Topic: Bitcoin as a function of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Read 934 times)

This means accumulate as much Bitcoin as one can!!!!

Right. And in simpler terms?

The point is, Bitcoin isn't supposed to be a system of "no governance"; the Nash equilibrium is supposed to be the governance.  Therefore, an actual functioning Bitcoin would have nothing to do with anarchy because anarchy symbolizes a power vacuum, while a Nash equilibrium is generally the polar opposite.  

If the Nash equilibrium doesn't actually exist, then Bitcoin would be nothing more than something like the anarchist movement in Russia, where useful idiots known as anarchists were used as a tool to destabilize a nation and create a power vacuum, ceding power so that another entity can walk in and take the reins.  I would refer to just about everything that happened in Russia then a Zionist plot, but there's obviously delusional SJWs who refuse to admit more mafias than the Italian mafia exist.

This means Bitcoin with a non-existent or questionable Nash equilibrium is going to be more of a tool of destruction or espionage than anything, just like what we witnessed in Russia and other useful idiot anarchist movements since.

What is your complaint in simple terms?

Of course there is an endgame, much in the same way everyone on earth demilitarizing would also give you a predictable endgame.  The one party that decides not to is now the ruler of the world.  Bitcoin doesn't appear to have any real Nash equilibrium, so as I said in my post, this acts as a trojan horse to infiltrate nations and create a power vacuum where someone else can just come along and say, "Hey, this doesn't work.  I have a better idea how to run things", and since you have ceded power to a janky, non-functioning computer algorithm, might makes right takes over and they get their will accomplished of a ban on cash and imposed digital only Keynesian currency.

The other problem is that even if Bitcoin did work and have a functioning Nash equilibrium, any anonymous (or pseudoanonymous) digital currency would eventually implode most recognizable known forms of govt in the world.  An inevitable endgame of mostly anarchy in other words.  But anarchy doesn't actually exist, it's just a power vacuum or destabilization scheme where a strongman then comes in and takes over.  When you cede power, somebody else just takes it.

A nice game of, encourage your enemies to adopt Bitcoin first, while whatever nation resists adopting it at all then wins by monopoly of force.

you get some new altcoin.

again?


there is no endgame, and that's the good news.


aka free market.

It's claimed to be fake, but if you ever bother to read it solely for entertainment value alone, it's clearly up there in terms of literary competency, rivaling things like Machiavelli's The Prince or Art of War.  Why do I say this?  For example:

"12. Our right lies in force. The word "right" is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than: Give me what I want in order that thereby I may have a proof that I am stronger than you.Where does right begin? Where does it end?"

This thing is a hundred years old and claimed to be fake, but this is exactly how the world has played out ever since, with liberalism being used as a weapon to destabilize and take over nations:

"6. Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one's party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier if the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, SO-CALLED LIBERALISM, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears; the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot for one single day exist without guidance, and the new authority merely fits into the place of the old already weakened by liberalism."


"14. In any State in which there is a bad organization of authority, an impersonality of laws and of the rulers who have lost their personality amid the flood of rights ever multiplying out of liberalism, I find a new right - to attack by the right of the strong, and to scatter to the winds all existing forces of order and regulation, to reconstruct all institutions and to become the sovereign lord of those who have left to us the rights of their power by laying them down voluntarily in their liberalism."


I think here you can see the dynamic of Bitcoin at play.  A nation cedes it's power to a supposed Nash equilibrium where instead of having a ruler, there's absolutely nobody in charge.  Forget the logistics of what happens if everyone on earth does such an action and concentrate only on the idea of:  does the Nash equilibrium actually exist or not?

If no Nash equilibrium even exists, then you're basically just blowing up your economy on purpose and ceding power to usurpers.  So, you be the judge.  Here is my take on - does any form of Nash equilibrium even exist in the first place?


What is the endgame of all this?  Doesn't seem like there's any Nash equilibrium going on.  The mining side centralizes in a winner take all paradigm as one faction of power, then you have other factions who just kinda say, "we wrote the client so therefore we have a hand in the power structure even though the system wasn't actually designed like that".  Then the users...the users are just a diverse mob with no agreement on anything so they don't even matter.  In the end it's just kind of random chaos...destabilization...