John Nash created bitcoin

[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.

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

The gentlemen code of conduct command that you should not play your wife on trading market or casino 

[1713479873]

1713479873

[1713479873]

1713479873

[1713479873]

1713479873

[Dorky]

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 ?

If fee is fixed at 0.001 BTC minimum, then yes we have a problem.
But if fee is fixed at particular %, in this case is (0.001 * 1000000) / 1000000 = 0.1%, then the fee for buying an i-phone will be 0.00000012, or 12 satoshis.

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 ?

Point is, fiat cannot be tracked and cannot properly enforce obedience.
Internet surveillance is surveillance, not tracking AND enforcing obedience.
Why give this tool to everybody? So that if you deal with me and you scam me, I will report you to the authority and the authority will blacklist your addresses and everyone having access to the blockchain will be smart enough not to deal with you next time.
You are literally locked out of the system/network.
You may say bitcoin is anonymous bla bla bla...... but hey, that's up to your understanding.
My understanding is that bitcoin will be the BEST surveillance system.
You really think we are all in favor of bitcoin because bitcoin is this good and that good eh?
That it is going to help us fight tyranny and banksters eh?
That it is going to transform this world and your life into something marvelous and wonderful eh?
That everything will finally be free once and for all eh?
Where were you back in 2009/2010 when bitcoin was as good as worthless and useless?
Did you have the same kind of ideal and hope that you have today?
No!
Bitcoin needs to have Mt. Gox, and need to have a skyrocketing price, and need the media shouting out loud about "Bitcoin!", and need to have agents running around the world giving speeches almost free of charge to anyone interested, and persuading, and having seminars, etc etc etc, to catch your attention, no?
Fuck all the liberty talk.

[dinofelis]

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.

Well, most speculative assets need some "bootstrapping" value.  Now, bitcoin is not entirely value-less, because it does have a (small) economic value, namely all the economic exchange it made possible or cheaper than could have been achieved with other means of payment (mainly fiat).  But apart from remittance where you might win somewhat, trying to hide from taxes, and mainly, dark markets, I don't see where the economic value of bitcoin resides.  Most of what you can do with bitcoin, you can just as well do it with fiat, and in those heralded cases where this would not be the case (say, in developing countries), bitcoin didn't really take off.  I'm truly sorry about that, because when I learned about bitcoin, I *was* part of the useful idiots being enthusiastic about that.  But as far as I can see, bitcoin has only a rather small niche application of true economic value, and its design errors/flaws make that this is exactly where it is now being hurt.  So I wonder whether this small "true, economic value" is strong enough to bootstrap the huge speculative value of bitcoin.  Moreover, I think that anonymous coins like monero are much, much better suited for this niche.

Now, there are two ways in which bitcoin is speculative: its volatility, and its greater-fool game.  Any volatile token is great game for speculators.  The problem with bitcoin is rather that it is not sufficiently volatile any more, and that alt coins are more lucrative in a cornered, volatile and manipulated market.  

The greater-fool game lasts until one runs out of greater fools.  When does that happen ?  When the general sentiment is that there starts to be more room on the downside than on the upside.  That's probably not the case yet for bitcoin, but it is closing in.  We're in the $1000,-.  Now what is a reasonable upside ?  A factor of 10 ?  Maybe.  A factor of 100 ?  Doubtful but not impossible.  A factor of 1000 ?  Hardly (market cap larger than USD market cap).  What's the downside ?  A factor of 10 ?  Most probably not.

However, after yet another factor of 10, when bitcoin will be around $10 000,-, this may look different.  A factor of 10 on the downside, back to today's value is not unreasonable, and a factor of 100 down (to $100,-), most probably not, but at that point, a factor 10 upwards is still doubtful, and a factor 100, hardly thinkable (market cap larger than USD market cap ?).

So bitcoin is nearing the point where there will be more potential downside than upside, at which point, greater fools will stop flowing in like crazy.

Why are they flowing in in the first place ?

Because a few people got immensely rich with almost no starting capital in bitcoin.  They became millionaires with just a few hundred bucks of starting capital.  There are at most 1000 people like that, and most probably less than that there are football stars, but it got people dreaming.  So they jumped in, making exactly those early adopters very rich, with the illusion that they too, would get rich.  But most of the upward room was already taken by then.  The factor of 10 000 or 100 000 that these few early adopters saw, is gone.  There's at most 10 or 100 left, and much more doubtful.  So, at a point, bitcoin's greater-fool incentive will crash.

What's left then ?  Bitcoin as a long-term store of value.  But for that, it still needs an incentive to find buyers believing in that long term value, when there is no hope for "gains" over other investments like real estate, stock and other investments with more of an economic reality behind it than just a belief system, as well in the monetary belief, as in the technological security of the thing.  

What bitcoin has over other stores of value, is that it is a crypto currency, where one can store the benefit made on other crypto market manipulations.   But essentially, this is a money pump from noobs to whales.  Noobs dream of becoming whales, but they mostly get burned.  In the end, after a while, people will get tired of being undone of their valuable assets through cupid getting-rich-fast games with crypto.  So, while bitcoin will still be the reserve currency for whales pumping alt coin value out of noobs, this will come to an end too at a certain point.

