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

[traincarswreck]

Nash was saying/yelling the anti commies and the commies are on the same side colluding against the people.  Crazy at the time. but obviously logically true if you think about the value of money.

[1714147373]

1714147373

[iamnotback]

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.

Bitcoin is far too amazing to be created by a clever guy. And to be able to pull it off as Satoshi did.

You've never accomplished a million user viral s/w project in your life, so you have no comprehension of the genius it required. And he got it right the very first time he attempted it, with no prior coding nor marketing experience. But that sometimes makes me think it was an expert group, but then why does Nash refuse to talk about Bitcoin? Could it be that Nash knew of a secret group and was the secret consultant?. But Nash couldn't have trusted just anyone because his sanity could be questioned again if he ended up being exposed as working with some scam or what have you. They would have to have shown him credentials that he would trust.

And the game theory in Bitcoin is genius, can't be done by a clever person.

And ideal money was Nash's lifelong ambition. He wrote that if humanity can't learn to cooperate we would go extinct.

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.

Nash was working on crazy new ideas until his death.

And the coding and research for Bitcoin was started when Nash was in his 70s.

And too much of a mathematical genius to commit the simplistic errors that Satoshi made.  (yes, yes, to deceive...).

What game theory or math theory errors are there in Bitcoin?

I see none.

You are referring to your pet peeve about conflating distribution with security, but it was genius because Bitcoin is designed to be a settlement layer, not other things you think it should be.

[traincarswreck]

And ideal money was Nash's lifelong ambition.

If this is true...why doesn't any single biography speak about ideal money?

Every incredible insight nash had was an extrapolation of ideal money.  Everything came to him in an instant.  What would that feel like on the brain?

[iamnotback]

And ideal money was Nash's lifelong ambition.

If this is true...why doesn't any single biography speak about ideal money?

Every incredible insight nash had was an extrapolation of ideal money.  Everything came to him in an instant.  What would that feel like on the brain?

You are posting noise! Wikipedia mentions ideal money for John Nash's biography. Who cares what it felt like to his brain. That is offtopic of this thread. You are posting too many one liners that add nothing on topic. DO NOT reply to this. Delete your nonsense posts please. I don't want to talk about UFOs and time travel in this thread.

[2dogs]

But Sato, is essentially John in Japanese.  As I understand.

Your understanding is incorrect.

[traincarswreck]

Delete your nonsense posts please.

Non-sense?

[iamnotback]

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 !

Sure it can if it is the settlement layer for summarizing off chain transactions in a microtransaction knowledge age.

Or the generality to do CoinJoin like anonymity settlements.

Satoshi had more advanced thinking than you.

[iamnotback]

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.

Sorry but you are incorrect. Math theoretic bitlength security is not comparable to hash function bitlength security. Also RIPE160 comes after SHA256, thus you lose no security, only collisions. The hash only obscures the public key. Still need to provide the public key on spending, so 160-bit collision won't help you spend because hashing also with SHA256.

So Satoshi had a clever way to both increase security and reduce size of memory consumed.

You've demonstrated that you are not sufficiently expert.

[darlidada]

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.

I don't understand this. How could a value such as KG could get corrupted?

[traincarswreck]

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.

I don't understand this. How could a value such as KG could get corrupted?

well.  it can't.  But a metric can be corrupted, but if its socially born it can't.  Nash realised that a value metric woudl be socially born.  Once you realize this you can do a lot of relevant math.

Here, evidently, politicians in control of the authority behind standards could corrupt the continuity of a good standard, but depending on how things were fundamentally arranged, the probabilities of serious damage through political corruption might becomes as small as the probabilities that the values of the standard meter and kilogram will be corrupted through the actions of politicians.

But the problem always was our value metrics were always corruptible.  Also metrics are helpful ask the cubits.

[2112]

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.

I don't buy a "genuine inexperienced coder" postulate. I would only agree with "experienced coder with no experience in C++". I extensively reviewed early Bitcoin code and I see patterns of writing style and design that aren't congruent with a genuine lack of experience in coding.

I hold no opinion on who Satoshi is, but my professional opinion about the code base is (either, equiprobable):

1) experienced programmer or manager from an organization that used older languages (like COBOL, MUMPS, FORTRAN, SIMSCRIPT, etc. ) doing his/her first project in C++;

2) very experienced consultant well versed in multiple languages intentionally doing hard to maintain codebase as a job security move;

And please don't bring "expert groups" into my argument, I haven't postulated this, and you just straw-manning. The "pretend naiveté" is a main selling tactics for the consultants like in my point (2), this isn't some advanced elite strategy, it is a common-folk knowledge independently discovered by many working programmers.

[iamnotback]

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.

I don't understand this. How could a value such as KG could get corrupted?

well.  it can't.  But a metric can be corrupted, but if its socially born it can't.  Nash realised that a value metric woudl be socially born.  Once you realize this you can do a lot of relevant math.

Here, evidently, politicians in control of the authority behind standards could corrupt the continuity of a good standard, but depending on how things were fundamentally arranged, the probabilities of serious damage through political corruption might becomes as small as the probabilities that the values of the standard meter and kilogram will be corrupted through the actions of politicians.

