It's claimed to be fake, but if you ever bother to read it solely for entertainment value alone, it's clearly up there in terms of literary competency, rivaling things like Machiavelli's The Prince or Art of War. Why do I say this? For example:
"12. Our right lies in force. The word "right" is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than: Give me what I want in order that thereby I may have a proof that I am stronger than you.Where does right begin? Where does it end?"
This thing is a hundred years old and claimed to be fake, but this is exactly how the world has played out ever since, with liberalism being used as a weapon to destabilize and take over nations:
"6. Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one's party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier if the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, SO-CALLED LIBERALISM, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears; the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot for one single day exist without guidance, and the new authority merely fits into the place of the old already weakened by liberalism."
"14. In any State in which there is a bad organization of authority, an impersonality of laws and of the rulers who have lost their personality amid the flood of rights ever multiplying out of liberalism, I find a new right - to attack by the right of the strong, and to scatter to the winds all existing forces of order and regulation, to reconstruct all institutions and to become the sovereign lord of those who have left to us the rights of their power by laying them down voluntarily in their liberalism."
I think here you can see the dynamic of Bitcoin at play. A nation cedes it's power to a supposed Nash equilibrium where instead of having a ruler, there's absolutely nobody in charge. Forget the logistics of what happens if everyone on earth does such an action and concentrate only on the idea of: does the Nash equilibrium actually exist or not?
If no Nash equilibrium even exists, then you're basically just blowing up your economy on purpose and ceding power to usurpers. So, you be the judge. Here is my take on - does any form of Nash equilibrium even exist in the first place?
You might be onto something if Bitcoin actually had some type of Nash equilibrium, otherwise it's the same thing as centrally issued fiat. With the exception that as soon as someone tries to tamper with it or implement something like inflation, instead of getting inflation, half the people reject it and the other half accept it and you get a rough consensus attack like Ethereum and it just dies.
Next we will have Ethereum PoS vs Ethereum PoW vs Ethereum Classic PoW vs Ethereum Classic PoS.
Not sure how this is considered anti-fragile. It's only anti-fragile if the coin had a working Nash equilibrium the day it was released and never forked or altered afterwards. Bitcoin was released as some type of experiment that almost works but not really. Now people are trying to cover up the fact that it doesn't actually work with the cover story of: "hey guys, it works and has a Nash equilibrium...it just requires a permanent team of technocrats who will forever be fiddling with levers in an arbitrary manner just like the Keynesians do...but we will pretend that's a Nash equilibrium"
So you have a winner take all paradigm on the mining side, and a permanent technocracy on the client side that operates similar to how politicians work where they advocate needing permanent change to justify their own existence as a change maker. So you centralize terminally in two directions at the same time with a joint rule of technocrats and Chinese slumlords who rule over everyone else.
What is the endgame of all this? Doesn't seem like there's any Nash equilibrium going on. The mining side centralizes in a winner take all paradigm as one faction of power, then you have other factions who just kinda say, "we wrote the client so therefore we have a hand in the power structure even though the system wasn't actually designed like that". Then the users...the users are just a diverse mob with no agreement on anything so they don't even matter. In the end it's just kind of random chaos...destabilization...