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

This is my idea.  I have no proof for that, apart from the fact that many, if not most things in life, happen that way.  Most systems with complex properties don't work out as they were initially planned, because, as I said, reality is complex, and people's designs are often based on simple (simplistic ?) assumptions.  People thinking too much, don't do.  And people who do, don't think too much.

[dinofelis]

If fee is fixed at 0.001 BTC minimum, then yes we have a problem.
But if fee is fixed at particular %, in this case is (0.001 * 1000000) / 1000000 = 0.1%, then the fee for buying an i-phone will be 0.00000012, or 12 satoshis.

Ok, but then the fee is not "proportional to the bitcoin price" as I thought you said.

You may say bitcoin is anonymous bla bla bla...... but hey, that's up to your understanding.
My understanding is that bitcoin will be the BEST surveillance system.

Oh, but I fully agree with you.  I always say that bitcoin is by far LESS private than fiat.  Bitcoin is a privacy night mare.  It is absolutely NOT anonymous on the contrary.   This is why people doing dark markets with bitcoin, tumbling on an FBI tumbler, are out of their mind.

This is why I only consider seriously anonymous coins, like monero, and to a lesser extend, zcash (lesser, because not compulsory anonymous).  (DASH is a joke in that respect).

But people will soon learn this, and it will be another reason to avoid bitcoin.

[Dorky]

Ok, but then the fee is not "proportional to the bitcoin price" as I thought you said.

That probably means you misunderstood what I wrote. I said it would be no problem as long as bitcoin price commensurate with the fee, is just another way of saying the fee being fixed at a certain % of the bitcoin price, thus no problem whatsoever regardless of big or small purchases.

Oh, but I fully agree with you.  I always say that bitcoin is by far LESS private than fiat.  Bitcoin is a privacy night mare.  It is absolutely NOT anonymous on the contrary.   This is why people doing dark markets with bitcoin, tumbling on an FBI tumbler, are out of their mind.

This is why I only consider seriously anonymous coins, like monero, and to a lesser extend, zcash (lesser, because not compulsory anonymous).  (DASH is a joke in that respect).

But people will soon learn this, and it will be another reason to avoid bitcoin.

It is very unwise to avoid bitcoin. Besides, bitcoin never promises anonymity. Instead, it promises (a certain level of) privacy. Whether a cryptocurrency is fully private or otherwise, requires the recognition and support of the shadow government to work. Or else it won't. If I were to issue a better version of bitcoin into the world, nobody would give a shit about it and it would die out within a year. Where will I get the money and the resources to promote it, to  have a bunch of guys traveling around the world convincing everyone about how good is my version of bitcoin, to convince the exchanges to list my version of bitcoin, to convince companies like Microsoft, Overstock, Ernst & Young to accept it as payment, to convince governments to legalize it, etc etc etc? It may be a better version but unless it has the kind of support backing it, the same kind of support relentlessly backing bitcoin since 2009/2010, and expanding, it will never survive no matter how good it is, no matter how private it is, no matter how secure it is.

[dinofelis]

Ok, but then the fee is not "proportional to the bitcoin price" as I thought you said.

That probably means you misunderstood what I wrote. I said it would be no problem as long as bitcoin price commensurate with the fee, is just another way of saying the fee being fixed at a certain % of the bitcoin price, thus no problem whatsoever regardless of big or small purchases.

Uh, the way I understand what you say: the bitcoin price, is the price of 1 BTC in $$, right ?  Commensurate, is proportional, right ?
Let us say that the proportionality is 0.0001.  Then that means that a fee is 0.0001 BTC, no ?  So if BTC = $1000,-, a fee is $0.10, if BTC is $1000 000,- then the fee, with the same proportionality, is $100,- , no ?

Or do you mean "transaction amount" instead of "bitcoin price" ?

But then the miners will only take those transactions with highest absolute fee, so only the very large transactions.  Because for them, at a certain point, including an extra transaction (and risking the loss of the entire block) will not be beneficial any more below a certain absolute fee.

Oh, but I fully agree with you.  I always say that bitcoin is by far LESS private than fiat.  Bitcoin is a privacy night mare.  It is absolutely NOT anonymous on the contrary.   This is why people doing dark markets with bitcoin, tumbling on an FBI tumbler, are out of their mind.

This is why I only consider seriously anonymous coins, like monero, and to a lesser extend, zcash (lesser, because not compulsory anonymous).  (DASH is a joke in that respect).

But people will soon learn this, and it will be another reason to avoid bitcoin.

It is very unwise to avoid bitcoin. Besides, bitcoin never promises anonymity. Instead, it promises (a certain level of) privacy. Whether a cryptocurrency is fully private or otherwise, requires the recognition and support of the shadow government to work. Or else it won't. If I were to issue a better version of bitcoin into the world, nobody would give a shit about it and it would die out within a year. Where will I get the money and the resources to promote it, to  have a bunch of guys traveling around the world convincing everyone about how good is my version of bitcoin, to convince the exchanges to list my version of bitcoin, to convince companies like Microsoft, Overstock, Ernst & Young to accept it as payment, to convince governments to legalize it, etc etc etc? It may be a better version but unless it has the kind of support backing it, the same kind of support relentlessly backing bitcoin since 2009/2010, and expanding, it will never survive no matter how good it is, no matter how private it is, no matter how secure it is.

