John Nash created bitcoin

[jonald_fyookball]

you speak all the same talking points...

dorky = dinofelis = trainscarwreak = iamnotback

common theme on all of you : bitcoin will fail or not scale

[1713892909]

1713892909

[1713892909]

1713892909

[1713892909]

1713892909

[1713892909]

1713892909

[Dorky]

you speak all the same talking points...

dorky = dinofelis = trainscarwreak = iamnotback

common theme on all of you : bitcoin will fail or not scale

No. You are fucking dead WRONG!

It's supposed to be...

jonald_fyookball = dorky

[IadixDev]

And all together your comment also show that you dont see my perpective, and why the thing you point doesnt matter, and what I meant with checkpoint is that you would only need real pow consencus on this checkpoint to "harden" The chain if you want to enforce a particular order on the tx/block, but that would just be about one packet saying this block height is this block hash, and having a pow once in a while on this checkpoint instead of every block.

I invented that already in collaboration with @jl777 for Komodo in 2016. It is named dPoW (delayed proof-of-work).

CounterParty does something somewhat analogous as well.

And really it isn't a secure and sound solution, but more of a gimick. Because the local consensus still have to decide what to submit for checkpoints because the PoW system isn't validating every thing and can't resolve conflicting double-spending orderings that occurred between checkpoints.

I don't think you understand my discussion with dinofelis.

My main point is more to show that the whole pow scheme make more sense if you take it from the perspective of trading / speculation side, than as a decentralized currency / public ledger.

But in the same time, there are many point of bitcoin that are clumpsy.

Even if dinofelis i think make the same mistake many person do, and i was doing this mistake before too, is too estimate one functionality of bitcoin to make it fit to usual engineering criteria of efficiency for a particular purpose, but without seeing the real purpose of it, and why some aspect my look clumpsy because they are on the low end of the trade off in favor of something else.

And the thing it seem to does well is attracting high speculative value, and high stake of game theory on the pow side. As decentralized currency it has many flaw, especially currently, and is not either extremely efficient as a distributed public ledger.

Only looking at the code it's clear it's very messy.

Actually before i came to forum i already studied in depth code source from 3 core, bitcoin, bitmonero and blackcoin, from where i decided to rewrite my own client from scratch because the code is too messy.

Coming here i though there would be people who really understand the code and the theory and choice behind, but in reality i don't think anyone on this board as a real clue.

Only the fact that nobody can really understand it, or easily extend on it, not even talking about the protocol, but about all the various bugs and clumpsyness, either it's in the wallet, database indexing/managment, threading, and many bugs, or things that could be improved as long as all the mythical wish of the creator with a gran plan for the world is put aside

On the overall i don' think anyone will disagree that the code is poorly designed, regarding all the OO, all the way the thing is made, it's very monolithic, against all good practice you would find in programming school book, and very hard to extend or encapsulate, and the rpc interface can only do that much, and is not that easy to really use from the perspective of making more complex web app/Dapp.

But in the same time, once you integrate all the game theory and math model for speculation and all this, it's easier to see where the code make more sense, and which base variable are actually more carefully designed in their definition and access, and where the care is put on, and it's not especially on the efficiency as a distributed ledger to solve double spend, or having easily distributed application wallet/shops/explorer "out of the box".

That's mainly my point here.

But maybe if i keep focused on this goal, i'm sure i can put up a testnet with experimental blockchain like without pow and reward, based on XThin block / bloom filter kind of things, and blockchain reordering , like in the idea the DAG thing, but without DAG, but real time re computation of block header chain when new valid tx are received, and still consensus on the same one chain, without needing pow or reward to validate blocks, with the idea i explained in the discussion with dinofelis

And in this idea, the checkpoint is mostly optional, but just to sort out the few % of error margin and to solve quicker some consencus problem on the long term.

I'm pretty sure with the script engine stuff like this will be made easily


( and please don't cherry pick one sentence out of context and copy paste it in 3 threads to show how smart you are, it's not very nice )

[IadixDev]

With game theory it's not mainly about rationality, but how likely someone who want to get some reward from the game would act given this or that informations.

