I'm interested in these articles you're mentioning from a few years ago, do you have any links discussing them ?
No problem. So it turns out this was actually from about 20 years ago but I was using it about 5 years ago for work on my research papers.
Here's the link regarding the Nobel prize:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1994/press.htmlI know there's further reference of the topic applied to restructuring executive pay but can't find it right now.
You talking about Nash Equilibrium? I don't see how Bitcoin fits into that.
First of all it has to be 'game'. What game is Bitcoin playing and who are the players? Trying to dominate the currency space and overtake majors USD, EUR, JPY and GBP? Well it's nil impossible to win because those fiats are creatures of the state.
Well, the game part is easy. Economics is a game. Business is a game. Bitcoin is a game. Just about anything can be a game. But as game applies in the Nash Equilibrium, the game is how well or how poorly an equilibrium of value to cost is achieved.
The game of any competitive market is to prosper and bictoin is a competitive market. So the goal of anyone interested in bitcoin is to accumulate as many coins as possible. Where the Nash Equilibrium comes into play is based on how fair the game is played. Factors to consider: transaction fees, transparency, anonymity, .. okay the list can go on.
So, the point of my question is this: Given the similarities and differences of Bitcoin to Fiat or any currency, how could bitcoin differ or be leveraged in such a way that it is managed in a far more responsible way than paper, gold, or what have you.