Topic: John Nash created bitcoin - page 5. (Read 22254 times)

Once again, that is not game theory, but is no-brainer theory.

Might as well add few more options...

Option D: his wife has 1% of dieing, but 99% chance of winning 10 00
Option E: his wife has 0.01% of dieing, but 99.99% chance of winning 100

Everyone will go all-in on option E.

It's a no-brainer.

ok so my underpowered brain gets maybe 0.05% of this.

but why would some addresses be blacklisted? by the government? what propose would it serve? to move btc holdings to altcoins?

if a whiz in math, whether he's good about the other two?

To make game theory with this, need to more present it this way :

Option A : his wife has 20% of dieing, but 70% chance of winning 1 million
Option B : his wife has 60% of dieing, but 80% chance of winning 10 million
Option C : his wife has 3% of dieing, but 95% chance of winning 10 000

And the nash equilibirum say the most likely option is C, because in the end, most people will choose the solution with the lowest risk, rather than high risk for high reward.

It's like this consensus is reached on the parameters that can increase risk for the two party, even if other choice can potentially lead to more reward with more risk. Miner are exposed constantly to this dilema

And the more the rule give at least some reward with low risk, the more it is likely to be followed by the two party, because it lower the overall risk, and it's where equilibrium is reached.


But in football, it's not the arbiter who is the highly paid, because their role is still deterministic, and if all the match would be decided between artbiters it would not attract high stake.

It's in these conditions when there are part that are known, and part that are only statistically known, that game theory can give idea of how certain probabilistic factors will impact the likelyness of a decision or another. And it will always adjust on the known, because on the overall player who take in account the more information wins, and as game theory is still about winners, it's all about how likely a person is supposed to decide to win, and it says that it's always with the lowest risk approach that you win on the long term, and so sticking to known even if the potential reward is not the highest.

I don't think you understand my discussion with dinofelis.

My main point is more to show that the whole pow scheme make more sense if you take it from the perspective of trading / speculation side, than as a decentralized currency / public ledger.

But in the same time, there are many point of bitcoin that are clumpsy.

Even if dinofelis i think make the same mistake many person do, and i was doing this mistake before too, is too estimate one functionality of bitcoin to make it fit to usual engineering criteria of efficiency for a particular purpose, but without seeing the real purpose of it, and why some aspect my look clumpsy because they are on the low end of the trade off in favor of something else.

And the thing it seem to does well is attracting high speculative value, and high stake of game theory on the pow side. As decentralized currency it has many flaw, especially currently, and is not either extremely efficient as a distributed public ledger.

Only looking at the code it's clear it's very messy.

Actually before i came to forum i already studied in depth code source from 3 core, bitcoin, bitmonero and blackcoin, from where i decided to rewrite my own client from scratch because the code is too messy.

Coming here i though there would be people who really understand the code and the theory and choice behind, but in reality i don't think anyone on this board as a real clue.

Only the fact that nobody can really understand it, or easily extend on it, not even talking about the protocol, but about all the various bugs and clumpsyness, either it's in the wallet, database indexing/managment, threading, and many bugs, or things that could be improved as long as all the mythical wish of the creator with a gran plan for the world is put aside

On the overall i don' think anyone will disagree that the code is poorly designed, regarding all the OO, all the way the thing is made, it's very monolithic, against all good practice you would find in programming school book, and very hard to extend or encapsulate, and the rpc interface can only do that much, and is not that easy to really use from the perspective of making more complex web app/Dapp.

But in the same time, once you integrate all the game theory and math model for speculation and all this, it's easier to see where the code make more sense, and which base variable are actually more carefully designed in their definition and access, and where the care is put on, and it's not especially on the efficiency as a distributed ledger to solve double spend, or having easily distributed application wallet/shops/explorer "out of the box".

That's mainly my point here.

But maybe if i keep focused on this goal, i'm sure i can put up a testnet with experimental blockchain like without pow and reward, based on XThin block / bloom filter kind of things, and blockchain reordering , like in the idea the DAG thing, but without DAG, but real time re computation of block header chain when new valid tx are received, and still consensus on the same one chain, without needing pow or reward to validate blocks, with the idea i explained in the discussion with dinofelis

And in this idea, the checkpoint is mostly optional, but just to sort out the few % of error margin and to solve quicker some consencus problem on the long term.

I'm pretty sure with the script engine stuff like this will be made easily


( and please don't cherry pick one sentence out of context and copy paste it in 3 threads to show how smart you are, it's not very nice )

No. You are fucking dead WRONG!

It's supposed to be...

jonald_fyookball = dorky

you speak all the same talking points...

dorky = dinofelis = trainscarwreak = iamnotback

common theme on all of you : bitcoin will fail or not scale

Contrary to what someone said that we will be paying exorbitant transaction fee, I have already invalidated such thesis.

No, in my most sincere opinion and intelligence, there will NOT be any high fee for us to pay. The fee we pay will commensurate with the price of bitcoin.
And if we will pay $600,000 fee, that will probably because each bitcoin will be worth $600,000,000, but we probably won't be seeing bitcoin price exceeding $1 million in our lifetime because bitcoin has a short lifespan.
Thus, don't worry about the fee.
The fee is insignificant.