Bitcoin was a unique possibility for a few initial players to become immensely rich ; and they had the right timing: after a financial crisis, it was easy to get a big crowd of enthusiastic believers on their hands.  These financed the initial gains of a few whales, who then, had enough means to promote it more.  Such an opportunity happens only once.  There is no need for "dark forces" behind it: in fact, the failure of bitcoin to get seriously adopted indicates rather the fact that there are NOT very powerful dark forces behind it.  Bitcoin was just a hype with right timing, some distrust in banking, and unrealistic promises (that can't be accomplished with its technology, but which need sufficient technological insight and lack of starry eyes), sufficiently enthusiastic useful idiots and so on.  Overstock was a family affair: the big boss of overstock was talked into bitcoin by his own son.  Microsoft was on the look to hook onto any hype that could pull it out of its morass.  

If there were powerful dark forces behind bitcoin, they would have twisted Amazon's hand to accept bitcoin: the story would have been entirely different.  Bitcoin, as a payment system, is essentially a failure.  However, as a greater-fool game, it works marvellously, for the time being, like all greater-fool games, that promise quick riches (and yes, there are a few hundred of quick riches in bitcoin, living off all the donations by the "adoption" crowd).

You are underestimating the explosive combination of useful idiots believing in some libertarian dream, combined with the power of greed and the illusions of quick rich.  THAT is the power behind bitcoin.  Not "organized dark forces", but an explosive mix of foolish idealism and greed.  It is what keeps it up, and this is more powerful than any cigar-smoking "elite" making evil plans that never work out as expected.  Greed and naive idealism.  What more do you need ?  What is better than naive people thinking that their idealistic nonsense is going to make them immensely rich, combined with some smart money that sees the opportunity to exploit this enthusiastic propaganda for making a lot of bucks from starry-eyed greedy idealists "adopting" their new toy ?

[Dorky]

Uh, the way I understand what you say: the bitcoin price, is the price of 1 BTC in $$, right ?  Commensurate, is proportional, right ?
Let us say that the proportionality is 0.0001.  Then that means that a fee is 0.0001 BTC, no ?  So if BTC = $1000,-, a fee is $0.10, if BTC is $1000 000,- then the fee, with the same proportionality, is $100,- , no ?

Yes, you are correct.

Or do you mean "transaction amount" instead of "bitcoin price" ?

But then the miners will only take those transactions with highest absolute fee, so only the very large transactions.  Because for them, at a certain point, including an extra transaction (and risking the loss of the entire block) will not be beneficial any more below a certain absolute fee.

That would mean miners only care about transactions that involve buying mansions, yachts, private jets, etc. No, as long as the fee is proportional to the price of bitcoin, it doesn't matter if they accept transactions for buying a private jet or a transaction for buying an apple. In a block to be mined, the total fee will be a fixed % of the total transactions in that block. So a miner does not need to have bias on which block to mine. A block may have just 10 transactions involving purchases of a private jet each. Another block may have 1000 transactions involving purchases of a bike each. Something like that. But from both blocks, miners will earn similar fee and will have no bias on which block to mine. There will not be a block that reward $100,000 worth of fee and another block that reward just $0.1 fee just because the first block involves a transaction to buy a private jet while the second one involve transaction to buy an apple. Mining each block in totality will gain similar fee regardless of the value and type of transactions in each block. However I am not in a position to clarify how the details should work out. Ask yourself WHY would the miners want to push the non-whales out of the blockchain? Who will be left paying the fee to the miners once the non-whales are totally out? The fee, just like interest, is not important to the miner (bankers) when the time comes for them to dominate mining 100%. The bankers don't care about the interest because they print them for free anyway. Yes, mining is costly now but it may not be so later when they finally decide those PoS vs PoW thing after centralizing 100% of mining power. Then the fee will not be an issue.

Bitcoin was a unique possibility for a few initial players to become immensely rich ; and they had the right timing: after a financial crisis, it was easy to get a big crowd of enthusiastic believers on their hands.  These financed the initial gains of a few whales, who then, had enough means to promote it more.  Such an opportunity happens only once.  There is no need for "dark forces" behind it: in fact, the failure of bitcoin to get seriously adopted indicates rather the fact that there are NOT very powerful dark forces behind it.  Bitcoin was just a hype with right timing, some distrust in banking, and unrealistic promises (that can't be accomplished with its technology, but which need sufficient technological insight and lack of starry eyes), sufficiently enthusiastic useful idiots and so on.  Overstock was a family affair: the big boss of overstock was talked into bitcoin by his own son.  Microsoft was on the look to hook onto any hype that could pull it out of its morass.  

Ask yourself this. If you were back in 2009/2010 and you happened to mine 100,000 units of bitcoin (worth $120,000,000 today), will you travel around the world giving talks about how wonderful is bitcoin? Bear in mind back in 2009/2010, 100,000 bitcoins may be worth just $10. That is simply not how the sheeps (that is us) in general, works. That is why you hear of cases where people have loads of bitcoins but they tosses their computer to the junkyard because the bitcoins that they have in boatloads of 'em was close to worthless. They only find it a treasure now after the price adjusted upward thanks to Mt. Gox. Humans in general are not the same as those from the shadow elite group. Humans in general are sheeps, followers, impartial, and inactive. The shadow elites are trained and groomed to think big and do big and directs the focus of the world in to big projects. Will you fly around the world to give free speeches if you have 100,000 of bitcoins worth $120 mil today but worth just $10 back then?
 Did you really see it coming? You think everything is coincidence? You think the shadow elites are in power because they think it was just a coincidence for them to be in power? And most dumb thing is, you think some genuine whales would be interested in an almost worthless, useless and unproven digital tokens back in 2009/2010? You know back in 2009/2010, we didn't have as much bullish news of bitcoin developement that we have today. We didn't hear news of so and so corporation adopting bitcoin, we didn't hear news of countries legalizing bitcoin, we didn't hear of news of merchants accepting bitcoins. In that time, bitcoin was almost truly worthless, useless, and unproven. You think a whale wanna take a bet on that?
 I wouldn't even want to waste $1,000 even if I was a whale back then.

