Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

[iamnotback]

Where does Nash state that asymptotic ideal money is where there are multiple competing currencies at one time? Thats not at all what I vot from reading his stuff.

In the section called "currencies in competition":

So here is the possibility of "asymptotically Ideal Money". Starting with the idea of value stabilization in relation to a domestic price index associated with the territory of one state, beyond that there is the natural and logical concept of internationally based comparisons.  The currencies being compared, like now the euro, the dollar, the yen, the pound, the swiss franc, the swedish kronor, etc. can be viewed with critical eyes by their users and by those who maybe have the option of whether or not or how to use one of them. This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened rate of inflationary deprecation in value.

So then you understand that Nash would have only made Bitcoin so that it could be forked and modified so there are many competing currencies which users can judge which one is the most stable and has the least corruption and manipulation.

Satoshi wanted altcoins.

[sidhujag]

Where does Nash state that asymptotic ideal money is where there are multiple competing currencies at one time? Thats not at all what I vot from reading his stuff.

In the section called "currencies in competition":

So here is the possibility of "asymptotically Ideal Money". Starting with the idea of value stabilization in relation to a domestic price index associated with the territory of one state, beyond that there is the natural and logical concept of internationally based comparisons.  The currencies being compared, like now the euro, the dollar, the yen, the pound, the swiss franc, the swedish kronor, etc. can be viewed with critical eyes by their users and by those who maybe have the option of whether or not or how to use one of them. This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened rate of inflationary deprecation in value.

So then you understand that Nash would have only made Bitcoin so that it could be forked and modified so there are many competing currencies which users can judge which one is the most stable and has the least corruption and manipulation.

Satoshi wanted altcoins.

Makes sense but somehow alt coins would be related to different nation states based on dpi metric for supply.. thats why i was saying in his eyes he viewed ideal as in supply shifted based on growth of economy.

[iamnotback]

Makes sense but somehow alt coins would be related to different nation states based on cpi metric for supply.. thats why i was saying in his eyes he viewed ideal as in supply shifted based on growth of economy.

In that paper he was describing natural boundaries for currency regimes, but I don't think his conceptual point of competing standards of value which the people can freely judge is tied to nations. In fact, I think his point is that currencies would become supranational so that users could compare currencies not bounded/restricted by national regimes.

I think you are reading it too literally and not relating the underlying concept that he was shooting for which afaics is a free market on standards of monetary value.

You'll find that Nash was working his way towards this deeper level of understanding if you review the writings on his personal webpage. Pay special attention to the last paragraph where he realizes the ICPI is not good and needs to be discarded for a relative valuation system. The ICPI is analogous to Bitcoin and the altcoins would be the multiple currencies his is referring to there.

                Price Indexes in General

     Various states calculate some sort of a CPI or measure of the
"cost of living" for inhabitants of their territory. It is possible
that "globalization" and in general trends leading to more non-local
sources for basic needs like food and clothing will have the effect
of making CPI indices calculated in different states tend to become
concordant. Of course the effects of taxes can be very complicating
in relation to comparisons of distinct national CPI indices.

    It seems possible and not unlikely, however, that if two states
evolve towards having currencies or more stable value as measured
locally by national CPI indices that then also these distinct
currencies would tend to evolve towards more stable comparative
relations of value.

    Then the limiting or "asymptotic" result of such an evolutionary
trend would be in effect "ideal money" but this as a result achieved
without the adoption of anything like an ICPI index as a basis for
the standard of value.

Nash obviously realized that his ICPI would be a problem that could lead to world empire context. He realized the flaw that any one standard of absolute value such as "kilogram" could become corrupted.

It is interesting to note that I had predicted Nash would come to the above conclusion in my upthread posts, before finding that hidden writing from him above on his personal web site.

He outsmarted the global elite. Bitcoin is designed to launch many competing altcoins!

[rpietila]

CK @ 100MEUR.

