Nobody is reading your long and out of scope posts
You see I have the only knowledge of the lecture series, and so I am the only one able to relate it (I claim this looking forward to being proved wrong!). I post INCREDIBLY relevant but admittedly incredibly dense material. But we should not treat it like religion and numerology, it is very simple, when one has a clear picture of the logic and science, without the myth of "satoshi", then one can make clear extrapolations about truth.A few years ago Nash made many many predictions that are perfectly observable at this very time. He can't be in this discussion tho, neither could Szabo Gavin etc. And I wonder if you and others realize this and understand why?
Quote from: Ideal Money
If it becomes a matter of strong and definite prefer-ences that the money used should have definite character-istics of quality then, in principle, the people can demand that. For example formerly there was the drachma and now there is, in Greece, the euro instead of that. And the people seem to be pleased with the change.
Quote
This is not a discussion about bitcoin being this or that. It's a discussion if we need a bigger block size limit or not. Everything else should revolve around this. The coffee payment system was just an argument to show that we need a bigger block size. We can trash it and we can agree that the blobkchain shouldn't be used to pay for coffee if that's what you want, but the issue remains. We still need a bigger block size limit no matter what! How do you think the upper layers would work? Do you really think that the upper layers will be fine with a 1MB limit?
Yes it must be raised, but I am not sure you understand the difference between raising it to a larger but still small size that does not accommodate coffee purchases? We are clearly going to attempt to raise it, but others may not like the proposed (or concensivized) size, because it will still necessarily act like a gold rather than a coffee payment system.That sacrifice, that we will increase it, but still with a purposeful limit, to me, is exactly proposed here:
Quote from: Ideal Money
But the famous classical "Greshams Law" also reveals the intrinsic difficulty. Thus "good money" will not naturally supplant and replace "bad money" by a simple Darwinian superiority of competitive species. Rather than that, it must be that the good things are established by the voluntary choice of human agencies. And these resp-onsible agencies, being naturally of the domain of polit-ically derived authorities, would need to make appropriate efforts to achieve such a goal and to pay the costs that are entailed before their societies can benefit. And the benefits would come from the improvement in the quality of this public utility (money) which serves to facilitate the game-theoretic function of "the transfer of utility".
An example of an efficiently working global reform (at least in relation to electronic manufactures) is the metric system, with its central Bureau located near Paris. And this is an example of a system of yardsticks where inflation is currently NOT in fashion!
^^^bolded the conclusion in case we understand his joke this time!An example of an efficiently working global reform (at least in relation to electronic manufactures) is the metric system, with its central Bureau located near Paris. And this is an example of a system of yardsticks where inflation is currently NOT in fashion!