But the problem always was our value metrics were always corruptible.  Also metrics are helpful ask the cubits.

Upthread I linked to the video where Nash explains that even the KG can be corrupted by adding lead to silver.

The IPCI could be corrupted by the IMF changing the weights for the SDRs over time.

This discussion is getting redundant. No one should comment until they have read everything and clicked all the links to source material.

[traincarswreck]

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.

I don't buy a "genuine inexperienced coder" postulate. I would only agree with "experienced coder with no experience in C++". I extensively reviewed early Bitcoin code and I see patterns of writing style and design that aren't congruent with a genuine lack of experience in coding.

I hold no opinion on who Satoshi is, but my professional opinion about the code base is (either, equiprobable):

1) experienced programmer or manager from an organization that used older languages (like COBOL, MUMPS, FORTRAN, SIMSCRIPT, etc. ) doing his/her first project in C++;

2) very experienced consultant well versed in multiple languages intentionally doing hard to maintain codebase as a job security move;

And please don't bring "expert groups" into my argument, I haven't postulated this, and you just straw-manning. The "pretend naiveté" is a main selling tactics for the consultants like in my point (2), this isn't some advanced elite strategy, it is a common-folk knowledge independently discovered by many working programmers.

If you are experience like you say you are which i believe you.  There are two thoughts.  One the man wouldn't code his own insight and two, language. (I forgot two).

A good programmer modulates the solution into parts.

[traincarswreck]

what is a good programmer?

[iamnotback]

I don't buy a "genuine inexperienced coder" postulate. I would only agree with "experienced coder with no experience in C++". I extensively reviewed early Bitcoin code and I see patterns of writing style and design that aren't congruent with a genuine lack of experience in coding.

I hold no opinion on who Satoshi is, but my professional opinion about the code base is (either, equiprobable):

1) experienced programmer or manager from an organization that used older languages (like COBOL, MUMPS, FORTRAN, SIMSCRIPT, etc. ) doing his/her first project in C++;

Nash was proficient coding Mathematica and presumably he learned Fortran in college. And presumably he was programming at RAND.

But afaik, all his programs were small.

But I also have my doubts about Nash coding a large scale application in C++ (something which he had obviously never done), which is why I never put much weight in the theory, but I was shocked to find the other strongly corroborating evidence I explained.

Why did Nash disappear from publishing and public touring from 2004 to 2006? And again from 2008 to 2010. Why does he never provide a detailed response or account of how Bitcoin relates to his lifelong and recent obsession with ideal money?

The theory of Nash working with a secret group seems most attractive to me. And the group made it appear that Bitcoin was code by amateurs. But how would you get Nash onboard to do such a thing? And would Nash trust such a group? Well Nash is very rational about game theory and he was always emphasizing the benefit of the group in game theory, so perhaps he could have been rationally persuaded.

in the movie it depicted that Nash didn't converse with intelligence agencies and it was part of his mental illness.  Truth was yes he did, evidence:

https://steemit.com/movie/@jokerpravis/an-interesting-scene-from-the-movie-a-beautiful-mind

Yes that is important. And I wonder if Nash outsmarted his elite handlers? That has been my thesis.

what is a good programmer?

If you need to ask, then it would be difficult to explain it to you succinctly. Good programmers know it when they see it.

[traincarswreck]

but I was shocked to find the other strongly corroborating evidence I explained.

yup this. and then its intuitively obvious. language.

[traincarswreck]

in the movie it depicted that Nash didn't converse with intelligence agencies and it was part of his mental illness.  Truth was yes he did, evidence:

https://steemit.com/movie/@jokerpravis/an-interesting-scene-from-the-movie-a-beautiful-mind

[IadixDev]

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.

Exactly my thinking, posted similar though in another thread

Doesnt look like code made by institutes or scientists, or mathematician but from software industry like engineers

Nash mostly did coding for mathematica, and more looking like mathematician code with arrays matrixes and operations, with groups, subset, and math concept, mathematician tend to see programs as linear system, or group theory and program libs or scripts for mathematica, not portable c++ app with boost & openssl & qt.

But maybe he hired someone from software industry with small budget instead of doing it himself with fortran or mathematica, or going throught institutes or universities.

[traincarswreck]

Exactly my thinking, posted similar though in another thread

Doesnt look like code made by institutes or scientists, or mathematician but from software industry like engineers

Nash mostly did coding for mathematica, and more looking like mathematician code with arrays matrixes and operations, with groups, subset, and math concept, mathematician tend to see programs as linear system, or group theory and program libs or scripts for mathematica, not portable c++ app with boost & openssl & qt.

no its just language.  Szabo did it.  Maybe finney.  A good idear wouldn't do the code himself.  Why would he?  He just hypothosized philosophy.

We are just inferior.  We think philosphy can't changt ethe worl or shpae the uni.

[traincarswreck]

We have to wait a few hours while iamnotback familiraizes bohms work.  its amazing.  bohm and nash win. And they are boht einsteins students.