Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[NashGuy]

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?

I am clearly on my way out. I was invited by what I understand to be the creator of this thread. But there are no sincere players, just those that won't substantiate claims and make me substantiate insignificant petty points, that we all basically know as true anyways.

As if i have put out this much content on the subject of Ideal Money, just to lie about one account.
[doublepost=1469043053][/doublepost]@cypherdoc

and, i had read them both long ago.

Will anyone believe you have read them when you are claiming that the content is not completely different from each other?

 

[Bagatell]

@Bloomie someone gave him his own subreddit. It has three subscribers.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pokertravis

 

[NashGuy]

Here is the abstract from the first writing:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1061553?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Abstract
Money can be recognized as a technological development comparable to the wheel and of similar antiquity. Among the more recent developments in the technology that facilitates transfers of utility (in the sense of game theory) are systems like those of EZ Pass, by means of which vehicles traversing toll bridges or toll highways can pay their toll fees without stopping for the attention of human personnel manning the toll booths. In this lecture, I present remarks about the history of monetary systems and about issues of comparative quality or merit, along with a specific proposal about how a system or systems of "ideal money" might be established and employed. In addition, I criticize the Keynesian psychology in relation to the history of the influence of Keynesians on the practical characteristics of national currencies.

Find this in this version: http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf

Why would I lie about something that can be so easily verified and what are you accusing me of?

 

[cypherdoc]

@NashGuy

sigh. in your 2nd link, bottom of page 3, Nash references your 1st Jstor link:

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.)

 

[NashGuy]

Are you admitting the papers are different or not?

 

[cliff]

Wow! That abstract dovetails nicely w/ my own theory. BTW, @NashGuy - I posted about toll roads a few days back - https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-716#post-25115

Thoughts?

 

[cypherdoc]

@NashGuy

your first Jstor link is the paper. your second link called Lecture by John Nash is just that, a lecture, not a paper. in that lecture, he references his paper housed at Jstor. bottom of page 3:

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 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.

 

[NashGuy]

His lectures are writings that he reads.
[doublepost=1469044079][/doublepost]And what is clear is you have not read all the material Nash has put forth on the subject.

 

[Tomothy]

It seems that as you lack a shared definition and understanding of what constitutes a "paper" both parties are unable to come to terms. Perhaps, first, you should try to set forth an acceptable set of defined terminology?

Currently, I'm more interested in after effects/ramifications of Ethereum's contentious hard fork and resultant majority and minority chains and impact on bitcoin's ability to do same and impact it might have on it as a SOV.

 

[cypherdoc]

lol

bottom line, there is no difference in what Nash has written in so far as sound money principles, and there certainly isn't any manipulation of his writings going on.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Everyone else: Sorry, I skipped one page of discussion.

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

.

So, now, this is something we can work with. I'll read it.

I have to admit, I maybe was wrong, and we should take yuor input serous, or, as you like to say, "sincere", and discuss it in a scientific way.

So ...

If I got you right, you say that bitcoin will loose it's capabilities as digital gold / ideal money if it is changed in any way, because of, nash and so on, right?

Do you have a quote from Nash explaining this? Do you have a definition of ideal money? It would be very helpful to discuss things "sincere" and "scientifically". Just saying "because Nash" and "ideal money" is thinn and has no argumental value.

In my view money is defined by several aspects, and it helps if some of this aspects are resistant to change. If for example the number of bitcoins would be changed, I'd seriously reconsider my investment. But this is just one property.

Another property of money is transactiional capacity. it needs to be able to be transfered.

Gold, in its purest form, was very bad money. It was deep in the rocks, interwoven with stone. It was maybe resistant to change, but it was so bad to transfer that it had literally zero value. The value emerged when golds constitution was CHANGED. First it was extruded from the mountain, than it was polished, melted to barren, and later, for better transportation and usage as a means of exchange, broken in peaces in minted in coins. To be good money, gold needed to be changed several times.

Bitcoin in its original constituion made by satoshi was weak, buggy and slow in terms of capacity. Even Satoshi admitted that there is a lot of work to do. This means: It's constitution has to be changed.

