John Nash created bitcoin

[iamnotback]

But it could be ; but as, moreover, Bitcoin's monetary philosophy is ALSO not in agreement with Nash ideal money,

I refuted that a few moments earlier upthread. You have so many errors.

Nope.  I argued why.  Your argument contains a contradiction, namely the impossibility to keep at the same time a pre-announced numerical debasement scheme, and a constant market value.

I knew you were going to make that mistake.  You can't figure these things out for yourself. I have to spoon feed every little detail and permutation to you.

The market value will be stable when it reaches $5 trillion market cap and the high transaction fees have forced all the riff-raff off the blockchain and only the $billionaires are using it. Of course it is not 100% stable value ideal money when it is in the nascent viral launch phase as a small market cap and not yet a reserve currency for most billionaires (just a few billionaires already using BTC as their unit-of-account).

I indicated that you misunderstood the notion of non-manipulable debasement, not as meaning a pre-announced *numerical* emission scheme, but a pre-announced emission scheme with a value target (for instance, constant small inflation, or constant value), the only way to avoid the contradiction.

Lol, I didn't misunderstand. I even anticipated you would make the inconsistent logic which I explained above. See the bolded text below proving I anticipated your blunder. Lol.

You think you are smart, but really you are more of a bumbling idiot.

Here follows a copy of my original explanation.

In regards to John Nash creating Bitcoin I think I could just as well say someone else created it. I don’t think we will ever know for sure.

Absolutely true and intelligent point!  Although on other hand, how many people do you know spent the last 20 years explaining how an international e-currency with a stable supply and asymptotically stabilizing inflation rate would cause a currency war that would eventually end the monopoly on central banks and government ability to issue money?

This is another reason why bitcoin is not corresponding to Nash's ideal money.  Bitcoin has a diminishing DEBASEMENT, and a huge DEFLATION (that is, value appreciation).  

For Nash, it was extremely important that this international currency had zero or low and fixed, inflation, that is VALUE DEPRECIATION.  He accused gold of not being ideal, exactly because it was too much of a collectible, and couldn't adapt supply to keep its value constant.  Bitcoin is based upon sound money doctrine, which is not what Nash considers ideal money, because it doesn't have a stable value, and can't because you cannot have inelastic supply, variable demand, and constant price.  Bitcoin has perfectly inelastic supply (it is programmed in advance), even a diminishing growth rate of his supply.  So this must be a value-appreciating asset, which cannot serve as ideal money with constant value AT ALL.

If it was meant to be a reserve ASSET (not money), then Satoshi has been lying through his teeth, and it doesn't correspond to what Nash called ideal money.

You are mistaken. By the time Bitcoin reaches its intended use case phase after the global monetary reset 2024ish, Bitcoin's debasement will be winding down.

Also you are causing confusion with your incorrect use of the term deflation. Deflation is an economy-wide phenomenon so would only apply if Bitcoin was the unit-of-account widely employed in the economy. Although it is true that in a few more years, Bitcoin will be causing massive global deflation.

Also Nash specifically wrote that debasement was compatible with his ideal money, as long as the schedule of debasement was non-manipulable (which is the case for Bitcoin).

Eventually the speculative value of Bitcoin will become nil as it becomes the home of $billionaires-only (which btw is mathematically why all the speculative value in the economy will leech off into BTC), then the miners will not longer be able to do these manipulations of the speculative exchange price as they are currently doing with for example Litecoin.

[1714100150]

1714100150

[1714100150]

1714100150

[1714100150]

1714100150

[iamnotback]

And if it were, against all odds, designed by the global elite, it is a failure in any case.  Don't stare yourself blind on the "market cap" of bitcoin: that's nothing else but one big huge speculative bubble, driven by greater-fool games.

No man. Most BTC is hodling. MAJOR MISTAKE IN ANALYSIS!!

That is exactly the same analysis.  The only reason people hodl, is because they wait for greater fools.  Hodling stuff doesn't give it economic value, because no value is created by doing so.  This is also exactly the reason why bitcoin's market cap is fake if you see it as an illustration of the total amount of value stored in it.  The day the bubble bursts, this deflates to almost zero.

You must have flunked economics or forgot the fundamental canons of capitalism.

Money is a transferable utility. Capital accumulation as a form of investment can increase the utility of economy. The winners and losers form an emergent order of fitness of capital accumulation.

Hodling BTC increases the utility of Bitcoin by increasing its market capitalization. Fungible money gains utility as it gains hodling because it means more people are willing to accept more of it (which has nothing to do with merchants accepting it ... the elite want to replace gold with a better gold for their reserves).

The overall point is that all this speculation is preparing BTC's market cap to grow enough that more and more billionaires start using it for their unit-of-account.

