^ I strongly disagree with you. I think following your advice, and straying from practical matters, into highly theoretical musings, will simply paralyze the ability of the community to come to any sort of consensus. I also find your dismissal of Satoshi's role in inventing Bitcoin to be disingenuous.
I know but you are not well read on any of these related subjects and I am. This is not an attack, it is the truth of the matter. Nash's thesis of ideal money is that by extensively studying the history of money we can realize how to extrapolate a solution that will lead us into the next evolution of it.
Then he perfectly describes bitcoin.
And then of course an anonymous paper arises because that is how we implement experiments to theories right (peer review?)?
Satoshi isn't a real person. I am sorry, your religioun is only that. In order to understand the future of money you must understand the history of it, anyone that disagrees doesn't function on logic and reasoning.
Also btw Nash extensively reviews and explains the history of gold and in relation to the gold standards we created and left, and none of the real history correlates to the general posters attitudes and understandings towards it here. How am I to address the OP of this thread, when we must review the extensive history of gold and what its relation has been to "money" and "economics"?