Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[NashGuy]

If it wasn't for theymos, none of you would have heard of the relevance of bitcoin to Ideal Money. He is the only mod on the internet that took the time to make sure my voice could be heard.

Ideal Money reveals players hands.

John Nash's works supports "small blocks"

 

[freetrader]

>sorry this forum is clearly and obviously full of disingenuous trolls

@NashGuy there is more than one thread in this forum, and creating your own is possible. Different threads attract different folks, you may just find a more agreeable (to you) company if you look around.

OTOH, now that you mention how you adore Theymos, I have to recommend you this hearty thread which could do with some reviving:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/hello-shills.1002/

See, we have something for everyone. If you don't like that then there's just no pleasing you.

 

[cliff]

@NashGuy - "colluding" requires some knowledge of and relationship between at least 2 people. I don't think hives collude (just to give a comparative example of how I'm thinking about it). The colluding you reference is much more specific than the crowd/market/hive anyway - it says you and Nash knew each others intentions and strategy - so, you knew of each others' specific thoughts and acted thereon. This would require some form of intentional communication between you two. He had to know of your identity specifically. So, you're saying you had a some form of direct communication with him - it could have been written, non-verbal (at the poker table), etc. That's pretty cool. What did the implicit collusion look like specifically? What were means of communication? I ask because it maybe gives a different lens through which to read your material. Having said that, it is perfectly acceptable to say that phraseology wasn't very precise and needs to be changed because it gives the wrong impression (not implying anything on intent here). Sloppy internet banterz is ok.

 

[NashGuy]

>sorry this forum is clearly and obviously full of disingenuous trolls

@NashGuy there is more than one thread in this forum, and creating your own is possible. Different threads attract different folks, you may just find a more agreeable (to you) company if you look around.

Nope this community isn't for me. Why would I want to be associated with a site that involves this players?
[doublepost=1469074906][/doublepost]@cliff

implicate: implied though not plainly expressed.

its a poker term. When two smart players meet at the table, they often collude in certain spots vs the bad player. Without even liking each other, without knowing each other etc. Its implied, because both smart players know its the correct strategy.

I know that you know, that I know that you know etc. and so on.

No meeting takes place, no etiquette or table rules are broken. It's meta level.

Nash's had people do things for him without asking or meeting them. Its high level game theory.

You can stop suggesting I'm using the wrong phrase. It's correct, and its ACCURATE.

 

[cypherdoc]

If it wasn't for theymos, none of you would have heard of the relevance of bitcoin to Ideal Money. He is the only mod on the internet that took the time to make sure my voice could be heard.

Ideal Money reveals players hands.

John Nash's works supports "small blocks"

oh, shut your whining. no one here has suppressed your voice. nor on BCT or r/NKorea, i'm sure. don't know about r/btc. you've been blabbing all day long with mostly nonsense.

>John Nash's works supports "small blocks"

yet you can't/won't answer my question above where he insists that commodities be used as a basis for CPI and eventually currency, either nationally or internationally. the definition of which is something that is widely used, accepted, needed, and valued by everyone everywhere globally with high liquidity. now how does that square with Bitcoin as a settlement layer not for ordinary folks but for wealthy individuals and institutions as you argue? answer: IT DOESN'T. dumbshit.

 

[freetrader]

Nope this community isn't for me. Why would I want to be associated with a site that involves this players?

Now there's a thought many of us here have been having frequently (not about this site, about other things). Still, we give things another chance. Stupid, huh?

 

[NashGuy]

yet you can't/won't answer my question above where he insists that commodities be used as a basis for CPI and eventually currency, either nationally or internationally. the definition of which is something that is widely used, accepted, needed, and valued by everyone everywhere globally with high liquidity. now how does that square with Bitcoin as a settlement layer not for ordinary folks but for wealthy individuals and institutions as you argue? answer: IT DOESN'T. dumbshit.

Nash doesn't insist that commodities be used as a basis for cpi and eventually currency, either nationally or internationally.

How can I attend to this when you have misrepresented him?

"oh, shut your whining. no one here has suppressed your voice. nor on BCT"

yes until recently I was unable to post there. My posts didn't show up.

 

[cypherdoc]

he doesn't explicitly use the word insist but argues for commodity CPI's in his paper. and he gives two different examples iCPI (international) & national CPI, either of which could be used. read you own quote dude.

 

[cliff]

@NashGuy -
Well, you weren't using it in a poker context and its not from the transcript of a poker chat. You were talking academic and theoretical-like. And you specifically imply specific knowledge of one another. If true, it really has the potential to bolster your perceived credibility with some folks. I mean, I don't think you were saying you were playing poker with Nash either (possibly via a suspected or known internet name/persona), correct? That word colluding may alienate or confuse some potential readers not aware of poker terms but interested in Bitcoin nonetheless. You might want to choose a different word for that first page article if you didn't actually know one another- at least to the extent of each others' "intentions" and "strategies" - On those, what were they? What was the subject matter and context? Poker, espionage, competitive academia, developing a new money - the ideal money (and what would that mean)?

Anyway, the word doesn't matter I guess - its sorta a silly bone to pick and doesn't distract from the substance . . .

Your description of collusion reminds me of @DanielKrawisz 's recent article - but, IIRC, he concludes the btc tech of money doesn't matter too much b/c the shared delusion that bitcoin is money trumps the tech issues. You should read the article - I'd be interested in reading your response since you say Nash would support small blocks.

 

[NashGuy]

No he doesn't you are misrepresenting his words and their intended meaning.

 

[cypherdoc]

@NashGuy but yeah, go ahead and strawman argue.
[doublepost=1469076198][/doublepost]

No he doesn't you are misrepresenting his words and their intended meaning.

tell us what you think he's saying; explicitly. and how you would refute my argument.