Over time the small block size will (via exorbitant transaction fees) kick the riff-raff off of Bitcoin and so it will become the exclusive domain of the wealthy. And then the speculative noise that causes you to be a Bitcoin naysayer, will be gone.

The whales and dolphins that are hodling BTC are not the simpleton minnows and greater fool victims. They are very astute investors who understand the world is fundamentally changing.

I am sorry. I am weary of replying to your dumb posts. (that means if you write some more dumb shit, I might just put you on Ignore bcz its getting redundant)

I thought you had a university education.

[Sadlife]

Satoshi nakamoto is the real creator of bitcoin some say that satoshi isn't just an individual but actully a group of intelligent people. Many claimed to be satoshi, many were speculated to be satoshi but all of them lack the criteria to be The Creator of Bitcoin.

[iamnotback]

Where I don't agree with you is that bitcoin is designed by the "global elite" because apart from a gambler's token, it is not going to go anywhere that can interest the "global elite".

You have entirely ignored everything. Amazing. It is like you have selective reading comprehension. You are clearly in a massive state of cognitive dissonance.

I already told you that I think it is you who are suffering from that, simply because you are too much invested in that view, without which most of what you do would run the risk to be reduced to something of lesser importance than you are willing to conceive.

I'm not designing something that has to stop the evil future masters of the world (bitcoin), and I'm not the one wanting to change the world.  You need bitcoin to be designed by an evil genius, in the hands of the world elite, with a mega evil master plan that you can outplay in order for your work to be of the importance you want it to be.  So you need bitcoin to be the evil future domination after fiat finance has collapsed, at the right time scale so that your design has had the time to have overcome that devil's plan.  I don't.  I couldn't care less.  I simply don't care about the world, and yes, one day I will be "slaughtered" and I couldn't care less, either.  That's part of life.

My altcoin project doesn't depend in any way on Bitcoin being evil, perfect, or flawed. My project is about helping us share our knowledge production without being hostage to 3rd parties. It only depends on BTC being available as an exchange mechanism to and from fiat.

That is another example of your cognitive dissonance. You invent delusions that don't exist. You demonize things in your mind, because you said you want to not care. Not caring is your psychological defense mechanism because you've said you hate society-at-large.

As such, the probability that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance is quite higher than the probability that it is me.  I am not invested into this.

You are not invested and thus not expert, as I have clearly shown by your numerous technical errors w.r.t. blockchain design.

I am invested and am more expert than you.

I have also shown I am more knowledgeable than you about economics.

And I don't have hate for society-at-large and have no need to protect myself psychologically by wanting to not care.

Thus you computed the probabilities incorrectly.

I'm just putting elements on the table.  Yes, it might very well be that Nash was an evil genius working for the Rothschilds when he was 80 years old,

I've stated I don't think Nash was necessarily consciously working for the elite. Yet the fact is he was traveling around the world selling the concept of an IPCI which is precisely the weighted basket that has been floated by the elite for the SDRs of the NWO. I suspect he was unwittingly involved, or was outsmarting his handlers (in case you've forgotten, the theory would be in that case he would know that Bitcoin would enable altcoin experimentation).

has made a cryptographic design that violates about every rule of good design

You continue to write BS that just isn't true. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat lies, they are still lies.

You are damn close to being permanently ignored by me because I've refuted your allegations and you continue to repeat the lie after you've been informed as to your errors. So this is disingenuous crap.

has enabled you to be the hero that will save the world by outsmarting that mathematical and economical genius, John Forbes Nash, and building a system that will kill his devil's machine.

Ah so the entire thing is jealousy. I got it now. Goodbye.

You're so jealous that you'd conflate my project which entirely independent of Bitcoin (except as an exchange for the token and the token is a minor aspect of the value).

No my project won't defeat Bitcoin. The knowledge age will eventually defeat fungible money, but my project is but one part of a natural evolution that was going to happen any way. I just want to be part of it.

I'll pay you a beer if you were right (and I won't pay it in bitcoin) in 2025 and if both of us are still alive.

I won't have time for your silly beer. Besides I don't drink alcohol.

And frankly I want nothing more to do with you.

But you see that your stake in this is way way higher than mine.

You got that wrong. Lol.

My stake in my project is higher yes. But I don't have any particular need for Bitcoin to be flawed or evil. Much better if it wasn't a threat. I think it would be much better to do my project in a world where there isn't some potential conflict ahead.

This is why I think that I can be more open-minded about these things that you are.  I'm not saying that I know better.

How can you be open-minded when you are a lunatic who hates society-at-large and wants to not care about anything because that is the way you've been protecting your psychology and coping with your life.

But the fact that you reply with judgements of my sayings, person and intelligence, rather than with rational arguments,

You lie about my rational arguments.