[alkan]

It is amazing to me that you would think that the elite who created Bitcoin can't afford competency. Boggles my mind that you would think Satoshi was some guy coding in his garage. The elite were aware of Nash's work decades before. They had plenty of time to prepare. They have access to $trillions and can afford the best that money can buy.

If the goverment or some other dark forces had created Bitcoin to maintain their centralized power over the global finance system (and the people), they would have done a huge disservice to themselves by promoting the idea of decentralized money to the people they want to govern. It must have been clear to them right off the start that altcoins will eventually emerge and improve on the flawed concept of Bitcoin.

So, no, I don't think that some evil group created Bitcoin, nor do I think that it is the work of a genius! It's rather the creation of some creative mind who just dared to combine the concepts of cryptography and game theory to build a novel distributed system. Basically, any computer scientist or cryptopunk with some basic knowledge of game theory and monetary system could have invented Bitcoin. However, most people, including high IQ-geniuses, tend to stay with what they know best and are reluctant to get inspiration from other fields of research. It's as simple as that.

Having glanced through 100s of research papers on Blockchain over the last half year, I'm consternated by the lack of creativity of most authors. Instead of exploring the whole design space (especially when it comes to incentives and game theory), they mostly just analyze current systems and suggest little improvements here and there. Aside from
some exceptions, it seems that most computer scientists are still reluctant (or ignorant) to incorporate game theoratical approaches into their systems.

To cite an old post by Vitalik:

Bitcoin "solves" the problems behind Byzantine fault tolerance, quorum systems, etc by completely ignoring the past 30 years of research on the topic, and introducing a very simple construction that bypasses all of the issues entirely by using the concept of proof of work. Don't get me wrong, Bitcoin is a brilliant idea, but it's the sort of brilliant idea which is actually more likely to come to you if you were NOT bogged down by existing research on how to do things. Satoshi's primary gift was not deep knowledge, it was a fresh perspective.

[traincarswreck]

Ideal Money is an idea from the 50's if you think you can out think 70 years of nash you have no idea of his works.

Only 3 people in the world that could say this as Satoshi, I think szabo:

The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost.

nash szabo or finney.

[iamnotback]

I find interesting that in 2010, John Nash was contemplating the implications of completeness being stated from a relativistic (i.e. partial order) instead of a total order perspective. This is a different way of thinking about everything including probably leading to a different way of thinking about gravity, space-time and Einstein's General Relativity, because instead of modeling the universe as if there is an total observer or totally complete model, we instead model the universe as an unbounded number partial orders each from the perspective of the observer (and clusters of observers), i.e. a fractal model of completeness. I had also been lately headed this similar direction with my TOE work. My interpretation above appears to be somewhat more abstracted/generalized (generative essence) than Nash's axiomatic mechanics conceptualization:

But better than adding the Goedel or the Goedel-Rosser assertion
to the initial system as an axiom one can instead add to it an axiom
of consistency. That is one can add an axiom stating that the initial
system was formally consistent. This does not also say that the new
system including the added axiom is itself consistent.

This was after Nash had created Bitcoin (move evidence of that is coming in my next post), so all he had learned from that was impacting his thought process. Ditto for myself as I learned about how total orders are impossible yet consensus requires one, as part of my research on blockchain consensus algorithms.

Nash reminds me of myself (although he was clearly more accomplished and knowledgeable than me especially in the field of mathematics). Always questioning the foundational assumptions that others make. We also both have gone through periods of detachment from reality and unbounded creativity, i.e. "crazy".

Nash obviously realized that his ICPI would be a problem that could lead to world empire context. He realized the flaw that any one standard of absolute value such as "kilogram" could become corrupted.

It is interesting to note that I had predicted Nash would come to the above conclusion in my upthread posts, before finding that hidden writing from him above on his personal web site.

[iamnotback]

Re: Who else is tired of this shit?

