Topic: John Nash created bitcoin - page 18. (Read 22273 times)

Very strong circumstantial evidence that John Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto!

Read this!

I hope you don't have a significant job in this world, asshole.

Well you are a fucking idiot that commented with out reading the content.  do you live your whole life being so fucking retardedly ignorant?

Name five you fuck idiot piece of shit scum of earth reason this world sucks, because people like you are barely smart enough to tie their own shoes.  And barely can speak and use English. Honestly, you are too stupid for me to address. I will call you, spit.

Hey spit, you are an idiot.

Hey fuckhead.  There is no evidence for satoshi.  suck is the premise. wright provides none. the only evidence wright provides is he is a psychopathic idiot. 

1000's of people?  Name 5 you fuck.

my interpretation of ideal? how about, I am using the standard conventional definition.  Did you pass grade 5 english?

My idiocy?  I was smarter than you when I was in kindergarten.  That isn't an exaggeration its observation.

You provide zero evidence of anything linking him to Bitcoin or its technical concepts. Your entire post is based on your interpretation of the word "ideal", which you have completely wrong. Oh wait, he talks about e-currency or something similar like 1000's of other people over the past 20 years. I have to admit picturing an old man like John Nash hovering over his keyboard on this forum for over year is fucking hilarious. Your idiocy is quite entertaining.

You haven't read anything and you clearly aren't strong with the english language.  John Nash spent 20 years defining the intricate details of how and international e-currency with a stably issued supply would arise to usurp the central banks control over our money quality.  20 years he spoke and wrote and you just made an ignorant comment against his works which you have no clue even exists.

He encouraged the idea of decentralized computing?  This was essentially before computing existed nearly 70 years ago when he was barely in his 20's.

I showed he had all the components needed to realize bitcoin and I showed that his paranoia was really him coming up with the idea for ideal money, causing him to flee the US. And that the government DID come after him.

You say there is nothing connecting him?  Wtf is connecting Craig Wright, other than outrageous claim after outrageous claim from something who has a wholly opposite demeanor than Satoshi and the FACT that he doesn't understand the limits of pgp cryptography?

How is it that a man that spent 20 years talking about an international e-currency and how the parameters need to be chosen for it to be come relevant, is seen as so irrelevant that its not even worth reading his argument, and a pyschopath who consistently and constantly say things that are clearly unfounded and go against conventional economics is rather see as your savior?

I may understand some of your words, basically what's doing by john nash is a theory and no more. there is nothing were linking into bitcoin. John nash has encouraged the basic idea of the decentralised computing, but he was never pushing it to be the real form. 

All of the links and citations are in the article, I have no reason to post them for a couple of clowns who don't have the mental capacity to fact check anyways.  I don't get paid from medium.

everything is cited with links to the sources, and the facts aren't even controversial, they are all accepted on wiki and in his bio, and throughout the academic community.  The rest are quotes from Nash's himself. Troll.

20 Years Ago John Nash Re-defined Our Understanding Of Economics (Again) and We Still Haven’t Realized It

I’m going to paint a picture for us that is going to get me labeled as “crazy” but I’m thinking its necessary to go all the way with this line of thought whether it turns out to be accurate or not (in some ways I already know its accurate since its based on facts that I myself have seen with citations and references).

In short, the movie A beautiful Mind starring Russel Crowe, about a mathematician named John Nash who descended into mental illness before being recognized as one of the greatest minds that ever lived, is not historically accurate and the ACTUAL events that took place in this mans life are incredibly significant TODAY.

One such example of CURIOUS inaccuracy is in a scene of the movie in which Nash’s wife Alicia shows Nash “evidence” that the letters he sent to the government intelligence agency he claimed to secretly work for were never sent or received:

She was hoping this would wake him up out of his delusional state. But the truth of the matter is, and this is commonly accepted in his biography, Nash HAD sent letters that WERE received by the NSA, Rand, and other partitions of the US government and intelligence agencies and these letters were made public by the NSA years later.

Moreover these letters turned out to be incredibly insightful and significant:


Furthermore a quick scan of Nash’s wiki turns up a cited paragraph explaining that he DID have a form of top-secret security clearance with RAND (and that he WAS targeted by the government for charges that were later dropped):


Another curious inaccuracy in this movie is that it portrays Nash as taking medication to get better, when in fact it is well known that medication did NOT play a crucial in his release from hospitalization or his recovery (and Nash is NOT a fan of such medication). Whenever Nash’s illness and recovery are discussed in regard to his biography there is always a very curious caution to it:


What does it mean to learn to consciously discard delusions?