It works mostly for economic scenario, when there are interest engaged , and the only given is that the person want to make profits or "win the game" when all other actors are also willing to do the same.

It's a model to tell how likely a person is going to make this or that decision given this or that infos, and how the reward balance out the risk to decide on a strategy.

The higher the stake, the better it works, because it's very un likely someone would engage big stake without at least thinking twice to the potential benefits/loss.

Game theory are all about reaction to risk and unknown, it's not that much about rationality, but how a person can percieve his own interest, and the higher the stake, the better game theory will apply.

You can't exclude rationality from game theory analysis.

A person is expected to be perfectly rational in game theory but that's never the case in real life.

A lot of information can be given (and available) to a person but it is not necessary that he will always choose the most objective one.

In most cases he will choose the one that is most gratifying to his sensual satisfaction and desire, never mind if his decision will screw him up hard later.

Additionally, a person make decision not on the potential risk/reward because that would involve too much thinking for him, but on the most immediate risk/reward that he can receive within a short period of time, never mind if a delayed risk/reward will be much better unless he is 100% assured of it.

In terms of getting 100% assurance, nobody in real life really has it.

Everyone will have to make a decision based on lack of information.

Game theory is just too simplistic, and it works only in simplistic situations.

We can make as many fanciful equations to be associated with it but its just to make it appear fanciful as if it is relevant, because if equations are really relevant then we are just not including enough factors into the equations, and the factors involved are far more than we may realize we know.

Thus if we are not including enough factors into the equation to make the right analysis, can we claim that game theory analysis is valid?

It's like trying to compute what is e using the formula of mc instead of mc^2.


Let's say you're in a "massive stake" situation.
You are given 2 options to choose from:
Option A: Be given $1 trillion dollar worth of assets of your own choosing (in cash, or in gold, or in bitcoin, or in stocks, or in bonds, or in real estate, or a mixture of any of them) right away.
Option B: Your wife is killed right away.
Dilemma: If you choose one of them, the other one will be lost, i.e. if you choose Option B, you will lose Option A, and vice versa.
Which option will you choose?
Game theory does not factor in how materialistic you are, does not factor in how affectionate you are to your wife, does not factor in how merciful you are, does not factor in your current economic situation, etc etc etc.
But if game theory was to factor in all these factors of influence, the game theory would be much more complicated than it now is.
Most probably even you would not be interested to dabble in it by then.

Edit:
Sorry for any confusion. The options are supposed to say if you choose option A (i.e. be filthy rich), you will lose your wife. And if you choose option B (i.e. spare your wife), you will lose $1 trillion worth of wealth.

To make game theory with this, need to more present it this way :

Option A : his wife has 20% of dieing, but 70% chance of winning 1 million
Option B : his wife has 60% of dieing, but 80% chance of winning 10 million
Option C : his wife has 3% of dieing, but 95% chance of winning 10 000

And the nash equilibirum say the most likely option is C, because in the end, most people will choose the solution with the lowest risk, rather than high risk for high reward.

It's like this consensus is reached on the parameters that can increase risk for the two party, even if other choice can potentially lead to more reward with more risk. Miner are exposed constantly to this dilema

And the more the rule give at least some reward with low risk, the more it is likely to be followed by the two party, because it lower the overall risk, and it's where equilibrium is reached.


But in football, it's not the arbiter who is the highly paid, because their role is still deterministic, and if all the match would be decided between artbiters it would not attract high stake.

It's in these conditions when there are part that are known, and part that are only statistically known, that game theory can give idea of how certain probabilistic factors will impact the likelyness of a decision or another. And it will always adjust on the known, because on the overall player who take in account the more information wins, and as game theory is still about winners, it's all about how likely a person is supposed to decide to win, and it says that it's always with the lowest risk approach that you win on the long term, and so sticking to known even if the potential reward is not the highest.