People (like me) who might be thinking that Bitcoin is a platform that can really transform the whole world and can really be a big push for human development can be in for a big disappointment. It is just like any other nice technology or development introduced by man and can also be corrupted along the way because Bitcoin or cryptocurrency has no power to change human nature. We are still bringing the kind of greed and selfishness we have and this is quite true with the raging debate in the Bitcoin right now. While we seem to criticize the world order as it is now and how Bitcoin can change the system, people in the Bitcoin community are sadly manifesting the same sickness and the same traits we want to avoid. This can be getting so ironic but not surprising to me.

The fundamental solution to eliminate greed and power vacuums requires a shift away from fungible money to knowledge trading in Inverse Commons.

I have a plan.

Well if you are so tired of all of it I think you need to take a break and take a moment of silent or stop thinking about it, I think you are pretty stress out of the over and over topic and the nonsense that have been driven all people to be crazy with something about bitcoin well I will not make a rant because all of us are only human that need some rest with this kind of issues.

I mean I am tired of the greed and power vacuums, not that I am tired of only this specific instance them. Those negative attributes of fungible money are very noisy and waste so much of humanity's resources.

What did you guys expect? Seriously?


It's very rare, almost non-existent that we get to see battles in the free market. And when we do, we see how ugly things get. We are witnessing a true, free market battle in Crypto-currency space right now. That's a beautiful thing!

Normally, in politics we vote and a majority imposes their will on a minority. The loser must it accept it as morally virtuous and take it up the ass. This one-size-fits-all solution called Government is imposed on a population of 350 Million and nobody finds that outrageous because they're all Socialist, flag waving, sheep.

Sure, politics gets violently ugly and usually comes to a head with mass genocide, but people quickly forget and who cares because the only possibility is Democracy, right?

We don't get to see the "alt-coins" in government because government is by definition a monopoly (lack of free choice).

When we don't get to see the market place of ideas in action, we don't even know how ugly it can be. Let me clarify: Debating and name calling can be ugly and nasty, but it sure beats a mass genocide under an authoritarian regime!

So we're all sick and tired of the squabbling, fighting, whatever. I'll admit that I am too, but we really need to change our perspective.

Things will work themselves out (provided government doesn't step in a fuck this up completely!). Miners, whales, etc. will be punished if they push their limits too far. They can get away with a certain amount because BTC is the only rock solid, store of value crypto at the moment. Don't worry, it can be dethroned, we just haven't seen things get to that point yet.

The market will work this out and who are you or I to say who's corrupt, greedy etc. or claim "the outlook is sad". Stop investing emotionally and diversify yourself so that you aren't overly attached to any one currency, including BTC!

If Bitcoin loses because of greed and corruption then that's absolutely fantastic! If you view it any other way, then I'd say you're probably holding too much BTC at the moment.

If only governments could lose because of greed and corruption... just imagine!

The free market "fails"¹ where there are winner-take-all power vacuums in the structure of the organizational paradigm.

I have showed mathematically that Bitcoin and fungible money are winner-take-all power vacuums.

So we are not displacing/eliminating government. We are simply replacing the power vacuum of democracy (because voting is not cost free) with the power vacuum of fungible finance. Actually these two have always been intimately interlinked, i.e. the banksters own the government.

Bitcoin ultimately changes nothing EXCEPT that it enables unregulated experimentation in altcoins. Which appears to be Nash's brilliance, as I had been stating since 2014 that Satoshi had outsmarted the elite.

¹ Actually it destroys the paradigm (often with much collateral damage to participants) in a creative destruction to keep experimentation of dynamic, resilient fitness moving forward to find a better fit paradigm.

This has just turned into a pissing contest. Nobody is open for some compromise and everyone wants their side to win with whatever they are fighting.

Bitcoin was designed this way on purpose in order to protect the immutability of its laws (aka protocol).

John Nash designed Bitcoin with a game theory of a non-cooperating game, meaning that there can be no changes because the participants are inherently non-cooperating.

For me, this is almost the "true spirit" of Bitcoin- no one agrees with another, and this agreement is not required...

However, if this goes on, bitcoin will really become an electronic asset/store of value, and no longer a efficient payment channel.

