using it, but the vast majority of the world will have switched to something else that is much less freedom oriented than Bitcoin.

Again you are conflating circulation with value and quality. We do not circulate good money; We hoard good money. This is the thesis of Ideal Money and it is based on Gresham's law, historical data, and observable reality (The Keynesian system is built on the principle of inflating currencies to incite spending).

So where we might agree is that people will turn to a different medium for their CURRENCY requirements, in regard to circulation and spending...

But that is not to saying, for any reason whatsoever, that bitcoin should lose any value because of it...

In fact the US Congressional Report on bitcoin explicitly states:

Regarding the velocity of money, if the increase in the use of Bitcoin leads to a decrease in need for holding dollars, it would increase the dollar’s velocity of circulation and tend to increase the money supply associated with any given amount of base money (currency in circulation plus bank reserves held with the Fed).

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43339.pdf

I don't think many serious people think that 2MB blocks would cause any meaningful additional centralization for Bitcoin.

Unfortunately for big-blockers, there is no scientific basis to do this, so it cannot be shown to be worth any concern or risk (security etc.).

Lastly, we have an established price, and so without any basis for needing to change the block-size, it can only be said the markets (price) shows an expectation that bitcoin does in face have a future perceived value.

Price shows the future of bitcoin is not broken, there is nothing but conjecture, doubt, uncertainly, and fear that suggests otherwise.

There is scientific evidence as to 2MB blocks being okay, even 4MB.

The price of Bitcoin has been up to the 1200s, how does what you are saying make any sense.

I guess I should becareful aggravating you or I will be dragged down into an endless conversation of ass

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Yes and regardless of what "side" they are on none of them understand macro-economics. None of them understand the importance of Ideal Money, or what it is, and none of them are able to know how we could bring about Ideal Money.

I don't think anyone has an argument worth considering, unless their intent is to bring about Ideal Money.

They will tell me I don't know economics, they will tell me I have no argument, they will tell me I am insincere....they tell me a lot of things...

But they don't engage in sincere dialogue...its just trolls trolling...

I'm not playing that game, I am not them...

I know what I am talking about...I know what I am doing. I have read the associated material...

I know what this is ALL about.

I understand the problem of our global economy and I understand how Nash solved it.

This is what is important Roger, but I cannot levate the truth of this on my own.

If you have to convince yourself of things, you have some problems.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Yes and regardless of what "side" they are on none of them understand macro-economics. None of them understand the importance of Ideal Money, or what it is, and none of them are able to know how we could bring about Ideal Money.

I don't think anyone has an argument worth considering, unless their intent is to bring about Ideal Money.

They will tell me I don't know economics, they will tell me I have no argument, they will tell me I am insincere....they tell me a lot of things...

But they don't engage in sincere dialogue...its just trolls trolling...

I'm not playing that game, I am not them...

I know what I am talking about...I know what I am doing. I have read the associated material...

I know what this is ALL about.

I understand the problem of our global economy and I understand how Nash solved it.

This is what is important Roger, but I cannot levate the truth of this on my own.

Has anyone ever told you that you would make a phenomenal Jehovah's Witness?

[JalToorey]

Has anyone ever told you that you would make a phenomenal Jehovah's Witness?

Honestly, not only do I see that you don't have anything intelligent to add to this or any conversation (which is why you are spamming this thread and trying to disrupt the dialogue). But I think it is quite clear you lack basic/average comprehension skills. This makes it difficult to have meaningful conversation with people that are capable of understanding basic economics and reason (which you have taking great effort to show everyone publicly that you cannot).

You are trying to play a game where you "win" by taking shots at me, and some how in your inability to understand what is meant by "science", you believe that, not only are you doing a service to bitcoin, but that you are actually making an impact on the block-size (go check you aren't).

I've seen like 20 posts from you and nothing but attacks on my character, where as my post history is filled with dialogue w/Roger.

I don't think you are intelligent enough to belong in this dialogue-and you have shown this clearly with your posts.

Furthermore you are affecting Ver's credibility, by continually trolling my attempts to have sincere dialogue with him.

