Topic: John Nash created bitcoin - page 10. (Read 22254 times)

I believe any alt, no matter how good or bad, needs the support (financial and non-financial alike) of the shadow elites in order to have a lasting impression in the society (or else they will die out sooner or later).

Nonetheless, if your alt have the potential for some very lucrative monetary potential (either as a result of pump and dumb or otherwise), I am interested to know more. 

Yes he did. He's a friggin idiot and is a hired gun of Jihan Wu, along with Alex, and some others....

Why is this thing still spread in this forum? Couple days ago iamnotback was created a thread about how jhon Nash created bitcoin and then locked. Then he created the same thread in another section, and now this happen again by someone who just paste a link of article that created by someone​ idk.

My altcoin project doesn't depend in any way on Bitcoin being evil, perfect, or flawed. My project is about helping us share our knowledge production without being hostage to 3rd parties. It only depends on BTC being available as an exchange mechanism to and from fiat.

That is another example of your cognitive dissonance. You invent delusions that don't exist. You demonize things in your mind, because you said you want to not care. Not caring is your psychological defense mechanism because you've said you hate society-at-large.


You are not invested and thus not expert, as I have clearly shown by your numerous technical errors w.r.t. blockchain design.

I am invested and am more expert than you.

I have also shown I am more knowledgeable than you about economics.

And I don't have hate for society-at-large and have no need to protect myself psychologically by wanting to not care.

Thus you computed the probabilities incorrectly.


I've stated I don't think Nash was necessarily consciously working for the elite. Yet the fact is he was traveling around the world selling the concept of an IPCI which is precisely the weighted basket that has been floated by the elite for the SDRs of the NWO. I suspect he was unwittingly involved, or was outsmarting his handlers (in case you've forgotten, the theory would be in that case he would know that Bitcoin would enable altcoin experimentation).


You continue to write BS that just isn't true. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat lies, they are still lies.

You are damn close to being permanently ignored by me because I've refuted your allegations and you continue to repeat the lie after you've been informed as to your errors. So this is disingenuous crap.


Ah so the entire thing is jealousy. I got it now. Goodbye.

You're so jealous that you'd conflate my project which entirely independent of Bitcoin (except as an exchange for the token and the token is a minor aspect of the value).

No my project won't defeat Bitcoin. The knowledge age will eventually defeat fungible money, but my project is but one part of a natural evolution that was going to happen any way. I just want to be part of it.


I won't have time for your silly beer. Besides I don't drink alcohol.

And frankly I want nothing more to do with you.


You got that wrong. Lol.

My stake in my project is higher yes. But I don't have any particular need for Bitcoin to be flawed or evil. Much better if it wasn't a threat. I think it would be much better to do my project in a world where there isn't some potential conflict ahead.


How can you be open-minded when you are a lunatic who hates society-at-large and wants to not care about anything because that is the way you've been protecting your psychology and coping with your life.


You lie about my rational arguments.

Satoshi nakamoto is the real creator of bitcoin some say that satoshi isn't just an individual but actully a group of intelligent people. Many claimed to be satoshi, many were speculated to be satoshi but all of them lack the criteria to be The Creator of Bitcoin.

You must have flunked economics or forgot the fundamental canons of capitalism.

Money is a transferable utility. Capital accumulation as a form of investment can increase the utility of economy. The winners and losers form an emergent order of fitness of capital accumulation.

Hodling BTC increases the utility of Bitcoin by increasing its market capitalization. Fungible money gains utility as it gains hodling because it means more people are willing to accept more of it (which has nothing to do with merchants accepting it ... the elite want to replace gold with a better gold for their reserves).

The overall point is that all this speculation is preparing BTC's market cap to grow enough that more and more billionaires start using it for their unit-of-account.

Over time the small block size will (via exorbitant transaction fees) kick the riff-raff off of Bitcoin and so it will become the exclusive domain of the wealthy. And then the speculative noise that causes you to be a Bitcoin naysayer, will be gone.