I dont agree with you, because we need to make an agreement or reach a consensus to improve bitcoin.

Learn game theory please before you think you are thinking. You are not thinking.

and an immutable system doesn't need nor want development, and is designed to resist any breach of immutability.  

Except when there exists overwhelming consensus to enact changes, that is.

I am actually going to agree with you 100%. One such example would be quantum resistant protocol changes. That would focus minds.

Overwhelming consensus only exists on those things which benefit everyone pretty much equally, which was precisely the point that @dinofelis and I made about the game theory of PoW being crab bucket mentality.

And that is why you'll never see any consensus on block size or SegWit, other than to defend the status quo which is the Schelling point of the whales (i.e. pull everyone back into the crab bucket so nobody gets an "unfair" advantage).

Schelling point. Learn it.

Meh... even if it could be true, they can only play that game for so long before undermining the fundamentals so its pointless...therefore improbable.

The fundamentals are that Bitcoin's value is due to being able to trust that its laws never change. This is why whales store their reserves in BTC.

It is not pointless. And just because you are a BU shill, the reality will not change to accommodate your pathetic activity of being a pawn that Jihan Wu is using and will throw in the garbage when he is done using you.

[traincarswreck]

I can barely read it.  You and Nash have blown my mind.  I can't remember seeing this.  Maybe I have but I forget for sure at least.

Let it be known...

Iamback reads sources. 

[iamnotback]

Let's analyze John Nash's public and presentations activity to determine if could have been Satoshi Nakamoto.

@traincarswreck has pointed that removing "i am Nash" then remains 'sato' which is the most common name and 'koto' which means thing and is the national instrument in Japan, thus an implied meaning of Bitcoin is harmonious thing for the common people created by John Nash.

2001 Nov	Presented ideal money in Tampa, FL.
2002 Apr	Presented ideal money in Beijing, China.
2002 Oct	Presented ideal money in Gamble lecture at UMass.
2003 Nov	Starts research on Cooperation in Non-Cooperative Action in a Repeated Game Context (aka Agencies game theory research), for which I conjecture proof-of-work consensus is a specific case of incentives for agency cooperation wherein the Shapley value is a hashrate weighted Poisson process. He did some Mathematica programming. This was presented at Penn State where he also presented his ideal money concept.
2004 Apr	Presented ideal money at Georgetown University in Washington D.C..
2004 Oct/Nov	Uploads utility programs for transferring files to hosts on the Internet.
2005 Jul	Uploads more secure utility program for transferring files to hosts on the Internet.
2006 Apr	Presented Agencies game theory at Lindau, Germany.
2006 Aug	Presented Agencies game theory at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls.
2007 Feb	Continuing his journey towards unifying quantum mechanics and Einstein's general relativity.
2007 Feb	Presented ideal money in India.
2007 Jul	Presented Agencies game theory at Stony Brook, Long Island.
2008 Feb	Presented ideal money at NYU.
2008 May	Uploads Symantec AntiVirus (SAV) for servers.
2008 May	Presents his Agencies game theory research at ECCAD'08.
2008 May/Jun	Presented ideal money in Russia.
2008 Aug	Presented ideal money at Nobel Laureates Meeting in Lindau, Germany.
2008 Sept	Presented ideal money at Fordham University in New York.
2010 Feb	Presented ideal money at "Campus for Finance" in Vallendar, Germany.
2010 Oct	Presented ideal money at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania.
2011 Oct	Presented ideal money in Hong Kong.
2012 Apr	Published new results of research on Agencies game theory.

First notice the periods of relatively low or no public inactivity for Nash were from May 2004 to Feb 2006, and again Oct 2008 to Feb 2010. Also note how Nash shifted from ideal money focus before 2004 to Agencies game theory research focus and didn't return publicizing ideal money again until summer 2008 wherein he did it very intensively.

Note that Satoshi announced Bitcoin Oct. 31, 2008. And it is also noted that Satoshi basically stopped being involved as of of "mid-2010".