Everything you said, makes me think you would have had too much difficulty to make it through high school-and so why should I be subject to such a childish behavior/intellect?

[JalToorey]

And this is what I refer to Roger, when I say there are plenty of these trolls to say to me:

You are wrong.

You don't don't what you are talking about.

You don't know science.

You're a Jehovah witness.

I'm right, we're right, go away

But none of these trolls have even a basic understanding of anything they are commenting on. You can tout their worth all you want, you can tell me that this poster and others are sincere...

But at the end of the day, each of you looks silly, trying to twist economics and science to fit the irrational view, and the pointless and wasteful view that bitcoin's block size cap CAN and/or WILL be changed to suit your agenda.

It won't and it can't, because there is no rationality behind your argument. Just FUDsters like the one above who disrupt arguments because they are children with stunted intellects.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

And this is what I refer to Roger, when I say there are plenty of these trolls to say to me:

You are wrong.

You don't don't what you are talking about.

You don't know science.

You're a Jehovah witness.

I'm right, we're right, go away

But none of these trolls have even a basic understanding of anything they are commenting on. You can tout their worth all you want, you can tell me that this poster and others are sincere...

But at the end of the day, each of you looks silly, trying to twist economics and science to fit the irrational view, and the pointless and wasteful view that bitcoin's block size cap CAN and/or WILL be changed to suit your agenda.

It won't and it can't, because there is no rationality behind your argument. Just FUDsters like the one above who disrupt arguments because they are children with stunted intellects.

Think of it like this, you are trying to convince a board of people with experience that we are wrong and you are right.

The board is saying you are wrong, what more can we say?

[JalToorey]

Think of it like this, you are trying to convince a board of people with experience that we are wrong and you are right.

Actually its clear to anyone lurking that Roger and I were having some back and forth dialogue on the subject.

The board is saying you are wrong, what more can we say?

You didn't say anything, you don't have anything to say, you are doing nothing but trolling and disrupting what was otherwise sincere and constructive dialogue between knowledgeable players.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Think of it like this, you are trying to convince a board of people with experience that we are wrong and you are right.

Actually its clear to anyone lurking that Roger and I were having some back and forth dialogue on the subject.

The board is saying you are wrong, what more can we say?

You didn't say anything, you don't have anything to say, you are doing nothing but trolling and disrupting what was otherwise sincere and constructive dialogue between knowledgeable players.

Besides us being right, I'd suggest you read the posts below:

post23960.html
post23959.html
post23958.html
post23957.html
post24333.html

Economics + Science at work.

[JalToorey]

Let it be known, I am not here to engage in arguments with children, and insincere ignorant players. I came here because I notice that Roger has an intellect, and seems sincere and willing to engage in useful and constructive dialogue. And I hope for the possibility of finding other such players here as well.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

It's good to see you people still working hand to scale on chain transaction. I am hopeful that miners will finally wake up.

Great job Peter, you are making Bitcoin great again!!

This is brilliant!

Great stuff as usual..

You've removed the block propagation bottleneck. Great! The next bottleneck is the transaction propagation bottleneck. This presently has high overhead (for nodes that have many connections) because of many INV messages that are flooded.

Unlimited is now working on datastream compression and "batched" INV's to improve transaction propagation.

Do you see the difference, this helps all of our businesses, it doesn't help "another" business.

[JalToorey]

You aren't a part of this dialogue and so one wonders why you feel it is your "duty" to spam this thread.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

You aren't a part of this dialogue and so one wonders why you feel it is your "duty" to spam this thread.

Now, because you are not hearing what you would like to hear, that you can't persuade the board of the people because we're right, that I am not invited to this conversation?

You are asking for technical arguments and I provided those in the links above.

As for economic arguments, I've given you those as well.

[JalToorey]

It's interesting how much more people love to post on Reddit. Over 100 comments on my original post were made there:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4 ... economist/

I take it there is no more sincere dialogue to be had now that we have let the thread fill with spam?

[Moon]

I'd like to preface this by saying I'm an econ noob aside from econ 101 and papers I read online.

I sympathize with your inbox, and don't doubt the enthusiasm or hysteria of each “side” especially in volatile times etc.