I in no way consider an increase of the transfer capacity as one of that changes that decrease bitcoin's value as digital gold. Increasing the number of tokens would be one of this changes, but increasing the throughput does nothing but increasing bitcoin's ability to be good money (I don't use the term "ideal money" as I did not read Nash's papers about it).

If you, pokertravis, claim that this act would decrease bitcoins value, you are in a "sincere" need to explain it. If you want to build your opinion on Nash, you need to explain why. Where is the quote from him that explains your position? Why did I see you talk so much of the same shit about ideal money and never see you quoting nash? You know, scientists use quotes to elaborate argumentations and interpretations. You claim we should discuss scientifically. So please, explain your contra-intuitive and contra-empirical hypothesis, that "ideal money" should never ever be changed, even if the change does nothing but increase some properties of money! And please, don't just say "Nash", "Ideal Money" and "Hayek", use quotes, tell me why Nash / Hayek would say it needs to resist positive changes.

Explain your hypothesis. Quote Nash. Be scientific. Do more than throw some words on a post. Explain why changes are bad. Why does Nash think ideal money should not - never - be changed? Why?

i know some part of the answer blockstream-core would give me - hint: they have no problem with a change when it doesn't eliminate old properties - but I think you don't get this, you neither understand Nash nor Hayek nor Blockstream, you just jump to the result, take some terms like "Ideal money", mix it with the results and some bibliographic trivialities like the versions of Nash's papers.

/u/ydtm did sometime comment on /u/pokertravis and he literally destroyed him. I don't find the link, but it was a perfect description of the mental stupidity and dumpnes /u/pokertravis steams up in the reddit-subs. Maybe some master of search engines finds this thread.

 

[NashGuy]

lol

bottom line, there is no difference in what Nash has written in so far as sound money principles, and there certainly isn't any manipulation of his writings going on.

You haven't read nearly all he has written. Yet you have this opinion on literature you are admittedly not familiar with.
[doublepost=1469044590][/doublepost]

It seems that as you lack a shared definition and understanding of what constitutes a "paper" both parties are unable to come to terms. Perhaps, first, you should try to set forth an acceptable set of defined terminology?

Yes it seems. And I think I know why we are now having this semantical miscommunication

 

[cypherdoc]

@NashGuy i certainly have read the 2 links you've provided and maybe more. i've also watched his videos.

please provide a comprehensive listing of all his articles on money that you claim i haven't read and i'll be happy to go thru them and tell you which i wasn't aware of.

 

[NashGuy]

And please, don't just say "Nash", "Ideal Money" and "Hayek", use quotes, tell me why Nash / Hayek would say it needs to resist positive changes.

I am well known for quoting and citing BOTH Nash and Hayek. I just want to give you a chance to clarify your accusations that I don't use quotations, before I cite/link 100's of references if me doing so. If you want to ignore the articles I write, and the posts I make (some that are in this thread), that is fine. If you need me to tailor it to you so you understand. That is fine. But your accusations/implications here can be EASILY shown to be untrue.
[doublepost=1469045130][/doublepost]

please provide a comprehensive listing of all his articles on money that you claim i haven't read and i'll be happy to go thru them and tell you which i wasn't aware of.

I wasn't allowed such circumstantial evidence. I had to long into an account on a forum and "PROVE" who I am. I had to jump through yours and others hoops, even though it is obvious who I am and that I am sincere.

How many different papers of his are you claiming to read?

Where did you find them?

What was said in them?

Where did Nash speak?

Now everyone knows why I haven't myself released the writings.

This person is a fraud. You are making baseless claims you don't intend to back up.
[doublepost=1469045339][/doublepost]

/u/ydtm did sometime comment on /u/pokertravis and he literally destroyed him.

ydtm did not engage in dialogue with me. They attack me and my character for 3 days straight nearly 24h a day. They made comments on material that they were completely unfamiliar with, and they disrupted the only chance for dialogue I have ever had with vitalik on ideal money.

I'm capable of writing and researching essays will 30 tabling playing online poker, and they were producing attacking and offensive material at a rate I myself am not sure I am capable of.

But they never address my content in a sincere manner to have dialogue on what we disagreed on.

