You conclusion should be, we cannot approach "type 1" stability, if we destroy bitcoin's properties as a type 2 (ie gold) therefore it is core's mandate to guard bitcoin's type 2 properties as a digital gold.
And if they try to make bitcoin type 1 then it immediately, even by intention, destorys bitcoin's properties as a type 2 (gold)
Could you just clarify what it is you're concerned about regarding core's potential to "destroy" bitcoin's type 2 properties ? (I'm not really up to speed on the original agenda behind this thread - sorry 'bout that - I just became interested because of the monetary analytics).
Surely the only way they could 'destroy' Bitcoin's type-2 properties would be to make its supply variable and subject to liquidity demand ? (i.e. abandon the emission protocol).
anyone that knows anything about keynes/hayek or szabo/nash KNOWS you cannot centrally plan or design a type 1 money in and of itself (any more than you can stir muddy water clean).
Indeed. By that do you mean that diamonds, bundles of grain, gold bars or sea shells do not come with an inbuilt 'central bank' that monitors inflation and adjusts it's own trading rate against goods and services accordingly ?
Therefore, bitcoin - being modelled on an archetype that corresponds to the monetary properties of the items listed above - likeways cannot be coerced into a type 1 (price stability) role ?
Thank you.
For example, it is Ver and Brigade's argument that bitcoin's price and value will die off if the user experience is such that the rising fees cause them to flee. Therefore, the argument goes, we must scale bitcoin to support a higher tp/s. This will keep the price and value going up.
Is this not an admission of inflation control?
I want to see if we are on the same page, before I speak of how core, even given their unwillingness to bend to a big block hard fork agenda, could also be inflation controlling without manipulating the supply.
See, you have admitted you have haven't thought of it from this angle. And its IMPORTANT you let everyone know I am making sense.
(shells were great for a time, but probably inflated in various ways for various (biological/social etc.) reasons).
Pyramid block laying, would be a good standard too. We'll understand this, when we stop supporting silly economic logic. Why don't we understand how and why the pyramids were built? Because it was accidentally evolution, there was no central/Keynesian planning involved.