Yes it does.  It would help us secure bitcoin's greatest use case: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/bitcoins-most-valuable-usecase-7f5c6e95be22

Whereas targeting the block size for some arbitrary optimal or maximum transaction capacity serves no founded argument. 

I think you said the higher the velocity the higher the value.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43339.pdf

You have made your own distinction of money and currency that is not a commonly held distinction.  Your entire argument falls apart under scrutiny which suggests you need to make more and more points so I cannot break it down.


Statements like this are empty:

And bitcoin is a real money by and reasonable and widely held definition of the term money. 

Like this empty statement:

Gold has great settlement value because its not very useful otherwise and it certainly wouldn't be useful if everyone else died.   You haven't made any sense and nothing you are saying is accepted economic theory.

Of course!  Quite obvious. 

However this is not ideal money.  Ideal Money is money that is stable in value over a very long period of time.  Bitcoin is good but not ideal. Nothing from the poster you are addressing speaks to this. 

Don't worry I'm extremely good at this argument.

You have only shown you don't know the purpose or value of money:

There is nothing in that that necessitates it to be a commodity to for us to gain value from it.

And if silver cannot fulfil the role of bitcoin then you have given no argument that we've wasted any energy.

You don't know that bitcoin's settlement capabilities will shore up the quality of our fiats and so you have no observation point for why bitcoin is net valuable to us. And bitcoin's blockchain DOES have other uses than settlement such as tamper proofing files so you don't have an argument from your view anyways.

Pure barter was PROVED by John Nash to be not optimal for all parties involved. The addition of money to trade creates a higher order for efficiency this was mathematically proved in the 50's. http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/cs286r/courses/spring02/papers/nash50a.pdf

Commodity money is not superior to bitcoin for the reasons you are implying.  In fact it would be optimal that we release gold and oil from their monetary components as inflation hedges so that they can be used as resources otherwise.

You are implying gold is scarce, but gold is not scarce and so going forward it would not be a good money.  And historically we have seen issues in this regard.  Bitcoin doesn't suffer from this problem.

There is no evidence and no founded argument that money must consist of an otherwise useful commodity.



My argument is not pro-keynesian by any standpoint it is based on the Nashian viewpoint:


To be clearer:


You have to be more careful with your arguments and presumptions cause I'll make a mockery of your missteps.  Call me Keynesian again...

Metals money is not stable in value because the supply is not stable.  bitcoin cannot be ideal because ideal money is stable in value and bitcoin has no mechanism for targeting in this way.  But its a good money.  Far superior in this sense than any commodity could hope to serve.  And so it will put pressure on our central banks to print money of a superior quality.  I'm not keynesian but is how bitcoin works in relation to our existing financial system.

Every time a government over prints money or devalues, more citizens hear about and procure bitcoin, so there is something to compete with not and central banks are forced to tend to the quality of money on a vector they previously did not need to consider.

You can call me names all you want.  Your argument isn't reasonable or founded.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43339.pdf

I've cited my points so far and so again you have said something untrue.  In regard to fungibility you have no point to make.  I have said nothing other than bitcoin will serve as a settlement layer like a gold 2.0.  And it is far superior to gold in this fashion.  You can cry about fungibility all you want but the markets are rallying behind bitcoin and have no problem with the level of fungibility it has.

You have a belief in what ideal money consists of and I do not share belief because its not founded. Money's greatest role is an objective measurement of value, that it transfer utility is a byproduct of such a measurement device. When the value of it fluctuates arbitrarily it loses its greatest function.

Stability of value is the only important quality, the rest hold up this quality.  If our money systems stabilize in regard to comparative value because of bitcoin as the bedrock standard for decently stable value, then your argument about its lack of fungibility becomes irrelevant.

No I didn't say its an unreliable store of value I said it can't be perfectly stable in value as it is deflationary etc.  Gold we should note has been losing its value for the last 5 years and this is without bitcoin influencing it.  Gold is no longer a reliable store of wealth and this observable.



