Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[NashGuy]

@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.

Why do you hicki-hack about Nash-fanboyism instead of talking serious shit about ideal money and bitcoin?

What you are taking back here you actually re-assert in your last line. And so now I will refute you and show sincere players your accusations are untrue. Then you can tell us if you are simply ignorant to the truth of the nature of my posting and writing history or if you are malicious.

@NashGuy

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?

Here is basically my first writing on the subject, there are many quotations you suggest I don't offer ever: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2014/09/01/an-interesting-biography-an-interesting-blog-and-an-interesting-lecture-on-ideal-money/

Or do you need these quotes in this thread?

Here are the most relevant quotes as a summary: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/bitcoin-ideal-money-and-the-end-of-the-keynesian-centrally-banking-era-john-nash-predicted-this-6738b79f20ab#.340k34z6g

Here is the most proper summary I know to give with references/quotes to Hayek (and perhaps Smith and Szabo): https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/a-general-summary-for-john-nashs-proposal-ideal-money/

More relevant quotes in the form of a story board of memes: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-new-era-of-nashian-economcis-meme-storyboard-for-john-nashs-proposal-for-ideal-money-dd529039f221#.o4gsv9jtl

https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/ 100's of more example on my blog, and my other outlets, as well as many many posts on my reddit account, quoting references and making points.

The examples I have to counter your accusations pretty much don't end, as I have been working tirelessly at this for over two years now.
[doublepost=1469046998][/doublepost]

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

Yes you have told the community you read all nash's works while you gave your opinion on it. And now you are telling us that its not just 1 paper you thought existed (even though you asserted this), but rather once you KNOW how many exist, THEN you will tell us if you have read them.

What are you accusing me of?

 

[cliff]

@cypherdoc - There appear to be serval drafts, including powerpoints that are more like papers than slideshows, here:

http://web.math.princeton.edu/jfnj/texts_and_graphics/

Haven't counted differing versions - but this is a cool trove of material.

 

[NashGuy]

I like this one too!

"Aug. 30, 1999 Initiation of this directory, "Goldbach_Programs". This is just for some recreational mathematics stuff that may be of occasional interest. I recently read the novel "Uncle Petros and the Goldbach Conjecture". In the story Petros, but at a time many years in the past, wonders about whether or not, in particular, the number 2^100 satisfies GB (so that it is a sum of 2 primes). Nowadays it is possible to compute answers to questions of this sort for numbers of that size fairly easily. As I read the novel and thought about that specific question I remembered that quite a few years ago, just while doing recreational work/play with numbers, I had developed a moderately efficient program to search for the next prime larger than a given odd number. And I realized that this program, which I had on file as a MATHEMATICA program, could be applied to the problem challenge of checking out 2^100 in relation to the Goldbach Conjecture."

Also there are picture of different monies on his site, where nash did various lectures in the different countries in the world he made sure his msg was heard.

Ideal money is a very old idea of his that came to him at the same time we having him as being delusional for saying he was going to liberate the peoples from the governments.

Nash understands money better than any person. Name a person we know of that is more knowledgeable than him. Keeping in mind Satoshi isn't a real person.

 

[freetrader]

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

Your first link had some salvageable materials, but I get a heck of a lot of 'Bummer' results where The Wayback Machine doesn't have the actual files. I was able to salvage some from Lindau 2008, Campus for Finance 2010 and Hong Kong and Scranton 2011, but no more.

EDIT: ah, the Princeton link still has these. Good stuff.

On the ones I've looked at, they differ substantially in presentation from the two lecture PDFs I've seen so far. But I've just glanced at the first few pages, can't say much about the rest of the content.

The second link is someone's notes (Nash's?) - an extract from an older book on probability theory + game theory.

Don't read Russian, so can't tell what the letter is about.

 

[cliff]

Interesting 2008 article: http://web.math.princeton.edu/jfnj/texts_and_graphics/Main.Content/AGENCIES_and_COOPERATIVE_GAMES/Nash2008.AK.pdf

 

[NashGuy]

@cliff its more than cool. over all of the versions, nash traverses what the problem is with our global economy, the difficultly of solving it, and how it could be solved. Then he goes over the entire nature of gold, and what makes gold valueable in regard to our economy.

Then he explains how an e-currency will a stably issued supply will asymptotically take the hands from the central banks to print money....

