Franky, I gave you an example that a 6-year-old and even your Labrador could understand.

Так Биткоин же не шиткоин.

Alright, I'll try to explain as concisely as possible. Imagine you are playing a game that can be played by 8 billion people. What game is it? Well, let's call this game "Internet" or "Bitcoin."

Let's first play a game called "Internet." You know that the main protocol of the Internet is IPv4. The maximum number of IPv4 addresses is 2^32 (~4.3 billion). So, there won't be enough addresses for every person on Earth. Let's assume you are in the early stages of the Internet and you believe in the technology. You have strategies: to take 0 addresses or take all 4 billion addresses for yourself. If you take all 4 billion addresses, the Internet won't spread, and you'll lose. If you take 0 addresses (you actually have 0), you'll have to rent and pay for addresses your whole life. So, there's an optimal number of addresses you should reserve for yourself. That will be the best strategy. I own 1280 addresses, which I got for free over 10 years ago. Each of them is valued at $50 today.

I hope you understood the game's conditions. Now let's play a game called "Bitcoin."

Да, мое утверждение верно исключительно для биткоин. Но также ваше утверждение не верно, что если актив торгуется на десятке бирж, то его ценой невозможно управлять. Даже если актив торгуется на сотне бирж, его ценой легко управлять если вы контролируете 50%-90% свободного предложения. Да, за листинги проекты тоже платят деньги и листинги тоже привлекают аудиторию на биржу. Но я не считаю Binance вообще топ 10 биржей, если что. А отчет Coinbase как компании торгуемой на фондовой бирже думаю даже ты сможешь найти и проверить мое утверждение о 90%+ доходов от торговых комиссий.

Of course, your answer is incorrect because you are not familiar with programming and the architecture of modern processors.

21 million was chosen in order to simplify calculations and involve floating-point arithmetic.

1. 64-bit IEEE754 double, all integers up to 9007199254740992 == 2^53 can be exactly represented. In the range 2^51 to 2^52, the only non-integer values.
Below 2^51 we also have ".25" and ".75", so comparing a number with its rounded counterpart in order to determine if it may be integer or not starts making some sense.
If you want to test whether a calculated result may be integer, avoid numbers larger than 2251799813685248 == 2^51

Sure, he could choose  2200000000000000, but 22 is not triangular numer.

2. So, for the purpose of optimizing calculations, he had to choose the triangular number closest to 22 from the sequence: 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28,...

So it's 21. Basic math, kid.

Торговые комиссии составляют от 90 до 99% доходов топ 10 бирж. Ни одна из этих бирж имея полную картину по действиям всех своих трейдеров НЕ может предсказать цену и заработать на этом. Все просто как 2+2.

Давай разберем твой тезис.

Ну во-первых никакого искусственного "интеллекта" не существует. То, что невежды называют AI на самом деле не является интеллектом, на программном уровне это просто удовищно большое количество операторов if-else. Тоесть это не более чем автоматизированная система управления (АСУ), но модель управления которой получается из исторических данных. Тоесть из данных поведения людей, 98% которых являются идиотами. В итоге разработки подобных систем невозможно получить искусственный "интеллект", таким образом можно получить только искусственного идиота.

Именно по этом причине скажем автопилот в авиации существует с 60-х годов, но такая задача как автопилот для автомобиля в полной мере не решена до сих пор. Но если эти АСУ не научились до сих пор водить автомобиль, то какой идиот доверит таким системам управлять хулиардами долларов? Пойми, все намного проще.  

Твоя беда, что ты не понимаешь просто вопрос. Если биржи могут просто обыгрывать своих клиентов имея доступ к информации об их сделках и заработать на этом (согласно твоей теории), то зачем они вообще собирают копеечные комиссии? Ну вот где в этом логике?

Я тебе советую сменить ник на goofprofit. Смотри, давай уомзрительный эксперимент. Представим что твоя теория работает и ты можешь из выборки скажем 100-1000 трейдеров  определить что делает большинство и делать наоборот.  Сбор такой информации для тебя предствляет невероятный труд, но если это работает это того стоит. Теперь давай рассмотрим где ты и эти 1000 трейдеров торгуете. Допустим на 10-ти топ биржах На каждой бирже находятся уже допустим по 1 миллиону трейдеров. Собирать информацию о позициях и сделках этих трейдеров владельцы бирж могут в реальном времени. А значит они обладают гараздо большим обьемом информации чем ты, имеют доступ к этой статистике в реальном времени... Тогда встает логичный вопрос. А зачем биржи собирают комиссии? Ведь согласно твоей теории они могут просто собирать информацию о своих трейдерах и просто зарабатывать хулиарды играя против них. Ну зачем это дрочево с комиссиями?