My fear is that Bitcoin's current limited transactional capacity will allow some other currency to get the upper hand, and Bitcoin will be relegated to the sidelines. All the Bitcoin infrustructure that has been built will still exist, so some people will be using it, but the vast majority of the world will have switched to something else that is much less freedom oriented than Bitcoin.

Again you are conflating circulation with value and quality. We do not circulate good money; We hoard good money. This is the thesis of Ideal Money and it is based on Gresham's law, historical data, and observable reality (The Keynesian system is built on the principle of inflating currencies to incite spending).

So where we might agree is that people will turn to a different medium for their CURRENCY requirements, in regard to circulation and spending...

But that is not to saying, for any reason whatsoever, that bitcoin should lose any value because of it...

As I see it, for cryptos, value and quality are tied together. We do circulate good money once we don't have any bad money left to circulate. Roger is trying to say that another crypto may be chipping away at bitcoin's value as a result of being better money. By better I mean being able to send money with a better confirmation time and lower cost which will lead to hoarding of it over time. No one will want to hoard bitcoin if we cannot send/spend it because of high fees or slow transaction times.

In fact the US Congressional Report on bitcoin explicitly states:

Regarding the velocity of money, if the increase in the use of Bitcoin leads to a decrease in need for holding dollars, it would increase the dollar’s velocity of circulation and tend to increase the money supply associated with any given amount of base money (currency in circulation plus bank reserves held with the Fed).

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43339.pdf

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at by quoting this one? If another crypto is better money then people will move to that one, away from bitcoin and lowering bitcoin's value just like people moving to bitcoin from dollars.

I don't think many serious people think that 2MB blocks would cause any meaningful additional centralization for Bitcoin.

Unfortunately for big-blockers, there is no scientific basis to do this, so it cannot be shown to be worth any concern or risk (security etc.).

Lastly, we have an established price, and so without any basis for needing to change the block-size, it can only be said the markets (price) shows an expectation that bitcoin does in face have a future perceived value.

Price shows the future of bitcoin is not broken, there is nothing but conjecture, doubt, uncertainly, and fear that suggests otherwise.

Antpool is okay with 2MB so I'm guessing other miners in China are fine, too.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/an ... 1464028753

Anyway the block size LIMIT needs to be raised, Chinese miners only have to mine what they are capable of. It does not have to be the maximum block size at whatever the new block size limit is.

Roger is trying to say that the price could have been higher because the uncertainty of the block size limit would be put to rest so investors would have higher confidence in investing in bitcoin. Impossible to prove, but the current increase in price is also not proof that the future of bitcoin is secure.

Again, I only have a low level understanding of economics, but I'm willing to learn. Hopefully it's not so low level you ignore me. Thank you.

[JalToorey]

I'd like to preface this by saying I'm an econ noob aside from econ 101 and papers I read online.

Much respect for your sincerity, attitude, and intelligence already!

As I see it, for cryptos, value and quality are tied together. We do circulate good money once we don't have any bad money left to circulate. Roger is trying to say that another crypto may be chipping away at bitcoin's value as a result of being better money. By better I mean being able to send money with a better confirmation time and lower cost which will lead to hoarding of it over time. No one will want to hoard bitcoin if we cannot send/spend it because of high fees or slow transaction times.

Please keep in mind, and understand, I have, sometimes here, sometimes elsewhere, carefully defined these words so that I they may be to used to understand what I present without conflation. This doesn't mean my definitions are correct, necessarily, but I do this so we can have a shared meaning of what I say (and you might then translate my definitions to the words YOU use, so that YOU can understand me, in your own way.

When I say Ideal Money or "good money" we (this is from John Nash's works) mean money that doesn't degrade in value/purchasing power over time. Now understand something tricky. In order to "test" for this, one must look at some theoretically optimal measurement, which is an optimized basket of goods and service that we purchase with this money. In other words such a metric would be impossible to define in foresight. Nonetheless our definition still stands. (this paragraphs is tricky for readers not used to my writing, but with a few reads and some further dialogue with me it is not too difficult to have a strong grasp on. Moreover, it is important to understand and will give one the basis to understand Nash and Ideal Money.

