Is that the currency he established as emperor of Antarctica?

Lol.

It is actually a real idea attempting to improve on the gold standard as an attempted solution to the Triffin Dilemma by pegging currencies to a basket of stuff of supposedly stable utilitarian value.

I think instead we should take a serious look at the subject. We are not really investigating my suggestion here. If we are we must consider that ideal money HAD to have been written in such a way that the topics were indistinguishable from each other. It might some like it was a simple prank, until we begin to consider the ramifications of what this man has done, if this man is satoshi.

So we cannot simply take a wiki summary on what ideal money is, because a as a lecture ideal money is not what the lecture proposes. Ideal money as a 'lecture' (1) preaches that nations should get together and combine currency in order to increase stability AND to gain bargaining power (which is not fully different that stability). (2) he has been explicitly teaching us to redefine how we approach the concept of money AND how we judge its value.

Those are the esoteric aspects, the parts that are foreshadowing something he hasn't quite explained. Allow me to give the concrete examples which are not fully readable until you read it in the context of bitcoin:

Bit coin is a technological advace that modified the nature of global economy.
Nash has shown that cooperation is the best strategy, and he has challenged the belief that we will remain sheep.

He has changed what money means to us, what it is to be used for, and how we should view the cost of using it. Bitcoin costs less per transaction, and we are to understand that as time goes by, it models the nature of water more and more, and can be mathematically analyzed as such.

Bitcoin is a decentralized money. Nash is mocking the centralized structure of today's (yesterdays if you follow this all) currency.

Much like the creation of bitcoin, computers will handle the role of government in an obviously decentralized fashion. Decentralized might not be the correct word, but take it from Nash.

This is the formula behind bitcoin, and the genius of it no doubt.

Yes we are all having troubles grasping it, yet it is here.

Bit coin is the only non legal tender we expect in this world and the future world so far.
Which means nash is using current working models as an axiom that we as the people can create a money on our own in which we can control the inflation with (and obv we would make it 0, but only when we are at our ideal phase, until then we do this asymptotically).

So we have 2 parts one in which nash has been encouraging countries to adjust to the inevitable and then what he explains is simply a "technical problem". Do we see bitcoin is the solution. Its certainly a "politically neutral technological utility" and its not "money which might be used to exert pressures in a conflict situation comparable to “the cold war”.)" Have we been watching the futile efforts of the west to economically seige russia? This is 'esoteric' but i have a feeling its because economic seige is increasingly becoming a thing of the past.

Nash explains when you change the game from competitive to cooperative, then everyone gains. When he says "pay the cost", hes being partly facetious, there is no cost (actually there is a voluntary fee paid to the miners/integrity of the system which he is likely referring to), in fact its cheaper, and you gain more that is why by the market principles of adam smith (to whom he also quoted), he has shown this all to be inevitable. Its purely an idea in the form of a social fluid which gives as a super efficient pipeline for exchange. National currencies only defense is to team up in coalition against it, but that is what we want anyways. Its not exploitable and its not a hackable idea (i don't know the word here).

If we have gotten this far, I would be very surprised to believe we are not at least partially convince. I truly think we need to open up this dialog and I wonder why we must continually not address the facts here. We have a VERY interesting discussion to be had. Of course we should understand, IF true, we have some preconceived notions and bias's to remove, which WOULD make it difficult to address.

My only fear whether right or wrong, is this man is nearing the end of his life, and we have a very short window of time to thank him. And that all it requires is a serious, unemotional analysis from a few credible people. And that the poker community is set to spread this news like wildfire.

Except that making up stuff that is not true about a person isn't the correct way to do thank them. It is extremely mean to make stuff up that isn't true of people, especially when their ideas are quite easy to understand! Either you are a horrible person and purposefully doing so to sully his name and reputation, or you just haven't read about his ideal money.

I explained in very simple terms, what Nash's ideal money is. For it to be Nash's Ideal Money, it must pegged to a standardized basket of commodities (the industrial consumption price index is the one he likes best). He has been talking about it for nearly a decade. He goes into great detail about why his ideal money must be tied to a basket of commodities and why he thinks that the industrial consumption price index is the best basket of commodities to use.

Any currency that is not pegged to a standardized basket of commodities is not his ideal money. Bitcoin is not, in any way, pegged to the value of ANYTHING!!! Therefore, it is not his ideal money. It really is that simple.

