Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[traincarswreck]

You still think that Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto?

You are the dumbest person in this thread, possibly on this forum, and acting dumber isn't going to change that or distract people from being aware of this.

[BurtW]

Bitcoin is not only predictable at the current state, but it will have a ZERO deflation rate from 2140 on until forever. Fees will then be the only reason for miners to support the network and this will end up in a near production cost (energy) value, which still makes Bitcoin a candidate for a pretty close - or even better, because decentralized - concept of Ideal Money.

I don't see any of the current governments able to create some sort of Ideal Money anytime soon. This probably could only be created by a world government, which might not have a reason to do so, because they could simply prohibid any other competitor to their own currency.

Your use of the term "Ideal Money" does not match the use of that term in this thread.  That is why you are confused.  You think when we say "Ideal Money" we are saying some subjective notion of what is "ideal money" to you.  That is not the case.  "Ideal Money" in this thread means a very specific mathematically defined term, kind of like "perfect circle".

[traincarswreck]

ZERO deflation is not possible.

I think he things that bitcoin's inflation schedule (money supply) is called "deflation", and that when no more money is printed then "deflation" stops.

[jbreher]

I think David Rabahy's comments illustrate a problem with OP's postulated scenario.

Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.

[traincarswreck]

I think David Rabahy's comments illustrate a problem with OP's postulated scenario.

Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.

1) I am not wrong, and its Nash's postulate.  2) You have contradicted yourself by admitting the truth of this.  3) The reason bitcoin has value as a gold is because our money systems are instable DUCY this is relevant?

The sub title of ideal money is "the motivations of savings and thrift"  and the motivations of savings, or want for an inflation hedge, is inflating fiat. Bitcoin is valuable when fiat sux.

So it occurs to me to think that that which is not achieved by a grand action of establishment by “fiat” may alternatively tend to come into existence as a consequence of a process of evolution. And of course, after a certain degree of progress by “evolution” the rest of the progress could possibly be realized by a convention or a process of “fiat”.

[sidhujag]

I think David Rabahy's comments illustrate a problem with OP's postulated scenario.

Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.

No its about liquidity and utility, have you even read the paper? This is more than just simply "thinking" about how your perfect money would work in theory. This is based on game theoretical fundamentals with mathematical relevance and one which a certain high IQ society member spent the majority of his working life trying to figure out. Note that in all his talks he declined to ever comment on bitcoin almost purposefully, and nash was known to try to hide patterns within patterns for people to try to deduce true meanings of his words, but read the paper and it becomes crystal clear on what he is getting at.. well to me anyway.

[traincarswreck]

No its about liquidity and utility, have you even read the paper? This is more than just simply "thinking" about how your perfect money would work in theory. This is based on game theoretical fundamentals with mathematical relevance and one which a certain high IQ society member spent the majority of his working life trying to figure out. Note that in all his talks he declined to ever comment on bitcoin almost purposefully, and nash was known to try to hide patterns within patterns for people to try to deduce true meanings of his words, but read the paper and it becomes crystal clear on what he is getting at.. well to me anyway.

Yup also just to note, there are definitely more than 2 papers by Nash on the subject of Ideal Money.

[traincarswreck]

Relevant:

But the famous classical “Gresham’s Law” also reveals the intrinsic difficulty. Thus “good money” will not naturally supplant and replace “bad money” by a simple Darwinian superiority of competitive species. Rather than that, it must be that the good things are established by the voluntary choice of human agencies.

[sidhujag]

No its about liquidity and utility, have you even read the paper? This is more than just simply "thinking" about how your perfect money would work in theory. This is based on game theoretical fundamentals with mathematical relevance and one which a certain high IQ society member spent the majority of his working life trying to figure out. Note that in all his talks he declined to ever comment on bitcoin almost purposefully, and nash was known to try to hide patterns within patterns for people to try to deduce true meanings of his words, but read the paper and it becomes crystal clear on what he is getting at.. well to me anyway.

Yup also just to note, there are definitely more than 2 papers by Nash on the subject of Ideal Money.

Can you post them here for sanity?

[jbreher]

I think David Rabahy's comments illustrate a problem with OP's postulated scenario.

Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.

1) I am not wrong, and its Nash's postulate.  2) You have contradicted yourself by admitting the truth of this.  3) The reason bitcoin has value as a gold is because our money systems are instable DUCY this is relevant?

Nash spoke of Ideal Money, and Nash spoke of some other nearly stable money that would through market forces gradually force other moneys to approach its qualities. The idea that Bitcoin be this other alternative is not Nash's.

