Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Norway]

You will not get a sincere discussion if you are not sincere yourself. A good start would be not lying.

And to use your logic: Prove that you have not lied.

 

[freetrader]

Absolutely I verified my account on bitcointalk.org for this classless crowd. So I have shown you to be disingenuous as well.

Are there any sincere players here or are we finished? Anyone?

No-one's keeping anyone here, we all come and go as we please.

In your own interest, I am going to give you a blow by blow of your performance in your earlier reply to me:

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.

#9 - Non sequitur (all we know is he didn't go through with it publicly, not that he doesn't understand it)

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.

#11 - Appeal to authority

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

#1 - Ad hominem (implying insincerity)

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.

#6 - False dichotomy (btw an 'either' requires a following 'or', not an 'and')

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.

#1 - Ad hominem (trolls, insincere disingenuous people)

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.

#7 - Ad ignorantiam

@cliff: You are right, I also learned a lot. Thanks for digging up those original sources.

 

[NashGuy]

Is there anyone that wants to sincerely discuss the material presented in ideal money and its relation to bitcoin rather than attacking my image and grammar?

 

[cliff]

I've followed this particular conversation and I am inclined to think @NashGuy has the upper-hand on the specific issue of multiple John Nash "papers", but that is as far as I'll go (not touching the John Nash specialist bit). But I also think the conversation has taken a trollish turn (though anyone would be hard-pressed to beat our very own resident village troll!).

I think he's probably right about there being different versions - not sure how many though. In the end, I'm not sure what do with that info, though????

@NashGuy - What's the significance of being correct on the number of Ideal Money drafts or being an expert on Nash's writings? I'm not sure it discredits this thread or @cypherdoc. I don't think cypherdoc is lying either - that would require some intent most likely - but maybe he's not 100% accurate on a minor point (I presume you'll agree its minor). I'm probably wrong everyday on random minor points etc - no biggie. Also, I think we like dissenting opinions here, so I don't think any topical and substantive comments you made about ideal money are offensive or anything - just not sure why there was a battle today - hardly seems worth the effort.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure everyone here is sincere - even the resident troll, but I'm not 100% sure who that is (I have a guess).

Sure, lets talk Nash. How does a hard fork impact Bitcoin's status as ideal money? If there is a bug in the protocol discovered one day requiring a fork to 2MB - and if that saving fork is controversial - how does the concept of ideal money take shape vis-a-vis bitcoin? Should BTC die in that instance (by death I do not also mean forking - so don't start getting funny ) ?

 

[Norway]

Brian Armstrong back on the field. Good!

 

[freetrader]

Is there anyone that wants to sincerely discuss the material presented in ideal money and its relation to bitcoin rather than attacking my image and grammar?

It seems like an ideal topic for a separate thread.
I, for one, am bored, not seen anything new from you (although your appearance has spurred others to find more peripheral information).

Instead, you have avoided all the questions I found interesting (Bitcoin-related, that is).

 

[NashGuy]

I think he's probably right about there being different versions - not sure how many though. In the end, I'm not sure what do with that info, though????

@NashGuy - What's the significance of being correct on the number of Ideal Money drafts or being an expert on Nash's writings? I'm not sure it discredits this thread or @cypherdoc. I don't think cypherdoc is lying either - that would require some intent most likely - but maybe he's not 100% accurate on a minor point (I presume you'll agree its minor). I'm probably wrong everyday on random minor points etc - no biggie. Also, I think we like dissenting opinions here, so I don't think any topical and substantive comments you made about ideal money are offensive or anything - just not sure why there was a battle today - hardly seems worth the effort.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure everyone here is sincere - even the resident troll, but I'm not 100% sure who that is (I have a guess).

I'm not putting significance. I said 10 in jest. Would I be a liar if there were 9? @cypherdoc claimed to refuate Nash's works and said they were familiar with Ideal Money. I asked how many essay of his they have read. cyph alluded to/said one, and was shown wrong when I produced two. now @cypherdoc is telling me to post all the essays and they will admit if they have read each of them.

How is that not a double standard?

And I am being accused of being insincere because I will not heed the request. Any sincere player here can see cypherdoc lied.
[doublepost=1469052712][/doublepost]

I, for one, am bored, not seen anything new from you (although your appearance has spurred others to find more peripheral information).

This is a disingenuous lie to suggest that I have not brought new information to this thread. Anyone that doesn't admit this is clearly not a sincere player.

 

[Zarathustra]

Is there anyone that wants to sincerely discuss the material presented in ideal money and its relation to bitcoin rather than attacking my image and grammar?

Will be difficult with someone with a sincere problem.

 

[Norway]

Victim, lol.

 

[NashGuy]

Will be difficult with someone with a sincere problem.

More attacks. I guess not then huh.

 

[Jonathan Vaage]

@NashGuy

Do you have a response to Mises' value stabilization critique? It would be fascinating to know how familiar Nash was with the Austrian subjective value theory. Among many other things, it implies the impossibility of objective interpersonal comparisons of utility, therefore money can never serve the purpose of measuring non-existant "objective value".