If there were powerful dark forces behind bitcoin, they would have twisted Amazon's hand to accept bitcoin: the story would have been entirely different.  Bitcoin, as a payment system, is essentially a failure.  However, as a greater-fool game, it works marvellously, for the time being, like all greater-fool games, that promise quick riches (and yes, there are a few hundred of quick riches in bitcoin, living off all the donations by the "adoption" crowd).

Things are working out smoothly, not abruptly.

You are underestimating the explosive combination of useful idiots believing in some libertarian dream, combined with the power of greed and the illusions of quick rich.  THAT is the power behind bitcoin.  Not "organized dark forces", but an explosive mix of foolish idealism and greed.  It is what keeps it up, and this is more powerful than any cigar-smoking "elite" making evil plans that never work out as expected.  Greed and naive idealism.  What more do you need ? What is better than naive people thinking that their idealistic nonsense is going to make them immensely rich, combined with some smart money that sees the opportunity to exploit this enthusiastic propaganda for making a lot of bucks from starry-eyed greedy idealists "adopting" their new toy ?

What evil elite plans that you even know of, never mind if you know they never work out? If you think a bunch of idiots/sheeps can be so organized and effective that they can make bitcoin to where it is today within 8 years, you are way overestimating the idiots/sheeps. You may believe what you choose to believe. You may believe the idiots/sheeps are transforming into some advanced beings that finally have the tools and power to topple all governments and bankers in the world, that the governments and bankers are just helpless to do anything but tag along like a dog. You may think that way... Anything that makes you feel good, dude.

[IadixDev]

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.

Well, most speculative assets need some "bootstrapping" value.  Now, bitcoin is not entirely value-less, because it does have a (small) economic value, namely all the economic exchange it made possible or cheaper than could have been achieved with other means of payment (mainly fiat).  But apart from remittance where you might win somewhat, trying to hide from taxes, and mainly, dark markets, I don't see where the economic value of bitcoin resides.  Most of what you can do with bitcoin, you can just as well do it with fiat, and in those heralded cases where this would not be the case (say, in developing countries), bitcoin didn't really take off.  I'm truly sorry about that, because when I learned about bitcoin, I *was* part of the useful idiots being enthusiastic about that.  But as far as I can see, bitcoin has only a rather small niche application of true economic value, and its design errors/flaws make that this is exactly where it is now being hurt.  So I wonder whether this small "true, economic value" is strong enough to bootstrap the huge speculative value of bitcoin.  Moreover, I think that anonymous coins like monero are much, much better suited for this niche.

To me it still seem fundementally different from the traditional trading thing where the speculative value is still more or less indexed to the utility value, maybe the utility value is over valuated, even largely, but the main value still come from the utility value, like google or facebook.

Here anyone would be hard pressed to come with solid figure on the utility value of bitcoin, the adoption rate in developping country, how capable it is to improve on existing solution for certain market, and even more importantly, how the profits are made, and where they get at. If you look at the buisness model from different angle, taking all in account, there is not many way in which it looks really sound.

And today i do'nt think you could say it's even that the utility value is over valuated, or that the speculative value is still really pegged to the utility value at all.

And i think there are subtle difference with classical scheme even if they can look similar in some aspect like the greater fool game or classic ponzi, or speculative bubble based on over valued utility economy, it become of model of investment of its own, and as long as people keep buying it at the price, there is no reason for it to go down, and as long as you don't consisder it as investment in technology development, or based on utility value, or potential future utility value, but as a sort of poker game to keep the token price high that can be easily manipulated by brutal market force, without any kind of friction or anything that can prevent market value to be disconnected from actual speculative value, no problem of transport, or physicality of the asset, no third party or escrow for the value to change hand, still very low tracability , it has everything to be a very good profile for brutal sepculation, and not speculation based on technology developpment or future utility value.

Maybe the volatlity is not that high, but i'd say it's still much higher than with most other trading market, in the global stock market even fluctuation of 1% are a big thing

[dinofelis]

Uh, the way I understand what you say: the bitcoin price, is the price of 1 BTC in $$, right ?  Commensurate, is proportional, right ?
Let us say that the proportionality is 0.0001.  Then that means that a fee is 0.0001 BTC, no ?  So if BTC = $1000,-, a fee is $0.10, if BTC is $1000 000,- then the fee, with the same proportionality, is $100,- , no ?

Yes, you are correct.

Or do you mean "transaction amount" instead of "bitcoin price" ?

But then the miners will only take those transactions with highest absolute fee, so only the very large transactions.  Because for them, at a certain point, including an extra transaction (and risking the loss of the entire block) will not be beneficial any more below a certain absolute fee.