[dihari]

Why is this thing still spread in this forum? Couple days ago iamnotback was created a thread about how jhon Nash created bitcoin and then locked. Then he created the same thread in another section, and now this happen again by someone who just paste a link of article that created by someone​ idk.

[mr.mister]

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?

Yes he did. He's a friggin idiot and is a hired gun of Jihan Wu, along with Alex, and some others....

[Dorky]

My altcoin project doesn't depend in any way on Bitcoin being evil, perfect, or flawed. My project is about helping us share our knowledge production without being hostage to 3rd parties. It only depends on BTC being available as an exchange mechanism to and from fiat.

I believe any alt, no matter how good or bad, needs the support (financial and non-financial alike) of the shadow elites in order to have a lasting impression in the society (or else they will die out sooner or later).

Nonetheless, if your alt have the potential for some very lucrative monetary potential (either as a result of pump and dumb or otherwise), I am interested to know more. 

[iamnotback]

All the $billionaires and $trillionaires will be doing their settlement in BTC.

It will be $500,000 per BTC.

That is obvious.

You don't seem to understand money very well. And I am not going to write a treatise here. It isn't my responsibility to fix your ignorance about money. I say this forcefully because it behooves you to do some learning so you stop spouting off incorrect judgments.

You said this in that other thread where the first Snapchat investor said it's going $500,000 by 2030, that you agree with that prediction.

2030 is 13 years from now

Current price: $1200

That's $498,800 to go in 13 years, which according to my third grade math means BTC should raise around $38369 per year if your theory is correct.

Isn't this a bit nuts? How can BTC grow so much in 13 years? It would need to go parabolic in an unprecedented way. It would redefine the meaning of going parabolic. Nothing ever has grown this much, not even Berkshire Hathaway Class A stock. We are looking at insane levels of growth in a parabolic way in the last 3 years before 2030 is hit and by the time the curve of coin release starts being flat:



So if this is of any guidance, by about 2025 we would need to start seeing some serious shit, like legit insanity of price growth. And I say parabolic, because I don't see anything near $38369 per year happening any time soon if the growth was more or less linear, so it must be next-level parabolic. We would need to be seeing gold whales, stock whales, fiat whales, everything, moving money onto bitcoin to hodl there (or transact within the blockchain but never leaving BTC).

We are talking about 5 figures of growth per day in the last period... this is insane and would cause heart attacks left and right from hodlers that become rich in such a extreme way.

We are looking at current mega whales (considering they don't sell along the way) becoming the richest men on earth, maybe surpassing Rotchilds? I don't know how many BTC the mega rpietila and MP tier whales have, but at $500,000 per BTC they would become stupid rich, maybe first trillionaires ever (as a single guy owning +trillion).

I don't know, the growth required for $500,000 in 13 years seems too much. It would be something never seen before, books would be written about it, kids would learn about it in schools. It would be all over the planet, minds would explode, people that didn't buy at $1000 would hang themselves with a belt.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function". Al Barlett on Growth and Sustainability

Compute: (500000÷1200)^(1÷13) = 1.59

Thus to reach $500,000 in 13 years from a starting price of $1200, a compounded rise in price of 59% per year is all that is required.

Do you understand now why I think @dinofelis is very mathematically near-sighted.

The chart you showed is not constant compounded growth, but rather logistic growth. Indeed we should expect Bitcoin to be logistic, because nothing can grow at a constant exponential rate forever. Since the $10 entry price in early 2013 to the recent $1300 price, Bitcoin has averaged 237% gain per year compounded. So we can see that Bitcoin's price is rising much faster than 59% per year right now and so by 2030 the price rise can slow down to much less than 59% per year and still reach $500,000. I believe @rpietila did some logistic models of potential BTC prices.

If we assume a 75% compounded rate (for the equivalent logistic model) from now until 2024, then the BTC price will rise 50X, thus $60,000 and the market cap will be $1.2 trillion.

Of course no one can surpass the elite in BTC wealth, because they mined most of the first 10.5 million Bitcoins.

Most of us won't have enough BTC to stay on chain that long so we will be kicked out to currencies (altcoins or what ever) which are regulated and many of us will have our wealth confiscated by governments gone bezerk with the severe sovereign debt collapse that Bitcoin is going to help cause and make severe.

You say you won't give your private keys, but the government can throw you in jail and torture you. Also I expect by 2024 or so, the elite will have control over the mining and can blacklist addresses they want to.

Why would the elite want to create thousands of new trillionairs?

They aren't. See above.

Why would trillionares need BTC when they own offshore banks?

Offshore banks aren't a reserve currency.

[iamnotback]

Why is this thing still spread in this forum? Couple days ago iamnotback was created a thread about how jhon Nash created bitcoin and then locked. And now this happen again by someone who just paste a link of article that created by someone​ idk.