In another version i quote him explaining that he had to hide from the powers that be and make sure his works was difficult to understand:

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/ideal-money-and-esoteric-hidden-meaning-writing-139861c31c83#.wjegmg94r

The script or plan for my talk linking the “ideal money” with the choices and actions of “thrift” or savings” by persons or by “economic agents” was influenced by concerns that it would be wise not to speak too incautionsly of “the Keynesians” when the times are such that massive public opinions maybe supporting actions by which a state administration can act without going through the parliamentary processes to write new legislation.So in the rush of political campaigns and elections (for example in the USA) it is difficult to sell a national monetary policy which, if followed consistently on a “long run” level, would result in the specific nation state existing as if on a higher level of economic civilization.(For example, Sweden and Argentina might be usable, over a long time comparison, to represent comparable “economic civilizations”.)Therefore, I had arranged for 2012 to talk more cautiously in relation to whatever would impact with “the Keynesians” and with the political interest relating also to the scholarly factions allied with (or forming) “the Keynesians”.And this caution carries over naturally to 2013 also.~public note from John Forbes Nash’s university homepage

The label “Keynesian” is convenient, but to be safe we should have a defined meaning for this as a party that can be criticized and contrasted with other parties.So let us define “Keynesian” to be descriptive of a “school of thought” that originated at the time of the devaluations of the pound and the dollar in the early 30’s of the 20th century. Then, more specifically, a “Keynesian” would favor the existence of a “manipulative” state establishment of central bank and treasury which would continuously seek to achieve “economics welfare” objectives with comparatively little regard for the long term reputation of the national currency…~Ideal Money

 

[cypherdoc]

That may be but do they each say something different (impart a different meaning) or are they just a restatement or reformatting of the same thing? there's a distinction in that one would imply manipulation or disinformation, which I wouldn't think is the case here.

@cypherdoc - There appear to be serval drafts, including powerpoints that are more like papers than slideshows, here:

http://web.math.princeton.edu/jfnj/texts_and_graphics/

Haven't counted differing versions - but this is a cool trove material.

 

[NashGuy]

do they each say something different (impart a different meaning) or are they just a restatement or reformatting of the same thing?

You are amazing me at this.

The words in the essays are different. Much like the two links I provided. Some words in the essays are the same. Some paragraphs even.

 

[cliff]

That may be but do they each say something different (impart a different meaning) or are they just a restatement or reformatting of the same thing? there's a distinction in that one would imply manipulation or disinformation, which I wouldn't think is the case here.

Yeah, I don't know - he clearly tinkered with his idea over time and expanded it here and there. Hard to describe from some quick skims, but any substantive changes are probably hard to discover unless you are really looking for them or have the benefit of seeing everything all together in one spot. I don't think Nash was known for being super organized.

 

[cypherdoc]

Hey @Jihan
you announce you may HF, BTC price jumps. Ethereum HF's, BTC dumps, ETh jumps. hmm...

 

[NashGuy]

@freetrader Where is your apology for your accusations? I backed up everything I said and jumped through your hopes and its clear I have sincere intent to help the world and to allievate ignorance on bitcoin AND Ideal Money.

Why don't you hold @cypherdoc to the same stringent test as me and make them verify BEFORE hand, what they have or haven't read?

Why don't you point out they are being disingenuous? Are you a sincere player or not? Or is only MY view and claims under scrutiny?

 

[freetrader]

 

[NashGuy]

Yeah, I don't know - he clearly tinkered with his idea over time and expanded it here and there. Hard to describe from some quick skims, but definitely probably hard to discover unless you were really looking for it and had the benefit of seeing everything all together.

Its very clear he not only evolved the idea, but also tailored it to different parts of the world, different players in the meta-financial game. And used different historical references that cross different scientific subjects so that different peoples could get something from it (also so that he could express himself, he clearly knows an incredible amount about history).

He compartmentalizes his points, such as saying Newton pegged the pound to gold and that was good, and then calling relevance to a Hanover king without explaining it.

This link also explains and expands on some points, with links and references. The best I can do and there are some other contributions: http://fermatslibrary.com/s/ideal-money-and-asymptotically-ideal-money

 

[Zarathustra]

Nash understands money better than any person. Name a person we know of that is more knowledgeable than him. Keeping in mind Satoshi isn't a real person.

http://www.miprox.de/Wirtschaft_allgemein/Martin-Symp.pdf

 

[NashGuy]

@zarathurstra doesn't even come close to nash


In Ideal Money John Nash makes an observation on axioms that seems relevant here:

I think there is a good analogy to mathematical theories like, for example, “class field theory”. In mathematics a set of axioms can be taken as a foundation and then an area for theoretical study is brought into being. For example, if one set of axioms is specified and accepted we have the theory of rings while if another set of axioms is the foundation we have the theory of Moufang loops.