Here we can read it in Nash’s own words:



Notice how he expresses his illness, as if he was expressing himself politically causing friction with society, and that he change his delivery in a way “…that is characteristic of scientists”.

I’ve listened to every John Nash interview I can find. He ALWAYS talks about his illness like that. He never flat out admits that he was mentally ill by his own standards, rather he always explains his “delusionary periods” as if he was simply having difficulty fitting in.

What is also significant about these periods of “mental illness” was that Nash came up with many ground breaking solutions that pervaded pretty much all of the sciences that exist today. And it took nearly 40 years for him to finally get recognized for it with a nobel prize.

Before his delusional episodes Nash was excelling at mathematical discovery at an unbelievable pace. Even well established mathematicians are in complete awe of Nash’s insights:

French mathematician Cedric Villani said this of one of Nash’s proofs:

 
This wasn’t a complete surprise for those around him as he was admitted to Princeton at 19 with a recommendation letter that literally explained, “He is a mathematical genius.”:

Currently it is trending on the internet that his paper “Equilibrium points in n-person games” is the greatest scientific paper ever published and Nash was 21when it was published. That same year he earned his Ph.D. with a 28 page dissertation on non-cooperative games that had only 2 citations, one of which was his own paper on equilibrium points in n-person games.

Nash never really stopped presenting incredible solutions to problems that just mystified many of the otherwise most brilliant men of his time:


And he admits himself (which is also verifiable if you think his mind can’t be trusted to remember) that he DID in fact continue to have such insights, at least in between bouts of delusional periods:

 
He almost mocks his own style of thinking, but admits only that he learned to fit in.

In 1994 he wrote:


And it is said by 1995 he was considered “sane” again:


This is interesting timing, because this is the year it seems Nash began to publicly talk about his proposal for “Ideal Money” which is a lecture supported by a paper of the same name that was published in the Southern Economic Journal in 2002.

So what did Nash do since 1995 when he “magically” gained his sanity back (notice my tone just changed there)?

He spent that last 20 years of his life (he passed away in a vehicle accident with his wife in May 2015) touring country to country and giving lectures on the topic of Ideal Money, and meditating on the subject which he expressed through various writings:

It is Ideal Money, I argue, that is his REAL defining work, and that we are simply yet to discover the value of it. But there is more…

In all my researching I have not found anyone that has read anywhere near the entire volume of papers Nash put out on the subject of Ideal Money. I also haven’t found any sincere persons that admit to having even a decent understanding of Nash’s proposal (this stands to reason since it seems no one has even traversed the material). I myself found some of these versions of Ideal Money digging around on Nash’s public home page (it just kinda seemed like he wanted someone to find them) and to my knowledge no one else really knew they were there.

There are some other very curious little notes he left on his homepage as well, one is an admission that he had built a program that could search for the next prime number, and this note about how he had a fear of consulting others on some ideas he was having:


Here is where things get even more interesting.

Ideal Money is a concept that Nash came up with in the ‘60’s when he fled to Europe. He was planning on denouncing his American citizenship and was wanting to exchange his American dollar for the Swiss franc. The Navy, he says, tracked him down and took him back to America in chains.

Nash was running around at one point claiming the anti-communist and communist governments were colluding against the people. One can imagine how this wouldn’t go over very well, especially back in those times (Cold war).

But even though Nash’s illness faded and he was declared stable again by doctors, family, academia, the general public, and the nobel prize committee (or perhaps not because the committee had concerns about his ability to accept such an award) he never actually left go of the declaration that the different forms of governments work against its own citizenry.

In fact the closing section of Ideal Money compares the notion of (Keynesian) central banking is comparable to Bolshevik communism:


So what was it then? Was Nash not delusional then, or was he still delusional up until he died?

To answer that we have to understand the argument Nash proposes in Ideal Money, which is difficult to do because Nash has a very awkward, old school, long winded, tangential, full of side streets, leaps of logic with no apologies, style. He often alludes to people or events without explaining the subtle underlying meaning of the reference (this I have learned over the years of “googling” different names and phrases he uses). He’s very clever in this way and he is also known to be a world class troll, which means there is often double or multiple meanings to the way he phrases what he says and writes.

