Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 11. (Read 34841 times)
I think you might be implying he cited my blog but I don't think that is the case.
...
Ya exactly. I don't think Nash was Satoshi. But you will find quotes of me saying he is. Perhaps you should update your blog then if that was you
...
Ya exactly. I don't think Nash was Satoshi. But you will find quotes of me saying he is. Yeah - I get that subtext. The fly in that ointment is that the value of Bitcoin (for any rational definition of 'value', which OP steadfastly refuses to define) is increasing spectacularly. By this criteria alone, it cannot be the Nash Other Alternative.
IOW, in no way does it resemble a duck.
As an aside, this is the very property that has led to the economy singling out Bitcoin.
You are just again clearly showing you have no understanding of market theory or global/macro-economics.
Quote from: ideal money
To be quite respectable, in a Gresham-advised sense, money needs only to be AS GOOD as other material commod-ities that might be hoarded.
Bitcoin absolutely fits this perfectly.Here is the wiki on bitcoin's money supply:
Quote
This decreasing-supply algorithm was chosen because it approximates the rate at which commodities like gold are mined.
And there is no proper definition of value in this regard which is the EXACT nature of the problem and the proposal to solve it by means of a metric for value. A metric allows you to define somethings value, and without it you cannot.
This is simple simple stuff.
Same OP thinks that Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto, which doesn't make sense.
from https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6975262
He proposed that international exchange rates be fixed by pegging the value of each currency to a standardized basket of commodities, called the industrial consumption price index.
No he didn't, you are reading someone interpretation of ideal money that is not correct, and in fact a red herring. Thomas edison did what you are saying and i showed the link that shows it. You didn't read anything i posted did you? I have read all the links many many times, all nash's works, and as many versions of ideal money as I can. There are about 14 of them, each with different wording talking about different past histories of many and different current economic climates around the world.lets stop judging with ignorance from a far, and take a moment to use our eyes and our brains http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf
READ IT, don't pre judge.
Loled, I have no clue what the OP post is about..
Another "I found Satoshi" post.
let's not be ignorant just because we were raised that way, read the paper http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf Its 'another satoshi' post. It is the VERY reason we couldn't find satoshi, and the very man who satoshi is, and who created and implemented this technological hyper-advancement of our civilization.You want to skip all the links and proof and then go straight to ridicule, good for you...man suffers from his (not her) own ignorance...live in it.
from https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6967369
read it again and pretend dai, szabo, and nakamoto are all nash...
And ill give you a little hint about nash's writing that is very provable, he constantly goes on tangents and uses parenthesis in speech like context rather than as grammar.
Just messin with peoples heads, as we messed with his...
And ill give you a little hint about nash's writing that is very provable, he constantly goes on tangents and uses parenthesis in speech like context rather than as grammar.
Just messin with peoples heads, as we messed with his...
Quoting Nash doesn't make you smarter than anybody here and your insults only show a lack of education and your social intelligence.
Look, you came here once trying to convince the Bitcoin community, that Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto, didn't you? Now you come back and think you are making the Bitcoin community "aware" of the sensational discovery, that Bitcoin is not Nash's Ideal Money, because Bitcoin is changing in value - but you are consequently missing to present any impact to the Bitcoin community.
Who else do you think believes you, that someone like you that has not traversed any of the material, and doesn't have a basic understanding of economics, and most likely has never read or studied ANY related material, that you are not an idiot?
Look how you are spending your lift, your time. It's not the same as me just because we are in the same thread and in conflict. I am explaining a very well articulated and cited argument that is very relevant to the way bitcoin is going to affect our global economy.
You on the other hand continue to prove to any reasonable and sincere reader, that you proud to be willfully ignorant, and so much that you are showing it off for everyone to see.
Same OP thinks that Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto, which doesn't make sense.
I think David Rabahy's comments illustrate a problem with OP's postulated scenario.
Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.
1) I am not wrong, and its Nash's postulate. 2) You have contradicted yourself by admitting the truth of this. 3) The reason bitcoin has value as a gold is because our money systems are instable DUCY this is relevant?Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.
Nash spoke of Ideal Money, and Nash spoke of some other nearly stable money that would through market forces gradually force other moneys to approach its qualities. The idea that Bitcoin be this other alternative is not Nash's.
Your assertion that he might as well have been talking about any crypto that has all the same "gold like" properties (Litecoin, and many others) is well taken, however the economy has singled out Bitcoin as the one to notice relative to all the other alt coins.
Same OP thinks that Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto, which doesn't make sense.
Another thing that doesn't make sense is that OP is desperatly trying to convince core devs to keep the "gold like" blocksize, because it is important for humanity.
You still think that Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto?
Quoting Nash doesn't make you smarter than anybody here and your insults only show a lack of education and your social intelligence.
Look, you came here once trying to convince the Bitcoin community, that Nash was Satoshi Nakamoto, didn't you? Now you come back and think you are making the Bitcoin community "aware" of the sensational discovery, that Bitcoin is not Nash's Ideal Money, because Bitcoin is changing in value - but you are consequently missing to present any impact to the Bitcoin community.
Nash's Ideal Money will not exist in a world with more than one government and therefore it is not important for the Bitcoin community within the next few hundred years at least.
@BurtW
I know what the definition of "Ideal Money" is. This is why I am writing it with capital letters.