[farharhadi]

if a whiz in math, whether he's good about the other two?

[vapourminer]

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.

ok so my underpowered brain gets maybe 0.05% of this.

but why would some addresses be blacklisted? by the government? what propose would it serve? to move btc holdings to altcoins?

[Dorky]

To make game theory with this, need to more present it this way :

Option A : his wife has 20% of dieing, but 70% chance of winning 1 million
Option B : his wife has 60% of dieing, but 80% chance of winning 10 million
Option C : his wife has 3% of dieing, but 95% chance of winning 10 000

And the nash equilibirum say the most likely option is C, because in the end, most people will choose the solution with the lowest risk, rather than high risk for high reward.

Once again, that is not game theory, but is no-brainer theory.

Might as well add few more options...

Option D: his wife has 1% of dieing, but 99% chance of winning 10 00
Option E: his wife has 0.01% of dieing, but 99.99% chance of winning 100

Everyone will go all-in on option E.

It's a no-brainer.

[Dorky]

ok so my underpowered brain gets maybe 0.05% of this.

but why would some addresses be blacklisted? by the government? what propose would it serve? to move btc holdings to altcoins?

Don't worry about it.
If they want to push us to altcoins, they wouldn't be persuading us to adopt segwit and LN.
If that is just a distraction, then it is a very unnecessary, time-wasting distraction that can backfire.

Addresses can be blacklisted to enforce obedience.

In term of game theory, the shadow elite do not consider us sheep as some intelligent animals that will make the most optimal decision.


A lot of people, billionaire and millionaire, will not be exempted from paying transaction fee even if the shadow elite own 100% of all mining power.
Because the truly elite at the top only consist of the 13 bloodlines.
The shadow elite do not need bitcoin to prosper.
Bitcoin is not their money; bitcoin is their tool of total control.
Bitcoin was made not for them; it was made for us.
They don't need to kick us out to altcoins in order to control us.
You have to be born into the family in order to have special privileges.
Being a self-made billionaire does not cut it.
Just because Roger Ver and many others will become a new generation of multibillionaires do not mean they will be exempted.

[Dorky]

Understand WHAT are the objectives of the shadow elite over us with bitcoin.
1. To control us thru digital tracking.
2. To serve as settlement layer.

Which one is more important (first priority)? First and foremost, to control.

How will forcing us out of bitcoin and into altcoins with high fee will serve the objectives? Does not serve.

Can the shadow elite make do without the high fee and still fulfill its objectives? Yes.

Can the shadow elite fulfill the 1st objective without the 2nd objective with bitcoin? No, because there won't be reason to adopt bitcoin.

Can the shadow elite fulfill the 2nd objective without the 1st objective with bitcoin? No, because bitcoin will not be needed.

[IadixDev]

To make game theory with this, need to more present it this way :

Option A : his wife has 20% of dieing, but 70% chance of winning 1 million
Option B : his wife has 60% of dieing, but 80% chance of winning 10 million
Option C : his wife has 3% of dieing, but 95% chance of winning 10 000

And the nash equilibirum say the most likely option is C, because in the end, most people will choose the solution with the lowest risk, rather than high risk for high reward.

Once again, that is not game theory, but is no-brainer theory.

Might as well add few more options...

Option D: his wife has 1% of dieing, but 99% chance of winning 10 00
Option E: his wife has 0.01% of dieing, but 99.99% chance of winning 100

Everyone will go all-in on option E.

It's a no-brainer.

From the moment you can reduce a system to a sum of interest like this, it become easy to see how randomness tend to be eliminated from game theory. And system tend to equilibrate on consencus where risk is lower, and irrational behavior cancel each other out.

I take clear cut example to show this, the figure are taken on purpose to show easily how it works, but you could twist the figure to get to odds that are less obvious to   resolve.

To see which option is best is you can play max 5 times, with figure of proba that are less obvious to determine which is the more rewarding strategy at the end with the lowest risk.