That would mean miners only care about transactions that involve buying mansions, yachts, private jets, etc. No, as long as the fee is proportional to the price of bitcoin, it doesn't matter if they accept transactions for buying a private jet or a transaction for buying an apple. In a block to be mined, the total fee will be a fixed % of the total transactions in that block.

The point is that treating a transaction has a cost in terms of processing/networking for a miner even though it is small, that cost brings in a small delay that increases this miner's chance to MISS the whole block (another miner being faster) and having wasted all the hash rate on it.  So at a certain point, it is better NOT to include a transaction with a small fee, and increase slightly your speed of winning a block, rather than to want to get a small extra fee, and risk somewhat more the loss of the entire block to the competition.

And that, only if blocks are unlimited.  If blocks are limited to 1 MB (as it most probably will remain on bitcoin), then of course the room is limited, and only the highest fee transactions will ever be  included.  This is in my opinion how bitcoin's design (with 1 MB blocks frozen in now) is pushing towards the selling of the scarce resource of transaction room, making this an expensive thing.  Every byte on the block chain, being scarce, will be sold at a relatively high price: the fee needed to get your transaction included.
The price of a byte on the chain will come from the need of bitcoin holders to do transactions (they are locked into their bitcoins which are worthless without the possibility to transact) versus the hard scarcity of the block size (1MB) which can even be arbitrarily made smaller by miners spamming the chain (which doesn't cost them anything, because they get back the fee they pay to themselves).

So a miner does not need to have bias on which block to mine. A block may have just 10 transactions involving purchases of a private jet each. Another block may have 1000 transactions involving purchases of a bike each.

Point is that if the block limit remains (I think so), then if, as a miner, you can only place 5000 transactions in a block, you only take those with highest fees from the pool.  If there is no block limit, then you will take only those, that bring in net benefit (that is, higher fee than the extra cost of treating a transaction).

Something like that. But from both blocks, miners will earn similar fee and will have no bias on which block to mine.

Of course they will.  The 10 jet purchases are slightly faster to process into a block and propagate, than the 1000 bikes, so you ever so slightly reduce your chances to win the bike block against the jet block.

But essentially, at a certain point, miners will PRE-SELL the room on the chain to the highest bidder.

Ask yourself this. If you were back in 2009/2010 and you happened to mine 100,000 units of bitcoin (worth $120,000,000 today), will you travel around the world giving talks about how wonderful is bitcoin? Bear in mind back in 2009/2010, 100,000 bitcoins may be worth just $10.

Well, if you think that by doing so, you will rise the price of a bitcoin to $2,-, then you can already do some travelling.  But if you can get enthusiasts doing so on the internet, creating a buzz, that's even much better and it costs you less.  Libertarians are an easy crowd to get going (I know, I'm part of them). 

Will you fly around the world to give free speeches if you have 100,000 of bitcoins worth $120 mil today but worth just $10 back then?

Who did so ?

Did you really see it coming? You think everything is coincidence? You think the shadow elites are in power because they think it was just a coincidence for them to be in power?

Yes.  There's no such thing as merit, or the intelligence of success.  Success and power is a matter of luck.  The only "merit" there is, is to recognize the opportunity (which, in itself, is a random phenomenon, the fact that you "recognize it").  Power and success are the result of pure lottery.  But people in power like to think that they are special, have a gift, and have the intelligence.  They don't.  It is a pure lottery.  This is why they are not capable to do something intelligent with their power.

And most dumb thing is, you think some genuine whales would be interested in an almost worthless, useless and unproven digital tokens back in 2009/2010? You know back in 2009/2010, we didn't have as much bullish news of bitcoin developement that we have today. We didn't hear news of so and so corporation adopting bitcoin, we didn't hear news of countries legalizing bitcoin, we didn't hear of news of merchants accepting bitcoins. In that time, bitcoin was almost truly worthless, useless, and unproven. You think a whale wanna take a bet on that?
 I wouldn't even want to waste $1,000 even if I was a whale back then.[/b][/color]

Well, there were some believers.  There are always believers.  But these believers were worth gold, because they were naive, motivated, somewhat greedy, starry-eyed, and could make the message pass that they were going to change the world for the better.  The analogy with the internet, remember. They succeeded in creating a buzz, and the time was ripe.  The MtGox guy, Karpeles, sleazy business type on the outlook of easy money, saw the opportunity.  That's all there is to it.

If there were powerful dark forces behind bitcoin, they would have twisted Amazon's hand to accept bitcoin: the story would have been entirely different.  Bitcoin, as a payment system, is essentially a failure.  However, as a greater-fool game, it works marvellously, for the time being, like all greater-fool games, that promise quick riches (and yes, there are a few hundred of quick riches in bitcoin, living off all the donations by the "adoption" crowd).

Things are working out smoothly, not abruptly.

The window of opportunity to rule the world with bitcoin is closing.  No 'dark forces' wait 8 years to get their thing going, when it starts to show cracks.

You are underestimating the explosive combination of useful idiots believing in some libertarian dream, combined with the power of greed and the illusions of quick rich.  THAT is the power behind bitcoin.  Not "organized dark forces", but an explosive mix of foolish idealism and greed.  It is what keeps it up, and this is more powerful than any cigar-smoking "elite" making evil plans that never work out as expected.  Greed and naive idealism.  What more do you need ? What is better than naive people thinking that their idealistic nonsense is going to make them immensely rich, combined with some smart money that sees the opportunity to exploit this enthusiastic propaganda for making a lot of bucks from starry-eyed greedy idealists "adopting" their new toy ?

