I think its fair to ask if you are aware that Nash's proposal explains exactly what you ask. You are asking a correct question.



It becomes interesting, I mean if you hate me you will just scream I'm a hypocrite, but there is a subtle thing here...sure adam back is a bitcoin expert...but is he an expert then on what is the ideal money for the world just because bitcoiners think bitcoin is the ideal money? If we follow the possibility of using a basket of commodities for the new basis for a globally held inflation metric (this is effectively what such a setup would be) then we can clearly see that Nash saw a different possibility to achieve the same desired result:



Note: ICPI = basket of commodity prices chosen by a world committee for inflation comparison of all currencies

What is the problem with what Nash calls an ICPI and does bitcoin serve as a means to the same ends but without such limitations that the ICPI has?

There are near-insurmountable barriers to changing the world finance order, not the least of which is the USA's tremendous influence over other nations. BTC being ideal by Nash's theories won't be what instigates its adoption by the world. It would instead require a cataclysmic event. And even if that unlikely situation were to come to pass it's much more likely nations would come up with their own currency system, even one modeled directly from BTC, rather than pay billions of dollars of premium already baked into BTC's valuation.

This is where you accuse me of appealing to authority. You have made an assertion, based on your own understanding, at the level you are capable of understanding.

You believe you have a well enough understanding of economics.
A well enough understanding of the computer science behind bitcoin.
A well enough understanding of cryptograpy.
Of game theory.
Of the history of money.
Of the relationship and nature of conflict between nation states as it relates to the global economy.

I'm not trying to tell you that you are wrong and Nash is correct simply because he is John Nash.

I'm trying to point out that there is 20 years of lectures and writings, of a very very complexly put together argument. It explains the game theoretical implications of the introduction of bitcoin to our global economy.

You keep pretending that I am saying that the agreement is correct because I and Nash assert it is. You are playing child make believe games. I have traversed the argument. and I am far more well read on these related subject than you.

The only point I have made thus far, is how silly it is to assert you are correct, while refusing to traverse the argument nash put forward, and banning me constantly for simply trying to call attention to it.

That is part of the argument. The parallel system that will arise and it involves CBDC's which are a predictable counter measure to the advent of bitcoin. well explained in the works called Ideal Money.

but as to the premium you have made a kindergarten level error, to suggest that they will use bitcoin because its cheaper than any alternative, and because there is no possibility of a censorship resistant money otherwise, and then to state there is a negative cost to it.

20 years of lectures and writing on the game theoretical ramifications of an international ecurrency with a stable supply. Adam back says "i didn't read it and I misrepresent it and its wrong'


PZ says" I have thought about this for a bit with my own brain and experience and expertise and Nash is wrong because he has credentials and is an authority and expert on the related subjects. I refuse to read and understand his 20 years of work tho."

Jbouton only appeals to authority because he wont' accept Davad Gerard is an expert who argues that bitcoins can be created at will by copy pasting and thinks maybe Nash's work is worth understanding.

We are lost.

You're betting against 100+ years of economic dominance, armed with academic papers and theories. Your thesis is a moon shot, and again, even if you're is right and the world shifts to a new world order the likelihood BTC will serve the role as its new currency is even lower. We're talking lottery ticket odds against both happening.

I'm not sure you are speaking to the framework that I am pointing to. why are u using the word currency? we are talking about a settlement layer that no human ever uses but only state and institution. How is that a currency to you?

I'm not sure what you are saying has 100+ years of economic dominance either. wtf are you talking about?

Whatever you want to call it, currency, settlement, it's not going to happen. You're predicting the displacement of an entrenched trillion dollar settlement and currency system. You really bought into this nonsense.

All you have said is that you refuse to consider Nash's proposal. You refuse to even learn of it, because he is an expert on the related subjects aka authority and therefore his argument is intrinsically fallacious.

You do this while bringing forth other so called experts, you refuse to call experts, who have very limited or no understanding of the technical aspects of bitcoin.