Так вот, если ты ответишь на этот вопрос, то ты поймешь, что даже владельцы бирж дупля не отбивают куда пойдет цена даже имея доступ к статистике своих трейдеров. Ведь крупных бирж десятки и всю картину не видит никто. Да и движение в этой игре задают не ритейл трейдеры. Эта игра для примерно 100 игроков у каждого из которого в этой игре примерно один миллиард американских долларов в активах. Они играют против друг друга попеременно выигрывая и проигрывая перераспределяя этот банк. А ритейл трейдеры - это просто дойная корова, которая кормит биржи комиссиями от своих сделок.

Honestly, it's essential to understand the thought process of Bitcoin's creator. If people don't comprehend why Satoshi chose 21 million bitcoins and 100 million Satoshis per bitcoin, it only proves that 99.9% of them don't truly understand Bitcoin and they just blindly believe in it.

Well, if I explain to you why Satoshi chose exactly 21 million Bitcoins and precisely 100 million Satoshis per Bitcoin and that these numbers were not chosen randomly but have a mathematical rationale, will it help change your worldview?

Hold 2.625 Bitcoin and never sell. If you manage to acquire more than 2.625 Bitcoin in the market, you can use this amount as follows: Buy low, sell high. Not the vice versa.

Дедлайны были подобраны так, чтобы успеть до халвинга. Это может быть настоящее безумие. А может не не быть 

The Tragedy of the Commons (game theory) occurs when individuals, acting in their self-interest, deplete shared resources to the detriment of the entire community. In the case of Bitcoin, larger block sizes might lead to more transaction throughput but can strain the network and decentralization.

In the IPv4 protocol, IP addresses are used to uniquely identify devices on the internet. However, the pool of available IPv4 addresses is limited, consisting of only about 4.3 billion addresses. As the internet has grown exponentially and more devices are connected, the demand for IP addresses has increased significantly. Various organizations, internet service providers (ISPs), and businesses require IP addresses to allocate to their customers or devices. Initially, IP addresses were allocated freely, and there was no strict regulation on their distribution. However, this led to a situation similar to the Tragedy of the Commons.

As of today, the consensus in the internet network is that each individual does not need to create their own internet service provider. Instead, each person rents a communication channel from one of approximately a million internet service providers. Similarly, a similar consensus could exist in the Bitcoin network, where access to the Bitcoin network is provided to anywhere from one to eight million people or companies, while the remaining eight billion people would either rent access to the Bitcoin network or lease open channels in the Bitcoin Lightning Network.

Принятие человеком решений зависит например от того сыт он или голоден, дала ему любовница или не дала, сломался у него в офисе кондиционер или не сломался, поцарапали ему бампер в пробке или нет, купил сосед яхну на 2.625 метра длиннее или нет... и так до бесконечности.

It's basic game theory. 2+2=4. You don't need "AI" for that.

In fact, even a company like BlackRock has no idea what the price of Bitcoin will be in a year or ten years from now. Their strategy in this game is extremely simple - to collect fees from retail investors. Therefore, if the retail sector actively participates in this game, BlackRock will earn Bitcoin through fees from the players' trades. If the retail sector doesn't actively engage in the game, BlackRock won't lose anything. That's their strategy.

For example, if their fee constitutes 0.1% of the sale of this ETF, and the trading volume of this ETF over 10 years amounts to 210,000,000 Bitcoins, then Black Rock's balance could end up being 210,000 Bitcoins after 10 years. However, I believe their fees will be much higher.

While game theory can provide interesting insights into the Talmudic discussions, the primary intent of these ancient texts was not to present formal game-theoretic analyses. Instead, they primarily focused on legal, ethical, and spiritual matters, but contemporary scholars have found parallels and connections between Talmudic discussions and concepts in game theory.


