Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 14. (Read 34841 times)

Yes it does make sense dummy.

It's not off topic, thats the point.  And bohm and nash shared the same insight.

Discussing such things at a time when dark matter is not understood but is responible for vast majority of all energy does not make sense at all. Look for math and try to get over Platons Cave issue.

There is a growing body of literature that disputes the inflationary (and big-bang) models, I'm happy to report.

I find it interesting that nash brings up the notion of longitudinal (compression) waves in electricity and gravity... something that tesla also reported.   Sadly, I can't really follow the math myself.

seems we are getting off topic.  though.  sorry.

I am going to respond to this posting, since OP has an inability to articulate themselves
and explain concepts clearly and plainly (whether on purpose or by limitations).
The OP's current comment to your posting, is now contradictory to OP's prior
statements.

I mostly agree with Quickseller's other statements otherwise.

(1) Op's theory: Bitcoin's Consensus mechanism for certain changes has stalled.
Neither side has enough hash or influence to either SegWit SF or to Blocksize HF.
A stalemate has occurred and may now never be undone. The point in time has
now arrived in which certain important changes would always be contentious.

If we accept that we never change again (for sake of argument here), then the
current state of bitcoin is actually more a digital gold, than a digital currency.
There is no doubt that Bitcoin started with digital gold like properties with the
intention of ultimately scaling (currency), but the issue now is, scaling (On-Chain)
may not ever occur now (by the direct rules of our Consensus Mechanism).  

The prophesied "Consensus deadlock" has now occurred and as a result, bitcoin
as a digital gold with a low TPS has "manifested" as a near perfect asset device
to help facilitate Nash's "Ideal Money". At this point in time, with this theory
and premise in mind, Bitcoin's only purpose is to exist in it current state, ever
increasing in value, UNTIL the financial world is forced to change and create
a new money that must compete with bitcoin's ever increasing power.

When the financial world does so, bitcoin was successfully used as a weapon to
compel them to reform and usher in a new way of thinking and dealing about
money for the masses and the systems. Bitcoin will not be the future money,
it is only the device that starts the war. It is not an end game. In this Nashian
theory, bitcoin would be considered the "Alternative Option" that Nash envisioned
would start the world correction, but not be the final answer.

Bitcoin's only relationship to "Ideal Money" is it causes a shift in the status quo that
forces reform as a byproduct. Bitcoin is a means to an end for the "Ideal Money".

(2) I'm not sure where you are reading OP said that. OP has stated that any TPS
increase will destroy bitcoin's gold like properties in theory, which would cause a
decrease in value over time. The more TPS ability, the more it becomes a currency
and less a digital gold. The flow of value needs to be stable (like now) so that bitcoin
is equally as predictable as now as in 60 years from now. A TPS increase of any
significant size would hurt the value of bitcoin and prevent it from being able to cause
the financial world's forced reform to "Ideal Money".


The above is my understandings of the OPs prior postings.
Sorry, I couldn't make it shorter, I wanted to flesh it out for clarity.

Again, you show strong tendency to restrict things down to what you are able to grasp and try to make things ideal (standard task of a scientist)

So you miss things out of this (your) box and might neglegt all the others on similar / paralell tracks.

We are not here to find the truth. The rails to it are not even clear. The key might be found in math only.

I think slightly differently than this.  they say nash would do infinite loops with his bike.  I think he was just pacing.  you need to be able to pace.  Also the work/text part of the brain is different than the speak listen.  it means if you talk to yourself, you can create two identities that can bounces ideas of yourself.  They say adam smith did it.

no one here believes you that I think i am Nash.  and just to be clear, I am not john nash.

The best is when someone says something is nonsense and conveniently attacks ad hominem, reveals to me that intelligence is not high enough to understand and downgrades oneself to insulting for maximum affect.

Generally those with high intelligence often seem to be babbling nonsense to those who are not capable of understanding.

one of us has read shinichi mochizuki's works on interuniversal geometry.

How many dimensions are needed to discribe the universe best? 4? 12?

Our math is nice. But never sufficient.

Who is a moron ? 1, 2, x?

OK I'm just weighing in on an interesting (and exhausting) thread with some thoughts. I will likely get flamed by OP, so I preemptively put him on ignore. Sorry buddy.

OP you are a smart guy with some good ideas and lots of knowledge, but you think you are John Nash. Your personal attacks on critics reveal your own insecurity and undermine your arguments. Finally, I suspect that you lack technical expertise to fully understand the bitcoin network and protocols. it's time for you to do some reading also. Nothing personal.

I read up on some of the Nash theories - he was certainly way ahead of his time. However, "ideal money" is an oxymoron IMHO. Nothing more to say there. Assumptions that the current global financial system is normal, stable, logical, or even functional are flawed. It's a giant FRAUD IMHO, and any alternative to it is refreshing. Bitcoin has its warts, and some nutcases at the wheel, but it's still far better than any other current or proposed monetary system. Value is inherently subjective as we've all agreed here, but I think Bitcoin has tremendous value just by virtue of being so unique.

Furthemore, I believe that economic and monetary theories are not entirely equipped to understand and predict bitcoin's use, utility, and trajectory. Technical limitations also factor in, and are not in the domain of economics, further complicating the issue. Let me pose a question to illustrate my point:

* When is the last time a global monetary system was created by an unknown person and run cooperatively by unknown people all over the world?


It's quite possible to damage the bitcoin network, both by limiting it excessively and trying to scale it beyond technical limits. However, I sincerely believe that the majority of actors want it to keep functioning, due to self interest first, but also due to a fanatical devotion to the concepts behind it.

So everyone here give yourselves a pat on the back!

Maybe bitcoin development is DONE. Would that be an example of a Nash Equilibrium?

One of us is a moron.

http://web.math.princeton.edu/jfnj/texts_and_graphics/Main.Content/An_Interesting_Equation_and_An_Interesting_Possibility/An_Interesting_Equation/Equation.general.vac/From.PennState/intereq.r.pdf

It's difficult to explain to a society that covets inflation that the inflationary model of the universe is wrong.

Put the pipe away, it's not doing you any favours

thats not what trainscarswreck said.

There's no chance Quickseller wrote it and actually understood what he/it was writing.

no chance you read that and thought they copy pasted.

This should read "intents and purposes". Are you copy-pasting from somewhere, or did you just repeat it without understanding it's meaning