Add to this that Szabo (re-)published bit gold Dec 2005 which described how to make a Bitcoin, except Szabo hadn't solved the Agencies consensus game theory by employing the proof-of-work and had instead only offered Byzantine agreement (Szabo solved minting and greatest proof-of-work rule but not the Agencies consensus). Wei Dai had proposed in 1999 a flawed/inadequate solution to the Agencies game theory but which would hint as to how to combine with Szabo's design. So all Nash had to do was be aware of those and integrate it with his research on Agencies game theory and he would have easily seen the solution for Bitcoin. So it appears Nash was working very intensely on Bitcoin coding in 2006 and 2007, probably teaching himself to be proficient in C++.

This ability of Nash to combine the works of others in novel ways was noted by French mathematician Cedric Villani which @traincarswreck featured as a video in one of this blogs.

Satoshi often used British English and we should note that John Nash had previously left the USA and lived in the UK for many years. And the posting time of Satoshi (presuming he was sleeping when not posting) indicated he would be where Nash was located in the USA.

It all correlates well for Satoshi being Nash.

[miscreanity]

Armstrong has posted on a recent IMF paper.

Despite Bitcoin meeting all of the stated criteria of currency in practical usage, the academic view denies Bitcoin as currency and seems to purpose it as a settlement layer. See the following section:

44.
The balance on the primary and secondary income accounts would be affected
mainly through income transfers. If de-cashing is based on the distributed ledger-like
technology, such as the Bitcoin, it can dramatically reduce the cost of international transfers,
especially remittances intermediated by correspondent banks. Through correspondent
banking relationships—agreements between banks to provide payment services to each
other––banks can access financial services in different jurisdictions and provide cross-border
payment services to their customers. The costs of sending international remittances, however,
are notoriously high, at about 8 percent of the amount sent. In contrast, the cost with
electronic money, such as Bitcoin, is estimated to be about 1 percent (Goldman Sachs, 2014).
A blockchain based remittance system has already emerged in some economies. For instance,
in the Philippines and Kenya, blockchain based intermediaries offer money transfer services
via Bitcoin and subsequent conversion of Bitcoins back into fiat currency for withdrawal by
recipients through either their mobile phones or a bank account (IMF 2016).

IMF Working Paper - The Macroeconomics of De-Cashing

Should fees continue to rise as per @iamnotback's theory, Bitcoin would become such a settlement layer. I suspect there is more influence being exerted on the Bitcoin community from without than from within.

[traincarswreck]

Holy fuck: http://web.math.princeton.edu/jfnj/texts_and_graphics/Main.Content/Various_Etc./Logic/talk.CMU/HILdos38.txt

[iamnotback]

@traincarswreck, unfortunately I am sorry to inform you, that you may have caused Nash's murder by publicizing he was Satoshi:

lol.. dang this trainwreck cant see passed his own nose.

he thinks he has found something big, but doesnt realise that he is like a few years out of date in all his research..
people have already supplied far more stuff than trainwreck has and this john nash ploy of his is not original.

seems he needs to be the one that does more research

I am the only person that has done research and provided it to the community on the subject of Nash Ideal Money and its relation to bitcoin, dumbass.  Everyone.  Look at this idiot, talking about someone they know nothing about.

lol RESEARCH HARDER

2015 - http://www.indiabitcoin.com/can-bitcoin-be-john-nashs-ideal-money-newsbtc/
2015 - http://www.coindesk.com/did-john-nash-help-invent-bitcoin/
2014 - http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/30/business-finance-investing/john-nash-created-bitcoin-1432655/
2013 - https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2013/11/11/game-theory-and-bitcoin/

trainwreck.. your not original. you also have not even shown any proof. just opinions. and as i said a few times your not the first to try saying it.

research harder,

You are still quoting me dumbass. plus the last links is irrelevant. I told you.  I am the ONE.

[traincarswreck]

Nash embedding theorem is really simple.  He thought of the ideal surface...and then described it.

