Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[NashGuy]

When asked if cypher doc has read and understood Nash's works, they answer yes....but then admit they have not...

yes, have you?

...i've read at least 2 versions of this Ideal Money paper

..which i believe is representative of his thoughts

...if there are a few other versions floating around out there.

...those don't matter i'm sure

And then add beliefs that the rest of the works...to which they have no idea the extent of, are not significant or relevant.

Nash's argument was anti central bank and government. It runs in complete contrast to Gavin's sentiments, and Gavin is the one that went to the CIA with bitcoin. Pretty sure we all know what is going on here.

All of the substance of my arguments has been linked to and quoted and posted. cited references. Ignored by cypher doc.

Cypher makes dodgy claims and allusions. I did my homework, I traversed ALL the material being discussed, here is my proof of work: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/

 

[cypherdoc]

so, i demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about with regards to Nash's description about "national CPI index" and how they are also based on commodities that are widely accepted and valued unlike a hobbled 1MB Bitcoin AND you resort to another ad hom, this time not just against me but against Gavin.

are you an air head or what?
[doublepost=1469065660][/doublepost]

Cypher makes dodgy claims and allusions. I did my homework, I traversed ALL the material being discussed, here is my proof of work: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/

lol, do we even really know this is you? and yes! another appeal to authority (if true) from a copy paste.

you lose b/c individual national currencies in this narrative are still based on a widely accepted commodity comprising the national CPI index and worldwide commodities in general:

PROOF CYPHERDOCS IS MISREPRESENTING NASH:
"It seems possible and not unlikely, however, that if two states evolve towards having currencies of more stable value as measured locally by national CPI indices that then also these distinct currencies would tend to evolve towards more stable comparative relations of value.

Then the limiting or “asymptotic” result of such an evolutionary trend would be in effect “ideal money” but this as a result achieved without the adoption of anything like an ICPI index as a basis for the standard of value. Nash, Ideal Money"

hey, i just schooled your ass with the above logic, remember? unless you dare try to come up with a counter argument, mealy mouth.

 

[Epilido]

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?

He never proved it cryptographicly!

 

[freetrader]

@Epilido : I know. I have no way of knowing that any particular key belongs to him anyway. All I wanted him to prove is that he controls the forum account which would substantiate his claim that it was him.

I suggested encrypted proof so that he wouldn't have to divulge the content of the post (i.e. linking his identity) to others on that forum. And by being decryptable by me it would satisfy MY own curiosity, which was why I asked for him to encrypt it to me. I said that already...

If I were to go down this rabbit hole in the way that @NashGuy likes to:

Something happened, perhaps he extorted and killed a man for his bitcoin forum account.

Paraphrasing (Ctrl-F "killed"): https://medium.com/@rextar4444/satoshis-fortune-self-inconsistency-and-the-tendency-of-power-to-corrupt-881013099590#.c832izv9p

Archive link: (because integrity of references is important) http://archive.is/k9cmP

But I didn't know any 'forboon', so I didn't care whether he created the account, bought it, hacked it, got it as a gift from the greatest moderator on earth, or whatever.
What I did out of boredom was google the highest-earning poker players, and their earnings are in the double digit millions: http://www.ranker.com/list/richest-poker-players-in-the-world/pokerpete
'forboon' lists at $94,266 earnings on http://www.pocketfives.com/profiles/forboon/ .
That has me thinking some claims are just overblown.

Some music to go with this vibe:

 

[cypherdoc]

don't expect mealy mouth @NashGuy aka /u/pokertravis to demonstrate any sort of proof or competence. let alone advance some sort of rational argument of his own. he doesn't have the balls.

 

[cliff]

@freetrader - I approve of your due diligence

@cypherdoc - You might be experiencing LeBron-problems today.

 

[NashGuy]

@cypherdoc many people following this thread just lost repsect for you, and those are the sincere players that read my posts and do their homework. And many people going forward in the future are going to want to read this thread, and read what @cliff put forth and they will see what you have done ;p

Enjoy.

 

[cypherdoc]

bwahahaha.

still no arguments? what the hell is wrong with you? do you have one thin shred of an ability to present a well reasoned argument? all of us get nothing from you except ad homs, appeals to authority, copy/pastes, lol! remember, i just schooled your ass here:

you lose b/c individual national currencies in this narrative are still based on a widely accepted commodity comprising the national CPI index specifically and worldwide commodities generally:

PROOF CYPHERDOCS IS MISREPRESENTING NASH:
"It seems possible and not unlikely, however, that if two states evolve towards having currencies of more stable value as measured locally by national CPI indices that then also these distinct currencies would tend to evolve towards more stable comparative relations of value.

Then the limiting or “asymptotic” result of such an evolutionary trend would be in effect “ideal money” but this as a result achieved without the adoption of anything like an ICPI index as a basis for the standard of value. Nash, Ideal Money"

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-732#post-25511

or maybe worse, you schooled yourself!
[doublepost=1469071907][/doublepost]

Nash talk alot about constructing a CPI like commodity index towards establishing a non political money acknowledging that it does have to be constructed by humans, which clearly is a problem.

but my point is that the reason Nash uses commodities for the construction of the index is b/c they are widely used, valued, and needed by everyone everywhere. which contributes to their liquidity and price stability. @NashGuy, how is it possible that Bitcoin hobbled at 1MB and serving select "settlement" entities and a niche population like you want could ever have those properties to allow it to be an index of value?

i'll give you another chance, dimwit. try answering the original question.
[doublepost=1469072259][/doublepost]mealy mouth?
[doublepost=1469072400,1469071766][/doublepost]i'm waiting for you to say something else stupid for everyone to laugh at.

