If 'forboon' was you, as you have claimed, you either control the account or you don't. If you do, it's a simple matter of proving to everyone that this particular claim is true with high probability - certainly significant enough for most here to believe you. Why should this matter? Not much, except that your arguments on Ideal Money often devolve into appeals to authority and burden-of-proof reversals. That's not going to get us further.

I could see us getting along in this dialogue if you are willing to provide evidence of claims that you make, in such a way that those here can verify. You should also demand the same from us here.

I read that pdf and the only similarities I see between "ideal money" and BTC is a common theme of anti-inflation & anti-central banking.

The cool factor of Nash = Satoshi might appeal to "geeks" but it doesn't change the underlying weakness of BTC as currency system.   Nash's "ideal money" uses a basket of commodities (CPI) in place of a gold standard,  whereas,  BTC uses arbitrary  and artificial scarcity in the code so it "acts like gold".   "Ideal money" is closer to Keynes "bancor" than BTC.

Don't get me wrong.   The Nash is genius and I love to study game theory.   Still,  I'm not convinced that deflation is preferable.   I'm a firm believer that money needs elasticity to meet demands of the economic cycles.  

Nash spends an entire section talking about savings and why inflation hurts savings.   I hear the same argument from bitcoiners all the time.   But this rarely reflect reality of most people's lives.   Nobody saves money in cash.   Most of the middle class own property as their main wealth asset.  

Deflation puts long term borrowers at extreme disadvantage.  Deflation makes it hard for people to make big purchase like a house,  student loan,  medical bills.  

In any case the macro is more complex than the neoi classical model I'm presenting.   At the macro level,  deflation can lead to recession and depressions

Bzzzt.  Wrong answer.  Nash is an awesome analyst, but almost never writes code.  Satoshi has a completely different and highly fluent coding style, a different set of synthesis skills, and uses a different set of tools.  

Nope, it was some smart Japanese guy. 

What is the deal with people's inability to draw an obvious conclusion?

Nash is a brilliant mathetician.   But why would that news instill faith?

Proof-of-Work consensus is an instance of nash equilibrium. But similarities end here.

Occasional British English spelling and terminology (such as the phrase "bloody hard") in both source code comments and forum postings work

a Swiss coder and active community member, graphed the time stamps for each of Nakamoto's bitcoin forum posts......a Swiss coder and active community member, graphed the time stamps for each of Nakamoto's bitcoin forum posts.....it suggests he resided in a region using the UTC−05:00 or UTC−06:00 time offset. This includes the parts of North America that fall within the Eastern Time Zone and Central Time Zone....

For the best that he doesn't come forward, that air of mystique useful as it implies some hidden influence helping Bitcoin along

Overlooking the finer point that if any entity or government *could* theoretically buy all existing bitcoin with the goal of making it worthless and irrelevant, and were they to theoretically succeed, then at the end of the day, they would've just wasted huge sums of money in the process...their fiat is gone in exchange for btc which is also no longer worth anything. Lose/lose/

Only a dumbass would do that.


So, I figure the US government will be making plans any day now to do just exactly that  

So I wish to present the argument that various interested and groups, notably including "Keynesian"economist, have sold to the public a "quasi-doctrine" which teaches, in effect, that "less is more" or that (in other words) "bad money is better than good Money".  Here we can remember the classic ancient economics saying called "Gresham's law" which was "the bad money drives out the good".  The saying of Gresham's is mostly of interest here because it illustrates the "old" or "classical"concept of "bad money" and this can be contrasted with more resent attitudes which have been very much influenced by the Keynesians and by the results of their influence on government policies since the 30s.

And such views can have the effect that an ideal of good money does not seem such a good cause as an ideal of a good pulic water supply

Our view is that if it is viewed scientifically and rationally that money should have the function of a standard of measurement and thus that it should become comparable to the watt or the hour or a degree of temperature.

It was the observation of a new "line" that has become popular with those responsible of "central banking" functions relation to national currencies that gave us the idea for the study of "asymptotically ideal" money.

In the USA the standard domestic "cost of living" index has a long history and it actually originated back in the days when the USA was still on the "gold standard" with regard to the monetary standards being accepted then.

In the near future there may be a smaller number of major currencies used in the world...And there could be introduced, for example, a similar international currency...

And if "inflation targeting" were used as a "line" ..each of the currencies managed thusly would have its officially recognized status in terms of inflation as measured by the domestic index of costs of the state of the managers.  

And so the various currencies managed with "inflation targeting" would be comparable by users or observers who would be able to form opinions about the quality of the currencies.

So here is the possibility of "asymptotically ideal money" Starting with the idea of value stabilization in relation to a domestic price index associated with the territory of one state, beyond that there is the natural and logical concept of internationally based value comparisons.

..It is sometimes remarkable how political context can evolve.

And this parallel makes it seem not implausible that a process of political evolution might lead to the expectation on the part of citizens in the "great democracies" that they should be better situated to be able to understand whatever will be the monetary policies which, indeed are typically of great importance to citizens who may have alternative options for where to place their "savings".

never before in human history have humans possessed a form of money which could not be confiscated, counterfeited, inflated, and could be sent across the world for practically nothing.
when the reference client gets the needed code for blockchain pruning so that bitcoin could sustain visa's transaction rate (along with the ability to bootstrap new clients) one of the most important innovations of the 21st century will be complete.

the amount of techniques combined to create bitcoin really forms an evolution of 300 years of math and cryptography.
from the study of elliptic curves in the 18th century to the realization in the 1980's that a strong public key algorithm can be created by using the group of points on an elliptic curve.
Diffie and Hellman's 1970's idea of hash functions as a building block of a digital signature scheme.
the hashcash scheme as a proof of work proposed by Adam Back in 1997.
P2P networks popularized by Napster in 1999.
and of course Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper from November 2008 describing how to combine everything together to create the blockchain and bitcoin.

Better to be rich in private.

NO
bitcoin wont be a commodity. learn what a commodity is.

what bitcoin would be, is the dominant currency/value measure that countries all use.
research reserve currency

the OP is forgetting the whole british background part of the bitcoin creatoR