And then what are you saying? Are you saying that the highest value transactors will NOT use bitcoin? No you aren't saying that.

You are saying 'government bad, government no likey bitcoin'.

Every major nation in the world wants to be off the usd standard. So does the US.

Its the rational thing to do. But Nash isnt calling for a proposal based on altruistic reason. Its not by any sort of choice. It's simply natural order of how the game theory plays out. But we all have to listen to you say 'NOT IT ISN'T Nash is wrong because he is an expert, I am write because I used my brain and thought about it with my kindergarten level of understanding'. This is stupid.

Why don't you just shut your mouth. Admit you don't know what you are talking about. Admit you didn't realize that the guys you are citing are not experts on the subject but rather giving their related opinions. Admit you didn't realize that Nash spent 20 years commentating this. And ask me to explain and go over the reasoning he presents in a way that you can understand it?

I know why. It s your ego.





Guess whos laughing:

Jesus

Wow, just wow.

So now it is money? I thought it was just a settlement layer.

I don't use words in this way Didace and u really should understand this about me by now. There is no authority on the definition of words but what we ascribe to them. I am always transparent about my definitions that i mean to imply and am well known for asking for clarification rather than engaging in semantic based debates. When, for example, PZ refers to bitcoin in my scenario as a 'currency', that is fine. I just want to make sure they don't mean to imply some things when they use the word currency. PZ clarified that they didn't mean to distinguish a difference between my settlement system and (calling it) a currency. Thats fine. Its not the word I would use but I perfectly understand the clarification and validated it.

bitcoin as a settlement system is still a money among those entities that use it to settle. this is by the definition of money I mean to evoke, which is effectively a means to settlement. some people would not call that a 'money'. Many economist have a definition for money such that even if every person in the world used it every day for every transaction they still wouldn't consider it money. Are you interested in watching a debate between two sides with these two different definitions?

The specific words used are very important in this agreement. Nash says " in principle, the people can demand that."

PZ can you agree that in principle the people can demand it, and by demand mean invoke through politics into law, but that you would still believe that in actuality it would be impossible?

For example, when nash says 'in principle' this is not the part of the argument where I or he suggest he has proved it to be plausible or possible. He is pointing at how things work in principle, how they should work, how they were intended to be designed. Are we able to agree with the intention and principle but not yet agree that this is an inevitable outcome because of bitcoin?

What I'm hoping is that we have enough context now, to scrutinize the words, but first we have to be able to understand how they would relate to the unfolding of bitcoin in relation to our existing economy (rather than a scenario where our existing economy ceases to exist) .

A Beautiful Mine: The Story of John Nash's Love for Crypto

Nobody understands poor old crypto... I think it needs a trip to Europe to find itself

Claiming that someone is not qualified to make an argument and other experts have made different arguments which must be correct because they are experts is an ad hominem and an appeal to authority.

Saying that someone's argument consists of a, b, and c which are incorrect then quoting arguments that experts have made which are relevant is proving that the person is unqualified and using experts to make that point.

I'm not guilty of this. I never said one needs to be qualified to make an argument. Nor did I say others must be correct because they are experts.

someone posted an argument and I pointed out a fact. Those that actively work on the system, built it, and maintain it, those that have the most knowledge on the subject absolutely do not agree with the way that the arguer is using the words he is using. He's made an argument based on changing the definitions. Make ur own judgments, its just simple truth, the guy doesn't know what he's taling about-hes clearly extended beyond his field of expertise.

And then I told PZ if he gives me a handful of 'experts' I will also have them say that this guy is an idiot. PZ listed the same guy, as if a citation could back up a citation.

It's clear the guy is a charlaton and no one is willing to back him up.