Can't you see the date on the OP of this thread was Jan 27. I started a different thread this week. I presume you know the difference between January and April.

[iamnotback]

Besides, if you think bitcoin will be rejected in favor of one or some of the alts out there, that shows you don't understand the shadow elite well enough.

My altcoin project doesn't depend in any way on Bitcoin being evil, perfect, or flawed. My project is about helping us share our knowledge production without being hostage to 3rd parties. It only depends on BTC being available as an exchange mechanism to and from fiat.

I believe any alt, no matter how good or bad, needs the support (financial and non-financial alike) of the shadow elites in order to have a lasting impression in the society (or else they will die out sooner or later).

What makes you think the elite want to be locked together in a mutual self-destruction of NWO and 666.

They think they have no choice (or let's say nature forces them to exist), because fungible money is a winner-take-all power vacuum.

My idea may change everything. If the knowledge age ameloriates the power vacuum of fungible money, then the shadow elites may gleefully attack each other and return their former power back to emergent chaos, because they would have no other choice.

Fundamental laws of physics can't be avoided.

I also have a Theory of Everything I hope to publish a summary maybe tomorrow in a blog on Steemit. I will also explain how to do time travel realistically!

[iamnotback]

The reasons I stated that it was a faux good idea were:
1) if you need the hash to protect a broken crypto system (elliptic curve crypto), you are making a fundamental mistake.  In as much as hashes can protect better against quantum computers and elliptic crypto is essentially TOTALLY DEAD, you can't use your private key any more because one can change your transaction on the fly if one has a quantum computer.

I refuted that upthread.

I really never expected you would be a liar. Amazing.

You've lost all credibility in my eyes. I had a very high opinion of you. Really amazes me that you would ignore my refutation and continue a lie.

So instead of "protecting a broken system", one should have used one that isn't broken ; and in as much as one thinks that elliptic curve crypto isn't broken, there's no need to protect it.

I refuted that also. I am beginning to think maybe you are just not that smart.

2) I indicated that introducing the hash was wasting room on the chain, because if you hash the public key in the output (the address), you have to provide the key in spending input (as is the case today) ; while if you provided directly the public key in the output, you didn't need to copy it again in the spending input.

Given that the elite designed Bitcoin with 1MB blocks which can never be increased (and Satoshi never said he would definitely raise it, rather he just demurred so that everyone would not be alarmed) on purpose because it keeps the riff-raff off of Bitcoin once it reaches critical mass (which has already been attained), thus you are promulgating a ridiculous red-herring.

Obviously the elite are not at all concerned about running out of block size. Duh.

The main goal as I explained to you previously was heightened security and that it doesn't bloat the UTXO which must be stored in DRAM.

You're really wasting everyone's time trying to save your ego.

--> now it turns out that this argument is wrong.  So YES, introducing the hashed key IS winning room on the block chain.  However, this feature IS NOT USED.
 
In ECDS, with a key of N bits (and a security of N/2 bits classically), the signature contains 2N bits.  Essentially, the first N bits are related to a chosen random number, and the second N bits are the actual signature.  However, it is possible to derive the public key (actually a small set of public keys) most of the time from the signed message and the signature.

As such, the publication of the public key is not necessary !

The verifier can derive it (up to a few candidates) from the signature and the message.  In fact, for the curve that Satoshi chose, with cofactor 1, there are only two candidate public keys.

It is explained here.
https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/18105/how-does-recovering-the-public-key-from-an-ecdsa-signature-work

The is unwise, because the cryptanalysis attacker now has an additional degree-of-freedom to modify the message, since the public key recovery is dependent on both signature and the message signed.

Satoshi was not at all worried about the block size. Security was his #1 priority.

So once again we see if we had you let you design Bitcoin, you would have made it less secure.

Moreover, there's no point in making the hash bigger than 128 bits.

We are not going to repeat that debate again. I already refuted that upthread.

[Dorky]

What makes you think the elite want to be locked together in a mutual self-destruction of NWO and 666.

They think they have no choice (or let's say nature forces them to exist), because fungible money is a winner-take-all power vacuum.

My idea may change everything. If the knowledge age ameloriates the power vacuum of fungible money, then the shadow elites may gleefully attack each other and return their former power back to emergent chaos, because they would have no other choice.

Fundamental laws of physics can't be avoided.

I also have a Theory of Everything I hope to publish a summary maybe tomorrow in a blog on Steemit. I will also explain how to do time travel realistically!

I have no idea what you are trying to say about the elites.

And I have no idea which elite you are referring to.

The elite that I refer to are the rothschilds.

And I believe they have far more occult knowledge than most people.

[iamnotback]

What makes you think the elite want to be locked together in a mutual self-destruction of NWO and 666.