Then not long after that, and until recently, my posts no longer showed up on /r/btc.
[doublepost=1469045480][/doublepost]@cliff I have relevant stuff in regard to the roads stuff, but its not in my mind atm, pm me or something perhaps.

relevant:

https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/05/05/ez-pass-roads-decisions-game-theory-and-money/

 

[freetrader]

Like cypherdoc I've only seen 2 versions of the Ideal money lecture. I think they are the ones you linked. I'm genuinely curious as to where you "had to dig" to find another 8+.

I wasn't allowed such circumstantial evidence. I had to long into an account on a forum and "PROVE" who I am. I had to jump through yours and others hoops, even though it is obvious who I am and that I am sincere.

You're allowed all kinds of evidence, as this thread now demonstrates.
You didn't have to log in to that forum, I merely said that this would be what it takes for you to prove to ME personally that you control that account. And I only asked because that forum post was by an unknown entity posting about the topic MORE than 2 years ago, while you had earlier on claimed that you were the only one that has talked about this. So yes, that piece of the puzzle was important to verifying your earlier claims.

Now everyone knows why I haven't myself released the writings.

No, not everyone. I don't. Why haven't you? Humor me.

Is anyone here sufficiently interested in the difference between a Distinguished Guest Lecture from 2002 titled simply 'Ideal Money' and the 8-page version edited (*) by G. J. Babu titled 'Ideal Money and Asymptotically Ideal Money'?

(*) or perhaps simply converted to LaTEX and PDF formats - I don't know who did the content editing

 

[NashGuy]

@freetrader you have claimed to have only seen 2. You imply cypherdoc says this too, but they have actually now said if I reveal how many their are, they will tell me which ones they have read.

It's disingenuous.

Nonetheless if I show 3, for example, we know that is more than @freetrader claims to read. all over these subs and in r/btc players have been claiming they are familiar with the works. But I can PROVE they are not.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@NashGuy

Ok, I take my accusation back, just give me a quote from Nash about ideal money and why it should resist every change. Stop the blablabla, get serious, get scientific.

About /u/ydtm and vitalik and so on: As long as you don't proof the opposite my position is still that you never ever contributed serious content to r/btc that was worth any discussion. In fact you wasted everyone's time ... what is your contriution? Why don't you address the question I asked? Why do you hicki-hack about Nash-fanboyism instead of talking serious shit about ideal money and bitcoin?

 

[cliff]

Several versions may be out there if you know where to look - happy hunting:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130424140346/http://web.math.princeton.edu/jfnj/texts_and_graphics/Main.Content/IDEAL_MONEY.../

Edit - What is this: http://web.math.princeton.edu/jfnj/texts_and_graphics/Mezzanine.Directory/Self.Aids.2008.temp/JVN.in.CR.1928.tot.pdf

Can anybody read Russian?
http://web.math.princeton.edu/jfnj/texts_and_graphics/Mezzanine.Directory/Self.Aids.2008.temp/Russia.2008/Letter of support for Professor Nash.JPG

 

[NashGuy]

Look what Nash left us ;p
[doublepost=1469046345][/doublepost]

From Nash's "Parallel Control":

This memorandum concerns some ideas for new designs of the control system in high-speed digital computers. The ideas are yet in an immature and rather unspecific form, but this is a subject that deserves some attention and thought for the future. Indeed the idea is more or less futuristic and is more appropriate for the “electronic brains” of the future than for the computers now used, or under construction, or even planned. The basic idea is simple. Instead of having a single control unit sequencing the operations of the machine in series (except for certain subsidiary operations as certain input and output functions) as is now done, the idea is to decentralize control with several different control units capable of directing various simultaneous operations and interrelating them when appropriate.

A memo from Nash’s university website:

I am speaking about a research project that is not fully complete since I have not yet written up and submitted for publication any paper or papers describing the work. Also the details of what axioms to use and how to select the basic set theory underlying the hierarchical extension to be constructed are not fully crystallized. I have also a great fear of possible error in studying topics in this area. It is not rare, historically, for systems to be proposed that are either inconsistent or that have unexpected weaknesses. So I feel that I must be cautious and proceed without rushing to a goal. And this psychology of fear has also inhibited me from consulting other persons expert in logic before I could feel that I had gotten my own ideas into good shape.

 

[cypherdoc]

I'm still waiting to see the 10 different versions of the Ideal Money paper.