The whales and dolphins that are hodling BTC are not the simpleton minnows and greater fool victims. They are very astute investors who understand the world is fundamentally changing.

I am sorry. I am weary of replying to your dumb posts. (that means if you write some more dumb shit, I might just put you on Ignore bcz its getting redundant)

I thought you had a university education.

I knew you were going to make that mistake.  You can't figure these things out for yourself. I have to spoon feed every little detail and permutation to you.

The market value will be stable when it reaches $5 trillion market cap and the high transaction fees have forced all the riff-raff off the blockchain and only the $billionaires are using it. Of course it is not 100% stable value ideal money when it is in the nascent viral launch phase as a small market cap and not yet a reserve currency for most billionaires (just a few billionaires already using BTC as their unit-of-account).


Lol, I didn't misunderstand. I even anticipated you would make the inconsistent logic which I explained above. See the bolded text below proving I anticipated your blunder. Lol.

You think you are smart, but really you are more of a bumbling idiot.

Here follows a copy of my original explanation.

Incorrect. Chain reorganizations can happen at any time. PoW is probabilistically (i.e. never) final, not deterministically final.

Thus referencing by specific chains instead of by hash as @dinofelis suggested would be a DDoS security vulnerability at least and other cascading issues.

@IadixDev, that is why you leave the blockchain design work to me. I am expert. You are not.

Billionaires are more concerned about stability (veracity) of their unit-of-account than the ROI. Billionaires have monopolistic businesses for making gains. For billionaires, money is a settlement and liquidity tool, not a speculative investment.

You do not understand (power) money. For your edification, read this.

When everything else is collapsing and unreliable due to the $quadrillion in derivatives in the fiat monetary system, the billionaires will only have one stable (incorruptible, no 3rd party liability, privacy, etc) money available to them. Bitcoin.


If you want to throw (or kick) a football to a wide receiver, you need to aim several meters in front of where he is directed, because he will travel some meters before the ball will arrive at its destination.

Analogously if you want to know what Bitcoin will be, you must look forward and understand how Bitcoin's ecosystem is changing, maturing, and growing.

The Chinese ASIC manufacturers are totally at the mercy of the only two fabs that can manufacture 14/16mn ASICs, one in Hong Kong and the other in New York.

The whales of Bitcoin (who are already $billionaires btw) control the miners, not vice versa. I had already explained to you how that economics works, when I refuted your nonsense about hashrate growing unbounded or even as a percentage of transaction value.


@dinofelis, your entire world is going to get turned upside-down and you will be entirely unprepared because of your cognitive dissonance.


Yes it is, because all the refutations are in my archives. You're just lazy to read. You're stuck in your cognitive dissonance mode and lazy assumptions.

I am not going to repeat all the information in my archives just for you. It is your problem, not mine. It takes far too much time to debate with you, because you don't pay attention. Things I've stated, you fail to assimilate. It is a huge waste of time. And it is your problem.


You did not debunk. You were incorrect. I explained why. You are unable to comprehend. So you continue on making a Dunning-Kruger asshat for yourself.

What else can I say to when you either can't or won't read (and fully assimilate) what I wrote and comprehend your mistakes?

Of course you will continue to ignorantly insist that you are correct, and of course you will continue to be incorrect. And of course you will continue to reply and claim my reply does not constitute a logical argument. And I will continue to understand you are refusing to learn and you are filibustering instead of just admitting that you don't comprehend how I refuted you.


Continue lying and you will go on my permanent Ignore.

I never thought you would be disingenuous but I guess ignorance can do that even to someone who I used to think was rational. Sigh.


I am not trying to convince you. I am going to enjoy watching you eat your asshat as all obstinate idiots eventually do. That is the only way you will ever learn, because you refuse to be rational in this case.

I am providing information for readers who don't want to be misled by your failure to assimilate the information which has been provided to you.