They think they have no choice (or let's say nature forces them to exist), because fungible money is a winner-take-all power vacuum.

My idea may change everything. If the knowledge age ameloriates the power vacuum of fungible money, then the shadow elites may gleefully attack each other and return their former power back to emergent chaos, because they would have no other choice.

Fundamental laws of physics can't be avoided.

I also have a Theory of Everything I hope to publish a summary maybe tomorrow in a blog on Steemit. I will also explain how to do time travel realistically!

I have no idea what you are trying to say about the elites.

I doubt you or most readers would understand where the elite derive their power and why they are forced to exist by a power vacuum.

The above is simply outside your capacity to comprehend. You'd need more knowledge about the relevant sciences involved.

My statement applied to Rothschild and all elite.

[Dorky]

I doubt you or most readers would understand where the elite derive their power and why they are forced to exist by a power vacuum.

You mean they are trapped in a time loop that they cannot escape forward?

You can tell me where they derive their power.

[IadixDev]

If you are a guy in your basement, and that you want to find a solution to keep the chain coherent, and you choice between à simple well proven determinstic solution , or a solution that is completely off chart, super costly, and risky, why he would choose the second ? Why going through all this bother with pow and block reward who introduce huge complexity ? Why ?

What deterministic solution ?  There isn't any that isn't centralized or permitted.  Proof of Stake was a possibility, but Satoshi was facing the problem that he was the only stake holder in the beginning.  He would have had to sign all blocks by himself, and unless someone actually GOT COINS FROM HIM, there was no way to get a second stake holder.

That could be just be as simple as selecting block and tx based on which have the lowest hash. Period. No pow, no reward, no mining craze.

The problem is, WHEN do you consider that transaction A is the valid one ?  How LATE can transaction B be propagated and WIN from transaction A ?

Suppose I pay you 100 BTC.  You observe transaction A on the network paying you.  How long do you wait before you consider that this payment is secure ?  Suppose I buy a car with that.  How long do you wait until you let me have the car ?

Suppose that the next day, I make a new double spend payment to myself.  I can modify my receiver addresses until I find a payment that has a smaller hash than transaction A.  I call that transaction: B.  I now transmit B on the network.  As B has a smaller hash than A, the consensus tells us one should take B over A, and finally, your transaction is eliminated.

Ok, but one day later, we don't accept this any more.  Ok, but how long do we have to wait ?  At what point do you consider that A is definitively the accepted transaction ?  After 30 minutes ?  But what if B comes in after 29 minutes for Joe and after 31 minutes for Jack ?  Joe and Jack will now disagree FOREVER over what was the right transaction ?  If you connect to Joe, you see your transaction reversed, while if you connect to Jack, you see your transaction not reversed ?

--> this is the consensus problem.  It is already difficult if most players want to play honestly.  It becomes very hard if you get a sybil possibility of 90% of the nodes conspiring to game the system (90% of nodes in the hands of one entity).

Suppose that I transmit transaction B almost immediately after transaction A, but I fire up 90% of nodes that "ignore" transaction B.  You will probably not see transaction B, and you think that after half an hour, you are safe.  Then I switch off my sybil nodes.  The rest of the network has preferred transaction B.  When you try to spend your coins a few months later, your right to spend doesn't exist on most nodes, because they had rejected A, antd chosen B, and forgot about A.  You are the only one remembering A, thinking it was right.

Satoshi found a kind of solution with PoW.  It is a clunky solution, but he needed one.

In fact where i really want to get at with this is this :

Even if let say you find a system who can solve the double spent in a way or another,( and without block reward all version if chains are 99% interexchangeable, for all the non double spent there is zero need for PoW, and hard consensus is only really needed when there is two incompatible version of the same tx within a certain timeframe )


But ok let say all the double spent pb are solved and there is no pow and reward associated to the block emission.

Then you dont have coin emission, the problem of initial coin distribution, and zero appeal for speculation, because all is deterministic and planned so not much speculative value.

It could be useful in case chain assets are backed by real world assets and another way is found to reach the initial consensus , but still no speculative value.

If you add to this the whole thing of fixed block emission time associated with coin emission/fixed inflation rate, and pow reward, you see the pow main interest is not necessarily the consensus reaching over the double spent .


And you cant understand the full interest of something in bitcoin if you dont see the whole picture and hiw it influence also the other side of the "coin".

And you cant estimate the value of something without taking in account all its purpose, and it's not only though as flat out distributed ledger solving double spent, there is more to it,  and all sides have they own thinking .
 

[thejaytiesto]

All the $billionaires and $trillionaires will be doing their settlement in BTC.

It will be $500,000 per BTC.

That is obvious.

You don't seem to understand money very well. And I am not going to write a treatise here. It isn't my responsibility to fix your ignorance about money. I say this forcefully because it behooves you to do some learning so you stop spouting off incorrect judgments.