You could even be bothered to read up on the topic instead of ignoring that he has been talking about it for a really long time.

http://web.math.princeton.edu/jfnj/t...DEAL_MONEY.../

We have agreed that he suggests this, but you seem to be ignoring that there is more to the paper than just that one suggestion. As well as the specific quotes outlining the new technological advance in economics he alludes to.

A standardized basket of commodities means to me, that money will simply be worth what it is worth, in terms of the efficiency created by economic trade, rather than some other false idea we've been lead that it should be tied to.

I definitely read the paper, and most versions. Problem is, we have to question our academic foundations for him to be satoshi. We have been given the 'ideal' picture for what the function of money should be, and what we should expect of it, I gave many quotes that directly address this.

And we have been anonymously given an instrument (koto) with which to facilitate the change.

Is there another cryptographic programmer that might fit this bill?


Edit:

We note that bitcoin is decentralized.

Bitcoin and ideal money are two separate topics, we agree on that, what we don't realize together, is that they are two parts to a perpetual machine towards both economic efficiency and natural cooperation. They each work different ends of the spectrum working towards the same goal of ultra stability, and ultra efficiency. They had to be written this way or he would have been stopped.

He doesn't suggest it. He has been writing about it for well over a decade. He is very clear what he means when he talks about ideal money.

Extremely clear.

Doesn't matter what it means to you. You not understanding a quite simple concept that Nash came up with (ideal money) is not Nash's problem. It is not my problem.

The problem relies entirely with you.

No. We have to read his papers and lectures starting over a decade ago in which he is extremely clear what he means by ideal money, why he absolutely hates free-floating currencies (such as bitcoin), why he absolutely hates currencies that are volatile in purchasing power (such as bitcoin), why he hates currencies that are not tied to each other (such as bitcoin), and why he thinks that pegging a currency to a basket of commodities is the way to go to get rid of the things that he hates.

And we have Nash, who isn't stupid or incompetent enough to create something that is quite the opposite of his idea of ideal money. The only explanation I can come up with for your behavior is that you must either really hate Nash and are enjoying calling him stupid and incompetent repeatedly, or you really hate Nash and are enjoying calling his actual theory of money so wrong as to be incomprehensible.

Again, this is quite rude behavior from you.

We can also note that buying a puppy is the same as buying a tomato because Clifford The Big Red Dog from the children's book is red and tomatoes are also red.

Yes we are suggesting bitcoin is not 'ideal money' in its present form. But rather the seed that mixed with our current changing currency environments (as suggested and foretold by ideal money lectures), will asymptotically become 'ideal money' which is a decentralized currency with ultra stability.

I guess than its an incredible coincidence (there is a pun there) that the creators name spells 'i am nash' and denotes 'the common mans instrument'.

What are the odds that the inferred nationality of satoshi nakamoto happens to make a perfect translation of two of the most distinguishing japanese words...

I suppose we could do that with newguy1234 as well...

And of course we know satoshi is a cryprto graphic programmer ..

We highly suspect (as on wiki) he lives in the eastern north American time zone (Princeton).

They figure he is British because he uses "blood hell" but we know nash is born in 1928

No we aren't. I am saying that it very specifically is not ideal money at all and that Nash isn't as stupid as you keep claiming he is.

It is not ideal money 'in its present form' in the same way as I am not a three-headed monkey in my present form.

Not much to work with as far as newguy1234 goes.

We could do it with Satoshi Nakamoto and come up with "A Satan, Oh Mistook," "Hank tomato oasis," "Ha! Toasts a kimono," "A sash tomato oink," "Titans soak a ****," "A-ha!!! Mason sit, took," "Took an ass. Ah omit," "A Mason Took a ****," "Asshat no took aim, "I soak a Nash motto," "I am Hank, sat to so...," "Satan took aim, ho's!," "A Smith soak no oat," "Sham oak stain too?," "a satan took him, so...," "I am Tosh... Sanka?," "Toto, a-ha, Moss, akin!," "I am Kant too, ass ho!"

What are the odds that some guy named Hank, and Satan, and the band "a-ha", the Titans, Mason Malmuth, some guy named Smith, and an asshat and Tosh (probably just a repeat), the band Toto, a skinny model, a moistened gay person and Kant could all come out of that?!? And I didn't even have to resort to using more than one language just to make it work!

Coincidence?!? I think not!!!

(Most of the ones that are starred out are quite amusing. I really liked the one with Kant in it)

At the risk of you searching endlessly for some positive information that supports your idea (see tomato puppy Clifford the Big Red Dog), you could also read a bit more and realize that Nash has a particular tone to his writing (I particularly like the occasional sidestreet and his realization that he is taking one). This https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf is not written by him.