None of the aspects are failing, bitcoin is clearly money and people are using as such.  You have created an esoteric definition.
You tire because you have twisted the definitions and argued for something that is irrational under scrutiny which your definitions don't allow.  

You have argued gold is superior in the face of contrasting evidence and that bitcoin fails due to fungibility in the face of contrasting evidence.

You have argued bitcoin fails to be fungible and therefore fails to be money.  I have argued bitcoin doesn't fail and so it doesn't suffer a fungibility problem that has any significance.

You know what is really happening?  

Bitcoin has threatened your core beliefs and in regard to fight or flight you have chosen to go on a forum that discusses something you know little about and don't support or believe in to fight and argue against it with no intention to seek truth.

It's no wonder you are tired and your argument falls on deaf ears.

It matters not that its not fungible.  It's clearly functioning today as a currency and a money by the accepted definitions of the words. The rest of your sentences were just attacks and fluff with no real meaning.  I think you are stuck in fight mode because bitcoin threatens your model of how things work. How can you see it as a rational use of your time to argue on a forum versus a project you don't agree has value? 

You are inconsistent with your own being wasting time by your own definition and views.

Sir you've twisted an conflated definitions of currency and money and you've touted gold as superior to bitcoin when this is observably untrue as we can see with the charts.  You've demonstrated you not only do not understand the subject and related subjects but that you are willing to obfuscate your points and continue to argue from an irrational standpoint.  

You don't understand (macro-)economics and you've incorrectly identified me as a Keynesian further showing that you are lost.

You've also implied gold is scarce and its not.

You also don't understand economics.  Central banks allows banks to tend to the quality of their money:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43339.pdf

hyperbitcoinization or that bitcoin will usurp central banking is silly and born from ignorance (the whole nakamoto institute site suffers from this).

Banks can increase the quality of their money and will do so in relation to bitcoin now that they are forced to compete with it on the markets.  As I said, bitcoin will cause the other fiats to shore up their instability.  This is the obvious natural result and is as described by John Nash who built the entire argument.

You have said this lie twice now.  Gold's value is tanking and bitcoin's value is increasing on the USD at a dramatic rate.  You are denying reality and your denial is so bad you are pushing your denial on others in a forum in which you clearly don't have any business on.  You aren't here looking for truth at all.  You are here to justify your own view which has you perturbed because it is in conflict with observable reality.

You are acting inconsistently with your own views. By definition, irrational.

Yes and I quoted a research report based on your fed that explains that as bitcoin grows in relevance it will force the fed to adjust its monetary policy in relation to it.  Your conclusion doesn't acknowledge this FACT. 

 Dude, you CLEARLY showed you don't fucking know what you are talking about.  What is this?

My argument has many citations and links to to empirical evidence.  I use standard accepted definitions and principles.

Your argument twists the definitions of words, flies counter to accepted economic principles, and denies observable evidence to the contrary.

And now you are changing the subject to school in india.

As I said you are interested in defending your view only in order to justify your core beliefs.  That bitcoin threatened them causes you to participate on a forum that you have no intention of getting anything from or contributing to. 

You aren't interested in what is the truth, you are interested in perpetuating and justifying your misunderstanding.

I quoted the research study that explains exactly what I say.  You forget the fed can choose its policy.  If it starts to lose ground and the velocity of the usd increases and puts pressure on the relevance of the usd, rational self interest will cause it to shore up the difference.

This is the logical and natural response from a self interested actor.

No this is not the rational viewpoint, you are speaking of a world in which the citizens don't have an alternative option for hedging.

its not massive deflation though is it?  It's only massive if you are assuming bitcoin will go to the moon, but in relation to the USD this is silly.  And I stated it as CITED fact as I have given a link to the entire supporting research paper.  It's accepted economic philosophy and theory that such banks will adjust if forced to compete with a superior option.