You said this in that other thread where the first Snapchat investor said it's going $500,000 by 2030, that you agree with that prediction.

2030 is 13 years from now

Current price: $1200

That's $498,800 to go in 13 years, which according to my third grade math means BTC should raise around $38369 per year if your theory is correct.

Isn't this a bit nuts? How can BTC grow so much in 13 years? It would need to go parabolic in an unprecedented way. It would redefine the meaning of going parabolic. Nothing ever has grown this much, not even Berkshire Hathaway Class A stock. We are looking at insane levels of growth in a parabolic way in the last 3 years before 2030 is hit and by the time the curve of coin release starts being flat:



So if this is of any guidance, by about 2025 we would need to start seeing some serious shit, like legit insanity of price growth. And I say parabolic, because I don't see anything near $38369 per year happening any time soon if the growth was more or less linear, so it must be next-level parabolic. We would need to be seeing gold whales, stock whales, fiat whales, everything, moving money onto bitcoin to hodl there (or transact within the blockchain but never leaving BTC).

We are talking about 5 figures of growth per day in the last period... this is insane and would cause heart attacks left and right from hodlers that become rich in such a extreme way.

We are looking at current mega whales (considering they don't sell along the way) becoming the richest men on earth, maybe surpassing Rotchilds? I don't know how many BTC the mega rpietila and MP tier whales have, but at $500,000 per BTC they would become stupid rich, maybe first trillionaires ever (as a single guy owning +trillion).

I don't know, the growth required for $500,000 in 13 years seems too much. It would be something never seen before, books would be written about it, kids would learn about it in schools. It would be all over the planet, minds would explode, people that didn't buy at $1000 would hang themselves with a belt.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function". Al Barlett on Growth and Sustainability

Compute: (500000÷1200)^(1÷13) = 1.59

Thus to reach $500,000 in 13 years from a starting price of $1200, a compounded rise in price of 59% per year is all that is required.

Do you understand now why I think @dinofelis is very mathematically near-sighted.

The chart you showed is not constant compounded growth, but rather logistic growth. Indeed we should expect Bitcoin to be logistic, because nothing can grow at a constant exponential rate forever. Since the $10 entry price in early 2013 to the recent $1300 price, Bitcoin has averaged 237% gain per year compounded. So we can see that Bitcoin's price is rising much faster than 59% per year right now and so by 2030 the price rise can slow down to much less than 59% per year and still reach $500,000. I believe @rpietila did some logistic models of potential BTC prices.

If we assume a 75% compounded rate (for the equivalent logistic model) from now until 2024, then the BTC price will rise 50X, thus $60,000 and the market cap will be $1.2 trillion.

Of course no one can surpass the elite in BTC wealth, because they mined most of the first 10.5 million Bitcoins.

Most of us won't have enough BTC to stay on chain that long so we will be kicked out to currencies (altcoins or what ever) which are regulated and many of us will have our wealth confiscated by governments gone bezerk with the severe sovereign debt collapse that Bitcoin is going to help cause and make severe.

You say you won't give your private keys, but the government can throw you in jail and torture you. Also I expect by 2024 or so, the elite will have control over the mining and can blacklist addresses they want to.

Why would the elite want to create thousands of new trillionairs?

They aren't. See above.

Why would trillionares need BTC when they own offshore banks?

Offshore banks aren't a reserve currency.

How can they find out I own bitcoin? I have never bought it. Anyway, what's the point then? Might as well dump it all before the so called bitcoin confiscation begins.

Why doesn't rpietila and MP dump too? they are public figures so they will be the first to get trapped by the anti bitcoin government control operation. It's basically free money for them.

It's harder to trap the small guy that only owns a couple 5-21 BTC, it's not public, uses Tor etc.

If by 2030 I have several million dollars that I cannot enjoy because I can't even cash them out because the fee is higher than the million dollars I have im going to be pissed.

[mr.mister]

How can they find out I own bitcoin? I have never bought it. Anyway, what's the point then? Might as well dump it all before the so called bitcoin confiscation begins.



It's harder to trap the small guy that only owns a couple 5-21 BTC, it's not public, uses Tor etc.

If by 2030 I have several million dollars that I cannot enjoy because I can't even cash them out because the fee is higher than the million dollars I have im going to be pissed.

If you own bitcoin, and you don't want anyone to access it, it would be very hard for anyone to take it away, especially if it's in cold storage.

What Bitcoin confiscation exactly are you talking about?

What makes you guys think that there is going to be a worldwide dragnet on bitcoin? This sounds absolutely ridiculous.

Why would the transactions fees ever come anywhere remotely close to the value of bitcoin, if Bitcoin continues to grow as an asset?? That's just plain retarded.