 

[NashGuy]

@cliff "Well, you weren't using it in a poker context and its not from the transcript of a poker chat. You were talking academic and theoretical-like. And you specific imply specific knowledge of one another."

My friend. the title of the blog is the wealth of chips. It is an extension of Nash's works called "ideal poker". It is addressed to the poker community and goes on to explain the relation to poker. Nash is the master of game theory. Every pro poker play uses nash's works on game theory equilibrium every day, and we all say his name constantly to express the game theoretical optimal strategy in a given situation.

I have no idea what you are accusing me of but "implicate collusion" is the perfectly appropriate phrase.
[doublepost=1469076581][/doublepost]Nash is saying something very subtlety but significantly different. He is not saying "let's peg our money to an icpi or cpi" He is saying IF money was Ideal, then we would expect it to be comparable to what would be a theoretically perfectly icpi or icp.

I quote this but you are ignoring it. I quote it twice. Here is the third time:

...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.”

[doublepost=1469076644][/doublepost]How is it strawman, when I am posting the quote, for the 3rd time that EXPLICITLY refutes your assertion?

 

[freetrader]

How can I attend to this when you have misrepresented him?

It's about the argument, not the man. Defend the argument that you think Nash is making, in clear terms.

Nash is saying something very subtlety but significantly different. He is not saying "let's peg our money to an icpi or cpi" He is saying IF money was Ideal, then we would expect it to be comparable to what would be a theoretically perfectly icpi or icp.

Exactly like that.

That's all anyone's asking. We don't need constant appeals to authority, Nash's fame has preceded you.

 

[cliff]

@NashGuy - I'm not accusing you of anything, nothing serious anyway - I'm trying to understand what you mean. The intro blog post to your readers starts w/ the premises that you and Nash have been colluding and knew each others' intentions and strategies. The phraseology strikes me as way more specific than saying you were working toward common goals given the claim that there was knowledge of specific persons' thoughts ("intentions") and plans ("strategies").

Based on what you're saying here, "collusion" as used in that post was more of an expression/rhetorical tactic than descriptive of actual collusion where you and Nash literally knew of each others' specific thoughts and plans during some period of time. Correct?

As for the accusation - I dunno, I think maybe you railed for hours against cyperdoc today for about the same thing.

 

[NashGuy]

@freetrader "It's about the argument, not the man" You misunderstood me. I am suggesting that cypherdoc has misunderstood the lines/quote he is referencing. And I did explicitly show exactly where and how right above your post. I have posted the quote, bolded it, and underlined the exact part, that succinctly and explicitly refutes the misinterpretation/assertion, that nash implied or stated that our money systems should be pegged to an icpi or cpi. He NEVER said that. He said we can bring ideal money about without an icpi (and I quoted it and bolded it above, which I already said in this post, and I already did two other times but maybe 5 tries will get SOMEONE to acknowledge the truth of this).

 

[cypherdoc]

you're constructing a straw man. he uses commodities as an example of Ideal Money and goes on to illustrate how. reason being, as i've said a gazillion times, they are widely used and accepted.

yes, Bitcoin is not strictly a commodity, but it can fulfill his Ideal Money. that's why he commented positively on Bitcoin when he was still alive. but for Bitcoin to fulfill this role it has to gain widespread usage and acceptance, just like a commodity. you've already contradicted yourself by claiming it can do this while being restricted to the wealthy and large institutions as a settlement layer. you're dissembling.

 

[NashGuy]

@cliff "Based on what you're saying here, "collusion" as used in that post was more of an expression/rhetorical tactic than descriptive of actual collusion where you and Nash literally knew of each others' specific thoughts and plans during some period of time. Correct?"

Yes correct but I didn't just say collusion. I said it was implicate. Let's look at the definition of the word implicate: implied though not plainly expressed.

So the collusion was implied, but it was not expressed. We were working together towards the same goal, but we never connected on the subject. This IS what the phrase means, and as poker players we use it like this every day, its accepted terminology and the post was originally written for poker players so that all makes sense.

I don't know where you think we are going with this and why you are spending energy on it?
[doublepost=1469077384][/doublepost]@cypher You said that Nash implied that our money systems should be pegged to cpi's or icpi's and I showed with evidence a quote from Ideal Money which shows that to be not true.

You repeatedly asked me to attend to this assertion and I repeatedly posted the quote and bolded and underlined the part that shows you misrepresented his view.

 

[cypherdoc]

shouldn't it be, if it is to be at all, "implicit collusion"?

don't tell me his English is shit too.
[doublepost=1469077510][/doublepost]night, guys.

 

[NashGuy]

@cypher You said that Nash implied that our money systems should be pegged to cpi's or icpi's and I showed with evidence a quote from Ideal Money which shows that to be not true.

You repeatedly asked me to attend to this assertion and I repeatedly posted the quote and bolded and underlined the part that shows you misrepresented his view.
[doublepost=1469077703][/doublepost]want to make sure everyone sees that.
[doublepost=1469077795][/doublepost]Yes I am mixing words accidentally because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order Much of my works is also an extension of bohmian physics and philosophy as well. And its clear my language skills are not standard.

 

[cliff]

@NashGuy -

No, no - your first post is definitely different than that. You don't use the word "implicate" :

"The author and John Nash have been implicitly colluding for quite some time now, and we would like to extend our strategy to you."​

You also extend thanks for him, state that you're acting as his messenger, and work to clarify his intentions - example:

"But the man who created it, John Nash did not intend it for that, and it’s easier for me to publicly declare that, with the advent of Ideal money"​

RE: "I don't know where you think we are going with this and why you are spending energy on it?"

Heh. Where were you earlier today when that question was going around via how many versions of Ideal Money various folks have read?