What evil elite plans that you even know of, never mind if you know they never work out? If you think a bunch of idiots/sheeps can be so organized and effective that they can make bitcoin to where it is today within 8 years, you are way overestimating the idiots/sheeps. You may believe what you choose to believe. You may believe the idiots/sheeps are transforming into some advanced beings that finally have the tools and power to topple all governments and bankers in the world, that the governments and bankers are just helpless to do anything but tag along like a dog. You may think that way... Anything that makes you feel good, dude.

Occam's razor.  If you don't need a master plan, and can explain a phenomenon without it, it is better than to have to think up an inconsistently sounding evil master plan that was too hard to foresee back then, that took too long, and that had too much power on one side, and too many backlashes on the other in order to be coherent.

I don't need a master plan, as the ingredients: naive idealism and greed, are sufficient to explain where we are today.

I don't know how crypto will evolve.  I think the bubble will burst at a certain moment, but niche applications will remain.  My personal impression is that bitcoin's absolute reign is coming to an end, and that in the next few years, its first mover advantage will have been consumed.  The scammy coins in line to succeed illustrate the medium future of crypto, in the line of its evolution during the last years: away from "real world economy" and more and more centered on gambling and trading.  I think block chains have shown their limits, and at the same time, their use in certain applications.   What crypto turned out not to be, is "money on the internet", except for niche applications, such as dark markets. 

[Raxitto]

A pseudo Japanese with a fall for mathematics creates an algorithm / equation in which there are a limited number of solutions, the former are relatively easy to calculate, and then become increasingly difficult to find (= bitcoin).

So far so good but who has the brilliant idea of turning this into currency? If it is limited the first ones to enter the game are the ones that gain the most.

[IadixDev]

A pseudo Japanese with a fall for mathematics creates an algorithm / equation in which there are a limited number of solutions, the former are relatively easy to calculate, and then become increasingly difficult to find (= bitcoin).

So far so good but who has the brilliant idea of turning this into currency? If it is limited the first ones to enter the game are the ones that gain the most.

+1 for theory like this 

[Dorky]

The point is that treating a transaction has a cost in terms of processing/networking for a miner even though it is small, that cost brings in a small delay that increases this miner's chance to MISS the whole block (another miner being faster) and having wasted all the hash rate on it.  So at a certain point, it is better NOT to include a transaction with a small fee, and increase slightly your speed of winning a block, rather than to want to get a small extra fee, and risk somewhat more the loss of the entire block to the competition.

And that, only if blocks are unlimited.  If blocks are limited to 1 MB (as it most probably will remain on bitcoin), then of course the room is limited, and only the highest fee transactions will ever be  included.  This is in my opinion how bitcoin's design (with 1 MB blocks frozen in now) is pushing towards the selling of the scarce resource of transaction room, making this an expensive thing.  Every byte on the block chain, being scarce, will be sold at a relatively high price: the fee needed to get your transaction included.
The price of a byte on the chain will come from the need of bitcoin holders to do transactions (they are locked into their bitcoins which are worthless without the possibility to transact) versus the hard scarcity of the block size (1MB) which can even be arbitrarily made smaller by miners spamming the chain (which doesn't cost them anything, because they get back the fee they pay to themselves).

If what you and iamnotback is right, that we non-whales will all be forced out of the blockchain, then too bad. Tough luck, huh? You better start selling your bitcoin because it ain't good enough vs Monero, etc. Better still, be a miner and go hand pick those transactions that pays the highest fee. But I am optimistic things will work out my way. My way is that both the whales and the non-whales will be transacting in the SAME blockchain each paying reasonable fee relative to their transaction value.

If the miners have sole power to influence the fee, then even the whales (forget the non-whales that iamnotback said will be forced out of the blockchain) will be forced to pay higher and even higher fee and compete among themselves to get confirmed to the point of total breakdown in the bitcoin economy. That's a very lousy game theory, I say.

A dialogue:
Whale 1: Since the non-whales are all gone now, I pay 0.001% for my transaction.
Whale 2: Not so fast, baby. I am paying 0.01%. Process mine first.
Whale 3: Nope, I am paying 0.1%.
Whale 4: Fuck you all, I am paying 1%.
Whale 5: Lolol..... I pay 10%, hah!
Whale 6: Get the fuck out of here, guys. I am paying 100%.

Anyone still subscribing to imminent high fee does not really understand game theory.


Of course they will.  The 10 jet purchases are slightly faster to process into a block and propagate, than the 1000 bikes, so you ever so slightly reduce your chances to win the bike block against the jet block.

People these days are so backward and retarded in thinking that they have no problem wasting hours of time doing useless things like watching cheap B-rated movies, doing idle chatting, etc etc every single fucking day for the rest of their lives, but have super massive terminal + critical + problem + challenge + pressure + tension issue on fast transactions with a difference of just some few seconds or minutes.

If each block gives similar fee, the miner will not cherry pick. Give yourself a break. Don't sweat the small stuff.

