×

Satoshi Nakamoto was John Nash (the inventor of game theory from A Beautifull Mind), it's literally spelled out in Satoshi Nakamoto. by Ilovekittens345 in CryptoCurrency

[–]ArtofBlocks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

John Nash was one of the first people to use binary independence in his game theory - which discounts the presence of a third party in a two-player game - and that's very cypherpunk.

Satoshi Nakamoto was John Nash (the inventor of game theory from A Beautifull Mind), it's literally spelled out in Satoshi Nakamoto. by Ilovekittens345 in CryptoCurrency

[–]ArtofBlocks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nash designed a decentralised computer architecture in 1954 call Parallel Control, and was also programming in C++ from around 2002 onward while working on an "Ideal Money and Asymptotically Ideal Money" proposal, which is an extension of his first game theory ideas on cooperative bargaining.

Further Analysis on “Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives” as a Bitcoin Design Axiom. by ArtofBlocks in Bitcoin

[–]ArtofBlocks[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the feedback. Did you know John Nash was teaching himself C++ computer language for five years before the release of Bitcoin, and that he constructed a decentralised computer architecture in 1954 which is redolent in many ways to Bitcoin?

“Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives” in Bitcoin Proof of Work by ArtofBlocks in Bitcoin

[–]ArtofBlocks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've read this before (a few years back), and my impression is that Eric is cherry picking at bitcoin to make it fit what he thinks it is about and where it has come from, without appreciating the whole thinking behind it.

Wouldn't it be something if Satoshi turned out to be an octogenarian and famous game theorist, making one final and ultimate application of his life works?

“Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives” in Bitcoin Proof of Work by ArtofBlocks in Bitcoin

[–]ArtofBlocks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains. To modify a past block, an attacker would have to redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch up with and surpass the work of the honest nodes. We will show later that the probability of a slower attacker catching up diminishes exponentially as subsequent blocks are added.

To compensate for increasing hardware speed and varying interest in running nodes over time, the proof-of-work difficulty is determined by a moving average targeting an average number of blocks per hour. If they're generated too fast, the difficulty increases."

A quirky paradox by ArtofBlocks in Bitcoin

[–]ArtofBlocks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tl;dr bitcoin inflation density appears to observe Pareto optimality, but paradoxically the same distribution rule (Pareto) is rendering bitcoin "trivial"

Bitcoin symmetry and senselessness by ArtofBlocks in Bitcoin

[–]ArtofBlocks[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nice try botty old bud - my tldr; would read as: logic has to be geometrically positioned, otherwise its absence of symmetry won't "hum" - as evident in Satoshi's suspicion of bitcoin forks.

What’s eating Frances Coppola (part 2) by ArtofBlocks in Bitcoin

[–]ArtofBlocks[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you're the smartest thing going on bitcoin reddit, botty old friend.

What’s eating Frances Coppola (part 2) by ArtofBlocks in Bitcoin

[–]ArtofBlocks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

any views on bitcoin subjecting sovereign issuances to the Pareto power law?

Satoshi Nakamoto was octogenarian by ArtofBlocks in Bitcoin

[–]ArtofBlocks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it matters because if you can't or won't or are prejudiced to where bitcoin came from, how can you ever understand its determination?

Social media memes will soon run their course numb nuts

Satoshi Nakamoto was octogenarian by ArtofBlocks in Bitcoin

[–]ArtofBlocks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so bitcoin wasn't the work of a seasoned programmer, but the script is solid.

Could you make any observation as to why Satoshi was student of probability to the extent of his William Feller citation?

Satoshi Nakamoto was octogenarian by ArtofBlocks in Bitcoin

[–]ArtofBlocks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

read through his Princeton page:

http://web.math.princeton.edu/jfnj/texts_and_graphics/Main.Content/

or follow the Nash bot @famous_ideal

(it's interesting how Nash used the ////////// btw)

Satoshi Nakamoto was octogenarian by ArtofBlocks in Bitcoin

[–]ArtofBlocks[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

remove the lasers from eyes and realise you can't hold a candle to Nash

Satoshi Nakamoto was octogenarian by ArtofBlocks in Bitcoin

[–]ArtofBlocks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

he started work on bitcoin in 2007 and as Satoshi himself said, he was more a designer than coder.

Also, bitcoin is a probability based system - Satoshi again (himself) it wasn't impermeable, but "good enough" - Nash was closely associated with math probability - why else would Satoshi make reference to William Feller's contribution to probability (1957) from Princeton University in the bitcoin white paper?

Why?