His letters to the NSA had this quality. He wrote the NSA and told them he sent a machine design to RAND and that he was proposing an effectively unbreakable cipher machine. But more than that he explained that a conjecture in which, even though he can’t prove it, there is some certainty in his mind that encryption will out race decryption in the long run. Nash felt this was an incredibly significant insight that should be kept secret from “enemies”. He also suggested that the US should want to ascertain the level of knowledge of this conjecture from competing nations.

The NSA wrote back to tell Nash they hadn’t received word of the machine from RAND. They asked a few questions and then eventually said they could have no further communication and wouldn’t be able to tell him about whether or not they would be implementing his ideas.

I think maybe Nash was being very young and cocky. I also think Nash understood the significance of what he knew. And I don’t think we’ve realized the significance what he knew, even today.

Let me explain.

In 1954 Nash wrote this memorandum on a decentralized computing system that ran with highly parallel control. He rambles off some basic ideas for the design and ends with some discussion about computers that could solve problems man couldn’t hope to solve otherwise. The insight Nash concludes with is that the human brain must work in this highly parallel fashion (what is interesting and relevant to Nash’s life is that he also describes how this machine could heal itself):


The point I want to make is we still don’t have this technology and Nash was only about 25 at the time he wrote this paper (remember in the movie all of this was part of his delusions!).

A little recap. In his early twenties Nash solved 2 player games, n-player games, came up with a conjecture for unbreakable encryption, and proposed basic design philosophy for a highly parallel and decentralized computing system (AI), technology we still don’t have today.

He also put forth the Bargaining Problem (and his solution imbedding Riemannian manifolds which isn’t so relevant at the moment).

The bargaining problem is an interesting paper because it is relatively simple. You can sort of understand how someone who was only a few years earlier just a teenager, might have come up with a solution to such an important problem. The basic idea is there are two players that each have different preferences for a set of items. It is said Nash’s youth shows in the paper because the of the items he chose such as a ball, a toy, and a knife. The paper effectively explores the efficiency of money in trade.

This paper is special to me. Because when I couldn’t understand what Ideal Money was about, after reading it multiple times, I was sitting there one day meditating on the bargaining problem, asking myself something I’m SURE Nash was asking himself immediately after he came up with the solution for the paper-what is the NEXT evolution of money?

That’s when I was stuck with the insight I think HE was struck with (but more than 50 years earlier).

Here is a young man, and the world doesn’t know this, but he does, and he’s already solved all games (which is perfectly applicable to war games), he’s already informed his government that he is leagues beyond them in encryption and complexity theory, he’s got a general design for AI in mind, and he’s beginning to explore the concept and value of money to our society.

And then he snaps?!

He gets super paranoid and starts claiming the different governments are colluding against the people and he is going to be our savior like Jesus or Muhammad (he also makes references to both religions in Ideal Money).

He comes up with the concept for Ideal Money and flees to Europe to denounce his citizenship and exchange his USD for the Swiss Franc because he believes it to be of better long term quality.

He’s tracked down by the US government and brought back, and then admittedly and in his own words as I quoted earlier in this article he learned to fit in to society enough that he was no longer forcibly confined in a mental institution.

He spent his time quietly at Princeton University earning the name “the phantom of fine hall” which is where he was said to have spent much of his time.

What was he doing with his time?

From 1995 up until his death Nash was a vocal proponent of what he described as “Ideal Money”.

But what is Ideal Money?

I can paraphrase his argument by saying that Nash suggests that an international e-currency with a stably issued supply will arise to compete with each national respective fiat currency. This competition in turn will solve a problem of otherwise self-interested banking practices because the central banks will now be FORCED to serve their “customers” otherwise they will lose them to a better option.

What’s more, Nash explains that by having a “good” option as an alternative the citizens and markets will begin to naturally force banks to print money of a superior quality. Nash relates and compares this quality to an optimally chosen basket of international commodity prices he calls an ICPI-something that can’t necessarily be created because of the political implications and corruptibility.

There are three key points here, firstly without the concept of the ICPI its difficult to explain what he specifically means in regard to “good” or “ideal” quality. Gold is an example of what has historically served as a “good” money, whereas the fiat money we are served today would be viewed as lesser in quality since it would not remain stable versus an ICPI.


