Topic: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? - page 3. (Read 33243 times)

Ideal money is premised on bitcoin and he came up with it in the 50's/60's when he fled to europe and the navy tracked him down and took him back in chains.

Or more simply it was written by Nash who wasn't an experienced coder.

This argument that an expert group (of the global elite or whatever) coded Bitcoin doesn't make any sense. Unless they tried their best to make it look like the code was created by amateurs. Did they try to pin this on Nash's back on purpose? But then why does Nash refuse to talk about Bitcoin when asked about and instead basically answers in a cryptic way by saying gold and silver wouldn't work.

Nash was expert in theory, and had to do the coding by himself in order to keep it secret.

Simplest explanations are the best according to Occam's Razor.

At least the programming mistakes in the Bitcoin design and code can be easily explained: whoever Satoshi was he used services of a software consultant experienced in padding billable hours.

Nearly all problems with Bitcoin codebase are typical of the projects using consultants billing by time. It has all the classical symptoms of intentionally bad programming: e.g. mixing up the abstraction layers of local storage with other, use of particular internal representation of large integers used by particular compilation flags of OpenSSL that is neither little-endian or big-endian, etc.

The current maintainers of Bitcoin Core continue in that fashion: storage engine is still not abstracted, moreover they imported their own fork of LevelDB into Bitcoin Core. And now "mempool" is made persistent by a technique straight from 1960-ies: checkpointing.

So if you are trying to make an argument "Satoshi wasn't Nash because code is too stupid" it is a weak argument because the contra-argument would be "code was actually written by or advised by an extremely street smart and deceptive software consultant". Nowadays entire large consultancy corporations exist through providing such deceptive advice.

bohm nash and einstein hid time travel.

we need to talk about bohm now.  allow us.

Coding is language translation and modulating problems into parts until you can divide the work.  Both Nash and Szabo are masters of this.  Szabo is a phenom.  Smart but not esoteric.

Szabo can code.  Nash is too smart to do the code.  

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@jokerpravis/ideal-money-insight-in-a-flash

This was a talk about his embedding theorem (i believe)

I think szabo finney and chaum alerted nash to the fact that they almost had a solution.  Nash knew it could be done when he was like 25.

There is more.  But I had 13 posts deleted so I need free reign.  I need to be allowed to be esoteric.

You can't just devalue the significance of Nash's frantic ideal money rampage which was also a lifelong ambition. And the timing of his research on Cooperation in Non-Cooperating Repeating Games which is precisely coincident with the one advance needed to go from the prior art of Wei Dai, Szabo, and Finney's RPOW to Satoshi's PoW system of consensus.

There is a confluence of many coincident factors.

It is also quite peculiar that Nash never commented extensively on Bitcoin. It seems ridiculous that he avoided elaborating on Bitcoin when asked, except by instead pointing out that gold and silver wouldn't work. So in effect, he was saying we don't have any other good option.

That to me is a HUGE factor.

Finney was visible, so Finney can't be Satoshi. Ditto Szabo who is now a real person seen in YouTube videos. Also both denied being Satoshi.


My understanding is that Szabo is not much of a coder.

Also Szabo can't be Satoshi because he is in the public eye of the ecosystem.

Also Szabo doesn't understand game theory well enough, which is why he didn't get it correct with his bit gold proposal.

I have caught Szabo in several technological errors. (I am not claiming Szabo is stupid, just not genius enough to be Satoshi).

Szabo is not smart enough to be Satoshi.

However it is possible that some group created Bitcoin based on careful study of Nash's work, but why did Nash go quiet during the times he did? And why did Nash avoid talking about Bitcoin?

When Bitcoin came about, Nash as the researcher/progenitor of Ideal Money should have wanted to immediately write about it.

But of course he wanted to downplay Bitcoin because:

1. He didn't want to be associated as its possible creator.

2. To make the elite think he was playing along with their plans for Bitcoin.

3. To not alert powerful entities to kill Bitcoin in its infancy.


Not a disciplined enough coder to make Bitcoin. I've never seen Szabo write significant code or a large project.

Nash was very disciplined and stuck with projects over a long time frame to refine and complete them. Which is the trait a coder needs. Szabo is a writer and researcher.

---

No.  Wait.  Hold on.  Let's be clearer

I do believe Szabo is Satosh 51 to 49.

But Sato, is essentially John in Japanese.  As I understand.