When say "better" by having lower confirmation time and lower cost (obv to transact) these definitions of "better" or "good" are fine in theory (even if they are not the same as my definitions), HOWEVER, it does NOT stand to reason that making something easier to TRANSACT is better for HOARDING.

And then you assert, but without a basis for saying such a thing, that no one will want to hoard something that they cannot send/spend because of high fee or slow transaction time.

But I am sure you understand now my point, because I see you are sincere, I am not a basic player, have no fear of growth and change thru me. I am a major player in this game, hidden from you until now...

Gold, is proof of something that costs a massive amount to transact, relative to anything bitcoin will ever cost, and gold must be shipped over sea and moved physically. Yet it is the most hoarded asset in the world.

Science, observable reality, and reason, show you will learn from me if you continue to enter into dialogue on the subject of "What is Ideal Money".

I want to leave this point on its own, and I will continue in another post.

Cheers to sincere players and sincere play!

[JalToorey]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at by quoting this one? If another crypto is better money then people will move to that one, away from bitcoin and lowering bitcoin's value just like people moving to bitcoin from dollars.

In regard to what people "move away" from and what people "cling to", people move away from money they are circulating and cling to money they are hoarding. This division, in how people "use" money (circulate or as a savings), is what you and many others are missing. I have a writing in mind, that shows Szabo missed this in shelling out and his kula conjecture. Nash doesn't miss this.

Anyway the block size LIMIT needs to be raised
This is a sentiment but core will not bend to sentiment, it is the one duty Satoshi bestowed on this. I know Ver would agree with this.

Roger is trying to say that the price could have been higher because the uncertainty of the block size limit would be put to rest so investors would have higher confidence in investing in bitcoin. Impossible to prove, but the current increase in price is also not proof that the future of bitcoin is secure.

We agree then that uncertainty destroys the quality of bitcoin. Flux is terrible for its perceive future value, however, we are talking about quality in the sense that people will hoard it once the uncertainty wanes. People won't circulate bitcoin, this is what the congressional report I quoted explains. They will circulate fiat currency faster and faster, forcing our governments to reign in the currencies supplies thus asymptotically increasing the supply of money.

Again, I only have a low level understanding of economics, but I'm willing to learn. Hopefully it's not so low level you ignore me. Thank you.

Nono, thank YOU, sincere players are difficult to find, VERY difficult. You might be new to the subject, but I predict you will not remain ignorant for long.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Your everyday user is telling you that the blocksize must be raised.

What the everyday user doesn't know is this won't be done through Core. Core is building a settlement system and p2p network, which means they will be able to seize your Bitcoin. Basically, if you transact Bitcoin through Core or the Lightning Network, it won't be Bitcoin anymore. It will be through a controlled system from which you lose your p2p ability. They will tell you that it is still p2p, this isn't true because the transaction is going through "trusted" Lightning hubs under a monitored network.

Core, or Blockstream's direction is to eliminate nodes that they do not control. Their plan is a fee market they profit from and of which they control. The motive is because governments and banks can't control Bitcoin in its current state.

JalToorey is an advocate of this approach.

Roger, I and many others are advocates of "let's leave it as is besides simply increasing the blocksize to handle more on-chain transactions, not by turning it into a settlement system on a new controlled p2p network".

This is why I say, if you run a node - use Bitcoin Unlimited or Classic.

If you are a user of Bitcoin, stay away from anything that says "Core" or "Lightning Network".

[JalToorey]

I have no interest in arguing with children. If you don't plan on participating then you have no business being here.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I have no interest in arguing with children. If you don't plan on participating then you have no business being here.

I am not arguing with you, I am stating facts.

Users aren't going to use your network.

[JalToorey]

I have no interest in arguing with children. If you don't plan on participating then you have no business being here.

I am not arguing with you, I am stating facts.

Users aren't going to use your network.

This is not a fact. This is you saying "I am stating facts", that makes it by definition YOUR OPINION.

You are a child among adults. Insincere. Troll.

GO AWAY.

Stop disrupting otherwise constructive dialogue.