Examples of the application of game theory in the Talmud:

From a game theory perspective, Satoshi Nakamoto also devised a version of the "Game". Several theorems from game theory are applicable to Bitcoin and its ecosystem. Here are some examples:

1. Mining and Blockchain

Nash Equilibrium: The Nash equilibrium is a central concept in game theory where no player can improve their position by unilaterally changing their strategy. In the context of Bitcoin, this could apply to the equilibrium reached between miners when they decide on their mining strategies to maximize their profits.

Prisoner's Dilemma: The Prisoner's Dilemma is a classic game theory scenario that involves two players making decisions that may not lead to the best overall outcome. In Bitcoin, a similar dilemma arises when miners must decide whether to cooperate in mining pools or act independently for potentially higher rewards.

Tragedy of the Commons: This concept is relevant to Bitcoin's block size debate. The Tragedy of the Commons occurs when individuals, acting in their self-interest, deplete shared resources to the detriment of the entire community. In the case of Bitcoin, larger block sizes might lead to more transaction throughput but can strain the network and decentralization.

Game of Chicken: The Game of Chicken refers to a situation where two players engage in a risky confrontation, and the player who swerves first loses. In the context of Bitcoin's development and potential forks, it can relate to the situation where multiple parties hold different opinions, leading to potential chain splits.

Zero-Sum Games: Zero-sum games are games where one player's gain is exactly balanced by another player's loss. Some aspects of trading and speculation in the Bitcoin market can be seen as zero-sum games, where profit for one trader comes at the expense of another.

Stag Hunt: The Stag Hunt game represents a scenario where players must choose between cooperation for a high-value reward (hunting a stag) or acting alone for a smaller but more certain reward (hunting a hare). In Bitcoin, this can relate to the choice between scaling solutions that prioritize decentralization (Stag) versus faster transaction speeds (Hare).

2. Trading and Market

Zero-Sum Games: Bitcoin trading can be viewed as a zero-sum game, where the gains of one trader come at the expense of losses for other traders. The total value of Bitcoin remains constant, and traders aim to profit from fluctuations in its price.

Prisoner's Dilemma: The Prisoner's Dilemma can apply to situations in Bitcoin trading where two traders must make decisions about buying or selling without knowing the other's strategy. Both traders may try to maximize their profits, but this can lead to suboptimal outcomes for both if they do not cooperate.

Nash Equilibrium: The concept of Nash Equilibrium is relevant in the context of Bitcoin trading strategies. Traders aim to find equilibrium points where their chosen strategies are the best responses to the strategies of other traders, leading to stable market conditions.

Game of Chicken: The Game of Chicken is applicable to scenarios in Bitcoin trading where traders take risks in the hope that others will back down. For example, when one trader holds a large position and others may hesitate to enter the market, fearing potential price swings.

Stag Hunt: The Stag Hunt game can be related to Bitcoin trading decisions. Traders must choose between cooperating and collectively driving the price higher (hunting a stag) or acting individually to secure smaller, safer profits (hunting a hare).

Battle of the Sexes: This game theory scenario can apply to situations in the Bitcoin market, where different groups of traders have conflicting opinions on the future price direction. This can lead to uncertainty and volatile price movements.

Bertrand Competition: Bertrand competition can be seen in Bitcoin exchanges where multiple platforms compete by setting their exchange rates. This competition may lead to price wars and the drive for exchanges to offer the most attractive rates.

Market Manipulation: Game theory concepts can help analyze potential market manipulation scenarios in Bitcoin trading, where some traders may attempt to influence prices for their advantage.


Indeed, rules and strategies derived from game theory principles can be applied in various aspects of life, including the cryptocurrency space. As people continue to explore and understand the dynamics of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, they can develop new strategies and best practices based on these principles. The idea of conceptualizing these rules in the form of a "Bitcoin Talmud" to provide guidance and education for newcomers is an interesting concept, although it is essential to recognize that such a document would be a creative and unofficial endeavor.

We can take 21 million as an axiom and even assume that the immutability of this number is crucial. However, from the perspective of game theory, you can't claim that there is no optimal strategy in this game (optimal bet).

What you are talking about is a specific implementation of approximating the logistic function. To implement it, you first need to conduct mathematical modeling and define the function you will be approximating. The choice of 21 million is not random. Satoshi could have chosen any parameter W.