John Nash created bitcoin

[traincarswreck]

https://soundcloud.com/stew-pendousman4444/on-nash-ideal-money

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/20-years-ago-john-nash-re-defined-our-understanding-of-economics-again-and-we-still-havent-4f3b7f09fd0e#.6hpwhrbfo

[1714043752]

1714043752

[1714043752]

1714043752

[1714043752]

1714043752

[franky1]

john nash was a maths guy not a code guy... keep trying though

[traincarswreck]

john nash was a maths guy not a code guy... keep trying though

you obviously didn't read the article where i cited the programming he was doing in regard to searching for the next prime number.  Or the part where cederic villiani explained how nash was known for solving problems far outside his own expertise, by arranging different experts in different fields to solve certain problems he formulated for them to solve, which came together to solve a problem of an unbelievable order.  

You wholly just judged something in which you have no idea what you are talking about didn't you?

[traincarswreck]

no one who listens to the entire thing with sincerity will disagree.

[franky1]

john nash was a maths guy not a code guy... keep trying though

you obviously didn't read the article where i cited the programming he was doing in regard to searching for the next prime number.  Or the part where cederic villiani explained how nash was known for solving problems far outside his own expertise, by arranging different experts in different fields to solve certain problems he formulated for them to solve, which came together to solve a problem of an unbelievable order.  

You wholly just judged something in which you have no idea what you are talking about didn't you?

he used his mind and written and verbal words. he didnt do things like learn c++
he was a theorist and white paper writer. he left it for other people to translate the math into programming.

im pretty sure you havnt really dug deep into what he done in his later years (beyond lectures), after the millenium to realise that he is not really the coder level capable person to have wrote bitcoin.

but as i said.. keep digging

[traincarswreck]

john nash was a maths guy not a code guy... keep trying though

you obviously didn't read the article where i cited the programming he was doing in regard to searching for the next prime number.  Or the part where cederic villiani explained how nash was known for solving problems far outside his own expertise, by arranging different experts in different fields to solve certain problems he formulated for them to solve, which came together to solve a problem of an unbelievable order.  

You wholly just judged something in which you have no idea what you are talking about didn't you?

he used his mind and written and verbal words. he didnt do things like learn c++
he was a theorist and white paper writer. he left it for other people to translate the math into programming.

im pretty sure you havnt really dug deep into what he done in his later years (beyond lectures), after the millenium to realise that he is not really the coder level capable person to have wrote bitcoin.

but as i said.. keep digging

I made sure I was throughout enough that people will laugh at you for being the first person to shoot it down without reading it.  Good job. Please leave the thread though.

[lionheart78]

It is full assumption as I understand the article with some vague supporting facts. But I wouldn't remove the possibility that he maybe the one orchestrated a project that lead to Bitcoin creation.

And isn't it Primecoin that solve for next prime numbers? http://primecoin.io/about.php#what-xpm

Code:

There are some other very curious little notes he left on his homepage as well, one is an admission that he had built 
a program that could search for the next prime number, and this note about how he had a fear of consulting 
others on some ideas he was having:

some line from https://medium.com/@rextar4444/20-years-ago-john-nash-re-defined-our-understanding-of-economics-again-and-we-still-havent-4f3b7f09fd0e#.fzkbnx7hp

Code:

What is the Scientific Value Behind Primecoin's Work?
Primecoin network searches for special prime number chains known as Cunningham chains and bi-twin chains. The distribution of these prime 
chains are not well-understood currently as even for its simplest case twin primes their infinite existence is not proven. The distribution of
 primes has been one of the most important discoveries in arithmetic, and the study of prime chains traces its lineage to the work of Riemann 
prime number theorem, with connections to the deeper nature of the seemingly random pattern of prime distribution. Prime distribution is not
 just an abstract interest of mathematicians. Riemann's study revealed connections between Riemann zeta function and prime distribution, 
 later on Riemann zeta function has been shown to be highly relevant in other scientific disciplines such as physics, thus the study of
 prime distribution is an important part of the foundation of modern sciences.

http://primecoin.io/about.php#what-xpm

[traincarswreck]

It is full assumption as I understand the article with some vague supporting facts. But I wouldn't remove the possibility that he maybe the one orchestrated a project that lead to Bitcoin creation.