1) You don't understand the design (and at least not in the correct context of its goal, but also you make other egregious technical blunders which indicate you are not expert enough in blockchains). I do understand it holistically (don't expect me to write it all!).
2) It is not clunky. The design is genius. Your circular logic rebuttal is indicative of your tunnel vision. That is your incorrect assumption because you attribute a design goal (mass scaling, etc.) which is not the design goal that Bitcoin meets perfectly (power money system for the global elite, launched virally by employing useful idiots so that resistance would not form in the nascent stages). John Nash's Ideal Money stated that to bring about ideal money it would have to be done evolutionarily in an incremental and naturally viral fashion. If you understand game theory, you would understand why the elite can't just announce a new monetary system and expect to not be attacked and undermined. Your entire thought process is so tunnel vision and simpleton. You don't assimilate and incorporate all the possibilities to arrive at the conclusion which makes the most sense. You instead lazily jump to the most convenient assumptions which fit your subjective and personal wishes. The design is genius on many different levels. For example for the n00bs who have no technical comprehension, the mass scaling and idealism lies are motivation. For those with some technical comprehension such as yourself, you become arrogant and see it as clunky, because you assume those mass scaling lies were sincere. Lol. Satoshi (the elite) brilliantly turned all different possible attackers into useful idiot assistants. You talk Bitcoin down while it continues to grow its tentacles virally, which is perfect and what the global elite want you to do. The more naysayers the better. Because viral things don't stop growing due to naysayers. The more naysayers, the more a viral thing spreads.

Please stop trying to pretend you know anything.

We can attain consensus without relying on only one decider. One decider happens to work well for the system Satoshi designed, but it isn't the only way to design a consensus system with probabilistic finality.

You are just making up handwaving noise to obfuscate that you haven't added anything substantive to my rebuttals.


Incorrect.

He would also need to deeply understand FLP impossibility theorem and the difference between probabilistic finality and the deterministic finality of Byzantine agreement.

Additionally the game theory economics and Nash equilibrium analysis is essential for understanding if the system will be stable or be a tragedy-of-the-commons. Also for understanding that the failure mode of the system is that it becomes completely centralized in one entity over the very long-term, if it becomes the paramount reserve currency in the world.

Also once you understand that, monetary systems, and finance, he would then understand how Bitcoin is ideal money until it becomes monopoly, then it shifts to 666 totalitarian.

You're not going to totally understand what I am writing because you haven't done the research and you are ignorant about blockchains. Really.


Nash's ideal money also qualifies. And Nash's ideal money fits better because Bitcoin is far superior to gold and thus is an ideal money.


No he needed a way to market the thing, as this was the first thing of its kind, which means no one would have a reason to invest in it, i.e. the hen and egg dilemma. The genius of distribution via PoW is it invests people and industries into Bitcoin, which creates network effects and who then evangelize it.

You're analysis is inadequate due to your tunnel vision.


You're trying to argue that these facts are contradictory or somehow clunky, but in fact they are a perfect design for what the global elite want from Bitcoin.

You keep trying to frame your argument under the assumption that Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to scale transactions for the masses and that he wanted it to remain decentralized for small miners. But in fact, that is not what the global elite want from Bitcoin.

If you have the wrong perspective, then you can't judge the facts.

Satoshi was paying lip service to things that the idealistic useful idiots and SJWs wanted to hear, so that Bitcoin could be virally launched into the world. But of course Satoshi doesn't give a fuck about these useful idiots in the long-run. The modus operandi fingerprints of the elite are right smack in front of your face and you can't even see it.

Unless you've proved there could be no purpose, then your analogy is argumentation by saying nothing logical.

This is handwaving noise.

You'd be better served to stick to facts and stop trying to obfuscate that you're just handwaving.

You're filibustering, which is not what I expect from a scientist.

Write fewer (useless) words and more facts.

[/quote]

All the $billionaires and $trillionaires will be doing their settlement in BTC.

