Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 37. (Read 34840 times)

Actually my personal opinion of the man is he was overrated.
(No offense but his original idea was nothing more than collusion, sorry it was not original.)
My interest here was seeing what your personal views were on how the world's people interacted with BTC
(to help me determine the accuracy of your understanding.)

I do agree with your statement that BTC can never be ideal money (due to it's fixed rollout schedule).


 

No.  Don't think conspiracy or bad.  Think Nash is smart and good:

I see. I can help you out.

Go look up R3CEV or hyperledger or intra blockchain. This is your friend. They can just copy bitcoin and run it inside thier meta world, so idially as you wish. bingo

because the definition for deal we are using is 'stable in value of long periods of time'. Your definition sucks and doesn't do anything.  Our definition stops governments and banks from screwing over the people. Didn't you read the paper?

bitcoin is not for the peoples daily use, its a finger trap for the meta-players.

@traincarswreck ,

Just Curious,
In your understanding of Future Events,
Where the Meta-players use BTC Onchain Exclusively ,

In your opinion, do you see the world's people only allowed to use Offchain Representations of BTC Shenanigans controlled by the Meta-players?


 

…this standard, as a basis for the standardization of the value of the international money unit, would remove the political roles of the “grand pardoners,”…

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks[1]

How can ideal money be not for all ?

What is 'ideal' if it is rather ideal for ( central) banks ?  (ideal for a very special group)


Ideal money is money for the poor, here we have biggest gaps to fill.

He made you believe bitcoin is for the peoples.  Its not.  Its for the metaplayers, the big banks.  

He made you believe bitcoin is for the peoples.  Its not.  Its for the metaplayers, the big banks. 

I spent times of the order of five to eight months in hospitals in New Jersey, always on an involuntary basis and always attempting a legal argument for release. And it did happen that when I had been long enough hospitalized that I would finally renounce my delusional hypotheses and revert to thinking of myself as a human of more conventional circumstances and return to mathematical research. In these interludes of, as it were, enforced rationality, I did succeed in doing some respectable mathematical research. Thus there came about the research for "Le problème de Cauchy pour les équations différentielles d'un fluide général"; the idea that Prof. Hironaka called "the Nash blowing-up transformation"; and those of "Arc Structure of Singularities" and "Analyticity of Solutions of Implicit Function Problems with Analytic Data".

But after my return to the dream-like delusional hypotheses in the later 60s I became a person of delusionally influenced thinking but of relatively moderate behavior and thus tended to avoid hospitalization and the direct attention of psychiatrists.

By 1995, however, even though he was "thinking rationally again in the style that is characteristic of scientists," he said he felt more limited.[9][35]

At least you understand my argument.  You are just sad Satoshi lied.  You never would have participated if he told you the truth.  Bitcoin is a finger trap for nations and banks:



The more they struggle the tighter things will get. Thx for bumping my thread lots!

If it was for the banks, why didn't he patent the whole system or certain parts of it and
market or sell directly to the banks. Instead Satoshi attempted to release it in a manner
that would be the most fair and free. He outlined and released it within communities that
believed in the opposite of what you are now saying.

It may be true that in the future only banks would be using this system, but that will only
be due to technological limitations and expenses and not because that was Satoshi's original
intention.

He made you believe bitcoin is for the peoples.  Its not.  Its for the metaplayers, the big banks.  

...
These two clowns are just clowns and their agenda is exposed.  My proof they are wrong, and I am moral, and right.

I do not read any of that in his posts or writings.

What I read is that Bitcoin as a worldwide store of value is the key to getting the world banks to do our bidding, meaning asymptotically approach a more ideal money for us to use.

I do not read any of that in his posts or writings.

What I read is that Bitcoin as a worldwide store of value is the key to getting the world banks to do our bidding, meaning asymptotically approach a more ideal money for us to use.

    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 ‘the Keynesians’ are like a political faction that will become less influential as a result of a political evolution….(All over the world varieties of states make claims to have governments very properly or even ideally devoted to the interests of the citizens or nationals of those states and always an externally located critic can argue that the government is actually a sort of despotism.)

    The Keynesian implicitly always have the argument that some good managers can do things of beneficial value, operating with the treasury and the central bank, and that it is not needed or appropriate for the citizenry or the “customers” of the currency supplied by the state to actually understand what the managers are managing, what exactly they are doing and how it will affect the “pocket book” circumstances of these “customers.”

    I see this as analogous to how the “bolshevik communists” were claiming to provide something much better than the “bourgeois democracy” that they could not deny existed in some other counties. But in the end the “dictatorship of the proletariat” seemed to become rather exposed as simply the dictatorship of the regime. So there may be an analogy to this as regards those called “the Keynesians” in that while they have claimed to be operating for high and noble objectives of general welfare what is clearly true is that they have made it easier for governments to “print Money”.

    So I see the Keynesians as in a weak sense comparable to the “Bolsheviks” because of the support of both parties for a certain “lack of transparency” relating to the function of government as seen by the citizenry. And for both of them it can be said that they tend to think in terms of government agencies operating in a benevolent fashion that is, however, beyond the comprehension of the citizens of the state.

    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 “savings”.

What did Satoshi lie about?