Well, if you think that by doing so, you will rise the price of a bitcoin to $2,-, then you can already do some travelling.  But if you can get enthusiasts doing so on the internet, creating a buzz, that's even much better and it costs you less.  Libertarians are an easy crowd to get going (I know, I'm part of them).  

What prompted you be part of the buzz? Was it back in 2009/2010 or few years after it got very popular? It makes a huge difference.
 If you started in 2009/2010 independently on your own initiative, then you are a TRUE libertarian. Otherwise, if you wait until almost everything is in place then you are just a SHEEP like every other. I suspect you did not talk about bitcoin in 2009, or 2010, or 2011. I suspect you were waiting for signs that bitcoin is really a good thing and that it will last before you jump right in.

Who did so ?

Andreas Antonopoulos. By right, you should be familiar with him that you do not even need to ask this stupid question.

Yes.  There's no such thing as merit, or the intelligence of success.  Success and power is a matter of luck.  The only "merit" there is, is to recognize the opportunity (which, in itself, is a random phenomenon, the fact that you "recognize it").  Power and success are the result of pure lottery.  But people in power like to think that they are special, have a gift, and have the intelligence.  They don't.  It is a pure lottery.  This is why they are not capable to do something intelligent with their power.

The shadow elite planned for bitcoin at least back in 1988, publicly. Luck is for the sheep. The shadow elite creates their own reality through thought power.

Well, there were some believers.  There are always believers.  But these believers were worth gold, because they were naive, motivated, somewhat greedy, starry-eyed, and could make the message pass that they were going to change the world for the better.  The analogy with the internet, remember. They succeeded in creating a buzz, and the time was ripe.  The MtGox guy, Karpeles, sleazy business type on the outlook of easy money, saw the opportunity.  That's all there is to it.

Your world is very simplistic. I wish there is really such a world.

The window of opportunity to rule the world with bitcoin is closing.  No 'dark forces' wait 8 years to get their thing going, when it starts to show cracks.

Oh, really? Closing eh? They shouldn't be waiting for 8 years eh? They should have announce it right away and force immediate adoption eh?

Occam's razor.  If you don't need a master plan, and can explain a phenomenon without it, it is better than to have to think up an inconsistently sounding evil master plan that was too hard to foresee back then, that took too long, and that had too much power on one side, and too many backlashes on the other in order to be coherent.

I don't need a master plan, as the ingredients: naive idealism and greed, are sufficient to explain where we are today.

Simple people don't need any master plan. And when things happen, they always never see it coming. You have naive idealism too.

I don't know how crypto will evolve.  I think the bubble will burst at a certain moment, but niche applications will remain.  My personal impression is that bitcoin's absolute reign is coming to an end, and that in the next few years, its first mover advantage will have been consumed.  The scammy coins in line to succeed illustrate the medium future of crypto, in the line of its evolution during the last years: away from "real world economy" and more and more centered on gambling and trading.  I think block chains have shown their limits, and at the same time, their use in certain applications.   What crypto turned out not to be, is "money on the internet", except for niche applications, such as dark markets.

Bitcoin will last.

Hey, dinofelis. There is no need to argue over this.
If you think you are right, sure.
I am okay with that.
I am sick and tired of trying to prove others being wrong, and I am sure you feel the same way too.

[Dorky]

A pseudo Japanese with a fall for mathematics creates an algorithm / equation in which there are a limited number of solutions, the former are relatively easy to calculate, and then become increasingly difficult to find (= bitcoin).

So far so good but who has the brilliant idea of turning this into currency? If it is limited the first ones to enter the game are the ones that gain the most.

Only by looking in retrospect that you will have this opinion.
It's just like a technical chartist that says his technical indicator is very accurate in predicting the past, thus it should be used for the present and the future.
But when applied to the present going forward, the system turns out to be a failure.

Who knew that bitcoin would be where it is today?
You can tell yourself, "Isn't that obvious that bitcoin prospect is so bright!" etc etc etc statement based on retrospect.
Nobody is willing to humbly admit that whatever fantasy opinion they have today was all due to retrospect thinking.

[dinofelis]

Who did so ?

Andreas Antonopoulos. By right, you should be familiar with him that you do not even need to ask this stupid question.

Yes, an idealist, somewhat naive, hoping to be on the verge of a buzz, and he was right (in fact, lucky).  You have any idea how many people run around in the world to sell an idea that doesn't work out ?   So the "dark forces of the world" sent out their agent special 007.  Wow, impressive.  You don't have Greenpeace activists running around ?  You don't have people travelling the world about many crazy and not so crazy ideas ?  So what ? That's proof that the Rotschilds are behind this ? 
I personally know a guy who has been "running around the world" to promote e-cash in the 199X.  He was tremendously enthusiastic about it.  He was in contact with David Schaum.  He was/is also an internet entrepreneur.  He had been promoting Netscape too. I've seen many such enthusiastic people.  And no, the Rotschilds weren't behind him.  I knew him since childhood.  And no, he totally missed the bitcoin train, 10 years later.

The shadow elite planned for bitcoin at least back in 1988, publicly. Luck is for the sheep. The shadow elite creates their own reality through thought power.

The shadow elite is a bunch of people that have been lucky at a certain point in their lives, and then think it is their nature to be lucky.

Oh, really? Closing eh? They shouldn't be waiting for 8 years eh? They should have announce it right away and force immediate adoption eh?

