Bitcoin Forum
October 21, 2020, 10:47:24 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Miner cartel, bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?
miner cartel (aka Bitcoin Unlimited fork) - 22 (16.9%)
bankster cartel (aka Bitcoin Core fork) - 50 (38.5%)
an altcoin (not Dash cartel) - 54 (41.5%)
Evan Inc cartel (aka Dash aka RogerCoin) - 4 (3.1%)
Total Voters: 130

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?  (Read 33068 times)
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2884
Merit: 2343



View Profile
April 08, 2017, 10:14:10 AM
 #521

yup now we are getting somewhere.  Krishnamurti teaches objective truth.  I suspect jesus was real.  He said "hey lets live differently" and we nailed him to a cross.

Yeah he was real..
It's a known fact that they kept parading around a new savior that kept getting killed.
Then they would drag out a new baby Jesus all over again.. saying ohhhh this is THE one.
And that concept was ripped off from the Egyptians as well as the arc of the covenant and many other key aspects to the religion.
Christianty was a rebel move to break away from being captive slaves.
It was more of a political thing of the times than a religion.
Agenda's.. perverted in time.

Read the bible guys it says exactly what happened.
It's right there in front of your nose.
What i just said is documented in history in written works etc.

In other words it was not about teaching "truths" it was about an agenda.
A pile of slaves breaking free and going off wandering etc.
Would you want to be a slave ?
They were probably miserable and desperate and were looking for a savior.
Of course they found one  Roll Eyes


What the Romans did was very clever.

The Christian Revolution likely did happen, and likely was very successful. The Romans fought back hard, using very strong propaganda, that is the (circumstantial) evidence.

But to regain control, they simply exerted control over the story of Jesus. They used the power they still had to change Jesus from a simple philosophical revolutionary, who likely preached only to change the way people thought and their way of life, into an exaggeration of the truth (older copies of the New Testament like the Dead Sea Scrolls help to confirm this, there is no mention of Jesus being supernatural or religious in the Dead Sea Scrolls).

The Romans knew they could not defile Jesus' character, so instead they added to it. They falsely claimed that Jesus was the Son of God, born divinely to a Virgin (a stolen story from Moses, Mithra, Ganesh, etc etc). Christian followers, 50 or 100 years later, were not unhappy to hear this false claim, Jesus would have become a very important hero. But the trick was that the Church was established from this distortion of the story, and false stories like Paul on the Road to Damascus were established to link Jesus and the Church (which Jesus likely had nothing to do with) with the power of Rome. Aspects like the crucifixion story and the Easter resurrection were likely dramatic embellishments also (crucifixion seems like a retelling of the escaped slave in Plato's Allegory of the Cave being stoned to death because he told the truth, and the resurrection was actually originally set at Christmas, to deliberately coincide with and distort the Pagan tradition of observing the Sun (Son, geddit?) lying still on the horizon for 3 days from December 24th to December 26th, then beginning to rise on the horizon again)

The resonance and power of Jesus was hijacked, used for brainwashing into blind obedience, and not for the philosophy of freedom that the real Jesus likely represented and became originally known for. And how clever the Roman's distortions were, even 2000 years ago.

Vires in numeris
1603277244
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603277244

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603277244
Reply with quote  #2

1603277244
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1603277244
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603277244

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603277244
Reply with quote  #2

1603277244
Report to moderator
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
April 08, 2017, 10:50:56 AM
Last edit: April 08, 2017, 11:34:49 AM by iamnotback
 #522

It all correlates well for Satoshi being Nash.

While a long-standing hypothesis, I don't think it fits.  Nash was too smart to be Satoshi.  There are too many silly ideas at the foundations of bitcoin for it to be invented by a guy like Nash ; unless Nash meant it to be a testbench of ideas, and that the thing got out of hand.

Bitcoin is designed to be some kind of digital gold.  Nash was against the principles of gold bugs like the Austrians.

You have not been paying attention. Read on...

From the gist of what @traincarswreck has said, bitcoin is not ideal money. It is merely an asymptotically monetary tool to stabilise the fiat monetary system.

