Central-Planning: The Kind We Should Fear and the Kind that is Helpful

[JalToorey]

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/central- ... .1rjssu2ji

“Down with central-planning” is often the cry we hear from big-blockers who have heard a few key words and buzz phrases bouncing around the community and the crypt-elite dialogue from the inception of bitcoin.

Satoshi seemed to be against it, Szabo is outspoken about it in his blog articles, others have written about the ills and dangers of it. To further our understanding we note ”decentralization” runs in contrast to a central-planning agenda that might have taken a hold of bitcoin’s protocol if it weren’t otherwise protected game theoretically.

But central planning is not always bad. Sometimes having a decision maker is useful, especially in absence of a proper consensus mechanism. In certain circumstances, central-planning is important and more expedient than a proper counter part.

Central planning, in contrast to a general consensus mechanism allows for immediate action, like that of an executor or president that must make wartime decisions in a state of emergency. Inaction, because of debate, cannot be acceptable because to not react is to not defend.

In contrast to this kind of USEFUL central-planning, there is the fatal conceit described by Hayek. I’m not going to cite Hayek, I have already done so in other papers to no avail. Rather I am going to give you his reasoning and his sentiments, so that you may understand the division between USEFUL central-planning and FATAL central-planning.

FATAL central-planning happens when a group or agency comes together in order to ‘plan that which cannot reasonable BE planned’.

Did you miss it?

There is an irrationality locked in that statement that will not sit well with emotional big-blockers. There exists phenomenon and or ‘things’ in this world that cannot be achieved through central-planning (but there are things that can!), and the fatal conceit is to decide to take up such an irrational endeavor.

The optimal distribution of commodities is one such thing that central-planning CANNOT achieve. That is to say that only the ENTIRETY of the markets could possibly have enough knowledge to know the optimal distribution of commodities. Communism fails here, and the free markets prevail.

Now we understand the nature of USEFUL central-planning vs FATAL central-planning and so I want to explain something in regard to bitcoin and in relation to good or bad central-planning.

Trying to scale bitcoin to an arbitrary and irrational goal of becoming a coffee money for the peoples is theoretically impossible. Do you understand what I am saying? It is FATALISTIC central-planning. We do not have the information to do such a thing and the only result there could be from such an attempt is catastrophe.

And now I explain something to the contrary….

When core rejects attempts from the masses to (FATALLY!) centrally-plan bitcoin, they are doing central-planning of the GOOD kind, that is rational. Their initiative is to stop proposals that is detrimental to the security, quality, and nature of bitcoin, and the succeed. Their means is consistent to the end, and so it is NOT the FATAL central-planning that Hayek cautioned us about.

Big-blockers have conflated the meaning of central-planning which was used by Szabo et al in the first place as a reference to a thesis by FA Hayek, and that thesis is: the attempt to centrally plan that which cannot be centrally-planned is irrational and fatal.

Not all central-planning is fatal, and Hayek was very explicate about the kind that was.

This is what big-blockers are trying to do, make fatal central-planing attempts, and what Core has been exactly tasked with not allowing.

Yet Satoshi’s conjecture still holds..

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/central- ... .1rjssu2ji

“Down with central-planning” is often the cry we hear from big-blockers who have heard a few key words and buzz phrases bouncing around the community and the crypt-elite dialogue from the inception of bitcoin.

Satoshi seemed to be against it, Szabo is outspoken about it in his blog articles, others have written about the ills and dangers of it. To further our understanding we note ”decentralization” runs in contrast to a central-planning agenda that might have taken a hold of bitcoin’s protocol if it weren’t otherwise protected game theoretically.

But central planning is not always bad. Sometimes having a decision maker is useful, especially in absence of a proper consensus mechanism. In certain circumstances, central-planning is important and more expedient than a proper counter part.

Central planning, in contrast to a general consensus mechanism allows for immediate action, like that of an executor or president that must make wartime decisions in a state of emergency. Inaction, because of debate, cannot be acceptable because to not react is to not defend.

In contrast to this kind of USEFUL central-planning, there is the fatal conceit described by Hayek. I’m not going to cite Hayek, I have already done so in other papers to no avail. Rather I am going to give you his reasoning and his sentiments, so that you may understand the division between USEFUL central-planning and FATAL central-planning.

FATAL central-planning happens when a group or agency comes together in order to ‘plan that which cannot reasonable BE planned’.

Did you miss it?

There is an irrationality locked in that statement that will not sit well with emotional big-blockers. There exists phenomenon and or ‘things’ in this world that cannot be achieved through central-planning (but there are things that can!), and the fatal conceit is to decide to take up such an irrational endeavor.

The optimal distribution of commodities is one such thing that central-planning CANNOT achieve. That is to say that only the ENTIRETY of the markets could possibly have enough knowledge to know the optimal distribution of commodities. Communism fails here, and the free markets prevail.

Now we understand the nature of USEFUL central-planning vs FATAL central-planning and so I want to explain something in regard to bitcoin and in relation to good or bad central-planning.

Trying to scale bitcoin to an arbitrary and irrational goal of becoming a coffee money for the peoples is theoretically impossible. Do you understand what I am saying? It is FATALISTIC central-planning. We do not have the information to do such a thing and the only result there could be from such an attempt is catastrophe.

And now I explain something to the contrary….

When core rejects attempts from the masses to (FATALLY!) centrally-plan bitcoin, they are doing central-planning of the GOOD kind, that is rational. Their initiative is to stop proposals that is detrimental to the security, quality, and nature of bitcoin, and the succeed. Their means is consistent to the end, and so it is NOT the FATAL central-planning that Hayek cautioned us about.

Big-blockers have conflated the meaning of central-planning which was used by Szabo et al in the first place as a reference to a thesis by FA Hayek, and that thesis is: the attempt to centrally plan that which cannot be centrally-planned is irrational and fatal.

Not all central-planning is fatal, and Hayek was very explicate about the kind that was.

This is what big-blockers are trying to do, make fatal central-planing attempts, and what Core has been exactly tasked with not allowing.

Yet Satoshi’s conjecture still holds..

Bigger blocks = more tx capacity = more users = higher price = more valuable block reward = more miners = more secure and diverse Bitcoin.

- Roger Ver, owner of Bitcoin.com

Satoshi Nakamto, the creator of Bitcoin encouraged raising the blocksize at this time. He did not encourage third-party solutions that destroy Bitcoin.

Tell the people how it really is, "we want to keep blocks small so we can charge you high fees and put you on to other solutions of ours that are controlled". It's as simple as that.