Someone also posted dave gerard. I take it bluegrassplayer, in defend the logic that gerard puts forth, that you believe that there are billions of bitcoin? Because every fork and alt coin created adds to the supply like gerard argued? And the fact that gerard has no comp sci experience or knowledge is the reason we should consider his view? We need to not consider the view of all experts and only consider non-experts right?

You won't even answer this.
So we can no longer cite experts? lol!

Nothing could be more valid than citing someone that has the most knowledge and experience on a subject.

The fact that they are such, making them an authority, is not an appeal to authority.

I can't believe you guys don't know this basic fact of reasoning.

The problem of appeal to authority is when we are appealing to someone that has a title, and we are saying my argument is correct because the person with the title said it.

I haven't done this.

The argument I have put forth, is that bitcoin's base layer will be used by the highest value transactors in our global economy, as it will provide a cheaper means of settlement than what is available today.

Here is the reasoned counter point that PZ gives us:

We have an understand of the limitations of bitcoin. None of them affect my argument because I am not a maximalist that try to get bitcoin to serve every citizen. Bitcoin scales in my proposal for it and it doesn't have the problem of the security budget.

So 'its not going to happen". Ok, why?

The idea of 'US government won't allow it', isn't a game theoretically sound response. How will they not allow it? The attack vectors of bitcoin change when you consider it's base layer as being only for high value settlement.

Your Bitcoin experts are the same ones that see nothing wrong with USDT, right? If or when USDT collapses in a similar fashion as UST just with worse consequences, would that affect their credibility in your eyes?

On an unrelated note, do you talk like this in real life?

The people that created and develop bitcoin are libertarians effectively (well satoshi didn't really identify as such). They believe in the free market and that would imply supporting a project like tether. It would be unfortunate if it failed but the reason it will have failed will be because it couldn't keep its shadow banking together. The libertarian would blame government and regulation.

This is what I mean about bitfinex'd (team red) being a concern troll and having a self inconsistent archetype. From the perspective of someone new to bitcoin tether is an obvious scam with no proper audit trail. The seasoned bitcoiner knows that tether's lack of transparency is how it skirts government regulation (as well as adversary's attacks) the libertarian likes this.

Put another way, tether is probably most used by some of the biggest bitcoin whales. The biggest bitcoin whales are the private backers of tether. Do you mean to convince these whales that tether is a fraud?

Not sure how I talk.

"The libertarian would blame government and regulation." - Finally something we agree on. If you think QAnon conspiracies are out of the whack just wait until Tether collapses and takes down Btc with it. Last thing they would do is admit they were scammed the whole way. Textbook cult denial, it is always the deep state spreading FUD to scoop up cheap Sats, it is not that the whole thing was a house of cards propped up with funny bux.




It's always FUD and deep state bro.

Here are first 5 responses regarding the article posted:


Nowhere do you address the argument raised in the article. Every one of these posts is an ad hominem.








This is another ad hominem, and another appeal to authority: this guy is dumb and experts disagree with him therefore he's wrong.

I have not defended gerard, I have not given my opinion on him. (If you really want to know, I disagree with gerard and I disagree with the article in question, but those are both besides the point.) I was not asked these questions previously to refuse answering them.

My point was the opposite, although it's a bit of a convoluted sentence due to the pronouns. The problem is you aren't citing experts. Here is the definition for "cite":

You were not quoting experts. You were doing an appeal to authority of an appeal to authority where you suggested that people should trust you because you know the opinions of the experts and therefore you don't need to address the article. I don't doubt that you know the opinions of these experts, but you have not proven it, definitely not through citations. The other problem is that if your audience does not know the arguments that these experts put forth then they cannot judge what being an "expert" even means in this context. A better way to have gone about this would be to have laid out the arguments in the paper, and then argued against them. In areas where it would be relevant you could cite experts. This would actually be productive rather than saying we should trust you when you trust the experts and the experts would disagree with this moron.

Can we all just settle down and take a moment to appreciate ETH.

Yes, in the ETH thread

That's just your opinion. jb has his own definitions.