You don't seem to understand what Nash meant by asymptotic ideal money.

Nash didn't mean an asymptotically limited money supply.

Bitcoin is Nash's very clever plan of providing a reserve currency for altcoin experimentation, which could have the potential to create asymptotically ideal money. I had stated back in 2014 that I expected Satoshi was so genius that he had outsmarted the elite who were tracking him.

The elite loved what Nash was saying about ideal money because the Rothschilds thought they would be the one to control the weightings of the IPCI which all the nations' currencies will float against. This is why there has been talk of backing the SDRs with a weighting of national currencies, precious metals, and commodities as Nash had written about.

But Nash was fooling them. He knew damn well the IPCI wouldn't be stable in the world empire context. So that is why he wanted an asymptotic number of stable currencies that would develop via an evolutionary process. He wrote those exact words, but the elite weren't exactly understanding that that entailed.

When Nash created Bitcoin, Rothschild rejoiced because of the math I showed that Bitcoin will eventually become concentrated in one entity. But Nash had fooled them, because he had figured that Bitcoin's open source release would set off an evolutionary process in altcoins (guaranteed by the very genius immutable game theory he designed that prevents Bitcoin from being "upgraded").

You guys are failing to read my posts carefully.

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!



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.

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
April 08, 2017, 11:03:47 AM
 #523

money is natural, solves a problem

An old problem of coordination, which is dying. We have the Internet now.

money still happens.  Its just on a higher order.

You still haven't understood anything I have explained to you upthread about the Inverse Commons.

Fungible money only improves the efficiency of utility transfer of tradeable resources which can be owned and ownership transferred between owners. Any higher-order finance built on top of that has only value because of the underlying efficiency advantages over barter of tradeable resources.

There is no barter in Inverse Commons which can be made more efficient with fungible money. The ownership of Inverse Commons is collectively owned by everyone who can read them and contribute to them, and the ownership can't be transferred. Ongoing knowledge production can't be transferred, because humans can't exchange their brains for other goods or services. The only reason that communities such as Facebook can be owned and sold, is because the centralized database of Facebook is not open source!

Thus fungible money only applies to the tradeable resources that Inverse Commons employ, such as the resource needs of the humans that participate, the hosting and network infrastructure costs. These resources needs are of inexorably diminishing value relative to the inexorably rising value of knowledge production within Inverse Commons.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
April 08, 2017, 12:29:51 PM
Last edit: April 08, 2017, 01:34:21 PM by iamnotback
 #524

Again some little pointers to help the lazy who don't quite grasp the evidence in totality.

@OP you may have put so much time to make that evidence but for me non of them are convincing. And i think many other also feel same about your evidence.

Here we go again! another serious research thing about Satoshi? but your research was quite accepting with the evidence you have presented and the number of time he is involve in certain and major transaction between different country that will certainly pump up is idea currency and presenting the good benefits it has with the economy, I think you had a point in your research but there are still a big question mark in these, the real truth if Nash really is Satoshi? well one man can not certainly take a step in saying it and change our beliefs right?

No my evidence is based on the timing that he wasn't active publicly presenting was precisely the timing when Satoshi was active publicly.

And also on the focus of his Agencies game theory research being exactly what was needed to see the way from Szabo and Wei Dai's work to Satoshi's PoW solution.

Nash's Agencies research was on Cooperation in Non-Cooperating Repeated Games, which is precisely what Satoshi's PoW is!

And also because the timing when he went silent to work on coding Bitcoin was right about the time that Szabo (re-)published his bit gold, which was probably the key development that gave Nash the final insight on how to apply his Agencies research to his ideal money concept. Then the evidence shows he went quiet at that time, until right before he launched Bitcoin.

It all fits far too well.

You guys are too lazy to read carefully what I wrote in the linked research.




Quote
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.

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".

