Topic: John Nash created bitcoin - page 3. (Read 22254 times)

But why do you need the Rothschilds (financial banksters ?) in this story ?

That's why I believe the rothschilds have done a very good job with bitcoin.

Bitcoin vs tyrannical governments.
Bitcoin vs financial banksters.
What's not to feel passionate about?

I agree with you, but the last part he literally said himself (see his mail from 2008 in https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/dear-satoshi-nakamoto-1876752  )

There ARE truly, idealistically motivated people, and bitcoin DID most probably have such a crowd.  As I told you, I know what it is like.  Afterwards, you feel stupid, true    But when you are engaged into it, you think you're going to "save the world" and "have a message to bring".   There are such people.  I used to be like that.  I knew other people like that.  You have no idea of the energy that you are willing to put into it totally for free, because you think you have a Purpose.
Any cause that has such people to it, can move the earth, if it depends only on them.

But bitcoin could combine that with greed.  That's why I said, why do you need the Rothschilds, if you have those two unstoppable powers: idealistic enthusiasm and greed, combined !

Then you are a very different person from the rest.

I gave you an example, I knew personally a guy doing just that, and made a life out of that ("selling hype" I call it, but he had the ability to become *genuinely* enthusiastic about it).  Hell, I've been doing it myself for totally different technology, totally independent of anything from the industries doing it, just because of youthful idealism.  I didn't even want any connections with said industry, because it would put a potential shade on my honest enthusiasm for it, people thinking I was a shill for them.  So I know how it goes.  I most probably acted as a useful idiot back then.

Is your argument that the full power of the Rothschilds consisted in sending Antonopoulos on a trip ?

There not even a single evidence to believe that John Nash created bitcoin even like we all know that Satoshi Nakamoto created bitcoin no one ever confirmed it and then they were gonna say that John Nash created bitcoin with no such evidence i do a research about John Nash and he's a smart and idealistic guy but no information that he created bitcoin but maybe he has some idea in about money.

A lot of people do run around promoting their own work. That is not a surprise.

How many people do you know run around promoting a complete stranger's work (not his own work, not his friend's work, not his spouse's work, not his relative's work, not his colleague's work, not his sibling's work, not his children's work, not his parent's work)?

If John Nash was so smart, why wouldn't he have predicted the current problems that bitcoin is facing? (assuming that John Nash was indeed satoshi, which is I theory I doubt to be true).

So, according to John Nash, his vision of Ideal Money was a money that can only be used by extremely wealthy people in the long run? Doesn't make sense to me.

I believe satoshi didn't realize the current problem would arise, and if he thought a network of centralized nodes on datacenters can be called p2p digital cash, then he was wrong.

Of course.  I think everybody is following Machiavelli.  But it is not because you PLAN like Machiavelli, that things work out as you planned, simply because there's a lot of competition in applying his evident suggestions.

In fact, it is Machiavelli's universal success that makes that such plans don't work out as expected and that the world is a complicated place.

I'm not saying that nobody is making plans.  I'm saying that many people are making plans, that obstruct one another, and lead to unexpected results.

you don't believe in machiaveli ?

I don't think I'm right.  I think that people that are sure that they know the future, are wrong, or simply lucky. 
I think I recognise certain aspects in bitcoin that make me think its design is fundamentally flawed, and its design (with hindsight) had to lead to the current situation.  And I don't believe in conspiracy theories, because they are harder to consider than non-conspiracy explanations. 

I have the impression that everybody thinks that it is obvious that bitcoin will be the world's currency.  I think that this is FAR from obvious, and that half a miracle would be needed for that to happen ; and that the world in which that were true would be quite terrible where a few guys like Roger Ver would be able to buy up the whole of Africa, say and become king by their financial power.

Yes, an idealist, somewhat naive, hoping to be on the verge of a buzz, and he was right (in fact, lucky).  You have any idea how many people run around in the world to sell an idea that doesn't work out ?   So the "dark forces of the world" sent out their agent special 007.  Wow, impressive.  You don't have Greenpeace activists running around ?  You don't have people travelling the world about many crazy and not so crazy ideas ?  So what ? That's proof that the Rotschilds are behind this ? 
I personally know a guy who has been "running around the world" to promote e-cash in the 199X.  He was tremendously enthusiastic about it.  He was in contact with David Schaum.  He was/is also an internet entrepreneur.  He had been promoting Netscape too. I've seen many such enthusiastic people.  And no, the Rotschilds weren't behind him.  I knew him since childhood.  And no, he totally missed the bitcoin train, 10 years later.


The shadow elite is a bunch of people that have been lucky at a certain point in their lives, and then think it is their nature to be lucky.


"they" aren't needed to explain bitcoin.  Not more than invisible pink unicorns are needed to explain the motion of the moon.  But for all we know, the moon could be moving because invisible pink unicorns are pushing it.


Most people don't see things coming.  And those that did, by chance, think that it is because they were smart.
Look at the world soccer cup.  Select 4096 people.  Before the first match, send to 2048 people that crew A will win, or there will be a draw.  Send to the other 2048 people, that crew B will win.

If ever crew A won, or there was a draw, discard the second batch.  If crew B won, discard the first batch.
Now, of the 2048 remaining people, before the second game (between C and D), send to 1024 of them that crew C will win, or there will be a draw ; send to the 1024 remaining ones, that crew D will win.

Discard those that got the wrong prediction.

Etc..

At the end, you will end up with 4 people to which you've made 10 successive correct predictions !  You must be a hell of a smart guy to them !

Real world dynamics is too complex for complicated conspirational plans to work out, or even to "see it coming", but some people will think A is coming, and some people will think B is coming.  When A is coming, the first lot thinks they are smart.  Within their lot, part of them will see C coming, others will see D coming.  If C is coming, those that saw A and C think they are even smarter.

