Topic: Zero Sum Game Theory (Read 799 times)

No it's not a game in the way that you use Nash equilibrium.  The way Nash does it is he makes a matrix of number of players and pay off scenario.  When there are huge number of players with huge number off payoffs it's really not possible to use Nash equilibrium.  You can do it if there's a few player and few payoff scenarios.  The classic 101 game theory example is prisoners dilemma

I think you should just research what game theory and how to calculate Nash equilibrium first.  It's probably not what you think

fiat:
you can game the system in favor of a group by printing more fiat or generally speaking forcing certain regulations upon people without their agreement

bitcoin:
to change the algo you have to archieve a consensus between the users.
also being finite is advantageous for a fair distribution in a free market (looking at the longterm)

Well, the game part is easy.  Economics is a game.  Business is a game.  Bitcoin is a game.  Just about anything can be a game.  But as game applies in the Nash Equilibrium, the game is how well or how poorly an equilibrium of value to cost is achieved. 

The game of any competitive market is to prosper and bictoin is a competitive market.  So the goal of anyone interested in bitcoin is to accumulate as many coins as possible.  Where the Nash Equilibrium comes into play is based on how fair the game is played.  Factors to consider:  transaction fees, transparency, anonymity, .. okay the list can go on. 

So, the point of my question is this: Given the similarities and differences of Bitcoin to Fiat or any currency, how could bitcoin differ or be leveraged in such a way that it is managed in a far more responsible way than paper, gold, or what have you. 

You talking about Nash Equilibrium?  I don't see how Bitcoin fits into that.

First of all it has to be 'game'.  What game is Bitcoin playing and who are the players?  Trying to dominate the currency space and overtake majors USD, EUR, JPY and GBP?  Well it's nil impossible to win because those fiats are creatures of the state. 

No problem.  So it turns out this was actually from about 20 years ago but I was using it about 5 years ago for work on my research papers.

Here's the link regarding the Nobel prize:  http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1994/press.html

I know there's further reference of the topic applied to restructuring executive pay but can't find it right now.

Greed will never go away, it's "human nature" as they say.

A benefit of Bitcoin is that it is a finite resource, which may enable it to have more stable value once all coins are mined...at least the value can't disappear or diminish over night because a government decides to "print more" like happens so often in countries. I don't think current alternative currencies could serve a purpose, unless technology proves the Bitcoin system to become obsolete.

This is a great topic to discuss, I look forward to hearing smarter opinions and thoughts than mine.

I'd also like to see links to specific articles.

I'm interested in these articles you're mentioning from a few years ago, do you have any links discussing them ?

A few years ago, 3 economists were awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for their work showing how zero sum game theory could be used to stabilize economies.  The gist of it is that things should cost what they are worth and people should get what they pay for.  The zero sum game theory was even used to restructure executive pay scales after the bailouts a few years back.  

Problems, BIG problems, are created when there are vast inequalities between what something is actually worth and how much money goes into it.  In the immediate history it is what causes our current cyclical recessions and in the long run could even result in another great depression.  

Of course, contributing factors are scarce goods and finite resources.  Money is a finite resource to a point in that it has limits on production but can also be unpredictable because more can always be printed off.  

How does Bitcoin fit into all this?  Is it too much of a scarce resource since it's limited to a certain production amount?  Would other crypto currencies simply step in when Bitcoin becomes too scarce or too divided up to be feasible?

But more to the point of zero sum, how can Bitcoin contribute to a world economy where goods and services are exchanged for the appropriate price that doesn't result in overages or shortages that ultimately cause more economic bubbles bursting?  Can the force of greed ever be overcome?