Sir are you expecting us to take your seriously? You've run out of counterpoints and logic. And resorted to obfuscation and name calling some time ago.

Did you look at the price of gold before you made this statement?  Its declining rapidly.  And its value 10k years from now is not relevant to you.  Your post denies observable reality.  gold is not safe, its losing value at a dramatic pace.

Not necessarily so at all. You've basically said it worked like this in the past and so it will work like this going forward.  But of course we didn't have bitcoin.  But more importantly you probably don't know that the relationship is really about the cost of production which effectively related to its deepness.

As we grow our technology gold won't necessarily be scarce and this will happen in our lifetimes.  This is why szabos article about mining the vast deep were written and relevant (as well as comet mining).

There is nothing to suggest gold will continue to be a superior or safe store of wealth.

Much of your points are no sound economic philosophy.  You've made your own definitions and created an argument that supports your own view but is contradicted by observable reality. You actually don't know anything about the subjects you are commenting on. 

ACTUALLY.

Bah, I feel like the word actually isn't getting across...

What I mean to say is IRL, irl conflicts with your beliefs.  You are wrong and observably so.

Do you have any more memes to post that can derail from your attempts to justify your misunderstanding?

ya im sure he's confused.  nonetheless your argument can't be it worked in the past so it will work in the future.  gold was good, but only because it had an EFFECTIVE throttle on its supply.  This can and will change.  It's a myth that it's tangibility was significant. Something with other (changing) significant uses is not as useful as a settlement device than an equivalent that has less other uses.

like its not my fault so many of the people that have been arguing you don't know what they are talking about.

But neither of you understands how central banking or our global economy works.

I said you have an opinion and you are assertive about it, but you don't understand how central banking works or economics in general.

No its not, ur just not paying attention enough!

I said pay attention, not don't pay attention more!



So the people that think bitcoin has a congestion problem are the one's that have no understanding or claim of understanding economics.  And if you ask them about their understanding they will stop asserting their opinion.

The argument though, concentrate on the facts no the character of the messenger!

What do you think the chances are you can hold a candle to me in regard to the macro economic implications of bitcoin?

You are stating your opinion as fact which is a conclusion you have mistakenly come to because you don't actually know how central banks work and what their purpose is. You know what economics and game theory are and how they are relevant to understanding bitcoin (which you do not).

You are literally asserting an opinion about something you don't understand.

You have said that by citing my argument I do not understand it.  I think you don't understand what it means to present a proper argument.  Then you continue to assert your authority "exter's pyramid".  Your writing is long winded and full of obfuscation and bad assumptions. But I don't need to peel the layers away.  You have argued bitcoin cannot be what we are watching it be, a money and a currency.  You have suggested "metals" can only take the bottom role of the pyramid, as we watch golds price and relevance decline.

What other metals are you referring to?

Golds supply is not throttled and limited like you are assuming.  That is why it is losing its monetary relevance. 

Reality disagrees with your belief system.

And you can't send metals around the world like you can with bitcoin

You are making blatantly silly statements:

The Myth of Bitcoin Cash 2: Re-solving Nashian and Szabonian Views on the Emergence of Money Through Trade
https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-myth-of-bitcoin-cash-2-re-solving-nashian-and-szabonian-views-on-the-emergence-of-money-b3c83a5d019f

Rational players won't diversify.

Szabo: "If the outcome is significantly predictable, it pays to invest completely in the most likely winner"

http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2008/03/logical-emergence-of-money-from-barter.html

I have a funner theory, karples and ver used btc-e to launder their stolen gox coins and now the feds are bargaining with the btc e guy for a glimmer of freedom in order to make a case versus ver.  Ver is visibly disturbed because he's slowly realizing his attempts to fork to keep the transactions low so he can wash his coins is not going to work and hes even more slowly realizing that hes getting a knock on his door soon because the prisoners dilemma is too complex to prevent individual defection.

