Quote
Metcalfe's Law states that a value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of its nodes. In an area where good soils, mines, and forests are randomly distributed, the number of nodes valuable to an industrial economy is proportional to the area encompassed. The number of such nodes that can be economically accessed is an inverse square of the cost per mile of transportation. Combine this with Metcalfe's Law and we reach a dramatic but solid mathematical conclusion: the potential value of a land transportation network is the inverse fourth power of the cost of that transportation. A reduction in transportation costs in a trade network by a factor of two increases the potential value of that network by a factor of sixteen. While a power of exactly 4.0 will usually be too high, due to redundancies, this does show how the cost of transportation can have a radical nonlinear impact on the value of the trade networks it enables. This formalizes Adam Smith's observations: the division of labor (and thus value of an economy) increases with the extent of the market, and the extent of the market is heavily influenced by transportation costs (as he extensively discussed in his Wealth of Nations).
Certainly this formalization and the entire works of Nick Szabo leading up to it must be a great consideration! http://szabo.best.vwh.net/
What's interesting is that it seems Adam Smith DOESN'T need revision (nor does it seem Nash or Szabo ever felt he did!) but just implementation and a conclusion extension"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbNMTbcuitA
How does such a movie contain a poorly explained thesis of the subject and what is the significance (http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/media/examples/example2.html):
Quote
This scene is must viewing even though the scene itself contains flawed economics (explaining why the scene is NOT a Nash equilibrium helps students learn the concept in greater depth).
Especially when the man himself was present:
But we mustn't forget Dr. Nash as it was seemingly his observations that allowed for the extrapolation that become bitcoin (Ideal Money: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_money):
Quote
It was the observation of a new “line" that has become popular with those responsible for “central banking" functions relating to national currencies that gave us the idea for the study of “asymptotically Ideal" money.
The idea seems paradoxical, but by speaking of “inflation targeting" these responsible officials are effectively CONFESSING that, notwithstanding how they formerly were speaking about the difficulties and problems of their functions, that it is indeed after all possible to control inflation by controlling the supply of money (as if by limiting the amount of individual “prints" that could be made of a work of art being produced as “prints")
The idea seems paradoxical, but by speaking of “inflation targeting" these responsible officials are effectively CONFESSING that, notwithstanding how they formerly were speaking about the difficulties and problems of their functions, that it is indeed after all possible to control inflation by controlling the supply of money (as if by limiting the amount of individual “prints" that could be made of a work of art being produced as “prints")
This observation lead to the concept of "Asymptotically Ideal Money":
Quote
So here is the possibility of “asymptotically ideal money". Starting with the idea of value stabilization in relation to a domestic price index associated with the territory of one state, beyond that there is the natural and logical concept of internationally based value comparisons. The currencies now being compared, like the dollar, the yen, the pound, the swiss franc, the swedish kronor, etc. can be viewed with critical eyes by their user and by those who may have the option of whether or not or how to use one of them. This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened rate of inflationary depreciation in value.
And it was ultimately Nash that called the coming of this "money printing" revolution:
Quote
There perhaps will always be “politics", like also “death and taxes". But it is sometimes remarkable how political contexts can evolve. And in relation to that I think that it is possible that “Keynesians" are like a political faction that will become less influential as a result of political evolution.
And this parallel makes it seem not implausible that a process of political evolution might lead to the expectation on the part of citizens in the “great democracies" that they should be better situated to be able to understand whatever will be the monetary policies which, indeed, are typically of great importance to citizens who may have alternative options for where to place their “deposits".
And this parallel makes it seem not implausible that a process of political evolution might lead to the expectation on the part of citizens in the “great democracies" that they should be better situated to be able to understand whatever will be the monetary policies which, indeed, are typically of great importance to citizens who may have alternative options for where to place their “deposits".
What is the relationship of Szabo to Dr. Nash, or is there one? http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2lf6k1/a_box_without_hinges_key_or_lid_yet_golden/
Satoshi Nakamoto award. 
