Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

@NashGuy 2 separate essay of Nash's? or 2 different versions of the same essay?

What are you asking me here? The essay's linked are completely different.

lol. well then, if they are 2 different essays completely and are available on the net, then yes, i've probably read them both. i thought you said you had evidence/proof that there were 2 versions of his Southern Journal Ideal Money essay, ie, one that had been manipulated. your imprecision is causing all sorts of confusion in what is a very tight thread. it seems you aren't going to fit well around here.

 

[NashGuy]

@cliff

am, however, curious about motives and timing given unusual entry here

I was invited by @cyphedoc
[doublepost=1469040442][/doublepost]@cypherdoc You said you have read them all, now you say "probably", how many other versions have you read?

 

[cypherdoc]

hey @NashGuy

try this on for size: i was the first one to write about Nash possibly being Satoshi 4 yrs ago. and i refuse to give you any proof. you go prove me wrong.

 

[NashGuy]

There is no evidence of anyone talking about the subject that long ago in relation to Ideal Money/bitcoin. Do you realize that all sincere players here realize what you are doing? You know have a history in this thread that is public and shows you acting disingenuously.

 

[cypherdoc]

prove it

 

[cliff]

http://davidhales.name/talks/eccs2011/denash-abstract.pdf

Title:'Quality'Peer.to.Peer'Money –'NESS'to'the'Rescue?
Authors:'David'Hales,'Jeffrey'Johnson Org:'The'Open'University,'Milton'Keynes,'UK Correspondence:'dave@davidhales.com

Abstract: As'current'events'remind'us,'the'search'for'quality'money'(stable,'universal,' fungible,'secure,'convenient'and'fair)'is'an'on.going'game.'Previous'thinkers'have' proposed'“ideal'money”'[1],'tied'to'a'basket'of'commodities,'or'world'monetary' union'[2],'as'solutions'to'problems'associated'with'currency'wars'and'the'Triffin' paradox'[3].'But'these'kinds'of'solutions'require'benevolent'and'strong'central' authorities'that'can'impose'measures'on'state'actors.'This'appears'neither'feasible' nor'democratically'desirable.'At'the'same'time'lack'of'trust'in'state'level'monetary' discipline'can'undermine'popular'faith'in'available'systems'of'money.

One'alternative'involves'the'denationalisation'of'money'[4].''As'originally'envisaged' this'does'not'require'state.level'centralisation'but'rather'relies'on'the'market'to' self.regulate.'However,'unregulated'market'forces'often'lead'to'monopoly'and'the' abuse'of'that'power.'Worse,'such'monopolies'would'not'be'under'direct'democratic' control.

More'recently'a'new'approach'has'emerged.'Fully'decentralised,'transparent'and' open'source'systems'based'on'peer.to.peer'(P2P)'technology'are'being' experimentally'deployed'(e.g.'Bitcoin'[5,'5b]).'Such'systems'have'no'central' authorities'at'all'and'hence'no'profit'motive'beyond'the'users'of'the'currencies.' Their'open'source'nature'means'that'anyone'can'inspect'the'entire'workings'of'the' system'and'hence'trust'is'derived'from'the'correctness'of'the'process'and'the' community'of'users'as'a'whole.'Faith'is'not'required.'​

Note the time paramaters I set - all posts between years 2010 and 2012 - enjoy:

https://www.google.com/search?q="Ideal+Money"+"Nash"+"bitcoin"&biw=1239&bih=682&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:2010,cd_max:2012&tbm=

 

[NashGuy]

prove it

This thread IS the proof
[doublepost=1469041095][/doublepost]http://davidhales.name/talks/eccs2011/denash-abstract.pdf

Note the time paramaters I set - all posts between years 2010 and 2012 - enjoy:

https://www.google.com/search?q="Id...ce=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:2010,cd_max:2012&tbm=

You win the internet! THANK YOU! An AMAZING find!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am not this person, the authors, and if its legit, then I confess this was written before I was familiar with the linkage, and ill be emailing these authors.

clifff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[cypherdoc]

that's no proof at all.

but i see the real reason you are here. it's to try and discredit the thread. sorry, no such luck.

 

[freetrader]

@freetrader What am I accused of here? what you are asking me to do, doesn't prove anything, just like CW's claim he could move Satoshi's coins, or had satoshi's private key, doesn't prove he is Satoshi.

This will be my last message to you here on this particular subject, so listen well.
I'm not accusing you of anything except claiming that there are ~10 versions of Ideal Money.
Would be great to get some evidence of that from you, otherwise we'll just stick to discussing the 2 that you've linked and leave your statement as-is.
If 'forboon' was you, as you have claimed, you either control the account or you don't. If you do, it's a simple matter of proving to everyone that this particular claim is true with high probability - certainly significant enough for most here to believe you. Why should this matter? Not much, except that your arguments on Ideal Money often devolve into appeals to authority and burden-of-proof reversals. That's not going to get us further.

I could see us getting along in this dialogue if you are willing to provide evidence of claims that you make, in such a way that those here can verify. You should also demand the same from us here.

 

[cliff]

to be clear - i'm taking no sides in the first to compare ideal money w/ btc - ain't got time for that. just wanted to see what i could dig up.

