But it could be ; but as, moreover, Bitcoin's monetary philosophy is ALSO not in agreement with Nash ideal money,
I refuted that a few moments earlier upthread. You have so many errors.
Nope. I argued why. Your argument contains a contradiction, namely the impossibility to keep at the same time a pre-announced numerical debasement scheme, and a constant market value.
I knew you were going to make that mistake. You can't figure these things out for yourself. I have to spoon feed every little detail and permutation to you.
The market value will be stable when it reaches $5 trillion market cap and the high transaction fees have forced all the riff-raff off the blockchain and only the $billionaires are using it. Of course it is not 100% stable value ideal money when it is in the nascent viral launch phase as a small market cap and not yet a reserve currency for most billionaires (just a few billionaires already using BTC as their unit-of-account).
I indicated that you misunderstood the notion of non-manipulable debasement, not as meaning a pre-announced *numerical* emission scheme, but a pre-announced emission scheme with a value target (for instance, constant small inflation, or constant value), the only way to avoid the contradiction.
Lol, I didn't misunderstand. I even anticipated you would make the inconsistent logic which I explained above. See the bolded text below proving I anticipated your blunder. Lol.
You think you are smart, but really you are more of a bumbling idiot.
Here follows a copy of my original explanation.
In regards to John Nash creating Bitcoin I think I could just as well say someone else created it. I dont think we will ever know for sure.
Absolutely true and intelligent point! Although on other hand, how many people do you know spent the last 20 years explaining how an international e-currency with
a stable supply and asymptotically stabilizing inflation rate would cause a currency war that would eventually end the monopoly on central banks and government ability to issue money?
This is another reason why bitcoin is not corresponding to Nash's ideal money. Bitcoin has a diminishing DEBASEMENT, and a huge DEFLATION (that is, value appreciation).
For Nash, it was extremely important that this international currency had zero or low and fixed, inflation, that is VALUE DEPRECIATION. He accused gold of not being ideal, exactly because it was too much of a collectible, and couldn't adapt supply to keep its value constant. Bitcoin is based upon sound money doctrine, which is not what Nash considers ideal money, because it doesn't have a stable value, and can't because you cannot have inelastic supply, variable demand, and constant price. Bitcoin has perfectly inelastic supply (it is programmed in advance), even a diminishing growth rate of his supply. So this must be a value-appreciating asset, which cannot serve as ideal money with constant value AT ALL.
If it was meant to be a reserve ASSET (not money), then Satoshi has been lying through his teeth, and it doesn't correspond to what Nash called ideal money.
You are mistaken.
By the time Bitcoin reaches its intended use case phase after the global monetary reset 2024ish, Bitcoin's debasement will be winding down.
Also you are causing confusion with your incorrect use of the term deflation. Deflation is an economy-wide phenomenon so would only apply if Bitcoin was the unit-of-account widely employed in the economy. Although it is true that in a few more years, Bitcoin will be causing massive global deflation.
Also Nash specifically wrote that debasement was compatible with his ideal money, as long as the schedule of debasement was non-manipulable (which is the case for Bitcoin).
Eventually the speculative value of Bitcoin will become nil as it becomes the home of $billionaires-only (which btw is mathematically why all the speculative value in the economy will leech off into BTC), then the miners will not longer be able to do these manipulations of the speculative exchange price as they are currently doing with for example Litecoin.