That everyone needs to move their coins is bringing awareness to his transactions.  

the feds just audited coinbase and froze more stolen gox coins but no one will hear of this because operations have no resumed a normal.

Yes we have already established you don't understand the purpose of central banking and so you fear it.  But you will get no reasonable person to admit that Szabo is irrelevant.

I don't think ignorance is an argument.  Everyone knows szabo is most knowledge person in the space.  There is no other candidate. And this speaks perfectly to bitcoin cash: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-myth-of-bitcoin-cash-2-re-solving-nashian-and-szabonian-views-on-the-emergence-of-money-b3c83a5d019f

Szabo gave the founded economic reason as to how bitcoin could emerge as a money.  There is no other argument proposed and there is no such argument for bitcoin cash nor does szabo's argument give credibility to bitcoin cash.

So you literally have hand waved all of the reason and all of the economic foundation for every aspect literally because it doesn't support your conclusion which is not actually based on any accepted economic principles.  You even changed the definitions of words .  You have said bitcoin can't work and yet reality shows it does and you have said gold is superior and reality shows its not.  

You have shown there is no reason to use bitcoin over gold or silver which is a laughable statement.  

You are literally denying reality and running into a forum which you have no intention of contributing to or gaining from asserting your contrasting faith.

Szabo's article shows if you are certain then you should go with the currency that will win in the long run asap.  If you are not certain you should sell have your bitcoin equity and use it to buy the equivalent in bcc and hold equal equity in both.

How does this equal bcc gaining value or you gaining value from going against the crowd (or with the crowd)?

You have to SELL the BCC to gain from them

You are denying reality and by YOUR OWN DEFINITION wasting your life on this forum.

I might be able to disambiguate ur use of the word centralized and find some re-solution.

Bitcoin as a settlement system provided no one nation controls it takes the control from central banks.  They still control the value but their hands are tied, they have to tend towards more valuable currency or they lose their customers:



This is Nash's argument, he is not keynesian or pro central bank.



Everyone is keynesian, only nash was thinking beyond such a state of thinking:

You don't understand how banks work. Banks or ie the fed, makes policy that affects the quality of the money that is issued. I already cited this congressional research report that admits exactly what I claim:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43339.pdf


This is exactly what Nash points out:




If the usd starts to tank because bitcoin becomes relevant the fed can choose to let the dollar drop out of existence or it can create favorable policy so it's value is attractive to citizens.  You are effectively arguing the fed will let the dollars value drop to the point where no one uses it, which is asinine. The only logical option is to compete to survive.  

You simply haven't thought two steps ahead.

Everyone knows I know what I am talking about and that you don't understand the subject at hand.

You've stated I'm being illogical and not making sense.  

The government does not have a monopoly on printing money anymore.   And my government nor the US government can shoot its citizens or force them to use USD.  There is an entire constitutional framework that limits its power and protects the freedoms of the citizens that give it its power.  

Nor can the government shut down the internet, nor will it ever do so.

You keep returning to "metals" but there are no metals that are suitable stores of value.  Gold is rapidly losing its monetary nature and technology will release the throttle on its supply.  You are saying "metals" but you are really not referring to any actual commodity because no commodity would be a suitable store of value.

And the US government already showed it can mandate the confiscation of gold


I've consistently shown your argument to be flawed and inconsistent with itself. You keep CALLING me illogical but I cite all my arguments.  You are not using words or concepts by their standard accepted definition.  And you are constantly making assertions that are contrary to observable reality.  

Sir, you are denying reality that we all agree exists but you.

no its not science fiction, again its observable reality that you are denying: https://www.c-span.org/

Bitcoin has a legit market and legit use cases.  If no one is moving coins and the exchanges are halting, the bitcoin gets harder to get for those that actually need to use it, price pressure goes up from this all things equal.

If everyone is buying bitcoin to dump bcc, where is the value in bcc coming from?

There isn't a chance that ver or wu will give you wealth in exchange for your bcc. Nobody is giving anyone wealth for bcc.  Everyone will keep their bitcoin wealth.