[Dorky]

From the moment you can reduce a system to a sum of interest like this, it become easy to see how randomness tend to be eliminated from game theory. And system tend to equilibrate on consencus where risk is lower, and irrational behavior cancel each other out.

Irrational behavior is totally canceled out if the risk is as close to nil as possible (or zero, for optimum level) while the reward is as high as possible (or infinite, for optimum level).

But life situation is not like that.

You will generally see risk:reward that is 50:50, thus you end up having a situation that gives rise to maximum level of irrationality.

Because if risk:reward is truly in favor of the participants, then the house/broker/middleman/etc will go out of business asap.

It is much like playing roulette on whether black or white will turn up. The reward must match the probability of each turning up, i.e. 50%, minus some house edge so that the house will always make profit over the long term. Or else the house will go broke and there won't be anymore roulette to play. This wouldn't be game theory if you ask me. Game theory comes with randomness. And randomness comes with irrational behavior.

Or maybe game theory is in fact really no-brainer theory, but nobody wants to use that term because they would appear to be dabbling in dumb art. Thus they name it "game" theory to sound sophisticated. It aint' no not sopistikated to Dorky.

Edit:
By the way, making the risk:reward (or probability) 40:60 or 60:40 does not make it more sophisticated or predictable, but merely to reduce the irrational behavior. And the extent of the reduction depends very much on the will and intent of the game master. One man's loss is another man's gain. The rest goes to the game master as tip/commission/fee/etc.

[IadixDev]

From the moment you can reduce a system to a sum of interest like this, it become easy to see how randomness tend to be eliminated from game theory. And system tend to equilibrate on consencus where risk is lower, and irrational behavior cancel each other out.

Irrational behavior is totally canceled out if the risk is as close to nil as possible (or zero, for optimum level) while the reward is as high as possible (or infinite, for optimum level).

But life situation is not like that.

You will generally see risk:reward that is 50:50, thus you end up having a situation that gives rise to maximum level of irrationality.

Because if risk:reward is truly in favor of the participants, then the house/broker/middleman/etc will go out of business asap.

It is much like playing roulette on whether black or white will turn up. The reward must match the probability of each turning up, i.e. 50%, minus some house edge so that the house will always make profit over the long term. Or else the house will go broke and there won't be anymore roulette to play. This wouldn't be game theory if you ask me. Game theory comes with randomness. And randomness comes with irrational behavior.

Or maybe game theory is in fact really no-brainer theory, but nobody wants to use that term because they would appear to be dabbling in dumb art. Thus they name it "game" theory to sound sophisticated. It aint' no not sopistikated to Dorky.

Edit:
By the way, making the risk:reward (or probability) 40:60 or 60:40 does not make it more sophisticated or predictable, but merely to reduce the irrational behavior. And the extent of the reduction depends very much on the will and intent of the game master. One man's loss is another man's gain. The rest goes to the game master as tip/commission/fee/etc.

It's certainly more useful for computer than to human  most human with a brain can do this sort of math naturally, but computer dont have a brain, and they strut a lot with non determinism :p

[dinofelis]

- @iamnotback is absolutely convinced that Satoshi is Nash

You continue to lie. You're a habitual liar. How many times have I written I don't think Satoshi was Nash, but I think "Nash may have been UNWITTINGLY involved".

I hope you know the definition of the word UNWITTINGLY.

I dunno.

I only remember this:

Very strong circumstantial evidence that John Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto!

Read this!

Probably your "refutations of my technical arguments" are of the same kind    "how many times have I written that I refuted your technical arguments"
Remember, I'm only here to learn stuff.  For myself.  That's all that matters.

[dinofelis]

To make game theory with this, need to more present it this way :

Option A : his wife has 20% of dieing, but 70% chance of winning 1 million
Option B : his wife has 60% of dieing, but 80% chance of winning 10 million
Option C : his wife has 3% of dieing, but 95% chance of winning 10 000

And the nash equilibirum say the most likely option is C, because in the end, most people will choose the solution with the lowest risk, rather than high risk for high reward.

