The difference between a good and bad economist.

[JalToorey]

Hey JalToorey, I was reading up on Gresham's law, "both forms required to be accepted at equal value under legal tender law" according to wikipedia. Bitcoin and fiat do not have to be accepted at equal value. I would say Thier's law applies to bitcoin/fiat which I have been arguing will happen since in this economic theory, "good money" drives out "bad money." I have been saying no one will want to accept "bad money" which is fiat in our debate and Thier's law supports this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%2 ... .27_Law.29

I would like to read your response to where exactly I am wrong in my previous post and this one.

The Re-solution of the Block Size Debate: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-re-s ... .16mzwoh2n

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Hey JalToorey, I was reading up on Gresham's law, "both forms required to be accepted at equal value under legal tender law" according to wikipedia. Bitcoin and fiat do not have to be accepted at equal value. I would say Thier's law applies to bitcoin/fiat which I have been arguing will happen since in this economic theory, "good money" drives out "bad money." I have been saying no one will want to accept "bad money" which is fiat in our debate and Thier's law supports this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%2 ... .27_Law.29

I would like to read your response to where exactly I am wrong in my previous post and this one.

The Re-solution of the Block Size Debate: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-re-s ... .16mzwoh2n

However, big-blockers also have the biggest hill to climb, because they must convince Core to bend to their mandate (and then convince the network to adopt such a proposal).

The network is ready to adopt such a proposal, the only people holding everything back are the developers of Core. This means, they aren't listening to the people, businesses and markets.

[Moon]

However, big-blockers also have the biggest hill to climb, because they must convince Core to bend to their mandate (and then convince the network to adopt such a proposal).

The network is ready to adopt such a proposal, the only people holding everything back are the developers of Core. This means, they aren't listening to the people, businesses and markets.

Core is making it very difficult with their FUD and propaganda, but I would say the miners directly responsible for the current... I don't even know what to call it... shit show? Miners can already go to Classic, Unlimited, or bitpay's proposal. They are too risk averse and as a result fear any hard fork.

I truly hope miners understand that users will migrate to other cryptos if they let an artificial fee market emerge.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

However, big-blockers also have the biggest hill to climb, because they must convince Core to bend to their mandate (and then convince the network to adopt such a proposal).

The network is ready to adopt such a proposal, the only people holding everything back are the developers of Core. This means, they aren't listening to the people, businesses and markets.

Core is making it very difficult with their FUD and propaganda, but I would say the miners directly responsible for the current... I don't even know what to call it... shit show? Miners can already go to Classic, Unlimited, or bitpay's proposal. They are too risk averse and as a result fear any hard fork.

I truly hope miners understand that users will migrate to other cryptos if they let an artificial fee market emerge.

Core will lose this one, it was an extremely bad decision that was ego based. It shows their carelessness.

The only way they can repair the damage is by increasing the block-size, keeping the network the way it is and resigning developers from the project itself. Any business would take these measures. If you don't, nobody will use your software - I formerly used Core and placed all of my clients on it.

I would suggest having the developers of Unlimited maintain development of Core.

[xenial174]

Very informative!
Thanxx

[Paresh Shrimali]

A good economist is aware of current market trends as well as he predict future trends of economy.

[Westernory]

A good economist is aware of current market trends as well as he predict future trends of economy.

"Past performance is not a reliable indicator for future results."

If there is a black swan event, then what are you going to do as an economist? You're going to blame your stat sheet for being wrong?

In my opinion a good economist takes every single possibility into account. Not just the probable one.

[stan.distortion]

A good economist would take one look at Bitcoins economic principles and immediately pronounce it unsustainable and doomed to eventual failure. Few do though, even the supposed very best of them declare it doomed for entirely the wrong reasons but such is the holy church of economics, it has its pompous head so far up its pompous arse that its completely lost any capacity for common sense or reason.

The block size issue is a trivial one, the difference between 4 and 40 transactions a second is meaningless when 4 million transactions a second wont be enough to handle the worlds need in just a few short years. It can be done but not by getting bogged down for years on the small stuff.

[jackboss]

What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen.

[jackboss]

In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them.

[rogerver]

Out of curiosity, has anyone else on this thread read Bastiat?
I read all of his books when I was younger, and I noticed that Erik Voorhees uses Bastiat as his icon for some of his text messaging apps.

[Windowly]

Out of curiosity, has anyone else on this thread read Bastiat?
I read all of his books when I was younger, and I noticed that Erik Voorhees uses Bastiat as his icon for some of his text messaging apps.

Oh I love Bastiat! I don't think I've read all of his books but I read The Law several times when I was younger and some of his other works. (Don't remember the names now.)

[Possum577]

Interesting that you quote yourself as an example.

I'm not an expert on the technical aspects of a fork, but I agree that more meeting future capacity needs before they become reality is a logical and wise move. My take on the general angst is not so much that people think your wrong, but toward the idea that the future has to exist in a separate entity from Core.