I think the idea here presented is that Nash never mentioned Bitcoin by name but he did describe it by all its attributes so closely that traincarswreck asserts that he was talking about Bitcoin. Like if it smells like Bitcoin, tastes like Bitcoin, feels like Bitcoin, sounds like Bitcoin, looks like Bitcoin, well it ....
Your assertion that he might as well have been talking about any crypto that has all the same "gold like" properties (Litecoin, and many others) is well taken, however the economy has singled out Bitcoin as the one to notice relative to all the other alt coins.
Your assertion that he might as well have been talking about any crypto that has all the same "gold like" properties (Litecoin, and many others) is well taken, however the economy has singled out Bitcoin as the one to notice relative to all the other alt coins.
Yeah - I get that subtext. The fly in that ointment is that the value of Bitcoin (for any rational definition of 'value', which OP steadfastly refuses to define) is increasing spectacularly. By this criteria alone, it cannot be the Nash Other Alternative.
IOW, in no way does it resemble a duck.
As an aside, this is the very property that has led to the economy singling out Bitcoin.
I think David Rabahy's comments illustrate a problem with OP's postulated scenario.
Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.
1) I am not wrong, and its Nash's postulate. 2) You have contradicted yourself by admitting the truth of this. 3) The reason bitcoin has value as a gold is because our money systems are instable DUCY this is relevant?Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.
Nash spoke of Ideal Money, and Nash spoke of some other nearly stable money that would through market forces gradually force other moneys to approach its qualities. The idea that Bitcoin be this other alternative is not Nash's.
Your assertion that he might as well have been talking about any crypto that has all the same "gold like" properties (Litecoin, and many others) is well taken, however the economy has singled out Bitcoin as the one to notice relative to all the other alt coins.
Can you post them here for sanity?
It needs more traction before I put them all up.
I think David Rabahy's comments illustrate a problem with OP's postulated scenario.
Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.
1) I am not wrong, and its Nash's postulate. 2) You have contradicted yourself by admitting the truth of this. 3) The reason bitcoin has value as a gold is because our money systems are instable DUCY this is relevant?Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.
Nash spoke of Ideal Money, and Nash spoke of some other nearly stable money that would through market forces gradually force other moneys to approach its qualities. The idea that Bitcoin be this other alternative is not Nash's.
No its about liquidity and utility, have you even read the paper? This is more than just simply "thinking" about how your perfect money would work in theory. This is based on game theoretical fundamentals with mathematical relevance and one which a certain high IQ society member spent the majority of his working life trying to figure out. Note that in all his talks he declined to ever comment on bitcoin almost purposefully, and nash was known to try to hide patterns within patterns for people to try to deduce true meanings of his words, but read the paper and it becomes crystal clear on what he is getting at.. well to me anyway.
Can you post them here for sanity?
Relevant:
Quote from: ideal money
But the famous classical “Gresham’s Law” also reveals the intrinsic difficulty. Thus “good money” will not naturally supplant and replace “bad money” by a simple Darwinian superiority of competitive species. Rather than that, it must be that the good things are established by the voluntary choice of human agencies.
No its about liquidity and utility, have you even read the paper? This is more than just simply "thinking" about how your perfect money would work in theory. This is based on game theoretical fundamentals with mathematical relevance and one which a certain high IQ society member spent the majority of his working life trying to figure out. Note that in all his talks he declined to ever comment on bitcoin almost purposefully, and nash was known to try to hide patterns within patterns for people to try to deduce true meanings of his words, but read the paper and it becomes crystal clear on what he is getting at.. well to me anyway.
I think David Rabahy's comments illustrate a problem with OP's postulated scenario.
Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.
No its about liquidity and utility, have you even read the paper? This is more than just simply "thinking" about how your perfect money would work in theory. This is based on game theoretical fundamentals with mathematical relevance and one which a certain high IQ society member spent the majority of his working life trying to figure out. Note that in all his talks he declined to ever comment on bitcoin almost purposefully, and nash was known to try to hide patterns within patterns for people to try to deduce true meanings of his words, but read the paper and it becomes crystal clear on what he is getting at.. well to me anyway. Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.
I think David Rabahy's comments illustrate a problem with OP's postulated scenario.
Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.
1) I am not wrong, and its Nash's postulate. 2) You have contradicted yourself by admitting the truth of this. 3) The reason bitcoin has value as a gold is because our money systems are instable DUCY this is relevant?Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.
The sub title of ideal money is "the motivations of savings and thrift" and the motivations of savings, or want for an inflation hedge, is inflating fiat. Bitcoin is valuable when fiat sux.
Quote from: ideal money
So it occurs to me to think that that which is not achieved by a grand action of establishment by “fiat” may alternatively tend to come into existence as a consequence of a process of evolution. And of course, after a certain degree of progress by “evolution” the rest of the progress could possibly be realized by a convention or a process of “fiat”.
I think David Rabahy's comments illustrate a problem with OP's postulated scenario.
Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.
Individuals don't want to hold something that is fixed in value. They would rather hold something that appreciates in value. And markets are merely collections of individuals. As such, market forces will not conspire to make all monies asymptotically approach stable value, as long a there is an alternative available that appreciates in value. If indeed market forces will drive all monies to approach some prototype. The market forces in such a scenario would conspire to make all monies approach that other value-increasing alternative.
ZERO deflation is not possible.
Jump to: