Quote from: AGD on March 10, 2017, 12:19:44 AM

Quote from: traincarswreck on March 09, 2017, 11:33:25 PM

Quote from: AGD on March 09, 2017, 11:29:13 PM

...

Ya exactly. I don't think Nash was Satoshi. But you will find quotes of me saying he is.

You might say about the same, when people quote your current blocksize discussion.

Why you are not coming to the point of impact to the Bitcoin community?

If it is all about the blocksize and you think Nash's papers will support you with that, I think you are completely misled. OK. Let's say - which will be the most possible event - that Bitcoin Core Devs will raise the blocksize some day in the future, because a majority wants a higher transaction rate and now (as you stated) Bitcoin will lose its gold properties and will not become Nash's Alternative Currency (the one which will force governments to create Nash's Ideal Money). What will happen? Bitcoin will die? So what??? It was not worth it then. Another ecoin will talke its place and keep the blocksize of 1 MB forever.

I say, Bitcoin (with bigger blocks) will still be the number one decentralized currency backed by math and cryptography and most likely will stay on top of all altcoins forever. Side chains will make small transactions faster and cheaper and Bitcoin will act just like gold and money together. Something that even Nash couldn't foresee (or calculate).

Also as I stated before I am pretty sure, that no government of the world in the near future will be able to create a currency that can compete against a decentralized currency, like Bitcoin, because it will not be decentralized when a government would create it. Government is about control and decentralization is not good to control. When the code is in the wild there is nothing you can do...

They can and will but the question is will the market think of it being a sufficiently competent successor of bitcoin given its properties especially if all it is, is solving the generals problem along with a direct inflation/deflation metric tied to some auditable GDP or something which is directly aligned with economic health. I don't know the answer but I'm guessing negative. Let's take the web for example, its horrible and can be superceded by many technologies around its time even before it but it was chosen because it solved the problem and was simple, since then new technologies have come and gone trying to change how the web works, operates and grows into what we need it to be moving away from DNS, but the market disagrees because of infrastructure costs etc. So we are left with innovating on a rotting web core, unless we move to things like IPFS. It is up to the market to decide if something like IPFS is a successor because it would have to present enough value to the market to let it decide that it will be used instead. Similar to Bitcoin, it has network affect and first mover advantage, it will be the blockchain based money until a proper successor offering value that is too hard to resist emerges, if that happens.