Yeah points noted, bitcoin announced 2008, satoshi stopped being involved with bitcoins since mid-2010. Nash shifted his focus from ideal money to game theory research (April 2006 and then back to ideal money in Feb 2007) Now since 2008 till 2011 Nash was really active (apart from 2009) presenting his concept of ideal money. Bitcoin was made open source in 2009, the point I am missing is if Nash is indeed satoshi why would he go to Germany, Pennsylvania and Hong Kong presenting ideal money, bitcoin has been made open source, what is the purpose of it, might sound illogical, but still Huh

Note that Nash didn't really switch entirely back to ideal money promotion until summer 2008 when he went bezerk promoting it like crazy right before he launched Bitcoin. I can see he was very excited about the Bitcoin he was preparing to unleash onto the world.

You guys still don't understand the cat and mouse game Nash was playing with the elite who knew what he was doing. I already explained it.

So Nash had to promote ideal money so the elite would think that Bitcoin was good for the elite. He was fooling the elite!

Analogously, I had also documented that the scientists had lied to DARPA in order to get the Internet started.



I honestly thought you'd have more evidence than basically he wasn't active with another project during the time that bitcoins were being developed and or implemented. I also wasn't doing any active projects then. Am I satoshi?

Get an education.

The thought process is beyond your level of intellect.

You have not correctly summarized the evidence.
Mr.Charlie
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 08, 2017, 01:42:10 PM
 #525

Quote from: iamnotback
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:

Quote
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.



another way to look at it is that the gov invented/created bitcoin and we are all the lab rats to get it right/perfect before the world owners go to one monetary system
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 616


View Profile
April 08, 2017, 02:15:32 PM
 #526

It all correlates well for Satoshi being Nash.

While a long-standing hypothesis, I don't think it fits.  Nash was too smart to be Satoshi.  There are too many silly ideas at the foundations of bitcoin for it to be invented by a guy like Nash ; unless Nash meant it to be a testbench of ideas, and that the thing got out of hand.

Bitcoin is designed to be some kind of digital gold.  Nash was against the principles of gold bugs like the Austrians.

You have not been paying attention. Read on...

From the gist of what @traincarswreck has said, bitcoin is not ideal money. It is merely an asymptotically monetary tool to stabilise the fiat monetary system.

You don't seem to understand what Nash meant by asymptotic ideal money.

Nash didn't mean an asymptotically limited money supply.


This is in fact nothing else but a very old critique of bitcoin I read a very long time ago and can't find a reference to any more, that said that bitcoin could never have a market cap that went over the cost of making an alt coin, because from the moment it would cost more to use bitcoin than to make an alt coin (that is, the cost of *launching* an alt coin, which is not very high but takes some hassle), nobody would pay more for it.  This is a critique that clearly proved wrong, because it failed to take into account the "bitcoin brand name" effect.  I tried to google for it, but I can't find it any more.  The claim was that bitcoin's total market cap could never be more than, say a few thousand $, because that's all it takes to make an alt coin and promote it sufficiently.

What you are indicating is then my "intuitive" form of very many small crypto currencies, all linked together, many of them rising, others dying.

Quote
Bitcoin is Nash's very clever plan of providing a reserve currency for altcoin experimentation, which could have the potential to create asymptotically ideal money. I had stated back in 2014 that I expected Satoshi was so genius that he had outsmarted the elite who were tracking him.

Well, of course the claim that anything unexpected or "against the published ideas" was in fact part of a hidden master plan as it unfolds, is not falsifiable Wink and hence can always be true.  This is like people thinking that everything is God's work, and in the end, if something totally weird and against everything God was supposed to like, happens, "his ways are unfathomable".  Can be.  I know you are going to say that all the clumsiness in bitcoin was on purpose, will have a game-theoretical, desired effect at a certain point and/or served to keep the suspicion away from Nash and so on, but as I said, at a certain point that becomes non-falsifiable.  Anything, and its opposite, is then "proof of the statement at hand".

My more down-to-earth idea is that Satoshi was a clever guy, but not a genius, who had some limited insight into monetary aspects, who had some, but limited, grasp on game theory (his talking about "honest nodes" and about "consensus" as something that the community would want - the dogma that is still propagated by most bitcoin maximalists, shows that he didn't understand the fundamentals of the emergent properties of non-colluding antagonists - or was lying through his teeth about it), had some notions of cryptography and fucked up other things (like the way too small nonce).  He did do a great invention, the cryptographic block chain.  He screwed up other aspects.  I have a hard time believing that that was "genius" that "implanted this" on purpose to deceive his evil masters in the weapon of mass destruction they ordered him to make, so that it blows in his own face.

