FYP for concision

Love how you just went right back to spouting off about Nash and not actually saying anything

Read abstract and first page as I can't login to JSTOR at home, idk, has nothing to do with anything I've ever said and fits in well with my understanding of utility theory, aka, not using old notions of utility and skewing more towards the modern experimental economic outlooks. Looks like a good micro-foundations type of paper. Ill read it when I can, that said, it has nothing to do with anything you've ever said to me and is a horrible piece of support for your argument.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21104163399757

I know you winat 3r 180s forboon, but simple math is evading you

"Vol. 69, No. 1 (Jul., 2002), pp. 4-11"
11-4 = 7 not 100+

EDIT:Plus you didnt even provide an argument, say why this specific paper is important to a clear thesis that you state. Then you're worth my time. Until then I'll probably just keep "trolling" you and pointing out your shenanigans by being a snide 2p2 monster

EDIT:
Link to free version for those who want a decent article to read and to understand how poorly he is using it as a citation
http://*********************/~babu/nash/money.pdf

Ummm, no, those papers weren't about bitcoin, at least not what comes up as titled "ideal money" by john nash when searched for on JSTOR.

Also, you haven't stated your thesis. I've asked you for it several times and yet somehow you won't just state it. Lay out your argument in your own words without reference to anyone else and then I'll go over the reading rainbow for you and see what others say.

Otherwise you're just going to keep derping "read this"
"Im right"
"you dont understand this"
"oh, you have read this stuff, fine then here's other stuff to read"
"Im right, NASH"
"oh you read that too and it doesnt apply, hmm, google this dude"
"Im right"
"You are a sheep of the university system who can't possibly understand the me"
....and on and on and on without ever stating a coherent argument of your own and in other threads where we were arguing just generally ignoring every counterpoint to your own and if a citation was thrown back in your face as inapplicable you just moved on as if we should trust your future citations

I see how it could, possibly, be applicable to bitcoin, but that would take a whole other argument to be valid, there's a lot of avenues to go down w/ that paper. Regardless, why are you rambling about bitcoin and papers on the utilitization of money into an ideal version of itself??

There is no link between any of this and your claims about poker, hence why I keep asking for your argument and thesis in your own words w/o this rambling crap about papers that are irrelevant to any discussions that are at hand in MTTc

still waiting for OP to deliver on this, though I suspect his weird obsession with John Nash will cause him to be banned again before he gets to share his wondrous message. Especially if he keeps posting nonsense like this:

I mean this is just the maniacal ranting of an egotistical sociopath. Stop acting like you're too smart for the rest of the world to understand you, and say something.
icwudt btw. Doesn't make it any less pretentious or any more interesting though.

FYP again

If you really want a revolution, do you think acting like a crazed maniac is going to inspire people?

Take a step back, relax. This is just scary.

+1 (VnM of course)

Speak, he already does

That would be nice; I'm not sure that I've ever seen him do this in a coherent fashion.

Yup.

I have doubts that he is capable of this.

QFT.

Tell us more about how many degrees u have

Is that a holiday pic Martin?