I have two questions for you, Roger:

1. Why does greater block capacity have to exist in a new version of Bitcoin currency? Why can't we write the code to accomodate the greater capacity, put the blockchain on hold - no transactions - for 48 hours while the code is uploaded and tested and then carry on as one happy community?

2. There's a concept in traffic engineering that if you build more lanes on a highway you won't alleviate traffic, that the demand for that space of road will increase to meet supply as soon as more supply is available. I know it sounds illogical, but it's been studied for decades, google it if you're not aware. The idea that more road exists and therefore less traffic incites human behavior to want to travel more, and therefore cause traffic. Now, the question - could the same theory exist in transaction sizes for bitcoin?

"Together we stand, divided we fall"...please remember this.

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

[rogerver]

1. Why does greater block capacity have to exist in a new version of Bitcoin currency? Why can't we write the code to accomodate the greater capacity, put the blockchain on hold - no transactions - for 48 hours while the code is uploaded and tested and then carry on as one happy community?

Scaling on chain was always the plan from day one. I don't understand the second part of your question regarding putting the blockchain on hold.

2. There's a concept in traffic engineering that if you build more lanes on a highway you won't alleviate traffic, that the demand for that space of road will increase to meet supply as soon as more supply is available. I know it sounds illogical, but it's been studied for decades, google it if you're not aware. The idea that more road exists and therefore less traffic incites human behavior to want to travel more, and therefore cause traffic. Now, the question - could the same theory exist in transaction sizes for bitcoin?

There are already 1,000 lanes of traffic. Bitcoin is just one of them. Now that the Bitcoin lane is crowded, people are starting to use other lanes. (Alt coins)

[Possum577]

Thanks, Roger. I appreciate your response and have a few followup comments

1. Scaling on chain was always the plan from day one. I don't understand the second part of your question regarding putting the blockchain on hold.

Related to 1. Why does the scaling and a hard fork have to result in creating a blockchain, balances, and (as a result) coin values that are inherently separate from Bitcoin core? IT dev project will typically make the application unavailable for a few hours or days while new code is uploaded to make new features possible - why is this approach not being considered to scale bitcoin block size?

2. There are already 1,000 lanes of traffic. Bitcoin is just one of them. Now that the Bitcoin lane is crowded, people are starting to use other lanes. (Alt coins)

Related to 2. I don't think that analogy works. Alt coins aren't additional lanes on the highway, they don't have the same use or purpose as Bitcoin does...alt coins are like the back roads, the country roads, the fire service roads...certainly worth of travel and may have some scenic vistas but don't really facilitate transaction traffic. I don't know of any companies or online wallets that also accept altcoins in addition to Bitcoin (let alone any that accept altcoins only). People will only drive transaction traffic to other sources if/when the believe that the Bitcoin transaction highway is unsafe for travel.

And more broadly, why is the proposal for Bitcoin Unlimited built upon the idea of having a completely separate coin under the same name?

Thanks.

[rogerver]

I don't know of any companies or online wallets that also accept altcoins in addition to Bitcoin (let alone any that accept altcoins only)

Then you aren't paying attention. Try Coinbase, Kraken, Bitfinex, the list goes on and on of companies that use to be Bitcoin only, but are now busy integrating altcoins because Bitcoin's network is at capacity.

And more broadly, why is the proposal for Bitcoin Unlimited built upon the idea of having a completely separate coin under the same name?

It isn't. If you have been led to believe that, you have been duped by the Core propaganda artists.

[Possum577]

I don't know of any companies or online wallets that also accept altcoins in addition to Bitcoin (let alone any that accept altcoins only)

Then you aren't paying attention. Try Coinbase, Kraken, Bitfinex, the list goes on and on of companies that use to be Bitcoin only, but are now busy integrating altcoins because Bitcoin's network is at capacity.

Thanks for acknowledging that these sites don't yet transact in alt coins. I'll believe that demand to transact in alt currencies exists when businesses are accepting them as payment for goods and services (which is a defining characteristic of currency). Just because someone creates an alt coin pr that exchanges are willing to make money off them doesn't mean it'll have staying power.

And more broadly, why is the proposal for Bitcoin Unlimited built upon the idea of having a completely separate coin under the same name?

It isn't. If you have been led to believe that, you have been duped by the Core propaganda artists.

I'm an open book, what resources can you point me to that more accurately explain what the consequence is for people holding bitcoin core coins if/when a hard fork happens and transaction activity shifts to the bitcoin unlimited blockchain?

Please remember that I agree with you - block size capacity needs to be expanded. I also read a lot of worried talk about the fall out and am still trying to decipher what's real and what's FUD.

Thanks!

[Possum577]

Roger, can you address the question on how a hard fork will be implemented safely on this thread from Bitkilo?

>>>full-clients-bitcoin-ultimate/how-will- ... 21098.html

Inquiring minds, that believe the concept is a good one, need to know!

[greesdermos]

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.

[JohnRhodes]

A good economist is aware of current market trends as well as he predict future trends of economy.