None of this jibberish really works to suggest a person that fits the profile of the bitcoin creator. And none of this has any significant meaning to the Japanese implication, which of course is an important part, being the key (as in encryption key) which shows how the remaining letters should be handled. It was that, to which I was asking about the probability of, that part you jumped over. But to me, I looked at the pseudo name after I realized it was him, so its not as important anyways.
I see something strange here, to which the logic does not follow. First I'm not sure you are qualified to suggest such a thing, regardless of the following. Second, we have pointed out, and its logical to assume anyways, that if nash IS satoshi, then he has written these papers purposefully to hide the fact that his is satoshi. So you are really claiming that you would possibly be capable of decrypting a code that he didn't want broken. This of course wouldn't be the same as decoding the pseudo name because it would be obvious he eventually wanted that broken.

Its that lack of reason that leads me to feel at least some part of you realizes you are not approaching this without bias. We cannot suggest for example since satoshi uses favour and nash uses favor, that he is not capable of switching the types of spell check he would use.

I've also given many quotes that clearly show bitcoin is inline with nash's vision of our economy.


Here is another
Bitcoin:
Ideal money: Are we reading the same papers?
We now KNOW that nash has been spending much time on solutions to cooperative games much of which is talked about with respect to non cooperative versions and games.

Of course. He wanted us to figure out that he was him and also didn't want us to figure out that it was him.

Makes perfect sense.

I had a pleasant conversation with him and he said (without encrypting it) that you should take your meds.

Yes let's briefly look at logic. He can't write the papers the same because it becomes immediately identifiable. But a single small anagram that points to a Japanese name, while writing to papers that don't look or sound the same, would create a perfect timeline to first allow bitcoin to get on its feet, while still leaving room to eventually point to Nash (I mean it would anyways looking at all his works, he prob has some conclusory papers ready in case he dies).


I see what you did here. Its pretty sad though, knowing what we did to him, knowing what we know now, what he was only trying to accomplish for humanity.

He still faces such ignorance, and no wonder he kept his name secret for so long.

I hope its not him, I think it would be a terrible dialogue between us, to know that if we took a sincere look, we might have a chance to thank him (and effectively apologize).

It is quite mean of you to think it was him. If you were the only human being I had ever met, I'd be an antinatalist for you spewing on Dr. Nash.

well we can come together on the fact that you are the only one with credibility in the form of academic training that came out to say either way. In your case its nay. I think you said you boxed, seems like true fighter spirit.

I dunno, maybe it so crazy people don't wanna comment, but even still i think they would. No one wants to say yes or no.

it would be a sad thing if you were wrong tho, if i was right.

I was pointed this out http://faculty.washington.edu/dtwill...ary-Option.pdf

seems it was edisons Idea, i notice nash hasn't cited it.

I boxed. You are being mean to Dr. Nash. Stop it.

Do you mean the kind of mean where we confine a man in a coma for 6 weeks because he begins to realize he can change the world?

I wonder if we can see that this new form of currency and the final evolution of it (to stability), is in fact an extension of the bargaining problem.

And whether we will comment on that. This seems quite easy to agree on. There has to be some rational agreement to this.

I said, to paraphrase myself: "stop being mean to Dr. Nash."

I meant, "stop being mean to Dr. Nash."

In case that is confusing, I can elaborate: Stop being mean to Dr. Nash.

You are being mean. Stop it.

ruok tho?

Me? Yes, of course.

Not happy that you are being mean to Dr. Nash, so not ok with you.

I don't get it, is acting like a 4 years some kind of therapy?

You believe in God-zilla?



You can see real dedicated courage at 6:29-6:37

Not sure what were not willing to admit and why. We have so much to discuss scientifically AND as a poker community. pegging our existing currencies to a commodities index is not the thesis to this paper. That idea was (apparently) edison's but it needed a solution and the solution is bitcoin.

We do expect the psychology field to be the last to accept the genius of this man of course tho. I notice not one other person has agreed with or denied this claim. Its strange because for the last year or two members have been lining up in groups to disagree with me. certainly we can have a mature discussion on the topic, or no?

That sentence makes no sense in relation to the argument. If you presented a clear and cogent case, then your case would be considered.

There are two things you need to do to make your idea of interest.

First, it has to make sense. "I am Nash aksttoooa" as your primary evidence leaves quite a bit to be desired. Do not move onto step two until the first step is solved.