I'm also interested in your thoughts on Daniel Krawisz' essay on reciprocal altruism in the theory of money. The paper starts out mentioning Nick Szabo's "Shelling Out" and then gets into some interesting game-theory.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

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.



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]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?

What? WTF do you think I am? A goldmule shitting minutes?

You come here to talk about Ideal Money, Nash and Bitcoin. I demanded simple Answers from you for simple question that you, if you would know what you are talkiing about, should be able to answer easily:
- what is ideal money defined by nash?
- in what quote does Nash say that ideal money should be resistent to changes?
- why does even the tiniest change decrease Bitcoin's value as digital gold, as you claim?

Instead of giving me a simple answer, you link me to four of your long articles which are full of hundreds of quotes of Nash. Non of your articles give a concrete and destilled answer to my question. If I use your articles as a source to answer the first question - the basis to start discussing - I had to spend hours to research. Maybe some of the hundreds of quotes have some answer to question 2, but if you are interested in a discussion, like you pretent, you simply would give me the quote you, as a self-proclaimed expert about nash and ideal money, consider most relevant. Question 3 finally is not addressed in any of your articles.

So please, either you stop wasting our time or you start to be a "sincere player" and create a base for a discussion.

 

[Inca]

I want to know who the resident troll is..(am I the only one wondering if it is me? ha )

EDIT: I can sincerely say I lol'd when i checked the thread and found nearly 10 new pages of ideal money chit chat from @NashGuy (64 posts in 1 day!? )

 

[Norway]

@Christoph Bergmann He is just giving @jonny1000 a break.

Tag Team Trolls.

 

[cliff]

@Inca - nope.

 

[freetrader]

This is a disingenuous lie to suggest that I have not brought new information to this thread. Anyone that doesn't admit this is clearly not a sincere player.

First of all, it's a statement of opinion. If by that you judge me to be insincere, fine.
The only new information I got from you today is that there are many more than just the 2 versions of 'Ideal Money' which I found myself. Good stuff. Do you want to know how many variations of lecture material people routinely produce, to tailor them to specific audiences? I bet you do.
That does not mean the differences are worth studying. So, until I have a look at the 'trove' left by Nash, I am unable to judge that by myself, since you fail to bring concrete examples of what significant utterances we lesser mortals have missed out by not reading more than the one or two versions of his work.

And while Ideal Money may be a great concept for which Nash deserves credit, I don't feel it has been discussed in sufficient depth. And I think that merits a thread of its own. We can then go through the material and elicit your pearls of wisdom.

 

[NashGuy]

Nash doesn't agree. Ideal Money has the definition of what you suggest can't come about. And he's explicate in how it WILL. This is clear in the 8 page version/lecture I linked to. You should link what you are talking to cause I usually will read it. I have a lot going on right now and I'm multitasking heavily right now.

Nash stops at the end of the same lecture to say someone intro'd him to Hayek and that his views on currencies and their function etc run in parallel, it is a special point he made.

I recently read one of D Krawisz essays I believe. A new one on the Nakamoto institute. Nash's Ideal Money refutes it imo, and the sentiments I think are silly and observable not true. But I am not sure I have read what you are referring to.

I could get more indepth, but at another time, and pm me the links if you want, I usually read and write about what is relevant to Ideal Money whether it agrees or not with his insights.

 

[pekatete]

Do you want to know how many variations of lecture material people routinely produce, to tailor them to specific audiences?

Even variations of a paper that evolved over several decades.

 

[NashGuy]

@freetrader it will be incredibly faster for you if you traverse my works first before Nash's. As I have broken down his works and linked all the allusions and reference he makes. Nash is always unapologetic in this regard, he doesn't explain his references in depth. And like I quoted earlier he did this for obfuscation to hide his ideas from his government and central authority.

Its not true I haven't provided information. I have provided many of his quotes and explained and reference them even in this discussion, and all the links of my works go in greater detail.

Ignore it if you want. Get get denying what is provably true. I don't care.

I know when sincere players read this dialogue they will figure it all out.
[doublepost=1469053729][/doublepost]"Even variations of a paper that evolved over several decades."

Nash's writings aren't just variations, he broke up his explanations, and mutated them so that they were both hard to read and also readeable by different types of people. He admits this explicitly and I have already referenced my source on this in this discussion. Like many other quotes and references i have ALREADY POSTED.

 

[freetrader]

The talk text, just for the “ideal money” topic, originally derives from my outline for the
lectures given at various specific locations of the “European School of Economics” in Italy
during October 1997. Subsequent to that time, after consulting with some of the economics faculty at Princeton, I learned of the work and publications of Friedrich von Hayek.

The above quote is from http://stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf , right at the end.

Hayek selected bibliography, from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek#Selected_bibliography

My first question to @NashGuy :

If Hayek's active work spanned decades, ended arguably in '88, and the man died in '92 (aged 92 no less), why didn't Nash learn of his work until '97, if he was so actively developing the concept of Ideal Money for decades prior, as you claim?
This has always struck me as a major incongruency in the timeline. Perhaps you know the historical background.