Once again, that is not game theory, but is no-brainer theory.

Might as well add few more options...

Option D: his wife has 1% of dieing, but 99% chance of winning 10 00
Option E: his wife has 0.01% of dieing, but 99.99% chance of winning 100

Everyone will go all-in on option E.

It's a no-brainer.

Depends.  If you don't like your wife, you'd go for option B, no ?

[dinofelis]

In other words, the main difference in opinion between @iamnotback and me is that I think that bitcoin was simply badly designed, and that all the bad things we see are simply due to "stupidity" (everything is relative).  @iamnotback thinks that instead of stupidity, it is evil genius.

@dinofelis, the guy who argued in an Altcoin Discussion thread (about Dash) that there is no such thing as a 'scam', because everything is a free market (even fraud).

You misunderstood me there.  It is not because it is a free market, it is because crypto takes as an assumption, trustlessness.   Now, scam is a violation of trust.  In a trustless environment, there cannot be scam.  But that was more to illustrate the inappropriateness of crypto, than to say that scam is great.  Scam is NORMAL in a system where the basic starting point is trustlessness.  Whether that's a good starting point, is simply the (rethorical) question.

And now he changes his philosophy and duplicitously decides that the criteria for "desired design properties" is not determined by the goals of the designer even if the design matches perfectly to a diabolical plan.

This is not what I'm saying either.  I'm simply saying that there is no "diabolical plan", just clumsy design.  This is not the first time, and it will not be the last time, that people with overblown egos think they've solved a world problem with a "solution" that doesn't live up to the plan, and then goes awry.  There's no need for conspiracy if stupidity can explain the thing.  Of course, *after the fact*, when the ugliness of the solution, despite its earlier hype, is becoming obvious, one can always explain this as an evil plan by an evil genius that foresaw this, and designed it that way.  But most of the time, if not always, one simply has to do with mistakes and errors.  Yes, you can think that
Jean Nicot introduced smoking of tobacco in France and then in England, with an evil plan to bring big business and cancer to people, and enslave them.  Most probably that was NOT his plan.

@dinofelis everything you've written is incorrect. And I think it is pointless to refute you again, because you refuse to acknowledge that which was already written.

If your "refutations" consist in repeating that you refuted me, to lead back to a non-rational handwaving argument in which you vent your opinions that you take as evidence against my technical arguments, then there's no need.  I refuse to consider anything else but a rationally and clearly explained argument (and no, your long post in which you just put together your handwaving opinions which I shattered to pieces, does not count as "rational argument").

You repeat the same incorrect technological errors over and over again. And thus you continue to willfully lie.

Until you can bring in a rational argument, I consider them not refuted.  Saying that "I'm wrong" and that you already told me that I was wrong, and vague opinions, are not accepted as rational arguments.  I can't learn much from them so I don't consider them.

Lol, you don't even understand that PoS and Byzantine agreement fundamental distill down to a generative essence of stake based voting, no matter how you try to obfuscate that fact from your blind eyes.

No, they aren't.  There is no vote to be taken, because there are algorithmic specifications of the "right" answer.  The vote only consists in wanting to cheat the system or not.  NOT in having to make an open choice.  If all nodes are "honest", that is, if they all follow the algorithmic specification of how to act, then a unique consensus does arise and no choice is to be made, if we can place upper bounds on propagation delays in the network (or if we have to work with unbounded potential delays, but with infinitesimal probability, a high probability of consensus arises).

The only "vote" is to try to game the system, and NOT act according to the algorithmic specifications, in other words, to be a dishonest node.  Being a dishonest node is perfectly normal if there are rewards to be won, because then the algorithmic specifications are not necessarily those that bring in most rewards: we now have a "double contradictory incentive": maximize profits, or follow the rules.

If there are no rewards, there's no primary incentive to be dishonest apart from the gain from dishonesty itself and the will to break the system.  If there are rewards, then strategies that not necessarily want to break the system, but could end up doing so, in order to maximize rewards, will potentially develop and then you have a "vote".