The 2nd key point is that “ideal” means “conceptual”. This is where Nash was very clever, and I’m starting to feel like no one is ever going to understand what he did. Everyone is looking for Nash’s ICPI and how it could possibly be constructed, but Nash is simply using it as a (conceptual) device for dialogue with himself.

The 3rd point is that there IS in fact a limit to the “idealness” of a money in regard to its quality (remember Nash is specifically speaking to HIS definition of quality). That is to say, he predicts, our money systems will begin to asymptotically limit towards this ceiling. This limit, or the concept of it, he surmises will bring our collective awareness to a unit of value that is stable for a “very long” period of time.


That unit of value, is something we have been chasing since the dawn of man, since it is to be the bedrock of all nations functioning on the same (unpardonable and incorruptible) page. It is a unit created not by the competition of armies of nations on the battlefield, but of the competition of the CURRENCIES of their respective nations that arose on a higher order to solve the problem of society that cannot otherwise be solved (effectively the optimal distribution of commodities).

He predicts, and this speaks to the comparison of anti-communist and communist governments, this will wholly changes our banking system and take the power from central banks to arbitrarily print money, all because of “alternative options” for savings:


Nash’s Ideal Money re-solves a problem that is central to the optimal function of our society. My claim here is that his insight will eventually be seen to have brought peace to our conflicting nations. If you know the context of this entire article you can see this and understand it in every interview he gives and every facial expression he makes (watch at the end of this documentary @ 54m — 55m his double look after he talks about a future where a miracle could happen):

train wrck has wasted 6 days trying to clickbait.
all he wants is some @medium money

he wont articulate it here.. because there is nothing of worth to articulate

It's total clickbait and a stupid and retarded theory that has no merit in reality. If it wasn't clickbait you would post your findings here. In fact, I would bet that you've spewed more shit in this thread about how everyone should click your stupid link than what you've wrote in that link.
If you want to show your point, type it out here. Dont send people to a site they don't want to visit and then tell them they are ignorant for not giving you clicks. Try articulating you point on the forum, you know, the forum where you can type shit out to make a point or post an opinion.

What you are addressing is not the content of my article, and so to continue to come in and troll this thread while clearly not addressing the content, is FAR more convincing than you stating that you did in fact read it.

You are not contributing to this thread, you are purely and simply trolling me.

i have read your link

nothing in it has anything credible.
there is no need to re-read it
no need for me or anyone to click it again

you have offered nothing that has not been said years ago
you are just clickbaiting

instead of making a point here. you are just screaming "click the link"
stop making posts asking to click the link.
this topic is 74 posts long and all you are doing is crying and screaming for people to click your link and insulting people if they call you out.

all you seem to care about is people clicking your link.

get the hint.. after 3 pages of asking people to click it.. if they have not clicked it by now. they wont click it by you simply screaming for them to click it.

get the hint. you have wasted your time raising a subject that has died out and debunked YEARS ago.

move on

It's amazing the time you waste talking about something you clearly have chosen to remain ignorant about.  That me posting a link of the most compressed version of the story I explain, makes it "clickbait" because you deem it not worthy even though you haven't read it, is the most trollish action I could possibly think of.

You are literally doing nothing but trolling in this thread.  I posted my argument, its there to be refuted, but no one has, and no one can because its founded. Every claim I make is backed up with a credible source.

As I heard the person of Satoshi Nakamoto stays mysterious. I have found on the net that it's still not clear who exactly create bitcoin and blockchain technology. Probably as everything the most genius it have made by some group of people.

boring reply where all you are saying effectively is "click the link"
typical clickbait

now i see why you have no clue. you dont even read your own post to realise you yourself are not showing any proof on this forum that this topic has merit.
why even bother going to your clickbait repeatedly. if what it says has already been said before you even said it.. by other people.

i dont need to read it multiple times.. the article has NO merit. and is just meaningless clickbait.
move on with your life and get a real job instead of trying to gather pennies with click bait empty material.

Every time you address this point and say this it shows to everyone that read the article that you didn't.  Its crystal clear because are speaking to a framed argument that I did not propagate. What you are calling click bait, is the opposite of click bait.  I put a very well founded an cited argument together, but I never told you what the argument is.  That you continually speak to a frame that is wholly irrelevant to my article is a perfect testament to your ignorance on the subject.

How are you coming to conclusions for the community, but without having any knowledge on what you are talking about?

Haven't heard of him before.
Craig Wright I have but not this guy.