I heard complaints about transaction fees. I have moved BTC from one place to another, and the transactions fees are not bad, and it's still by far the cheapest way to send money around the world today. I was charged $0.55 for transferring $200.00, and the transaction occurred in 10-15 minutes, which is normal nowadays. You guys really aren't that cheap are you???

[xmasdobo]

no, john nash didn't create bitcoin

no, rothchild didn't create bitcoin

no, bitcoin will most likely not go to $500,000 in 2030

no, you will not be tortured if you own BTC

no, you will be able to move 1 BTC (we will never reach a point where fee is higher than 1 BTC, it would collapse before we get there, too many angry people will kill the project)

no, bitcoin will not be for billionaires only (devs allowing this will get killed by angry bitcoiners that holded for years only to find out their millions are stuck on the blockchain because the fees are millionaire in itselves)

iamnotback may be losing it, too much posting.

[iamnotback]

...

John Nash's Ideal Money stated that to bring about ideal money it would have to be done evolutionarily in an incremental and naturally viral fashion. If you understand game theory, you would understand why the elite can't just announce a new monetary system and expect to not be attacked and undermined.

... Because viral things don't stop growing due to naysayers. The more naysayers, the more a viral thing spreads.

Chapter 6 Why Bitcoin Is a Big Deal in the book Bitcoin for the Befuddled addresses this very well. You can read it online for free with Google books.

Also chapter 7 The Cryptography Behind Bitcoin in the same book, is a very comprehensible explanation of ECC and the ECDSA algorithm employed in Bitcoin. With only knowledge of high school level math one could understand that.

[iamnotback]

I understand @dinofelis wasn't able to assimilate this information, so I think by putting it all organized concisely in one post will help him and readers to understand. And hopefully he will stop lying.

One last time, I will repeat the rebuttals I made to two of @dinofelis' incorrect claims that Bitcoin has a clunky design thus implying Satoshi's design was not genius. I made other rebuttals upthread, but I will not repeat all of them again.

1.

there's no point in making the hash bigger than 128 bits @dinofelis claims that since it is known that the true security of Bitcoins 256-bit ECDSA (elliptic curve digital signature algorithm, i.e. a form of ECC aka elliptic curve cryptography) is only 128-bits, then if we hash the ECDSA public key, then we only need a 128-bit hash. Thus he claims that Satoshi was wasteful and not genius. Although Satoshi's long-term priorities were not prioritized on not consuming too much block size given 1 MB was deemed more than sufficient for Bitcoin's planned future as block chain for the $billionaires only, Satoshi did minimize the length of the hash function by choosing 160-bit RIPE160 instead of SHA256 for the final hash of Bitcoin addresses (as they appear on the blockchain, but note that publicly distributed addresses also have a checksum for eliminating user typos but afaik this checksum is or could be discarded from what is stored on the blockchain). He did this minimization because it is good design sense, it is sufficient security and collision resistance, it provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis interaction between SHA256 (or RIPE160) alone and ECDSA, and it helps to market the product to the n00bs as scalable (even though Satoshi was deception in this regard) in Bitcoin's nascent stage. Also SHA256 before RIPE160 provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis breakage on collisions for RIPE160 alone. For example, SHA256 has a Merkle-Damgard length extension weakness when not doubled with itself or another hash, which tangentially btw would provide someone with a strong hint as to where to look for inventing the AsicBoost to make SHA256 mining 30% more efficient. Agreed it is but collision attacks based on distinguishers, boomerang attacks, and other forms of cryptoanalysis which attempt to reduce the intractability are what concern us. ... You are uninformed. Crypt-analysis breaks on hash functions typically lower the security in bits, but don't lower it to 0 bits. By frustrating crypt-analysis with the prehashing with SHA256, this RIPE160 is deemed to be a perfect balance of compression and brute force collision resistance. Yet @dinofelis is incorrect to claim that 128-bits would have been sufficient for the hash function, because of at least two reasons: a) Reducing 160-bits by 16 bits only saves 10%, and for that miniscule size reduction you are not factoring the exponential loss in randomized collision resistance. Insufficient collision resistance of 128-bits. Even if we assume that all attacks on collision resistance of SHA128 are intractable, even the equation for random chance says that if we generation more than a trillion addresses then we have a near certainty of production one random collision. But that is for an idealized hash function. Whereas in fact hash functions always have more collisions than the perfect randomization of their bit length. Conservatively we would presume on the order of a few bits of redundancy in the permutation engine of the hash function, thus we would expect a random collision with only billions of address. Satohi was prescient in his prudence because since Bitcoin's launch in 2009, a collision attack against SHA128 has been discovered which reduces the collision security to 60-bits which is approaching the realm of tractability. Additionally since the attacker can control the message being signed, birthday attacks generally can reduce collisions to half the bit-length of the hash, which is different from using the birthday problem to attack the ECDSA. b) The hash is intended for long-term security (as it is public for a long time whereas the ECDSA signature and public key is only published for a short-time before it becomes recorded as final and not double-spendable in the blockchain), so it requires greater security. Notwithstanding the long-term security distinction, if the security of both the ECDSA and the hash are the same then cryptanalysis reduction of security in both might be levered in such a way that their weakening is compounded. Also the larger bit length of the hash may also provide competitive economic security compared with the block reward of using the SHA256 resources to mine the blockchain. And as I had pointed out upthread, the 160-bit reduces the collision attack space of the 256-bit ECDSA from 128 to  96 bits.