But if you blindly follow an algorithmic determination, there is no "vote".  There's simply the outcome of an algorithm.  And there's no reward incentive to deviate from that algorithm, unless trying to game the whole system and hence break it.

In other words, there's a distinction between:
- trying to develop strategies that maximize rewards without trying to explicitly break the system (like selfish mining for instance)
- trying to game the system by breaking it (everyone will SEE it even though one cannot avoid it, like double spending, rewinding a transaction, etc...).

If there are no rewards, the only reason to not follow the specified consensus algorithm, it by trying to break the system.  There's nothing wrong with that.  If it works out, the system is simply broken and will not do any harm any more (I don't consider losing your holdings in a crypto as "harm" - this was the game you played and you lost) OR people will accept this kind of inconsistency and system breaking, and continue to use it, in which case, this kind of breaking becomes a standard accepted procedure in the system (for instance, there are maybe tricks to systematically double spend).

[dinofelis]

On the overall i don' think anyone will disagree that the code is poorly designed, regarding all the OO, all the way the thing is made, it's very monolithic, against all good practice you would find in programming school book, and very hard to extend or encapsulate, and the rpc interface can only do that much, and is not that easy to really use from the perspective of making more complex web app/Dapp.

But in the same time, once you integrate all the game theory and math model for speculation and all this, it's easier to see where the code make more sense, and which base variable are actually more carefully designed in their definition and access, and where the care is put on, and it's not especially on the efficiency as a distributed ledger to solve double spend, or having easily distributed application wallet/shops/explorer "out of the box".

That's mainly my point here.

You illustrate the clumsiness of the coding (I never looked at the code itself in much detail) ; I was pointing out the clumsiness in the cryptography and in certain other technical mathematical aspects.  I used this as an argument to point out that who-ever made that design, was not a *mathematical genius*.

Now, I see your point, in that the evil creator of bitcoin didn't CARE about that, because that was not what was important, even though he advertised it in a misleading way, to be important.   My point was simply that a mathematical genius wouldn't even make some of those "mistakes" by neglect, like I would guess that an experienced C++ programmer wouldn't make certain clumsy constructions I think you are referring to, even by neglect.   If you are proficient in a domain, you don't screw it up, even if you're being casual.  If you know that you can never have 2^100 transactions on the block chain, you don't refer to them with a 256 bit hash.  Not even "by neglect".

So my idea was that this kind of crypto, and that kind of math, was actually DIFFICULT for the creator of bitcoin.

As to bitcoin being essentially optimized ON PURPOSE for being speculative by PoW, I don't think so.  I think it was simply because it was the idea of hashcash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash .

Again, I don't put on the back of a conspiring evil genius what can be explained by "ignorance".  Everything is relative.  Also, the speculative aspect of collectibles is well-known, it is one of the problems with non-inflationary payment systems, and why famous works of art are such speculative items.

Of course, I cannot exclude that Satoshi was an evil sloppy genius.  I tend to think that he was not a math genius, was not an experienced cryptographer, and if I read your (and many other) observations, he was not a high-level C++ programmer either ; I have a hard time thinking that this was "on purpose sloppy" or even worse, that this was in fact pure genius of which we, with our limited brains, could not even fathom the scope of it.

I'm simply using Occam's razor.  

So, bitcoin is what it is.  It has now a life of its own.  And, as most of the things that happen in life, the reason for this is just a coincidence of many aspects, and has not entirely been planned that way.  Nothing ever is.  Reality is much more complex than all men's plans.

[dinofelis]

you speak all the same talking points...

dorky = dinofelis = trainscarwreak = iamnotback

common theme on all of you : bitcoin will fail or not scale

So because 4 people have the same opinion different from yours, they are one and the same person

[dinofelis]

Contrary to what someone said that we will be paying exorbitant transaction fee, I have already invalidated such thesis.