And isn't it Primecoin that solve for next prime numbers? http://primecoin.io/about.php#what-xpm

Code:

There are some other very curious little notes he left on his homepage as well, one is an admission that he had built 
a program that could search for the next prime number, and this note about how he had a fear of consulting 
others on some ideas he was having:

some line from https://medium.com/@rextar4444/20-years-ago-john-nash-re-defined-our-understanding-of-economics-again-and-we-still-havent-4f3b7f09fd0e#.fzkbnx7hp

Code:

What is the Scientific Value Behind Primecoin's Work?
Primecoin network searches for special prime number chains known as Cunningham chains and bi-twin chains. The distribution of these prime 
chains are not well-understood currently as even for its simplest case twin primes their infinite existence is not proven. The distribution of
 primes has been one of the most important discoveries in arithmetic, and the study of prime chains traces its lineage to the work of Riemann 
prime number theorem, with connections to the deeper nature of the seemingly random pattern of prime distribution. Prime distribution is not
 just an abstract interest of mathematicians. Riemann's study revealed connections between Riemann zeta function and prime distribution, 
 later on Riemann zeta function has been shown to be highly relevant in other scientific disciplines such as physics, thus the study of
 prime distribution is an important part of the foundation of modern sciences.

http://primecoin.io/about.php#what-xpm

Aug. 30, 1999 Initiation of this directory, "Goldbach_Programs". This is just for some recreational mathematics stuff that may be of occasional interest. I recently read the novel "Uncle Petros and the Goldbach Conjecture". In the story Petros, but at a time many years in the past, wonders about whether or not, in particular, the number 2^100 satisfies GB (so that it is a sum of 2 primes). Nowadays it is possible to compute answers to questions of this sort for numbers of that size fairly easily. As I read the novel and thought about that specific question I remembered that quite a few years ago, just while doing recreational work/play with numbers, I had developed a moderately efficient program to search for the next prime larger than a given odd number. And I realized that this program, which I had on file as a MATHEMATICA program, could be applied to the problem challenge of checking out 2^100 in relation to the Goldbach Conjecture.

I am speaking about a research project that is not fully complete since I have not yet written up and submitted for publication any paper or papers describing the work. Also the details of what axioms to use and how to select the basic set theory underlying the hierarchical extension to be constructed are not fully crystallized. I have also a great fear of possible error in studying topics in this area. It is not rare, historically, for systems to be proposed that are either inconsistent or that have unexpected weaknesses. So I feel that I must be cautious and proceed without rushing to a goal. And this psychology of fear has also inhibited me from consulting other persons expert in logic before I could feel that I had gotten my own ideas into good shape.

I think there is a good analogy to mathematical theories like, for example, “class field theory”. In mathematics a set of axioms can be taken as a foundation and then an area for theoretical study is brought into being. For example, if one set of axioms is specified and accepted we have the theory of rings while if another set of axioms is the foundation we have the theory of Moufang loops.

 So, from a critical point of view, the theory of macro-economics of the Keynesians is like the theory of plane geometry without the axiom of Euclid that was classically called the “parallel postulate”. (It is an interesting fact in the history of science that there was a time, before the nineteenth century, when mathematicians were speculating that this axiom or postulate was not necessary, that it should be derivable from the others.)

So I feel that the macroeconomics of the Keynesians is comparable to a scientific study of a mathematical area which is carried out with an insufficient set of axioms. And the result is analogous to the situation in plane geometry, the plane does not need to be really flat and the area within a circle can expand hyperbolically as a function of the radius rather than merely with the square of the radius. (This picture suggests the pattern of inflation that can result in a country, over extended time periods, when there is continually a certain amount of gradual inflation

The missing axiom is simply an accepted axiom that the money being put into circulation by the central authorities should be so handled as to maintain, over long terms of time, a stable value.

The script or plan for my talk linking the “ideal money” …was influenced by concerns that it would be wise not to speak too incautionsly of “the Keynesians” when the times are such that …a state administration can act without going through the parliamentary processes to write new legislation.

Therefore, I had arranged for 2012 to talk more cautiously in relation to whatever would impact with “the Keynesians” and with the political interest relating also to the scholarly factions allied with (or forming) “the Keynesians”

The label “Keynesian” is convenient, but to be safe we should have a defined meaning for this as a party that can be criticized and contrasted with other parties.