How do they pump?

No one is giving up bitcoin an asset with an increasing price for a worthless token.  Not ver, not wu.  Ask ver to give you 5 bux for nothing.  He won't do it.  And you can't pump a coin buy yourself and expect to profit in anyways.  It doesn't work like that.  There is no way to "pump".

There is no strategy to make money from BCC its a losing failing proposition that only makes sense to people that don't understand economics and game theory.

none

He's not 100% for the idea and neither is r/btc and in fact no players will let go of their bitcoin because its rising in value and bcc has no value.  

Even if you were ultra evil and wanted bcc to usurp btc you still wouldn't trade your bitcoin for bcc.  You would hold your wealth btc otherwise you would only be destroying it.  Let me paraphrase this article because I don't think many read my writing well: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-myth-of-bitcoin-cash-understanding-game-theory-f87858bf8791

In order for this to work a large amount of the market must be committed to changing to bcc at the same time.  In a cooperative fashion.  The entire reason we need bitcoin is because its not possible for a large complex array of players to make a coordinated move.

It's not possible.  It's a misunderstanding of game theory and economics to suggest that any value can be created or won from bcc.  It's a hoax with a completely unrelated ulterior motive.

if everyone is dumping and u can't really be bothered and the leaders of the bcc movement don't understand economics or game theory where is the value for bcc coming from?

i think u are saying that because coins can be linked to their transactions and identified as such that they are not truly fungible. And furthermore u are suggesting that this is a fatal problem. I also think u are ignoring the fact the usd in cash form have this same property.

If I am correct you haven't done any thinking whatsoever about what u are saying.

tell me what u are implying will happen and when?

it's not a problem which is why no one cares. That's actually ur clue. Not sure why u quote gox. The theifs have a problem and I suspect Ver's solution is bigger blocks ie low transaction fees. U are literally quoting uncertainty and doubt and giving no falsifiable hypothesis.

Can you explain why its an issue or can you only allude to it being one?

By Szabo's definitions if you are unsure about bitcoin/bcc's future then you should diversify... (self.Bitcoin)

This means if you are unwilling to selling half your bitcoin equity for bcc then the strategy you have chosen is that bitcoin will win out. This goes for r/btc'ers and anyone claiming to favor bcc.

Sitting on only a proportion of bitcoin and airdropped bcc is not a proper vote for being unsure of the outcome. If you don't at least split your equity, whether you admit it or not, your strategy is heavily weighted towards bitcoin

The governments can shut the internet down you say but not rigged the markets.  You don't actually hold the physical metal you are investing in so you have no actual argument that metals are safer than bitcoin.  The price of metals is declining that is reality, not a good store of wealth, and that they are not scarce is a clue that their predictable supply cannot be relied on, we have watched oils bubble burst and gold is falling a slower but dramatic rate.  

50 coins?  The markets are split well beyond 50 coins. You are not making a coherent argument.  You cannot invent a new bitcoin which is the standard the markets have converged on, we are about to witness proof of this.

And how is it your conclusion can be based on the markets accepting scamcoins from corporations.  You are constantly denying observable reality.

if you give bch a .01% of victory I don't really consider that uncertain.  Uncertain in this sense implies 50/50. Regardless the optimal strategy is to converge the future winning coin as fast as possible as its determined. 

Those that converge on the winning coin first have the most to gain or not to lose

When I say you are ignoring observable reality this is what the beauty of an internationally constructed price is.  Gold is not a reliable store of value anymore.  You are pointing at history and ignoring its decline over the last 5 years.

It's been getting smashed: http://goldprice.org/

As bitcoin's are being frozen around the world some people still NEED to use the network and this puts upward pressure on the price.

This pressure makes it increasingly difficult for would-be defectors to move their equity off the network.

 Even if they are pro fork their greed stops them from unilaterally deviating.