It will be $500,000 per BTC.

That is obvious.


[/quote]


Why would the elite want to create thousands of new trillionairs?

Why would trillionares need BTC when they own offshore banks?

The more i think about it, the more it's sure it's someone who has good knowledge of it ( for the distributed ledger/p2p), of game theory for the reward/proba pow, and of financial world with the inflation rate, and of startup because of coming out from the shadow with a whitepapper and a fully working portable app in binary, and how fast it went with exchange etc, hard to think it was not planned.

And if you take all those part flat out alone or study only one aspect it doesnt make that much sense.

Hard to think it's made by a single guy in his basement.

But you know even when I talked about this with a guy who is head of software company who works with AMF, he told me for him bitcoin comes from goldman sachs, it's something to "disrupt" and destroy government institutions, that it's very liberal at hearth, even if he didn't understand much in blockchain themselves, he knew it was something anti establishment, based on liberal view and from goldman sachs.

Not saying he is necessarily right, but many people still see it this way, and it's hard to think there is not some deep planning behind.

Or that some forces didn't use it or create it for that purpose of destabilizing certain establishment or trigger some kind of new UBER model for currency itself. And someone wanting to do this must have something in mind. Especially considering all the different aspect that are involved to have something that even fly a bit. Not even saying topping #1 after 8 years at +1000$.

Segwit is taking power away from miner, right?

Your chart is convex.
I believe the move will be concave.

Edit:
Sorry, I think is opposite.

You could just remove the reward, any one can mine new block out of the mem pool, if two blocks or tx are in common, a determinstic algorithm could be used to select between the two.

With the hash of previous block in the header including timestamp for me it's enough to prevent sybil attack. Checkpoint could be made every 100 blocks and hashed in the chain.

And selecting conflicting blocks/tx within a timeframe with deterministic algorithm.

You can only emit a new block based on the last good one, including a timestamp and still need to keep checking other nodes for better blocks based on deterministic algoritgm.

Well would need to cut some corner there with the timestamp of valid chain to avoid sybil attack.


Other than this, all remain the same without the whole competition for the reward.

In other words, the amount of computational resource required to solve double spent is much < to cost of mining the proof.

Same for the complexity and time of solving the problem of double spent with classic deterministic solution, and putting the whole pow in place.

Because blockchain are a very specific case of byzantine general, and a lot can be assumed from other nodes due to the protocol , there is lot of things that can be assumed about the valid chain, and it's not like just any data can fit and there is no way to say which one is good or wrong at all.

It's like all the generals know each other thinking from before the battle. And the plan cannot be just anything.

If 90% of node want to collude on a chain, then it's the good chain, cant really prevent it anyway lol if 90% of users are against the protocol, why would they use it to begin with ?


The thing is in most case , all the chains will still contain sensibly the same txs in an order or another, so there is nothing to loose or win in choosing one or the other, it's just reordering the tx to fit the block header hash, outside of double spent that are fraud and should be removed anyway.  And all non double spent tx made on a chain is also valid on the other.

So in the end, why twist it so much with the pow and reward, for me it's still someone who know well the world of investment start up and trading, and it's not too far stretched either to think there is some kind of financial plan with it, and it's never really clear what those plans are, and there are many shady area surrounding it's thinking and deployment.

Either it was planed as a boat, a space ship, a submarine, hard to even say.

But it's hard to think there no plan with it all, or that it was studied with good knowledge of economic theories, and the world of IT, and he knew at least a minimum where he wanted to get at.

But his idea seem quite oriented with free market and still thinking with buisness in mind , with some kind of philosophy or plan.

Of course, but the consensus in bitcoin is determined by miners.  You'd have to make a fork of bitcoin (make a new coin) to get rid of the miners FROM THAT COIN, but you cannot stop them from continuing bitcoin as it is.  Will your new coin be "bitcoin" or will the coin they continue to handle, be "bitcoin" and you just made a measly altcoin ?