So let us define “Keynesian” to be descriptive of a “school of thought” that originated at the time of the devaluations of the pound and the dollar in the early 30’s of the 20th century. Then, more specifically, a “Keynesian” would favor the existence of a “manipulative” state establishment of central bank and treasury which would continuously seek to achieve “economics welfare” objectives with comparatively little regard for the long term reputation of the national currency

[unamis76]

Not quite sure how this relates to Bitcoin. I might be wrong but this fuzz about Satoshi is making people see things where they don't exist. I might be wrong though, would like to see proof relating someone to Satoshi if it exists.

[traincarswreck]

Not quite sure how this relates to Bitcoin. I might be wrong but this fuzz about Satoshi is making people see things where they don't exist. I might be wrong though, would like to see proof relating someone to Satoshi if it exists.

You are perfectly admitting you didn't listen to the link or read the article aren't you?  Like just for others can you clarify this is true or not? No one who has listened to the talk has said something so asinine, just so others are aware.

[Dmitry.Vastov]

So wheres the evidence? Its funny coz he is not a code expert. But he is a math genius. How can he create such technology?
Keep trying. I think we are very close to Satoshi Nakamoto. Lol
Oh! theres another one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1765953.0

[traincarswreck]

So wheres the evidence? Its funny coz he is not a code expert. But he is a math genius. How can he create such technology?
Keep trying. I think we are very close to Satoshi Nakamoto. Lol
Oh! theres another one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1765953.0

Did you also just comment on something you haven't read or listened to?

[traincarswreck]

The article is fact after fact after fact.......

Everything is perfectly cited.

John Nash created bitcoin, anyone that sincerely looks at the facts will agree.

[unamis76]

Not quite sure how this relates to Bitcoin. I might be wrong but this fuzz about Satoshi is making people see things where they don't exist. I might be wrong though, would like to see proof relating someone to Satoshi if it exists.

You are perfectly admitting you didn't listen to the link or read the article aren't you?  Like just for others can you clarify this is true or not? No one who has listened to the talk has said something so asinine, just so others are aware.

Yes, I didn't listen to the talk. No, I read the article. If you could point me to where in the talk do we have proof that John Nash created Bitcoin, I'd be thankful.

[lionheart78]

Not quite sure how this relates to Bitcoin. I might be wrong but this fuzz about Satoshi is making people see things where they don't exist. I might be wrong though, would like to see proof relating someone to Satoshi if it exists.

You are perfectly admitting you didn't listen to the link or read the article aren't you?  Like just for others can you clarify this is true or not? No one who has listened to the talk has said something so asinine, just so others are aware.

Yes, I didn't listen to the talk. No, I read the article. If you could point me to where in the talk do we have proof that John Nash created Bitcoin, I'd be thankful.

Indeed the proof of facts are very vague to point John Nash as the creator of Bitcoin even the qouted proof that were posted as a reply to my post here tells nothing about John Nash creating Bitcoin, those were just some events that were taken as proof of John Nash planning on something and that programming mentioned were built to search next prime number that were well suited to the concept of Primecoin.

[Gleb Gamow]

The article is fact after fact after fact.......

Everything is perfectly cited.

John Nash created bitcoin, anyone that sincerely looks at the facts will agree.

My theory is that traincarswreck caused the taxicab accident that took John and Alicia Nash's life.

[mmo_online_1981]

I do not care so much, I just care who operates BTC

[Xester]

Josh Nash sounded like a mathematician rather than a creator of bitcoin. If compared to Craig Wright, wright is more reliable than John Nash and If i were to select between the two it would be Wright that I will vote. But as of now neither of the two is Satoshi Nakamoto since they fail to establish enough evidence and proof that they are really the creators of bitcoin.

[traincarswreck]

Josh Nash sounded like a mathematician rather than a creator of bitcoin. If compared to Craig Wright, wright is more reliable than John Nash and If i were to select between the two it would be Wright that I will vote. But as of now neither of the two is Satoshi Nakamoto since they fail to establish enough evidence and proof that they are really the creators of bitcoin.

did you listen or read the article, because I don't believe you did. listen.

[traincarswreck]

Josh Nash sounded like a mathematician rather than a creator of bitcoin. If compared to Craig Wright, wright is more reliable than John Nash and If i were to select between the two it would be Wright that I will vote. But as of now neither of the two is Satoshi Nakamoto since they fail to establish enough evidence and proof that they are really the creators of bitcoin.

Lemme ask you something.  It is said Craig claimed him and 4 or more others created bitcoin, why are you calling HIM Satoshi? And do you believe Gavins bullshit lie that one can prove they are Satoshi by signing with Satoshi's private key?