But as I said, that's an unfalsifiable claim, and hence can be true too.  But I simply don't think that a smart guy like Nash would lend himself (at his age !) to such a game.  He was bloody 80 years old in 2008.  And too much of a mathematical genius to commit the simplistic errors that Satoshi made.  (yes, yes, to deceive...).  And he knew too much about economics and monetary theory to make a clunky collectible with a BANG halving in the emission rate (yes, yes, to deceive his evil masters that were too stupid and believed all that sound money theory stuff - as if you can deceive bankers on that one).

For instance, there's no point in doing 256 bit elliptic curve signatures, if the proof to deliver is compressed in 160 bits (the address).  You're wasting your effort doing so.   There's strictly no cryptographic advantage, security or what so ever to be gained from using a 256 bit signature.  It WASTES ROOM and effort without any purpose.  No mathematical genius would ever think that you make more secure crypto with 256 bit, if the signature needs only to stick to a 160 bit address.  Sheer waste.  Doesn't make sense.

There are a lot of other stupidities in bitcoin's original formulation that way.  That his code was far from brilliant is understandable as Nash wasn't a computer scientist.  But the amount of errors made in the size of bitlengths is pretty amazing.  Also, the possibility of providing a 64-bit word in a transaction that tells you how many outputs a transaction will have !  Sheer lunacy.  A transaction will never have 10^20 outputs !   There are myriads of little stupidities that way all over the place that show you that Satoshi wasn't a math genius (or, yes, was doing everything to hide it).

So, again, I cannot disprove you hypothesis because it is not falsifiable.  Hence it can be true.  But I simply don't think it is likely.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
April 08, 2017, 02:16:04 PM
 #527

Satoshi Nakamoto.

Sato = name for the masses in Japan
Koto = harmonious "thing" in Japanese


I honestly thought you'd have more evidence than basically he wasn't active with another project during the time that bitcoins were being developed and or implemented. I also wasn't doing any active projects then. Am I satoshi?

Get an education.

The thought process is beyond your level of intellect.

You have not correctly summarized the evidence.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
April 08, 2017, 02:27:46 PM
Last edit: April 08, 2017, 02:55:58 PM by iamnotback
 #528

This is in fact nothing else but a very old critique of bitcoin I read a very long time ago and can't find a reference to any more, that said that bitcoin could never have a market cap that went over the cost of making an alt coin, because from the moment it would cost more to use bitcoin than to make an alt coin (that is, the cost of *launching* an alt coin, which is not very high but takes some hassle), nobody would pay more for it.  This is a critique that clearly proved wrong, because it failed to take into account the "bitcoin brand name" effect.  I tried to google for it, but I can't find it any more.  The claim was that bitcoin's total market cap could never be more than, say a few thousand $, because that's all it takes to make an alt coin and promote it sufficiently.

I can't believe you ignore first mover network effects. Bitcoin has the most liquidity, can be traded in the most places, etc.. That isn't just branding, it is actual use case inertia.

It is well known in marketing of the inertia that people are lazy to make changes unless there is a significant benefit.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 08, 2017, 03:38:43 PM
 #529



From the gist of what @traincarswreck has said, bitcoin is not ideal money. It is merely an asymptotically monetary tool to stabilise the fiat monetary system.
yes. Ideal money is the socratic explanation of why bitcoin isn't ideal but is "decent". And ideal money needs the supply to fluctuate with the underlying economy. bitcoin doesn't fluctuate but its value proposition is "truthful" so its "decent" or "good" or "great".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUyCO3FXHS4
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 08, 2017, 03:39:39 PM
 #530


So, again, I cannot disprove you hypothesis because it is not falsifiable.  Hence it can be true.  But I simply don't think it is likely.

