Bitcoin is the best Ideal money humanity has ever had.

How do we know if money is good or bad?

 First, we need to understand what money is for. Money was created because it was difficult for people to trade goods directly, The problem with barter systems is that it was not always easy to find someone who exactly had what you wanted and who also wanted exactly what you had to offer.

For example, if you produce potatoes and someone else produces meat, in order to trade, that person must want potatoes at that exact moment, and you must want meat. If you don’t want the same quantity or quality of goods, the trade becomes complicated.

That’s why money was created ,so they realized they needed a medium that could be used as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, and a store of value.

Throughout history, various items have been used as money, like stones, shells, whale teeth, and rai stones, then metals like gold, copper, and silver, later paper, and today digital money controlled by banks.

Throughout all these attempts, it became increasingly clear that money must have certain characteristics.For example, durability whatever we choose as money must be long-lasting, because if we chose a banana ,it would spoil quickly and lose its value, so it wouldn’t work as money,it wouldn’t be able to serve as a store of value.Divisibility is one of the important characteristics of money. Money must be able to be divided into smaller parts. Divisible forms of money allow transactions of all sizes and amounts.For example, with gold, divisibility was a problem, so people had to use silver and copper coins.Scarcity  Money needs to be rare enough to maintain its value. If there is too much of something, it loses value. That’s why materials like gold and silver, which are relatively scarce, have been used as money for a long time.Money must be easy to store and transfer, and easy to verify  these are characteristics that good money should have. Gold lacked some of these characteristics, which is why banks, paper money, and debt-based currencies appeared.

If you analyze it closely, there is no single physical object in the world that has all the characteristics of good money.The digital age has made it possible to create money that has all the necessary characteristics.

Money was created because...

That’s why money was created ,so they realized...

Throughout all these attempts, it became increasingly clear that money must have certain characteristics.

Divisibility is one of the important characteristics of money. Money must be able to be divided into smaller parts.

The digital age has made it possible to create money that has all the necessary characteristics.

...after consulting with some of the economics faculty at Princeton, I learned of the work and publications of Friedrich von Hayek. I must say that my thinking is apparently quite parallel to his thinking in relation to money and particularly with regard to the non-typical viewpoint in relation to the functions of the authorities which in recent times have been the sources of currencies (earlier “coinage”).)

I would announce the issue of non-interest bearing certificates or notes, and the readiness to open current cheque accounts, in terms of a unit with a distinct registered trade name such as 'ducat'. The only legal obligation I would assume would be to redeem these notes and deposits on demand with, at the option of the holder, either 5 Swiss francs or 5 D-marks or 2 dollars per ducat. This redemption value would however be intended only as a floor below which the value of the unit could not fall because I would announce at the same time my intention to regulate the quantity of the ducats so as to keep their (precisely defined) purchasing power as nearly as possible constant

I would announce that I proposed from time to time to state the precise commodity equivalent in terms of which I intended to keep the value of the ducat constant, but that I reserved the right, after announcement, to alter the composition of the commodity standard as [46] experience and the revealed preferences of the public suggested

It seems to me to be fairly certain that:

(a) a money generally expected to preserve its purchasing power approximately constant would be in continuous demand so long as the people were free to use it

(b) with such a continuing demand depending on success in keeping the value of the currency constant one could trust the issuing hanks to make every effort to achieve this better than would any monopolist who runs no risk by depreciating his money

(c) the issuing institution could achieve this result by regulating the quantity of its issue

(d) such a regulation of the quantity of each currency would constitute the best of all practicable methods of regulating the quantity of media of exchange for all possible purposes.

A possible non-political basis for a value standard which could be used for money would be a good "ICPI" statistic where this acronym refers to "industrial consumption price index". That could be calculated from the international prices of commodities, such as copper, silver, tungsten, etc. that are used in industrial activities.

We can see that times could change, especially if a "miracle energy source" were found, and thus if a good ICPI index is constructed it should not be expected to be valid, as initially defined, into all eternity. It would instead be appropriate for it to be regularly readjusted depending on how the patterns of international trade would actually evolve.

Here, evidently, politicians in control of the authority behind standards COULD corrupt the continuity of a good standard, but depending on how things were fundamentally arranged, the probabilities of serious damage through "political corruption" might become as small as the probabilities that the values of the standard meter and kilogram will be corrupted through the actions of politicians.

Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic, not a historical, science. Its scope is human action as such, irrespective of all environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances of the concrete acts. Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts. They are a necessary requirement of any intellectual grasp of historical events. Without them we should not be able to see in the course of events anything else than kaleidoscopic change and chaotic muddle.

The theorems attained by correct praxeological reasoning are not only perfectly certain and incontestable, like the correct mathematical theorems. They refer, moreover with the full rigidity of their apodictic certainty and incontestability to the reality of action as it appears in life and history. Praxeology conveys exact and precise knowledge of real things.

In this essay I use the perspective and intention of Szabonian deconstruction, as well as our insights from doing the same with Mises Regression theorem, to highlight Saifedean Ammous’ nefarious use and wrapping of academic scholars work notably including Mises, Hayek, and Nash as well as implicitly Szabo and Satoshi.

Further I highlight that Saifedean's account of how money originated and how moneyness originates in objects is based on an anthropologically inconsistent argument with reference to Jo Walton, “The analogy between Bitcoin and Yapese stone money is based on proposed commonalities that are inaccurate, ill-defined, and/or trivial.“

This essay then gives an example of how nefarious constructions can be ‘un-wrapped’ using Szabonian Deconstruction (properly framed inquiries) and it lays the beginning of my attempt to usefully frame an inquiry into the historical and cultural evolution of objects humanity has used as money as AND money-LIKE things (ie such proto-money, credit, wealth storage etc.).

Insert Quote
your citation has nothing to do with sybil attack nor bitcoin

and thats how you stop a social sybil.. by recognising it happening quick and telling the idiot he is wasting his time

Cantillon suggested that inflation occurs gradually and that the new supply of money has a localised effect on inflation, effectively originating the concept of non-neutral money.[62] Furthermore, he posited that the original recipients of new money enjoy higher standards of living at the expense of later recipients.[63] The concept of relative inflation, or a disproportionate rise in prices among different goods in an economy, is now known as the Cantillon Effect.[64][65]

i just meant OP posts something about bitcoin and then starts making it about a guy named Nash he idolises

That's a strange title and misguiding one, if the Bitcoin community is a Sybil Attack on Bitcoin then why Bitcoin exist in first place? Bitcoin is Bitcoin because of the community and support it's getting from the community. Without the community and users Bitcoin can't really be a useful thing at all, so it's better to not use such misleading title.

I know that Sybil attacks are of a concern but considering whole community as sybil attack is not right at all. I know that sybil attack is a concern and it was a concern back then also but it's not fair to consider the whole community as sybil attack on Bitcoin.

The only way to know for sure is to check your balances against the current longest chain.

Your chain data is borked. Have you tried deleting Armory's database folder yet?

When it does so, check that you have the "Connected" message in green in the bottom right corner... the number of blocks should be greater than the current block height of 531,939.