Quote from: traincarswreck on February 22, 2015, 06:08:41 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on February 22, 2015, 05:40:11 PM

Does your notion of "ideal money" include manipulation of supply in order to "manage" an economy by a group of managers that claim to know more about what is right than everyone else? If so, than this fork discussion is not where your notions belong. The fork has nothing to do with money supply, it has to do with whether and how to relax a constraint on transaction velocity before that constraint becomes a limiting factor of Bitcoin's utility. This fork is not inflationary or deflationary.

Yes... lets discuss your concepts, but in this thread they are off topic. They were only raised here to show how they have no importance to this particular discussion.

My friend, "Ideal Money" is a lecture, that pertains to a very specific "notion" that is not mine...that says if a new money technology could be released, with a finite "money" supply, it would stabilize every global currency in relation to it.

The rest that you comment on, is not related to what I am pointing out. I am suggesting in the future, with a cooperative society, we do not need the same level of security. This might change our formulas...but we aren't aware or able to discuss it if we do not believe in an eventually cooperative society.

In other words, satoshi nor szabo talked about what bitcoin might do to our economy, but it turns out Dr. Nash has been touring country to country for the last 20 years (same time szabo's blog exists), explaining exactly what bitcoin will do to our global economy. This is fact.

We agree than? These are off topic.
Have you found a thread where they are on topic? Or want to start one? I'd be happy to participate there. Here they are noise.

Quote from: traincarswreck on February 22, 2015, 06:39:13 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on February 22, 2015, 06:34:47 PM

The slippery slope notion?

We are all likely in agreement that the fundamental purpose of Bitcoin is sound money. If not, then another thread for dealing with "first principles" is needed.

no. and you don't know what sound money is. You cannot ignore 20 years of lectures about what sound money is and that discuss it like you understand it. Gavin proposes a test on the robustness of the system. If the community continues to disagree and debate block size, then bitcoin remains broken. We need a solid consensus, that is what sound money is based on. Nothing else matters in regards to "sound" money.

In fact I can ignore them. There is an easy button to do that.
If you care to find some way to link any of this to this thread's topic, we can engage that.