 

[jbreher]

If total orphan risk cost / total miner revenue > 50%

You explain nothing. Define 'orphan risk cost'. Define 'total miner revenue' (well, I could surmise that this is the sum of all revenue over some period in question?).

Most importantly, IF orphan risk cost / total miner revenue > 1/2 THEN what exactly?

 

[NashGuy]

Are there any sincere players that have any more questions?

 

[cypherdoc]

we're all sincere players here except you.
[doublepost=1469072901][/doublepost]

@cypherdoc many people following this thread just lost repsect for you, and those are the sincere players that read my posts and do their homework. And many people going forward in the future are going to want to read this thread, and read what @cliff put forth and they will see what you have done ;p

Enjoy.

@cliff can correct me if i misinterpreted him, but i think he was referring to this :

LEBRON WINS!!!
​

 

[Bloomie]

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.

I was being serious. If you have a gospel to preach, start a thread and do it. No one will ban you here for having unpopular views. Bring friends if you like.

 

[cypherdoc]

yeah, my apologies @Bloomie. i don't know what got into me inviting @mealymouth. somehow i thought he might actually bring some intelligent discourse instead of a bunch of ad homs, appeals to authority, pedantics, copy pastes. it was a mistake. he should go to his own thread.

 

[cliff]

@NashGuy

Question and Recommedation

​

1.. Here you say:

Dear Reader (theWealthofChips):

The author and John Nash have been implicitly colluding for quite some time now, and we would like to extend our strategy to you. I realize that we are not used to helping each other and we usually react to change with avarice and fear. I do not believe I am being egotistical, nor am I particularly concerned with that, I enjoy the game and the wealth it brings us and I see an incredibly +ev opportunity with in our reach. The problem (to be solved) is that we have to work together cooperatively to achieve it.​

What did you mean w/ the phrase "implicitly colluding"?

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

You reference Nash solving a "trilemma" (two letter 'M's)

Reminds me - you might like some of the writings of the author of trilema.com (this author is a great writer, pretty smart, a little beyond edgy - for better or for worse).

 

[NashGuy]

I was being serious. If you have a gospel to preach, start a thread and do it. No one will ban you here for having unpopular views. Bring friends if you like.

ya right. I really wanna be a part of this community after this ;p
[doublepost=1469073391][/doublepost]Implicate collusion means we know what each other's intentions and strategy's are but we don't have to talk to each other in order to cooperate

The trilema blog I believe sometimes sends people to my blog via a link. I am obviously bad at using social media/blogs/websites though etc.

 

[Bloomie]

@cypherdoc I didn't mean that he should stop posting in this thread--the last thing we want is being an echo chamber. But if he feels like he is being ganged up on, his own thread might make him perceive the conversation as more balanced.

@NashGuy you're in cypherdoc's territory, and he does have a loyal following here. Keep your head up.

 

[cliff]

Are you saying you and Nash knew each other IRL - you must be if he knew your "intentions"? Have you ever spoken with him 1 on 1?

 

[NashGuy]

sorry this forum is clearly and obviously full of disingenuous trolls that have no interest in sincere dialogue. I was invited here. I made my points. I substantiated my claims and showed that others would no interest in putting more sincere effort into such a community with no substance. Appreciate the offer but this forum and its members clearly lack substance.

Like I said, Nash's view was anti central government/central banking. Look at the people that refuse to give his works credibility.

Ideal Money reveals players hands!
[doublepost=1469073719][/doublepost]@cliff I was already clear that implicate collusion means you don't have to speak or meet.

 

[cypherdoc]

>Like I said, Nash's view was anti central government/central banking. Look at the people that refuse to give his works credibility.

it turns out you can't read either. i've said multiple times i'm a huge fan of John Nash. he was my leading contender to be Satoshi before CW came along. and he still may be. his writings gave me much greater faith in Bitcoin back when i first read them. and i did read them, dumbass.

you're welcome to hang around but expect more ass whuppings if you insist on exhibiting the same behavior.

 

[jonny1000]

You explain nothing. Define 'orphan risk cost'. Define 'total miner revenue' (well, I could surmise that this is the sum of all revenue over some period in question?).

Orphan risk cost = the expected loss in revenue due to expected orphan risk = probability of orphan * miner revenue in block in USD

total miner revenue = transaction volume * average fee * bitcoin USD FX rate + block reward * FX rate

Yes this can be considered over a period of time.

Most importantly, IF orphan risk cost / total miner revenue > 1/2 THEN what exactly?

Then this would be catastrophic for the network as it would be a huge centralizing force on the mining industry. As I explained this is because in general it is easier for a miner to propagate to themselves. Many keep arguing (which I find frustrating) that this does not matter because orphan risk is low, as I keep explaining, if orphan risk cost is large relative to total mining industry revenue, then this necessarily matters as the impact is guaranteed to be large relative to the industry revenue.

There are also all kinds of other negative consequences of this, such as wasted work and miners competing over propagation instead of hashing.

This is directly against the vision many have for the future, which is that as technology improves the orphan risk cost can be low (RELATIVE TO MINING REVENUE). If technology improves so much and the transaction volume can be very high, why bother risking destroying the network by pushing orphan risk right to the limit?