I hope you didn't say the hypothesis that Nash is Satoshi is not falsifiable because of course it is.

yes. Ideal money is the socratic explanation of why bitcoin isn't ideal but is "decent". And ideal money needs the supply to fluctuate with the underlying economy. bitcoin doesn't fluctuate but its value proposition is "truthful" so its "decent" or "good" or "great".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUyCO3FXHS4

I can't believe you ignore first mover network effects. Bitcoin has the most liquidity, can be traded in the most places, etc.. That isn't just branding, it is actual use case inertia.

It is well known in marketing of the inertia that people are lazy to make changes unless there is a significant benefit.

Satoshi Nakamoto.

Sato = name for the masses in Japan
Koto = harmonious "thing" in Japanese

This is in fact nothing else but a very old critique of bitcoin I read a very long time ago and can't find a reference to any more, that said that bitcoin could never have a market cap that went over the cost of making an alt coin, because from the moment it would cost more to use bitcoin than to make an alt coin (that is, the cost of *launching* an alt coin, which is not very high but takes some hassle), nobody would pay more for it.  This is a critique that clearly proved wrong, because it failed to take into account the "bitcoin brand name" effect.  I tried to google for it, but I can't find it any more.  The claim was that bitcoin's total market cap could never be more than, say a few thousand $, because that's all it takes to make an alt coin and promote it sufficiently.

What you are indicating is then my "intuitive" form of very many small crypto currencies, all linked together, many of them rising, others dying.


Well, of course the claim that anything unexpected or "against the published ideas" was in fact part of a hidden master plan as it unfolds, is not falsifiable and hence can always be true.  This is like people thinking that everything is God's work, and in the end, if something totally weird and against everything God was supposed to like, happens, "his ways are unfathomable".  Can be.  I know you are going to say that all the clumsiness in bitcoin was on purpose, will have a game-theoretical, desired effect at a certain point and/or served to keep the suspicion away from Nash and so on, but as I said, at a certain point that becomes non-falsifiable.  Anything, and its opposite, is then "proof of the statement at hand".

My more down-to-earth idea is that Satoshi was a clever guy, but not a genius, who had some limited insight into monetary aspects, who had some, but limited, grasp on game theory (his talking about "honest nodes" and about "consensus" as something that the community would want - the dogma that is still propagated by most bitcoin maximalists, shows that he didn't understand the fundamentals of the emergent properties of non-colluding antagonists - or was lying through his teeth about it), had some notions of cryptography and fucked up other things (like the way too small nonce).  He did do a great invention, the cryptographic block chain.  He screwed up other aspects.  I have a hard time believing that that was "genius" that "implanted this" on purpose to deceive his evil masters in the weapon of mass destruction they ordered him to make, so that it blows in his own face.

But as I said, that's an unfalsifiable claim, and hence can be true too.  But I simply don't think that a smart guy like Nash would lend himself (at his age !) to such a game.  He was bloody 80 years old in 2008.  And too much of a mathematical genius to commit the simplistic errors that Satoshi made.  (yes, yes, to deceive...).  And he knew too much about economics and monetary theory to make a clunky collectible with a BANG halving in the emission rate (yes, yes, to deceive his evil masters that were too stupid and believed all that sound money theory stuff - as if you can deceive bankers on that one).

For instance, there's no point in doing 256 bit elliptic curve signatures, if the proof to deliver is compressed in 160 bits (the address).  You're wasting your effort doing so.   There's strictly no cryptographic advantage, security or what so ever to be gained from using a 256 bit signature.  It WASTES ROOM and effort without any purpose.  No mathematical genius would ever think that you make more secure crypto with 256 bit, if the signature needs only to stick to a 160 bit address.  Sheer waste.  Doesn't make sense.

There are a lot of other stupidities in bitcoin's original formulation that way.  That his code was far from brilliant is understandable as Nash wasn't a computer scientist.  But the amount of errors made in the size of bitlengths is pretty amazing.  Also, the possibility of providing a 64-bit word in a transaction that tells you how many outputs a transaction will have !  Sheer lunacy.  A transaction will never have 10^20 outputs !   There are myriads of little stupidities that way all over the place that show you that Satoshi wasn't a math genius (or, yes, was doing everything to hide it).

So, again, I cannot disprove you hypothesis because it is not falsifiable.  Hence it can be true.  But I simply don't think it is likely.

Again some little pointers to help the lazy who don't quite grasp the evidence in totality.