 

[NashGuy]

@cypherdoc you invited me hear and its disingenuous

This will be my last message to you here on this particular subject, so listen well.
I'm not accusing you of anything except claiming that there are ~10 versions of Ideal Money.
Would be great to get some evidence of that from you, otherwise we'll just stick to discussing the 2 that you've linked and leave your statement as-is.
If 'forboon' was you, as you have claimed, you either control the account or you don't. If you do, it's a simple matter of proving to everyone that this particular claim is true with high probability - certainly significant enough for most here to believe you. Why should this matter? Not much, except that your arguments on Ideal Money often devolve into appeals to authority and burden-of-proof reversals. That's not going to get us further.

I could see us getting along in this dialogue if you are willing to provide evidence of claims that you make, in such a way that those here can verify. You should also demand the same from us here.

NO ONE believes my claims don't have substance behind them.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560056.msg15651620#msg15651620

 

[freetrader]

See, that wasn't that difficult. I believe you are 'forboon'. Congrats!

Now let's get on with substantial matters. What are the "different things" that the other versions of Ideal Money say? Or are those things that don't matter to your views, and are not consequential to an understanding of the topic?

 

[NashGuy]

I'm expecting an apology for the implications/accusations. I engage in sincere dialogue, not witch hunts. That was silly. EVERYONE KNOWS who I am, and everyone KNOWS i am sincere.

 

[Jonathan Vaage]

My god... Who cares? None of this matters. So what if NashGuy wasn't the first to make a connection? So what if Cypherdoc hasn't read each and every single paper written on "Ideal Money"? These status claims are only good for appeals to authority, which should have no standing in a rational discussion forum. For all it matters, I'm the Queen of France and have read every book written. Anyone care to engage in a pointless refutation of my status claims? Or could it be sufficient to simply point out the irrelevancy of such claims?

 

[Tomothy]

In anycase, Cypher, I really enjoyed your comment about the future of bitcoin mining being controlled by government backed entities. I think this will ultimately be a reality in part for bitcoin, but also for the expected fedcoin/chinacoin/jpycoin, etc. I think the cold war MAD is an apt analogy. I think government entities should start getting their feet wet with this sooner rather than later and take guidance from those nation states already doing so. To that end... I swear, Eth is TPTB's answer to bitcoin...

 

[cliff]

NashGuy - Cool - thanks for the verifying post. I don't think there's a witch hunt so much as you came in here energized as ffffffff - its just unusual. For me, when I see stuff like that I start asking questions designed to give you a cliff-credit score (my own internal judgment based on form, substance, tone, etc). I suspect others do the same, some probably do it naturally. It may take a while for folks just encountering you to understand what makes you tick.

EDIT - @Jonathan Vaage - You're now excused from the homework I assigned here:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-725#post-25346

 

[Bloomie]

No witch hunting. They're just not used to having a lot of small blockers over here (yet). Maybe @NashGuy can start his own thread, Block size DOWN, Bitcoin UP?

 

[freetrader]

I'm expecting an apology for the implications/accusations. I engage in sincere dialogue, not witch hunts. That was silly. EVERYONE KNOWS who I am, and everyone KNOWS i am sincere.

Don't build up a stack of unverified claims 10ft high, because at some stage we get nervous about the whole argument collapsing and demand some solid evidence for the lower floors.

 

[NashGuy]

My god... Who cares? None of this matters. So what if NashGuy wasn't the first to make a connection? So what if Cypherdoc hasn't read each and every single paper written on "Ideal Money"? These status claims are only good for appeals to authority, which should have no standing in a rational discussion forum. For all it matters, I'm the Queen of France and have read every book written. Anyone care to engage in a pointless refutation of my status claims? Or could it be sufficient to simply point out the irrelevancy of such claims?

I don't think it matter either, not when we can can discuss and cite the material. But I think its fine to point out that Cypherdoc isn't actually familiar with Nash's works, which has been shown. I don't feel confirming my bitcointalk account was necessary or relevant. But like I said, if I am called out, I am going to put these baseless and factless accusations to rest.

cypherdoc invited me. But I will absolutely call for citations and quotes when we reference someone's works as saying something or not saying something. There is too much disinformation.

 

[cypherdoc]

My reddit account pokertravis has been around for two years and was created to facilitate discussion about the relation between bitcoin and nash's works. Thats the best I can remember and cite at the moment. If you can beat it with evidence of someone discussing it before hand then I will search further.

1 version: http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf

a different version:https://www.jstor.org/stable/1061553?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

This proves you have not read, and are not even aware of the multiple versions that exist.

ok, i found your post on these 2 essays you linked to which you claim are different versions of the same essay. that's not true.

i quote from your first link. in it, Nash references your second link, which was his original Ideal Money talk and published in the Southern Economic Journal. and here is the quote where he says this:

A paper has already been published on the topic of “Ideal Money” and with that title. That paper of ours was published in the Southern Economic Journal after a lecture had been given on that topic at the meeting of the Southern Economic Association in Tampa, Florida. So it is better now not to cover again in full the grounds of the ideas presented there and the specifics about how “ideal money” currencies could be arranged for by using linkage to an appropriate index of the prices of internationally traded commodities. (Note that gold and silver are EXAMPLES of internationally traded commodities.)

so where you are getting this idea that those 2 links you provide above are "different versions" of the same essay, i have no idea.

and, i had read them both long ago.