Quote from: theymos on March 02, 2017, 03:38:36 AM

I've read many of your posts, but I only have a vague idea of what your underlying points are because you hardly ever give any details. You just keep referencing Nash and Ideal Money constantly, and telling people that they're obviously wrong because they contradict Ideal Money. This is not an effective way of communicating.

Thank you theymos. I think I just don't have a proper forum and the proper people to address. Honestly I'd rather just give the link to the lecture and walk away forever, but at this point I realize its not going to work.

I need you know this...

Bitcoin cannot be ideal money. Economists know this because money stable in value needs to be able to expand and contract with its underlying economy.

This means that its an irrational pursuit from both sides of the debate.

This is happening because both sides are functioning on the tacit assumption that a good medium of exchange solves an important problem. It doesn't.

The REAL problem we need to solve is creating a stable unit of value for the markets so they can optimally distribute our commodities.

Money can help play this role, but this creates pressure, and the pressure has always historically corrupted the metric.

Core's mandate needs to be (if it is possible) to use bitcoin to facilitate the creation of a stable unit of value. This is wholly different than trying to idealize bitcoin as a currency. In fact the latter will destroy the possibility of the former.

Core's misunderstanding of this is what is perpetuating the debate, not Ver ignorance. It's both sides. And that's why the debate is unending.

I propose a protocol by David Bohm, Einstein's protege, called On Dialogue. It's specific quality is that it lift's tacit assumptions.

This is related to why Adam Back said Trace Mayer would be interested (and he knows who Bohm is and that Bohm is relevant) and that Roger Ver would probably be receptive to this.