So, from a critical point of view, the theory of macro-economics of the Keynesians is like the theory of plane geometry without the axiom of Euclid that was classically called the “parallel postulate”. (It is an interesting fact in the history of science that there was a time, before the nineteenth century, when mathematicians were speculating that this axiom or postulate was not necessary, that it should be derivable from the others.)

So I feel that the macroeconomics of the Keynesians is comparable to a scientific study of a mathematical area which is carried out with an insufficient set of axioms. And the result is analogous to the situation in plane geometry, the plane does not need to be really flat and the area within a circle can expand hyperbolically as a function of the radius rather than merely with the square of the radius. (This picture suggests the pattern of inflation that can result in a country, over extended time periods, when there is continually a certain amount of gradual inflation.)

This explanation/observation leads Nash to proclaim:

The missing axiom is simply an accepted axiom that the money being put into circulation by the central authorities should be so handled as to maintain, over long terms of time, a stable value.

https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/how-john-nash-solved-the-impossible-trinity/

 

[freetrader]

@freetrader Where is your apology for your accusations?

What accusations? please elaborate. That I didn't believe that there are 10+ versions of Ideal Money talks until someone presented some evidence?
That I didn't believe that you were 'forboon' until you provided the evidence?

Like I said, you have the right to hold everyone here to the same standard of providing evidence.

Why don't you hold @cypherdoc to the same stringent test as me and make them verify BEFORE hand, what they have or haven't read?

I don't give cypherdoc a free pass on that either. Cypherdoc was forthright about which versions he had seen and which he hadn't. So was I. You, however, have not reported on where you saw the multiple versions you spoke of. You only said you 'had to dig DEEP'. Well, the link that @cliff posted can be accessed by anyone with a web browser. And somehow you didn't point us to it... although you are an expert on Nash. You should know where to find his source materials.

jumped through your hopes

Anyone can claim to be anyone. Case in point Satoshi and CSW. Sorry if you expected to be held to a lower standard.

Why don't you point out they are being disingenuous? Are you a sincere player or not? Or is only MY view and claims under scrutiny?

I do, when they are. I don't play games here, so I take offense at being called a 'player'.
No, it's not only your view that is under my scrutiny. It's everyone I interact with.

Sincere apologies for offending your sensibilities, but I'm not going to change that for you either

 

[cypherdoc]

I'll grant you that itappears there may be different versions of his Ideal Money paper of which I've read at least a couple. I haven't verified this.

But this is different from wholely different papers on money that it appears he hasn't published and which I think is important. Like I said, if I'm wrong, please post them.

@freetrader Where is your apology for your accusations? I backed up everything I said and jumped through your hopes and its clear I have sincere intent to help the world and to allievate ignorance on bitcoin AND Ideal Money.

Why don't you hold @cypherdoc to the same stringent test as me and make them verify BEFORE hand, what they have or haven't read?

Why don't you point out they are being disingenuous? Are you a sincere player or not? Or is only MY view and claims under scrutiny?

 

[NashGuy]

Anyone can claim to be anyone. Case in point Satoshi and CSW.

Its not true. Craig believed and pretend he could prove he was Satoshi, but he could not, and certainly not by that method. Craig proved he doesn't understand what a crypto-veritifcation process process.

I can always prove I am me. there is no one else in the world that can debate the legitimacy of Ideal Money in regard to bitcoin but me.

Sincere players will always know its me and I will always be able to verify this.

And you and @cypherdoc have shown to the sincere readers here that you are either also ignorant to what a crypto-verification process is and also what rational grounds for claims consist of.

You don't know why I haven't given away the essays publically myself?

Lemme tell the sincere players here...

Its because there have been trolls and insincere disingenuous people (like ytdm) that run around refuting nash's works, claiming they have read it, while also not realizing that I can show that their claim is baseless.

If you don't know his works exists in many forms, if you can't even come close to showing that you knew this, then its clear you are LYING.
[doublepost=1469049712][/doublepost]@cypherdoc

Like I said, if I'm wrong, please post them.

You are wrong and everyone knows you tried to lie and are still trying to find a way out. admit, you are not familiar with Nash's works. And stop asking me to post them because I won't. You can dig them up yourself as you admit you didn't know they existed.
[doublepost=1469049827][/doublepost]No sincere player will believe you, and those are the people that matter

 

[cypherdoc]

Now everyone can see why we're not getting anywhere with small blockist logic.

 

[Zarathustra]

@zarathurstra doesn't even come close to nash

Ridiculous. Money without interest is science fiction. Fantasy Land.