They are the most relevant years in our lifetime.  And I reject your assertion that because gold was valued for hedging inflation in the past that it necessarily will continue to be so in the future.  Furthermore Nash Szabo  AND Satoshi predict that gold will lose its monetary nature:

The amount of claimed fork coins will always be more uncertain that the amount of active bitcoins

 It is natural to suggest that the perceived amount of active bitcoin will be more certain than its cloned counterpart.

Szabo showed we will converge on a single standard.  If we are making a choice 1 will win and the other will revert to its commodity value which is basically null.

Are you keeping Szabo's explanation of the logical emergence of money from barter in mind when you say this?  He made a distinct point the network will converge and the loser's value will revert to its commodity value which is effectively zero.

We should do this free money thing every day so everyone can get rich!

Nothing's really unfolded yet:

If you liquidated all your btc for bch wtf are you doing in a bitcoin forum?  You have no position or faith or care for the project. Trolling I guess huh?

You have to be less good at math and economics and then you  understand the bch shill perspective.

Szabo noted the best strategy is to go all in on the future winner.  Your telling us you believe in bch but your actions aren't inline with that claim.  I suspect most outspoken bch supporters are the same.  This includes ver and wu.  So you are gonna wait to bch drops and then as its dropping and bitcoin is climbing then you are gonna change?

Ya'll aren't understanding the problem. Relax and think about it for a bit, just like the mocking kraken tweet says.

I THINK you are talking of my want to keep the value proposition as stable as possible.  The price of btc seems reasonably stable for the prediction that it will lose its claim as the king.  It's value proposition has not changed.  Price has not change much has it,  but thats not necessarily value.

We have a conundrum happening.  

There is an allegedly real value for bch and everyone wants to claim their gold/reward...

On the other hand few can get access to the trade...

How do we solve this problem?

Szabo wrote about 100 different papers on this subject over the 20 years.  The papers are chapters of an entire thesis.  He laid the groundwork for the economical explanation of how money arises and how we have made mistakes in understanding this phenomenon.  He painstakingly relates this to law and technology from our proto roots (40-100k years ago).  He has given the ONLY reasonable explanation for not only how money arises but also for how bitcoin could be a money.

Without his work there is no such logical argument for bitcoin to work.  Not even Satoshi left this.  Although I showed his view are perfectly in line with Satoshi and there are only 3 others, Nash and Finney citing Selgin's work that support this.

Szabo also gave a study of the history of commodity price in relation to inflation hedging and their monetary components.  He also bridged Adam Smith's the wealth of nations with advancing crypto economic theory.

There is no single person in the world that is anywhere near his level in this regard and he did it grounded in logic right down to binary.  He literally showed the binary math involved that proves and grounds his work.

His work contrasts the ideas put forth from bch bu r/btc and any such bigbblocker project.  As do Nash's Selgin's and Finney's.

I have no idea what you are trying to ask me.

That sucks because if you were already in place to exchange you could take advantage of the price!  ARg!!!!!

It's people that don't understand fundamentals.

There is no founded argument that increasing 7tps increasing the value.  Economics doesn't support it.  There is no grounded arguments.  There are only people that have no understanding of economics that are screaming like roger "It obvious you dummies" .

Sometimes when the experts and knowledgeable people disagree with what seems like common sense, its because the problem is more complex than you think and the solution not so obvious.

That's not how you make a grounded argument.  There is accepted economic philosophy.  You have to tie your argument to it otherwise its inconsistent with observable reality.  You can point to two simultaneous events and claim observation is proof that one causes the other.

It's a community of 5 year olds.

Sux because if we could just exchange our btc for bch we could get the free money!!!  Can anyone solve this problem?

No.  think about what you have said.  Some networks only few people can use and they are very valuable.  You are wrong.