Etc...


Of course.  I didn't say the opposite.  But not as you think it will last.  Or as you think it will last.  So many people have so many different opinions, that some of them, will, by chance, be right.

+1 for theory like this 

A pseudo Japanese with a fall for mathematics creates an algorithm / equation in which there are a limited number of solutions, the former are relatively easy to calculate, and then become increasingly difficult to find (= bitcoin).

So far so good but who has the brilliant idea of turning this into currency? If it is limited the first ones to enter the game are the ones that gain the most.

The point is that treating a transaction has a cost in terms of processing/networking for a miner even though it is small, that cost brings in a small delay that increases this miner's chance to MISS the whole block (another miner being faster) and having wasted all the hash rate on it.  So at a certain point, it is better NOT to include a transaction with a small fee, and increase slightly your speed of winning a block, rather than to want to get a small extra fee, and risk somewhat more the loss of the entire block to the competition.

And that, only if blocks are unlimited.  If blocks are limited to 1 MB (as it most probably will remain on bitcoin), then of course the room is limited, and only the highest fee transactions will ever be  included.  This is in my opinion how bitcoin's design (with 1 MB blocks frozen in now) is pushing towards the selling of the scarce resource of transaction room, making this an expensive thing.  Every byte on the block chain, being scarce, will be sold at a relatively high price: the fee needed to get your transaction included.
The price of a byte on the chain will come from the need of bitcoin holders to do transactions (they are locked into their bitcoins which are worthless without the possibility to transact) versus the hard scarcity of the block size (1MB) which can even be arbitrarily made smaller by miners spamming the chain (which doesn't cost them anything, because they get back the fee they pay to themselves).



Point is that if the block limit remains (I think so), then if, as a miner, you can only place 5000 transactions in a block, you only take those with highest fees from the pool.  If there is no block limit, then you will take only those, that bring in net benefit (that is, higher fee than the extra cost of treating a transaction).


Of course they will.  The 10 jet purchases are slightly faster to process into a block and propagate, than the 1000 bikes, so you ever so slightly reduce your chances to win the bike block against the jet block.

But essentially, at a certain point, miners will PRE-SELL the room on the chain to the highest bidder.


Well, if you think that by doing so, you will rise the price of a bitcoin to $2,-, then you can already do some travelling.  But if you can get enthusiasts doing so on the internet, creating a buzz, that's even much better and it costs you less.  Libertarians are an easy crowd to get going (I know, I'm part of them). 


Who did so ?


Yes.  There's no such thing as merit, or the intelligence of success.  Success and power is a matter of luck.  The only "merit" there is, is to recognize the opportunity (which, in itself, is a random phenomenon, the fact that you "recognize it").  Power and success are the result of pure lottery.  But people in power like to think that they are special, have a gift, and have the intelligence.  They don't.  It is a pure lottery.  This is why they are not capable to do something intelligent with their power.


Well, there were some believers.  There are always believers.  But these believers were worth gold, because they were naive, motivated, somewhat greedy, starry-eyed, and could make the message pass that they were going to change the world for the better.  The analogy with the internet, remember. They succeeded in creating a buzz, and the time was ripe.  The MtGox guy, Karpeles, sleazy business type on the outlook of easy money, saw the opportunity.  That's all there is to it.


The window of opportunity to rule the world with bitcoin is closing.  No 'dark forces' wait 8 years to get their thing going, when it starts to show cracks.


Occam's razor.  If you don't need a master plan, and can explain a phenomenon without it, it is better than to have to think up an inconsistently sounding evil master plan that was too hard to foresee back then, that took too long, and that had too much power on one side, and too many backlashes on the other in order to be coherent.

I don't need a master plan, as the ingredients: naive idealism and greed, are sufficient to explain where we are today.

I don't know how crypto will evolve.  I think the bubble will burst at a certain moment, but niche applications will remain.  My personal impression is that bitcoin's absolute reign is coming to an end, and that in the next few years, its first mover advantage will have been consumed.  The scammy coins in line to succeed illustrate the medium future of crypto, in the line of its evolution during the last years: away from "real world economy" and more and more centered on gambling and trading.  I think block chains have shown their limits, and at the same time, their use in certain applications.   What crypto turned out not to be, is "money on the internet", except for niche applications, such as dark markets. 

To me it still seem fundementally different from the traditional trading thing where the speculative value is still more or less indexed to the utility value, maybe the utility value is over valuated, even largely, but the main value still come from the utility value, like google or facebook.

Here anyone would be hard pressed to come with solid figure on the utility value of bitcoin, the adoption rate in developping country, how capable it is to improve on existing solution for certain market, and even more importantly, how the profits are made, and where they get at. If you look at the buisness model from different angle, taking all in account, there is not many way in which it looks really sound.

And today i do'nt think you could say it's even that the utility value is over valuated, or that the speculative value is still really pegged to the utility value at all.

And i think there are subtle difference with classical scheme even if they can look similar in some aspect like the greater fool game or classic ponzi, or speculative bubble based on over valued utility economy, it become of model of investment of its own, and as long as people keep buying it at the price, there is no reason for it to go down, and as long as you don't consisder it as investment in technology development, or based on utility value, or potential future utility value, but as a sort of poker game to keep the token price high that can be easily manipulated by brutal market force, without any kind of friction or anything that can prevent market value to be disconnected from actual speculative value, no problem of transport, or physicality of the asset, no third party or escrow for the value to change hand, still very low tracability , it has everything to be a very good profile for brutal sepculation, and not speculation based on technology developpment or future utility value.

Maybe the volatlity is not that high, but i'd say it's still much higher than with most other trading market, in the global stock market even fluctuation of 1% are a big thing