Topic: What if bitcoin was PLAN B by the Goverments? (Read 4295 times)

QE has fail terribly for the middle class but it succeded in the purpose of having increasing stocks and real estate nominal prices which benefits the lucky few.

...and furthermore, they don't care about anything as they are allready overpaid bunch of lazyasses.
But the problem is that they are tied with banks, their campaigns are funded by many financial giants, and thy sir are quite powerful.

I am getting extremely tired of this bullshit theory that keeps on repeatedly being brought up by people who are just being blatantly stupid, governments are not this all powerful force that can read our minds, they're humans just like anyone else.

and anonymous transactions and coin mixers are there to make the job more interesting ..
bitcoin could be (ab)used by those in power, but i certanly dont believe they created it.

In the letter he was explaining how the paradox can be used to prove Frege's system inconsistent -- a system that's a bit removed from set theory. However, the paradox applies quite generally and is often presented in terms of set theory, so I'll focus on sets.

Suppose we are working in a naive set theory where whenever we have a property P(x) we can form a set {x|P(x)} -- the set of all x satisfying P(x). Russell's Paradox gives a particular instance that leads to a problematic set: R := {x| x is not a member of x}. R is in R if and only if R is not in R, a contradiction. In short: this kind of naive set theory with all sets like {x|P(x)} is inconsistent.

There were many proposals how to put set theory on a sound footing. The one that gained the most followers is ZF set theory. In ZF you can make sets using certain ZF primitives. Thes primitives allow sets like like {x in X | P(x)} -- separating out the elements from a preexisting set X -- and sets like {f(x)|x in X} -- replacing the elements from a preexisting set X. You can't form a set like {x|P(x)} unless you can express it in terms of the ZF primitives.

Thanks for your interest. I enjoy thinking about these things.


Well, if something like Russell's Paradox is new to someone, then it's fair that they need time to understand it. I'll agree with you to that extent.

What I was trying to say is that if someone can't understand Russell's Paradox it betrays an inability to comprehend basic logic (like Modus Ponens). If someone cannot comprehend basic logic, when they study other subjects what they are probably doing is the kind of rote learning that allows them to repeat things. Basic logic is required to analyse a statement and start asking the right questions to justify or refute the statement.

I understand the paradox although I can't understand what flaw in the system of sets gave birth to it, or how to prevent it from happening. Could you explain?

I don't think lack of understanding of some mathematical paradox is proof that therefore you don't understand politics and economics. Someone could study one thing and not the other.

It's Russell's Paradox: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/
It caused a revolution in the foundations of mathematics in the early 1900s.

I can also relate it to the topics in this thread in this sense: Russell's Paradox is actually quite easy to understand.

Topics like economics or climate are nowhere near this simple. If someone claims to have certainty on issues like fiscal/monetary policy or climate change, then a good test is to see if they can understand something simple like Russell's Paradox. If they can't, then it's very likely they are simply parroting the expected lines of their social group.

Plan A is quantitative easing makes the economy all right and every body is happy especially the central bankers

so you're saying it was actually planned by 4chan

Plan B maybe? But what was plan A? We don't really know so this whole thread is moot.

By that, I believe Satoshi's next work is on something that in comparison, makes Bitcoin seem trivial.

Tell your friend he should leave the theories to scientists... or just... smarter people than him.

Ha. Is your friend the type of person that thinks 9/11 was an inside job and Ancient Aliens is a documentary? Someone can only trace illegal blackmarket transactions if the user is not very careful so it's not very good for that.

And all the math and cryptography are there just because.

A friend of mine had this theory that the gov created bitcoin to keep track of the illegal black market transactions.

The market cap goes from 5 billion to 50 trillion.

That would be something. What would happen if BTC were to be used by the government?

unlikely, central banks hate bitcoin as do most governments. US only tolerates bitcoin because it can regulate the crypto aggressively

Doesn't make sense for it to be a plan B. I could see this being some type of epic conspiracy story of sorts but the evidence isn't there. Stricter government regulation definitely do not help the price nor the development of Bitcoin, so I doubt it's something created by the people that want to destroy it.

Can you explain what the **** does it mean?