[traincarswreck]

Can you post them here for sanity?

No.  I often get into dialogue with people that claim they have read the works.  When I ask them how many papers they read I usually get a response like "You tell ME how many there are and I'll tell you if I have read them". So for now its a nice like protection against such trolls.

It needs more traction before I put them all up.

[BurtW]

I think David Rabahy's comments illustrate a problem with OP's postulated scenario.

Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.

1) I am not wrong, and its Nash's postulate.  2) You have contradicted yourself by admitting the truth of this.  3) The reason bitcoin has value as a gold is because our money systems are instable DUCY this is relevant?

Nash spoke of Ideal Money, and Nash spoke of some other nearly stable money that would through market forces gradually force other moneys to approach its qualities. The idea that Bitcoin be this other alternative is not Nash's.

I think the idea here presented is that Nash never mentioned Bitcoin by name but he did describe it by all its attributes so closely that traincarswreck asserts that he was talking about Bitcoin.  Like if it smells like Bitcoin, tastes like Bitcoin, feels like Bitcoin, sounds like Bitcoin, looks like Bitcoin, well it ....

Your assertion that he might as well have been talking about any crypto that has all the same "gold like" properties (Litecoin, and many others) is well taken, however the economy has singled out Bitcoin as the one to notice relative to all the other alt coins.

[jbreher]

I think the idea here presented is that Nash never mentioned Bitcoin by name but he did describe it by all its attributes so closely that traincarswreck asserts that he was talking about Bitcoin.  Like if it smells like Bitcoin, tastes like Bitcoin, feels like Bitcoin, sounds like Bitcoin, looks like Bitcoin, well it ....

Your assertion that he might as well have been talking about any crypto that has all the same "gold like" properties (Litecoin, and many others) is well taken, however the economy has singled out Bitcoin as the one to notice relative to all the other alt coins.

Yeah - I get that subtext. The fly in that ointment is that the value of Bitcoin (for any rational definition of 'value', which OP steadfastly refuses to define) is increasing spectacularly. By this criteria alone, it cannot be the Nash Other Alternative.

IOW, in no way does it resemble a duck.

As an aside, this is the very property that has led to the economy singling out Bitcoin.

[AGD]

You still think that Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto?

You are the dumbest person in this thread, possibly on this forum, and acting dumber isn't going to change that or distract people from being aware of this.

Quoting Nash doesn't make you smarter than anybody here and your insults only show a lack of education and your social intelligence.
Look, you came here once trying to convince the Bitcoin community, that Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto, didn't you? Now you come back and think you are making the Bitcoin community "aware" of the sensational discovery, that Bitcoin is not Nash's Ideal Money, because Bitcoin is changing in value - but you are consequently missing to present any impact to the Bitcoin community.

Nash's Ideal Money will not exist in a world with more than one government and therefore it is not important for the Bitcoin community within the next few hundred years at least.


@BurtW
I know what the definition of "Ideal Money" is. This is why I am writing it with capital letters.

[AGD]

I think David Rabahy's comments illustrate a problem with OP's postulated scenario.

Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.

1) I am not wrong, and its Nash's postulate.  2) You have contradicted yourself by admitting the truth of this.  3) The reason bitcoin has value as a gold is because our money systems are instable DUCY this is relevant?

Nash spoke of Ideal Money, and Nash spoke of some other nearly stable money that would through market forces gradually force other moneys to approach its qualities. The idea that Bitcoin be this other alternative is not Nash's.

I think the idea here presented is that Nash never mentioned Bitcoin by name but he did describe it by all its attributes so closely that traincarswreck asserts that he was talking about Bitcoin.  Like if it smells like Bitcoin, tastes like Bitcoin, feels like Bitcoin, sounds like Bitcoin, looks like Bitcoin, well it ....

Your assertion that he might as well have been talking about any crypto that has all the same "gold like" properties (Litecoin, and many others) is well taken, however the economy has singled out Bitcoin as the one to notice relative to all the other alt coins.

Same OP thinks that Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto, which doesn't make sense.
Another thing that doesn't make sense is that OP is desperatly trying to convince core devs to keep the "gold like" blocksize, because it is important for humanity.

[traincarswreck]

Same OP thinks that Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto, which doesn't make sense.

Cite this idiot accusation.