---

Note that Nash didn't really switch entirely back to ideal money promotion until summer 2008 when he went bezerk promoting it like crazy right before he launched Bitcoin. I can see he was very excited about the Bitcoin he was preparing to unleash onto the world.

You guys still don't understand the cat and mouse game Nash was playing with the elite who knew what he was doing. I already explained it.

So Nash had to promote ideal money so the elite would think that Bitcoin was good for the elite. He was fooling the elite!

Analogously, I had also documented that the scientists had lied to DARPA in order to get the Internet started.

---

Get an education.

The thought process is beyond your level of intellect.

You have not correctly summarized the evidence.

You still haven't understood anything I have explained to you upthread about the Inverse Commons.

Fungible money only improves the efficiency of utility transfer of tradeable resources which can be owned and ownership transferred between owners. Any higher-order finance built on top of that has only value because of the underlying efficiency advantages over barter of tradeable resources.

There is no barter in Inverse Commons which can be made more efficient with fungible money. The ownership of Inverse Commons is collectively owned by everyone who can read them and contribute to them, and the ownership can't be transferred. Ongoing knowledge production can't be transferred, because humans can't exchange their brains for other goods or services. The only reason that communities such as Facebook can be owned and sold, is because the centralized database of Facebook is not open source!

Thus fungible money only applies to the tradeable resources that Inverse Commons employ, such as the resource needs of the humans that participate, the hosting and network infrastructure costs. These resources needs are of inexorably diminishing value relative to the inexorably rising value of knowledge production within Inverse Commons.

You have not been paying attention. Read on...


You don't seem to understand what Nash meant by asymptotic ideal money.

Nash didn't mean an asymptotically limited money supply.

Bitcoin is Nash's very clever plan of providing a reserve currency for altcoin experimentation, which could have the potential to create asymptotically ideal money. I had stated back in 2014 that I expected Satoshi was so genius that he had outsmarted the elite who were tracking him.

The elite loved what Nash was saying about ideal money because the Rothschilds thought they would be the one to control the weightings of the IPCI which all the nations' currencies will float against. This is why there has been talk of backing the SDRs with a weighting of national currencies, precious metals, and commodities as Nash had written about.

But Nash was fooling them. He knew damn well the IPCI wouldn't be stable in the world empire context. So that is why he wanted an asymptotic number of stable currencies that would develop via an evolutionary process. He wrote those exact words, but the elite weren't exactly understanding that that entailed.

When Nash created Bitcoin, Rothschild rejoiced because of the math I showed that Bitcoin will eventually become concentrated in one entity. But Nash had fooled them, because he had figured that Bitcoin's open source release would set off an evolutionary process in altcoins (guaranteed by the very genius immutable game theory he designed that prevents Bitcoin from being "upgraded").

You guys are failing to read my posts carefully.

What the Romans did was very clever.

The Christian Revolution likely did happen, and likely was very successful. The Romans fought back hard, using very strong propaganda, that is the (circumstantial) evidence.

But to regain control, they simply exerted control over the story of Jesus. They used the power they still had to change Jesus from a simple philosophical revolutionary, who likely preached only to change the way people thought and their way of life, into an exaggeration of the truth (older copies of the New Testament like the Dead Sea Scrolls help to confirm this, there is no mention of Jesus being supernatural or religious in the Dead Sea Scrolls).

The Romans knew they could not defile Jesus' character, so instead they added to it. They falsely claimed that Jesus was the Son of God, born divinely to a Virgin (a stolen story from Moses, Mithra, Ganesh, etc etc). Christian followers, 50 or 100 years later, were not unhappy to hear this false claim, Jesus would have become a very important hero. But the trick was that the Church was established from this distortion of the story, and false stories like Paul on the Road to Damascus were established to link Jesus and the Church (which Jesus likely had nothing to do with) with the power of Rome. Aspects like the crucifixion story and the Easter resurrection were likely dramatic embellishments also (crucifixion seems like a retelling of the escaped slave in Plato's Allegory of the Cave being stoned to death because he told the truth, and the resurrection was actually originally set at Christmas, to deliberately coincide with and distort the Pagan tradition of observing the Sun (Son, geddit?) lying still on the horizon for 3 days from December 24th to December 26th, then beginning to rise on the horizon again)

The resonance and power of Jesus was hijacked, used for brainwashing into blind obedience, and not for the philosophy of freedom that the real Jesus likely represented and became originally known for. And how clever the Roman's distortions were, even 2000 years ago.