No, in my most sincere opinion and intelligence, there will NOT be any high fee for us to pay. The fee we pay will commensurate with the price of bitcoin.

But that can nevertheless mean a very high fee !  Imagine that the fee is 0.001 BTC, but that BTC is $1 000 000,- for the sake of argument.  That would mean that you can't buy a thing that is worth less than $1000 with a bitcoin transaction !  You couldn't buy the then-equivalent of an i-phone with BTC, because it would cost 0.00012 BTC, and you'd have to spend 0.00022 BTC to buy it with a BTC transaction.
The only kind of stuff you'd start to be able to buy with a BTC transaction, is something like a car or so.

It would even hurt most people if they received their salaries in BTC, and had to pay half of the fee (other half for the employer).  Would you like $500 less on your salary just for the payment ?

[dinofelis]

Understand WHAT are the objectives of the shadow elite over us with bitcoin.
1. To control us thru digital tracking.
2. To serve as settlement layer.

Point is, they are doing that already with fiat and internet surveillance.  Why give this tool to EVERYBODY ?
Because with bitcoin, everyone can track you, not just the "shadow elite" ; and their deeds will also be more visible.  Why would they want that ?  And hell, what would make all the individual ego trippers that make up the shadow elite, speak with one voice ?

[IadixDev]

The thing with code, after looking at many code, i had the big impression the bottom end of the algorithm is very simple, and it's just huge bloating and lack of good design, it's why i started to make my own client, it can do everything with 30Mo of ram, and with the script that is almost finished, i'm sure you can program full node with 200l of script, in the overall the bottom thing is not so complex, but the way the c++ code is made and the choice that has been made make it look super complex, and i can't see the purpose of doing it that other than maximizing deployment to end user with shortest/cheapest development time.

Basically the development is not the priority.

Even a thing that i always find weird and i don't see anyone really speaking about, is that originally in node there is supposed to be a system of account, and for someone who is used to also deal with server side software, even mysql is lighter and less complex than running a bitcoin node, they are huge ram sucker, and are the level above in term of ressource use than what you can find in common lamp configuration, or even with tomcat server, and the way it's made with node who have to know the private key and sign the transaction themselves, without system of accounting, it's still weird, and there is a remaining of system of acoutning in all the nodes and rpc interfaces, but it's always disabled, saying it's obsolete etc, and it's where you see it's really oriented toward having single user system like wallets, but in the same time, wallets are not extremely well polished, below the standard you would expect from a true commercial application that you pay for.

But i know in the same time it's supposed to break a bit the client/server barrier with the way node are made, and symmetrical node who are in the same time client and server for the protocol, but in the same time it's still not what well though in either manner, no that practical to use on server side who manipulate several different account, neither on client side with application that are still not all that elaborated, and not that well made microsoft style with installer and all.

The only thing that can be seen who has really be though of and developed and spent time on is the whole parameters related to the pow / reward / inflation rate/block emission time etc, this yes, it has been though of clearly to have a system that balance itself, and he also integrated other things from hashcash.

For me it's not impossible someone with 40 year of wall street of sport bet or from high frequency trading world could come up with a good formula to emulate this kind of high stake poker game scenario to rise to the moon.

And the more i think about it, the more i think bitcoin has all quality to be a good thing for trader and big investors, as in the end, all the market value is 100% determined by investors, and they all have the same interest to see the coin rising, and there is not really anything that can truly burst the bubble because there is nothing to index the 'real value' on, all the value is determined 100% by investors, without regulation, or independant expert who can say how much a bitcoin should be worth.

And the mining / pow thing is plain game theory thing, maybe it's the system of hashcash and i can see the idea also from purely turning statistics into proof of work, but in the overall, i don't think that was really the main motivation for it, rather than to induce some kind of high stake, highly non deterministic scenario that is known to attract lot of money and resources.

But maybe also he didn't plan that much anything and now it's completely out of control and completely not what he had in mind in the beginning

It's hard to say for sure =)