[traincarswreck]

Some people say he deserves the darwin award for not wearing a seatbelt.  But the seatbelts weren't working.

[sidhujag]

@traincarswreck, unfortunately I am sorry to inform you, that you may have caused Nash's murder by publicizing he was Satoshi:

lol.. dang this trainwreck cant see passed his own nose.

he thinks he has found something big, but doesnt realise that he is like a few years out of date in all his research..
people have already supplied far more stuff than trainwreck has and this john nash ploy of his is not original.

seems he needs to be the one that does more research

I am the only person that has done research and provided it to the community on the subject of Nash Ideal Money and its relation to bitcoin, dumbass.  Everyone.  Look at this idiot, talking about someone they know nothing about.

lol RESEARCH HARDER

2015 - http://www.indiabitcoin.com/can-bitcoin-be-john-nashs-ideal-money-newsbtc/
2015 - http://www.coindesk.com/did-john-nash-help-invent-bitcoin/
2014 - http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/30/business-finance-investing/john-nash-created-bitcoin-1432655/
2013 - https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2013/11/11/game-theory-and-bitcoin/

trainwreck.. your not original. you also have not even shown any proof. just opinions. and as i said a few times your not the first to try saying it.

research harder,

You are still quoting me dumbass. plus the last links is irrelevant. I told you.  I am the ONE.

Ive thought that but not many people agreed.. depends on if the right people werr reading.. it hit him like it.hit me.. makes the most sense.

Why would gaven anderson lie though about the aussie dude? So that it saves him from being interrogated? It also explains why the coins never moved and will not move. It also explains why he has never visited news groups to give input on the scaling issue which is obviously an issue in bitcoin for a long time. He used to communicate when needed before.

[iamnotback]

@traincarswreck, congratulations you buried my important post with the evidence that Nash was Satoshi which is now 1 page back in the thread, because of your numerous, rapid-fire 1 line posts. Could you please edit your posts and combine all your comments into one post, then delete the redundant ones. If you do, I will delete this post. Otherwise, I will leave this post here.

I appreciate your appreciation, and I appreciate your research and tenacity, but...

[traincarswreck]

@traincarswreck, congratulations you buried my important post with the evidence that Nash is Satoshi which is now 1 page back in the thread, because of your numerous, rapid-fire 1 line posts. Could you please edit your posts and combine all your comments into one post, then delete the redundant ones. If you do, I will delete this post. Otherwise, I will leave this post here.

I appreciate your appreciation, but...

How about instead I tweet to Kyle and Aaron and tell them to read this.  I don't think I can edit so well right now. Did I do it?

Fuck.  Deleted the posts: heres one

We haven't begun to discuss Bohm.  Does the cia and nsa exist?  Bohm and Nash had the same insight in the 50's. 

[iamnotback]

@dinofelis, sorry to bury your excellent posts, but I think this deserves a response...

After thinking about this more...

Certainly, after the "powers that be" see the biggest alts gaining ground on Bitcoin (as far as utility, transactions, and market cap), which they already are, eventually both sides will come to the bargaining table and compromise, no? It may be a while though until they "see the light" so to speak. It looks like "alt coin mania" will continue for now until they do.

No because:

1. Some of them will be profiting on the rise of these other altcoins. Please understand that John Nash designed the game theory of Bitcoin such that consensus is impossible.

2. Because Bitcoin will always be the reserve currency of unregulated speculation, so Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about payments and other features:

I wrote something in private that I wanted to share, so I decided to stick it here.

To win against Bitcoin, an altcoin must have something other (and more significant) than just speculation. Bitcoin will always parasite on all speculation in the overall blockchain speculation ecosystem even its marketcap is less than 50% of the ecosystem (as long as it is the largest).

Evidence:

as a trader i like the mess and the drama  

[traincarswreck]

2. Because Bitcoin will always be the reserve currency of unregulated speculation, so Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about payments and other features:[/size]

…the issuer of a currency also needs to be properly prepared for the possibility of speculation on the part of interests domiciled in foreign states, etc., etc.