What deterministic solution ?  There isn't any that isn't centralized or permitted.  Proof of Stake was a possibility, but Satoshi was facing the problem that he was the only stake holder in the beginning.  He would have had to sign all blocks by himself, and unless someone actually GOT COINS FROM HIM, there was no way to get a second stake holder.


The problem is, WHEN do you consider that transaction A is the valid one ?  How LATE can transaction B be propagated and WIN from transaction A ?

Suppose I pay you 100 BTC.  You observe transaction A on the network paying you.  How long do you wait before you consider that this payment is secure ?  Suppose I buy a car with that.  How long do you wait until you let me have the car ?

Suppose that the next day, I make a new double spend payment to myself.  I can modify my receiver addresses until I find a payment that has a smaller hash than transaction A.  I call that transaction: B.  I now transmit B on the network.  As B has a smaller hash than A, the consensus tells us one should take B over A, and finally, your transaction is eliminated.

Ok, but one day later, we don't accept this any more.  Ok, but how long do we have to wait ?  At what point do you consider that A is definitively the accepted transaction ?  After 30 minutes ?  But what if B comes in after 29 minutes for Joe and after 31 minutes for Jack ?  Joe and Jack will now disagree FOREVER over what was the right transaction ?  If you connect to Joe, you see your transaction reversed, while if you connect to Jack, you see your transaction not reversed ?

--> this is the consensus problem.  It is already difficult if most players want to play honestly.  It becomes very hard if you get a sybil possibility of 90% of the nodes conspiring to game the system (90% of nodes in the hands of one entity).

Suppose that I transmit transaction B almost immediately after transaction A, but I fire up 90% of nodes that "ignore" transaction B.  You will probably not see transaction B, and you think that after half an hour, you are safe.  Then I switch off my sybil nodes.  The rest of the network has preferred transaction B.  When you try to spend your coins a few months later, your right to spend doesn't exist on most nodes, because they had rejected A, and chosen B, and forgot about A.  You are the only one remembering A, thinking it was right.

Satoshi found a kind of solution with PoW.  It is a clunky solution, but he needed one.

If there are only 2 choices as said above. I will choose Plan A with an appropriate fee for this price but if there is a plan 3 which is  more suitable for fee and I will choose it.

You said this in that other thread where the first Snapchat investor said it's going $500,000 by 2030, that you agree with that prediction.

2030 is 13 years from now

Current price: $1200

That's $498,800 to go in 13 years, which according to my third grade math means BTC should raise around $38369 per year if your theory is correct.

Isn't this a bit nuts? How can BTC grow so much in 13 years? It would need to go parabolic in an unprecedented way. It would redefine the meaning of going parabolic. Nothing ever has grown this much, not even Berkshire Hathaway Class A stock. We are looking at insane levels of growth in a parabolic way in the last 3 years before 2030 is hit and by the time the curve of coin release starts being flat:



So if this is of any guidance, by about 2025 we would need to start seeing some serious shit, like legit insanity of price growth. And I say parabolic, because I don't see anything near $38369 per year happening any time soon if the growth was more or less linear, so it must be next-level parabolic. We would need to be seeing gold whales, stock whales, fiat whales, everything, moving money onto bitcoin to hodl there (or transact within the blockchain but never leaving BTC).

We are talking about 5 figures of growth per day in the last period... this is insane and would cause heart attacks left and right from hodlers that become rich in such a extreme way.

We are looking at current mega whales (considering they don't sell along the way) becoming the richest men on earth, maybe surpassing Rotchilds? I don't know how many BTC the mega rpietila and MP tier whales have, but at $500,000 per BTC they would become stupid rich, maybe first trillionaires ever (as a single guy owning +trillion).

I don't know, the growth required for $500,000 in 13 years seems too much. It would be something never seen before, books would be written about it, kids would learn about it in schools. It would be all over the planet, minds would explode, people that didn't buy at $1000 would hang themselves with a belt.