Second, (again, don't move to second step until the first is solved) your claim can't just be possible; it can't just be plausible. This is quite important. We've discussed this before. Do not move onto step three until the second step is solved.

Third, your case cannot be contrary to any known facts:

Here are some facts:

1) Dr. Nash is far too smart to have created Bitcoin. It doesn't solve the problems he is interested in.

2) Dr. Nash is far too smart to have used a silly encryption of his name (let alone that the remaining AKSTTOOOA) that you would be capable of decrypting.

3) Dr. Nash proudly stands behind his work, and does not hide from presenting his inventions.

4) Dr. Nash does not speak Japanese.

5) Dr. Nash has a Nobel Prize.

That is, of course, quite true. That is why your posts get deleted, I imagine. We have a lot to discuss. You keep showing up to say things that are not at all scientific (let alone math-like or philosophy-like).

I'm not sure how you are confused or think that this has anything to do with bitcoin. He is (I'm not asking for feedback, just telling you the way things are) saying that his idea of tying currency to commodities would be difficult, but if it happened somewhere, the problem would be a technical one of tying existing yucky-bad currencies into the currency tied to commodities.

All you've done here is this: "Not sure what ... poker ... is ..." You said that in the post I am replying to. That means that you don't know what poker is, right?

Dr. Nash's ideas on economics and ideal money aren't complicated nonsense. They are quite easy to understand.

Ummmm. The psychology community fought their asses off to get the man his well-deserved Nobel Prize.

That is because they don't have the patience I do.

Well its solved, but of course I can't present evidence we don't accept. I had no idea Nash was in the pseudonom before I felt that nash created bitcoin. I got to the notion straight from ready the bargaining problem. And that would be what I would base this on. Bitcoin is certainly a perfect extension of the bargaining problem and I suspect (allow you don't allow me to do this), that bitcoin is some form of bending the plane of utility used to describe the trade. I doubt anyone would seriously argue that bitcoin is not such an extension in front of academic peers.
Well here's the thing its completely plausible and other than this seemignly silly argument that bitcoin is a type of money that nash hates, it seems highly likely. If you weren't able to say bitcoin isn't ideal money, then everything else points to nash being the most likely person. He is more than capable of it and I think very few people are.


1) Dr. Nash is far too smart to have created Bitcoin. It doesn't solve the problems he is interested in.

I think you are mistaken, and so does the write of this article https://topinfopost.com/2014/03/20/b...-thomas-edison

They've gone so far as to suggest edison did it, yet you claim the ideas contradict each other?


2) Dr. Nash is far too smart to have used a silly encryption of his name (let alone that the remaining AKSTTOOOA) that you would be capable of decrypting.

Yes we know that of course unless he wanted to leave a trail for the truth to eventually come out.

3) Dr. Nash proudly stands behind his work, and does not hide from presenting his inventions.

That is in direct contrast to nash's memo's tho, so again like what are we doing here?
4) Dr. Nash does not speak Japanese.

I never claimed he did tho. We do suspect tho, that satoshi is not at all from japan, and that they live in the eastern us time zone

He was quite upset he had to share it. To me, this is because he knew his work was about something much bigger than a competitive solution.



I just remember being ridiculed constantly for suggesting the N.E. is supposed to be used for peace and cooperation. I understand that I don't present my comments well, but I also understand it to be correct, and what others misunderstood of me or the N.E., were not correct.
Well you see they are not really his ideas in that regard. It seems this aspect of ideal money he took from edison. And you are completely ignoring the inflation controlling aspect of bitcoin. And that ideal money and bitcoin both favour a decentralized money. They also both favour stability as there ultimate goal.

I think rather that we aren't understanding what bitcoin is. And we aren't understanding the final evolution, of combining irl currencies and backing them with commodities, while simultaneously doing the same thing with bitcoin, while continually evolving them.

To me what this is really about is re defining what money is and what we use it for, and to change our expectations of it. Neither bitcoin, nor grouping irl currencies and backing them with commodities are the goals in themselves. But as time goes by and we create room for adjustment, we expect our currencies to merge into a cohesive unit. It may be one currency or many, but they're stability vs each will function not like today. Ideal money, the way you define does not seem to be new, and does not seem to be nash's idea. And it doesn't really explain how we might bring such a change about, and it also doesn't explain the results in any detail

Right but if this man really did create bitcoin, then they will have to accept that they essentially tortured a man because he was too smart for them to understand. We start to grey the lines of what we delusional, because much of his delusions were about a government super power that he thought he was destined to take down.


Well its something because i thought you were at 0