I hope you didn't say the hypothesis that Nash is Satoshi is not falsifiable because of course it is.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 08, 2017, 03:51:01 PM
 #531



Sato = name for the masses in Japan
Koto = harmonious "thing" in Japanese

I do believe Szabo is Satosh 51 to 49.

But Sato, is essentially John in Japanese.  As I understand.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 08, 2017, 03:56:41 PM
 #532


While a long-standing hypothesis, I don't think it fits.  Nash was too smart to be Satoshi.  There are too many silly ideas at the foundations of bitcoin for it to be invented by a guy like Nash ; unless Nash meant it to be a testbench of ideas, and that the thing got out of hand.

Bitcoin is designed to be some kind of digital gold.  Nash was against the principles of gold bugs like the Austrians.
No.  Wait.  Hold on.  Let's be clearer

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
April 08, 2017, 04:03:08 PM
Last edit: April 08, 2017, 04:49:03 PM by iamnotback
 #533

Bitcoin is Nash's very clever plan of providing a reserve currency for altcoin experimentation, which could have the potential to create asymptotically ideal money. I had stated back in 2014 that I expected Satoshi was so genius that he had outsmarted the elite who were tracking him.

I know you are going to say that all the clumsiness in bitcoin was on purpose, will have a game-theoretical, desired effect at a certain point and/or served to keep the suspicion away from Nash and so on, but as I said, at a certain point that becomes non-falsifiable.  Anything, and its opposite, is then "proof of the statement at hand".

You can't just devalue the significance of Nash's frantic ideal money rampage which was also a lifelong ambition. And the timing of his research on Cooperation in Non-Cooperating Repeating Games which is precisely coincident with the one advance needed to go from the prior art of Wei Dai, Szabo, and Finney's RPOW to Satoshi's PoW system of consensus.

There is a confluence of many coincident factors.

It is also quite peculiar that Nash never commented extensively on Bitcoin. It seems ridiculous that he avoided elaborating on Bitcoin when asked, except by instead pointing out that gold and silver wouldn't work. So in effect, he was saying we don't have any other good option.

That to me is a HUGE factor.


Finney was visible, so Finney can't be Satoshi. Ditto Szabo who is now a real person seen in YouTube videos. Also both denied being Satoshi.

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”.



prolific coder like Szabo

My understanding is that Szabo is not much of a coder.

Also Szabo can't be Satoshi because he is in the public eye of the ecosystem.

Also Szabo doesn't understand game theory well enough, which is why he didn't get it correct with his bit gold proposal.

I have caught Szabo in several technological errors. (I am not claiming Szabo is stupid, just not genius enough to be Satoshi).

Szabo is not smart enough to be Satoshi.

However it is possible that some group created Bitcoin based on careful study of Nash's work, but why did Nash go quiet during the times he did? And why did Nash avoid talking about Bitcoin?

When Bitcoin came about, Nash as the researcher/progenitor of Ideal Money should have wanted to immediately write about it.

But of course he wanted to downplay Bitcoin because:

1. He didn't want to be associated as its possible creator.

2. To make the elite think he was playing along with their plans for Bitcoin.

3. To not alert powerful entities to kill Bitcoin in its infancy.

Szabo can code.

Not a disciplined enough coder to make Bitcoin. I've never seen Szabo write significant code or a large project.

Nash was very disciplined and stuck with projects over a long time frame to refine and complete them. Which is the trait a coder needs. Szabo is a writer and researcher.



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=28684

More interesting evidence. Based on this new theory that Satoshi wanted altcoins, lets examine one of the original altcoins, ixcoin.

The dev , thomas naskioto (anagram for satashi nakamoto) hasn't been heard from since early 2015. The ixcoin.org domain expired shortly after in june. It would make sense that this was also Nash.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 08, 2017, 04:16:16 PM
 #534

There is more.  But I had 13 posts deleted so I need free reign.  I need to be allowed to be esoteric.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 08, 2017, 04:19:32 PM
 #535

Coding is language translation and modulating problems into parts until you can divide the work.  Both Nash and Szabo are masters of this.  Szabo is a phenom.  Smart but not esoteric.

Szabo can code.  Nash is too smart to do the code.  