Do you mean Szabo? Everything is cited and linked to the rabbit hole: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-myth-of-bitcoin-cash-2-re-solving-nashian-and-szabonian-views-on-the-emergence-of-money-b3c83a5d019f

The potential users does not define the value of a network, nor does its number of users: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/my-previous-previous-explained-how-bitcoins-usefulness-as-a-settlement-system-is-able-to-scale-23bfdc02689f

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/bitcoins-most-valuable-usecase-7f5c6e95be22


You see we are holding tacit assumptions that aren't grounding.  We are perpetuating myths and half truths.  I'm banned from r/btc because I would put and end to these myths.

I'm not from india you dumb mutt. Nothing you have said so far is correct.  You just keep repeating it.  And I'm not parroting szabo I'm reference his explanations and citing them and quoting them and explaining them.

A club membership where limited entry creates privilege and prestige. This can go right up to the level of multinational coalition.  But I don't like your question because it doesn't speak to my point.  People assume metcalfes law means the more people accessible to a network the more valueable it is.  This is not metcalfe law.  Metcalfes law is a formula that tells you how many possible connections can be made, the assumption that those connection imply value is asinine.

Think about a fax system.  What that would imply is that the very last person in the world to get a fax machine adds the value times every single person in the world.  But not everyone even sends faxes to each other and there would be no added value if we just start randomly faxing people.

metcalfes law is a measure of POTENTIAL value.  Yet there is nothing to say the value could be filled.  You could a water system for a city and that would create enormous value, but if you create 100 systems for the same city, you will cause more problems then you fix.

Notice Szabo use of the word potential and redundancies:

http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2014/10/transportation-divergence-and.html

Right, causes Ver's claim that increasing the tps and users implies more value is a childs view of economics.  Like why can't we just print more money for everyone (sound familiar (hint bch)?)

Furthermore the big block agenda fights for the average joe, average joe brings very little value to the network compared to, for example, two nations that want to settle on the block chain.  you need many many average joe's to matter value wise compared to international settlement. You can't weight the users the same.

If we used metcalfes law the way much of the community has misten it to be, you could just get everyone to start sending everyone bitcoins and we would all be rich because the price would skyrocket forever.

Szabo made the conjecture and asked if anyone wanted to help him code publically.  The burden was on him, and so his next step would be to provide empirical evidence through an experiment with an anonymous  paper that could be peer reviewed without the bias of knowing who wrote it.

Wait did you all forget how academics works?

Which makes sense because when you divide money into two and add free money you get more money than you started with.  Roger Ver economics.

Lol:

On the one hand the price is skyrocketing!  On the other hand the valuation is largely comprised of the illiquidity:



Anyone have a solution?

Hopefully this ends up in bch continuing to rise and every one both sides of the civil war getting rich either by selling and/or hodling...

As I understand no such quick option exists for the majority of players.

We're learning how exchanges work and what the difference between price and value is.

nope changing bitcoins block size via politicalbattle destroys its gold like property. Bitcoin cash is not digital gold and will not be viewed by the markets as such

there is no better poll than the long run of the aggregated exchange prices. But Bach prices are not matured enough yet.

its fucked how people have been screaming at small blockers to read the white paper when literally they themselves stoped at the title

weird how that happens

Y'all can call Bitcoin cash bcash for short. Has a better ring anyways

absolutely. Think about it. U and others want to sell really bad right? Well the price wait for until u sell as long as u hold until u sell. Right when u all sell just make sure u exchange fast before the price drops from u parting with ur bcash.

U gotta be fast!

And if someone can msg ver or wu and ask them to prop the price up by burning some of there wealth in the meantime that would help too.

Absolutely, follow me...

You are quoting exchanges that people are having a hard time getting any coins either on or off or confirmed.  Kraken said they would be days not sure the status yet.  Bittrex has an * beside the price on https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash/#markets

So what will happen is everyone that doesn't believe in bcash will cash in and this will bring downward pressure onto the price as they sell.  If no one can access the trades/exchanges then the price won't move down. But you can't argue that the highers price is real and an indication of VALUE because of the *'s.