2.

@dinofelis claims that quantum computing resistance with the hash is futile because if the ECDSA is broken via Shor's algorithm, because he claims the attacker can crack the transaction signature and double-spend it when it is published before the bonafide signature becomes final in the blockchain. I already refuted this argument based on two reasons. If you argue that it doesn't matter if we have the hashes when ECC is broken by quantum computing, because the transactions can be intercepted and cracked by the attacker before they are confirmed in the network, you would not be thinking clearly. Because quantum computing would at its inception (nascent stages) likely be only able to break long-term security but not short-term. So there would be a period to transition as I already stated in the above quote from my prior post. So the day that one finds the "Euclidean division" in an ECC, it is COMPLETELY BROKEN. You are describing future cryptanalysis breakage of the math theoretic security of the intractability of the discrete logarithm over certain fields. But you're analogy does not apply, because Shor's algorithm (a form of cryptanalysis) is already known! It is not a future unknown. Also (and this is a minor point which isn't really necessary for my slamdunk) you are conflating the breakage of discrete logarithm math theoretic security with the security of permutation algorithms of hash functions. I repeat the distinction between the two which you have failed to assimilate: You are uninformed. Crypt-analysis breaks on hash functions typically lower the security in bits, but don't lower it to 0 bits. As I had originally pointed out you are conflating two entirely different systems of security and each can benefit orthogonally from increased bit lengths when we are not concerned about an intractable brute force enumeration attack and instead concerned with math theoretic cryptanalysis breakage. Thus... --> if we assume that ECC will be broken one day, bitcoin's crypto scheme is IN ANY CASE not usable. Not only are you failing to assimilate the fact that Shor's breakage is already known (not a future thing not knowable as you are arguing) which is sufficient slamdunk on why you are incorrect, but you are also claiming that hash functions can typically be entirely broken in one swoop which afaik not the case (and I studied the cryptanalysis history on past SHA submissions from round 1 to final rounds). Now, what is the reason we can allow LOWER security for the exposed public key, than for the long-term address in an output ?  The reason is a priori (and I also fell into that trap - as I told you before, my reason for these discussions is only to improve my proper understanding and here it helped) that the public key needs only to secure the thing between broadcasting and inclusion in the chain.  But as you point out, that can take longer if blocks are full than 10 minutes.  This can be a matter of hours. Now, if we are on a security requirement of days or weeks, then there's essentially not much difference between days or weeks, and centuries.  The factor between them is 10000 or so.  That's 16 bits.  A scheme that is secure for days or weeks, only needs 16 bits of extra security, to be secure for centuries ====>  there is no reason to nitpick on 16 bits if we are talking about 128 bits or so. There is no reason to introduce "short term security" if this is only 16 bits less than the long term security level. You have incorrect conceptualization. The point of long-term security is not the difference in the time it takes to crack with a given level of technology, but rather that over the long-term we can't know when that moment comes that cracking has become sufficiently fast enough. The Bitcoin UTXO from 8 years ago that Satoshi has not spent, could have been under attack for the past 8 years. By having the hash for the long-term security, then we force all attacks to begin only when the UTXO are spent. This enables us to restrict damage to a very few number of transactions and the community will become alarmed and take corrective action. I already told you that if the public key were exposed for a longer (indefinite!) time, so you would need to increase the security of the public key.  But to what level given quantum computing may be coming? And 256-bit was about the upper limit of what was available and well accepted in 2008. I remember seeing that 256-bit was only expected to be recommended security for ECC for only another decade or so. https://www.keylength.com/en/3/ https://www.keylength.com/en/compare/ ... Another reason (in addition to the compression of UTXO) to hash the values on the block chain is because when the use of a quantum computer is detected, we have some protection against chaos and can map out a strategy for burning the values to a new design securely. Hashes are much more likely to be quantum computing resistant. You're advocating reducing to 80 bits, so that means in the future if someone has to computational capacity to break 128-bits in 2.814749767×10¹⁴ / 60*24*365.25 years, then then at your suggested 80 bits they could break it in 1 minute.