I was just wondering: Lets say we hit 2030 and price is around that $500,000 prediction. Fees insanely high at $600,000. Only dollar billionaires (or trillionaires at that point) are using the bitcoin blockchain anymore.
In this scenario, who would be the bitcoin developers?

I imagine that whoever is still developing bitcoin publicly will be extremely hated by the rest of 99.999999% of population that cannot afford 6 figure fees and got left behind with was once was supposed to be "internet money for the people". These guys sure don't look like illuminati trilionaires:



Will any of the current developers still be around? I wouldn't be able to defend with a straight face a coin that is only used by some insanely rich weirdos. I guess they will continue developing it anonymously?
Well I imagine by 2030, or near 2030, at this rate maybe not version 1.0 but BTC will be near "completion", definitely no more exciting features to be added, but all software needs a certain maintenance.


Well in that case I will be able to cash out. Anyone with at least 2 BTC will be able to make that one-time-only transaction and cash out. I was just worried that I couldn't even make that one-time-only transaction to send the coins into an exchange and dump for dollars. Being a dollar millionaire sure beats not being able to do anything with your BTC because the fees are insanely high. There's just no point in having money in an unregulated blockchain when you can't do nothing with it.

Also, can't whales find cheaper ways to move their billions? I think if I was a billionaire, I would still be a bit pissed off at having to pay $600,000 for a transaction.
They will have 0 alternatives even in 2030?

It could actually be something like this.nash described the ideal currency concept as a standard function.I have come across this article on the internet before, perhaps as if you were searching for it on the internet.

@dinofelis, the guy who argued in an Altcoin Discussion thread (about Dash) that there is no such thing as a 'scam', because everything is a free market (even fraud).

And now he changes his philosophy and duplicitously decides that the criteria for "desired design properties" is not determined by the goals of the designer even if the design matches perfectly to a diabolical plan.

@dinofelis everything you've written is incorrect. And I think it is pointless to refute you again, because you refuse to acknowledge that which was already written.

You repeat the same incorrect technological errors over and over again. And thus you continue to willfully lie.

Lol, you don't even understand that PoS and Byzantine agreement fundamental distill down to a generative essence of stake based voting, no matter how you try to obfuscate that fact from your blind eyes.

I would never hire you for any job related to computer science. You are incompetent.

Incorrect!

Read the fucking thread before you post. I am not your damn secretary!

Really 500,000$ is almost next to impossible for the bitcoin to attain such a price, not even in decade. We are only 1200$ dollars now and 500,000 is like a dream which may never come true.  I think we should be realistic in predicting the prices.

Lol. Bitcoin and gold are roughly the same price. Gold is going to $5k max, Bitcoin to $500k.

Buying gold is an impoverishment plan.

Crypto-currency and blockchains will subsume everything.

Tinfoil hats and @dinofelis will be left behind.

Now we know why the Bible says we will throw our gold and silver into the street. Precious metals will become relatively worthless. Remember iron used to be a precious metal (it's documented in Rise of Knowledge, Decline of Finance essay). Commodities are on inexorable trend of lower value (because we can increase their supply at lower costs with new technologies for mining). And gold can't compete with Bitcoin's better attributes.

It has the difference in value, usage around the world and in many more views. It is realistic but that time we may not alive. No one has claimed that bitcoin is invented by one person. If real satoshi come out and claim the copy right of bitcoin. They it will be under controlled about any organization or Government. This is why he is also hided and not been revealed truly. Still I hope this price rise takes to that value soon.

Gold and Bitcoin does really have the difference and shouldn't really be compared regarding to their value and movement of their prices.Features would really be different from one another. $10k might be possible but 100k wouldn't be realistic already to consider on these very high price range and back to topic There are lots of people do always claim that they created bitcoin which no one really could able to surpass satoshi.

You could check the speculation thread and news about the bitcoin. Adoption rate increasing in sky rocket speed. Therefore, we will see the price value as 10000$ with in 5 years. I agree that Gold is traditional and long term asset, but it being use a ornament but bitcoin is a asset, money and payment mode. None of the thing was in history which have features like bitcoins.

I agree with $500,000 prediction being too high, even $100,000 is still to high. Gold is a 5000 year asset, no way Bitcoin will surpass it in 13 years from now, just not possible! Sorry, but it's nonsense.

The original point of my argument was that iamnotback's argument for a very high fee that will push non-whales out of the blockchain because the whales will be colluding to force the miners to charge high fee on the non-whales to make up the difference based on his version of game theory analysis is invalid.

It's simplistic but it works well to model situation with reward and risk estimation and how likely a person is going to choose to win.

But im not super fan of it either, but still the pow scheme of bitcoin is plain game theory. Reward vs risk estimation. Risk = mining difficulty.

And it's not so easy to exclude for me that there could be a mathematical model behind it, intentional or not.