[traincarswreck]

Quoting Nash doesn't make you smarter than anybody here and your insults only show a lack of education and your social intelligence.
Look, you came here once trying to convince the Bitcoin community, that Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto, didn't you? Now you come back and think you are making the Bitcoin community "aware" of the sensational discovery, that Bitcoin is not Nash's Ideal Money, because Bitcoin is changing in value - but you are consequently missing to present any impact to the Bitcoin community.

You have already shown that you do not understand the value proposition of bitcoin. You've called inflation deflation and shown you do not understand these words or their relation to monetary policy. And now you have defended your ignorance with a false and baseless assertion which further shows your lack of understanding of the subject.

Who else do you think believes you, that someone like you that has not traversed any of the material, and doesn't have a basic understanding of economics, and most likely has never read or studied ANY related material, that you are not an idiot?

Look how you are spending your lift, your time.  It's not the same as me just because we are in the same thread and in conflict.  I am explaining a very well articulated and cited argument that is very relevant to the way bitcoin is going to affect our global economy.

You on the other hand continue to prove to any reasonable and sincere reader, that you proud to be willfully ignorant, and so much that you are showing it off for everyone to see.

[AGD]

Same OP thinks that Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto, which doesn't make sense.

Cite this idiot accusation.

from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=626868.msg6975262#msg6975262

He proposed that international exchange rates be fixed by pegging the value of each currency to a standardized basket of commodities, called the industrial consumption price index.

No he didn't, you are reading someone interpretation of ideal money that is not correct, and in fact a red herring.  Thomas edison did what you are saying and i showed the link that shows it.  You didn't read anything i posted did you?  I have read all the links many many times, all nash's works, and as many versions of ideal money as I can.  There are about 14 of them, each with different wording talking about different past histories of many and different current economic climates around the world.

lets stop judging with ignorance from a far, and take a moment to use our eyes and our brains http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf
READ IT, don't pre judge.

Loled, I have no clue what the OP post is about..

The man from the movie a beautiful mind.

Another "I found Satoshi" post.

let's not be ignorant just because we were raised that way, read the paper http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf  Its 'another satoshi' post.  It is the VERY reason we couldn't find satoshi, and the very man who satoshi is, and who created and implemented this technological hyper-advancement of our civilization.

You want to skip all the links and proof and then go straight to ridicule, good for you...man suffers from his (not her) own ignorance...live in it.

from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=626868.msg6967369#msg6967369

My assumption is, if he didn't want us to eventually figure it out, then he wouldn't have left all the bread crumbs (obviously some people around here will try to brush this aside). For those of you who don't know anything about this man, or only saw the hollywood movie, I can tell you I have read his works many times (other than the whole szabo blog), and John Nash IS all these men then entire works of them all is the body of the thesis/outline lecture ideal money http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf.  When this hits the media and the academics bitcoins adoption and use is going to hit its tipping point, IT HAS TOO HE REWROTE OUR SOCIETY! It will be the biggest story known to man.

SAtosHi Nakamoto, wei dai, nick szabo same person, same nash. Each name has a key so the probability of it being coincidence is next to nil especially between 3 names.

from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=775174.msg8782774#msg8782774

read it again and pretend dai, szabo, and nakamoto are all nash...

And ill give you a little hint about nash's writing that is very provable, he constantly goes on tangents and uses parenthesis in speech like context rather than as grammar.

Just messin with peoples heads, as we messed with his...

[traincarswreck]

Yeah - I get that subtext. The fly in that ointment is that the value of Bitcoin (for any rational definition of 'value', which OP steadfastly refuses to define) is increasing spectacularly. By this criteria alone, it cannot be the Nash Other Alternative.

IOW, in no way does it resemble a duck.

As an aside, this is the very property that has led to the economy singling out Bitcoin.

You don't understand the difference between value and price.  Just because and exchange tells you price is "x" doesn't mean the value is also "x".

You are just again clearly showing you have no understanding of market theory or global/macro-economics.

To be quite respectable, in a Gresham-advised sense, money needs only to be AS GOOD as other material commod-ities that might be hoarded.

Bitcoin absolutely fits this perfectly.

Here is the wiki on bitcoin's money supply:

This decreasing-supply algorithm was chosen because it approximates the rate at which commodities like gold are mined.

And there is no  proper definition of value in this regard which is the EXACT nature of the problem and the proposal to solve it by means of a metric for value.  A metric allows you to define somethings value, and without it you cannot.

This is simple simple stuff.

[traincarswreck]

...

Ya exactly. I don't think Nash was Satoshi.  But you will find quotes of me saying he is.