Quote
Cedric Villani had this to say of Nash:

...and little by little, specialists were becoming more to the point...

and...he was putting everybody to contribution, as a conductor you know,

"Hey my friend I need you to prove this and this. I think that you are the expert and you can give me this I can use it to prove something more..."

As a conductor who would give assignments you know, "Here you are the violin player you play this and this. You are the trumpet you play this and this."

Each one does their part, nobody understands the great plan except when the orchestra starts to play. And Nash had the whole plan for this.

And everyone was amazed when it was 6 months the was...putting all the people to contribution

Everyone knows this as the Nash inequality. The truth is Nash didn't prove this inequality

He asked one of his colleges...to prove the inequality ...an expert in this kind of things.

"You want this inequality, yeah let me prove it for you, here's how you do it"

"Thank you." And Nash would use it in that problem of distribution.

He was a genius in these kind of integrating parts
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@jokerpravis/ideal-money-insight-in-a-flash

This was a talk about his embedding theorem (i believe)

I think szabo finney and chaum alerted nash to the fact that they almost had a solution.  Nash knew it could be done when he was like 25.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 08, 2017, 04:24:29 PM
 #536

we need to talk about bohm now.  allow us.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 08, 2017, 04:36:33 PM
 #537

we need to talk about bohm now.  allow us.

Please in a different thread.

This thread is already too long and is going off on tangents which aren't even related to the original OP and poll of the thread.
bohm nash and einstein hid time travel.
2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1038



View Profile
April 08, 2017, 04:39:18 PM
 #538

While a long-standing hypothesis, I don't think it fits.  Nash was too smart to be Satoshi.  There are too many silly ideas at the foundations of bitcoin for it to be invented by a guy like Nash ; unless Nash meant it to be a testbench of ideas, and that the thing got out of hand.
--- 8>< --- snip --- 8>< ---
In other words, for Nash to be Satoshi, Nash would have to be less smart than we think he was, or would have been much less honest and open in his real intentions than Satoshi claimed to be.  In other words, if it was Nash, he created a monster by being stupid, or he did it on purpose and was a bastard.
At least the programming mistakes in the Bitcoin design and code can be easily explained: whoever Satoshi was he used services of a software consultant experienced in padding billable hours.

Nearly all problems with Bitcoin codebase are typical of the projects using consultants billing by time. It has all the classical symptoms of intentionally bad programming: e.g. mixing up the abstraction layers of local storage with other, use of particular internal representation of large integers used by particular compilation flags of OpenSSL that is neither little-endian or big-endian, etc.

The current maintainers of Bitcoin Core continue in that fashion: storage engine is still not abstracted, moreover they imported their own fork of LevelDB into Bitcoin Core. And now "mempool" is made persistent by a technique straight from 1960-ies: checkpointing.

So if you are trying to make an argument "Satoshi wasn't Nash because code is too stupid" it is a weak argument because the contra-argument would be "code was actually written by or advised by an extremely street smart and deceptive software consultant". Nowadays entire large consultancy corporations exist through providing such deceptive advice.

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
April 08, 2017, 04:41:26 PM
 #539

So if you are trying to make an argument "Satoshi wasn't Nash because code is too stupid" it is a weak argument because the contra-argument would be "code was actually written by or advised by an extremely street smart and deceptive software consultant". Nowadays entire large consultancy corporations exist through providing such deceptive advice.

Or more simply it was written by Nash who wasn't an experienced coder.

This argument that an expert group (of the global elite or whatever) coded Bitcoin doesn't make any sense. Unless they tried their best to make it look like the code was created by amateurs. Did they try to pin this on Nash's back on purpose? But then why does Nash refuse to talk about Bitcoin when asked about and instead basically answers in a cryptic way by saying gold and silver wouldn't work.

Nash was expert in theory, and had to do the coding by himself in order to keep it secret.

Simplest explanations are the best according to Occam's Razor.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 08, 2017, 04:45:50 PM
 #540

Ideal money is premised on bitcoin and he came up with it in the 50's/60's when he fled to europe and the navy tracked him down and took him back in chains.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!