"they" aren't needed to explain bitcoin.  Not more than invisible pink unicorns are needed to explain the motion of the moon.  But for all we know, the moon could be moving because invisible pink unicorns are pushing it.

Simple people don't need any master plan. And when things happen, they always never see it coming. You have naive idealism too.

Most people don't see things coming.  And those that did, by chance, think that it is because they were smart.
Look at the world soccer cup.  Select 4096 people.  Before the first match, send to 2048 people that crew A will win, or there will be a draw.  Send to the other 2048 people, that crew B will win.

If ever crew A won, or there was a draw, discard the second batch.  If crew B won, discard the first batch.
Now, of the 2048 remaining people, before the second game (between C and D), send to 1024 of them that crew C will win, or there will be a draw ; send to the 1024 remaining ones, that crew D will win.

Discard those that got the wrong prediction.

Etc..

At the end, you will end up with 4 people to which you've made 10 successive correct predictions !  You must be a hell of a smart guy to them !

Real world dynamics is too complex for complicated conspirational plans to work out, or even to "see it coming", but some people will think A is coming, and some people will think B is coming.  When A is coming, the first lot thinks they are smart.  Within their lot, part of them will see C coming, others will see D coming.  If C is coming, those that saw A and C think they are even smarter.

Etc...

Bitcoin will last.

Of course.  I didn't say the opposite.  But not as you think it will last.  Or as you think it will last.  So many people have so many different opinions, that some of them, will, by chance, be right.

[dinofelis]

Hey, dinofelis. There is no need to argue over this.
If you think you are right, sure.
I am okay with that.
I am sick and tired of trying to prove others being wrong, and I am sure you feel the same way too.

I don't think I'm right.  I think that people that are sure that they know the future, are wrong, or simply lucky. 
I think I recognise certain aspects in bitcoin that make me think its design is fundamentally flawed, and its design (with hindsight) had to lead to the current situation.  And I don't believe in conspiracy theories, because they are harder to consider than non-conspiracy explanations. 

I have the impression that everybody thinks that it is obvious that bitcoin will be the world's currency.  I think that this is FAR from obvious, and that half a miracle would be needed for that to happen ; and that the world in which that were true would be quite terrible where a few guys like Roger Ver would be able to buy up the whole of Africa, say and become king by their financial power.

[IadixDev]

Real world dynamics is too complex for complicated conspirational plans to work out, or even to "see it coming", but some people will think A is coming, and some people will think B is coming.  When A is coming, the first lot thinks they are smart.  Within their lot, part of them will see C coming, others will see D coming.  If C is coming, those that saw A and C think they are even smarter.

you don't believe in machiaveli ?

[dinofelis]

Real world dynamics is too complex for complicated conspirational plans to work out, or even to "see it coming", but some people will think A is coming, and some people will think B is coming.  When A is coming, the first lot thinks they are smart.  Within their lot, part of them will see C coming, others will see D coming.  If C is coming, those that saw A and C think they are even smarter.

you don't believe in machiaveli ?

Of course.  I think everybody is following Machiavelli.  But it is not because you PLAN like Machiavelli, that things work out as you planned, simply because there's a lot of competition in applying his evident suggestions.

In fact, it is Machiavelli's universal success that makes that such plans don't work out as expected and that the world is a complicated place.

I'm not saying that nobody is making plans.  I'm saying that many people are making plans, that obstruct one another, and lead to unexpected results.

[cellard]

If John Nash was so smart, why wouldn't he have predicted the current problems that bitcoin is facing? (assuming that John Nash was indeed satoshi, which is I theory I doubt to be true).

So, according to John Nash, his vision of Ideal Money was a money that can only be used by extremely wealthy people in the long run? Doesn't make sense to me.

I believe satoshi didn't realize the current problem would arise, and if he thought a network of centralized nodes on datacenters can be called p2p digital cash, then he was wrong.

[Dorky]

Yes, an idealist, somewhat naive, hoping to be on the verge of a buzz, and he was right (in fact, lucky).  You have any idea how many people run around in the world to sell an idea that doesn't work out ?   So the "dark forces of the world" sent out their agent special 007.  Wow, impressive.  You don't have Greenpeace activists running around ?  You don't have people travelling the world about many crazy and not so crazy ideas ?  So what ? That's proof that the Rotschilds are behind this ?  
I personally know a guy who has been "running around the world" to promote e-cash in the 199X.  He was tremendously enthusiastic about it.  He was in contact with David Schaum.  He was/is also an internet entrepreneur.  He had been promoting Netscape too. I've seen many such enthusiastic people.  And no, the Rotschilds weren't behind him.  I knew him since childhood.  And no, he totally missed the bitcoin train, 10 years later.

A lot of people do run around promoting their own work. That is not a surprise.

How many people do you know run around promoting a complete stranger's work (not his own work, not his friend's work, not his spouse's work, not his relative's work, not his colleague's work, not his sibling's work, not his children's work, not his parent's work)?

[Sarah08]

There not even a single evidence to believe that John Nash created bitcoin even like we all know that Satoshi Nakamoto created bitcoin no one ever confirmed it and then they were gonna say that John Nash created bitcoin with no such evidence i do a research about John Nash and he's a smart and idealistic guy but no information that he created bitcoin but maybe he has some idea in about money.