These exchanges (at various times because the *'s are being updated) prices are not necessarily including in the make up of the price which is why it is far lower than these fake exchange prices.

In order to survive bcash needs to first have a reasonable match of its price to its value.  And that means enough honest/competing exchanges must participate in the make-up of the price and coinmarketcap will be a good indicator.  The markets must have a sufficient depth.  

It means bcash must whether this storm and so someone is literally expected to prop up this coin until everyone is done getting the free money.

So the price might not move, it won't like stay higher than it is, as it will be difficult for it to gain legs as everyone dumps.  It depends how bad these people want this to work and what they are willing to expend.

What seems likely though is as the price goes down most people will panic sell together.  Even supporters of bcash because its rational to sell and wait and buy back in if you think that its an irrational crash.

Price and value are not the same thing.  And today we learn this empirically.

And to be clear if bcash crashes, that's not the interesting part, the interesting part would be what the nefarious players are willing to do/bet and for how long to prop the price how high?  We have enough exchanges now that you cannot fake this long term. 

Half the inflation rate would be viewed as better:



Picture is from around the time when he came up with the concept he called "ideal money"

I understand now.  We can view the game as one player has ~51% need to attack.  They are being economically rational.  How does the game work when one player has ~51%(some uncertainty)?

I need someone to find my a big blocker that understands economics to any significant degree?!

I'm pretty sure thats the deal bro. We all signed up to it.

You could have like 45% of the hashing power but own 50% of the exchange narrative and so you might think thats enough...

I can clear up your misunderstanding and help you align your actions with reality.

I think roger ver might have stole the gox coins with karples and laundered them through btc-e and the btc-guy is negotiating to not be extradited to the US.  Ver has a deal for newly minted chinese miner coins and the chinese miners made a game theory calculation error.  Also Nash redefined einsteins work: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/john-nash-tweaked-theory-relativity-death-article-1.2241346

It has to do with inflation theory.  And at first you would think cosmic inflation and monetary inflation are not relevant or related to each other but they are both concepts held up by propriety.

im looking for anyone here who thinks they can hold a candle to me in regard to the macro economic implications of bitcoin

hash tag whitepaper. like west vs germany wwx's.

Found that thought in accepted economic theory.

They need help with their investigation. Expect more high profile arrests.

No.  It was already planned and known there would be a dump period.  The price will be volatile and with some downward pressure and the earlier seller sell off. Price can be propped up with orders and exchanges can claim different types of friction to halt the liquidity to keep the price showing bitcoin cash is relevant (ie not near 0).

once the dust settles or as it does, the mining is going to ramp up and the economics and game theory is going to change gears.  They will try to outpace the old chain.  

It's a near 51% attack, plus an equivalent attack using exchanges, plus an equivalent using whales that have enough of the market cornered.

So the coalition is making a conjecture they have enough power to overcome Satoshi's hidden conjecture that the system can't be usurped.

They have a gang of nefarious hackers that have been stealing coins and laundering them through nefarious exchanges that have deals with the new coin minters (ie the nefarious miners).

They have launched their campaign to over through the network and free millions up millions of stolen coins.

Meanwhile the candle is burning at both ends because arrests have already started and negotiations and prisoner's dilemmas have commenced.  

we're gonna see a whale jump out of the ocean.  Also someone's made an error.

That's as far as I see.

This war is going to evolve to involve fiat and nations

The community doesn't realize yet it has been besieged.

No they are welcomed.  We need the dialogue.  We opened pandora's box.

So the trading volume and statistics will be watched for the timing when the vast majority of early sellers are finished so the next move will be calculated literally and coordinated.

Get ready for the spamminator. 

Coinbase is fucking hilarious.

I know we don't like to face reality around here, but this train is CLEARLY on fire.

Does anyone here know how we objectively measure fiat value?

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/bitcoins-biggest-security-leak-is-core-s-ignorance-how-to-end-unnecessary-conflict-723084d9ec32