The Nashian Orientation of Bitcoin

My works in regard to the Nashian Orientation of Bitcoin has two paths to traverse-the simpler explanation and the more complex. The former is 6 essays ( Home · jalToorey/IdealMoney Wiki · GitHub ):

Introduction to Ideal Money and the Value Thereof

Summary

This introduction begins to define what an Ideal Money scenario refers to which is the (re-)levation of a politically held global standard for money comparison. Furthermore, using Nick Szabo’s formalization of Adam Smith, it introduces the formalization of the efficiency gains from such a global setting as well as highlights the natural and favorable effects of a global money standard on long term contract formation.

The ICPI and Bitcoin as an Ideal Money Basis

Summary

This writing explains the purpose of invoking the concept of what Nash calls the ICPI and dispels the misconceptions of it perpetuated by those notably including Adam Back, George Selgin, and Saifedean Ammous. The concept of the ICPI as an extension of a gold standard helps us philosophically paint the concept of a vector of quality for money that is otherwise difficulty to describe or point to in dialogue. It is from this philosophical view that we are able to derive an implementable path to Ideal Money.

Hal Finney’s Theory of Bitcoin Backed Banks

Summary

This writing explores the reference Hal Finney made to George Selgin which lead Finney to his theory of Bitcoin Backed Banks. It also introduces new lexicon into the crypto-community in order for people to better understand and reference Hal’s extension of Selgin’s work. This framework is helpful for not only understanding the nature of the evolving digital money realm that Satoshi birthed but also for understanding how digital money might affect our legacy currency systems. It is often thought that the lightning network innovation precludes the theory of bitcoin backed banks-this writing argues otherwise.

The Theory of Bitcoin Backed Central Banks

Summary

This writing explores the early limitations implicit in bitcoin’s code and why they might exist. It then extends the theory of bitcoin backed banks to observations on how central banking might evolve in a world where bitcoin plays a significant high value settlement role in the global economy.

The Nashian Orientation of Bitcoin: A Theory of Bitcoin and Money

Summary

This writing extends Nick Szabo’s theory of ‘collectibles’ and their quality of ‘unforgeable costliness’ and compares this quality of a money to the vector of quality Nash highlights with his ICPI concept. From this viewpoint and comparison we can understand how bitcoin might be ideally suited to play the role of quality comparator for existing major currencies.

Ergo, Bitcoin is Nash’s Ideal Money

Summary

In conclusion, this writing extends Nick Szabo’s bitgold concept to Satoshi’s bitgold implementation through a basic process control solution and shows how this solution and implementation match the formal definition of Nash’s (asymptotically) Ideal Money.

The latter is 15 essays and far more in depth and complex as it demonstrates a technique for traversing complex socially held inter-subjective truths (using a tool I dubbed “Szabonian Deconstruction”):

  1. Bitcoin Most Certainly Violates Mises Regression Theorem and This Fact Compels Clarification or Re‐Solution from the Mises Institute; And An Introduction to Szabonian Deconstruction

  2. Of The Fatal Inconsistencies In Saifedean Ammous’ Bitcoin Standard

  3. On Terminating Bitcoin’s Violation of Mises Regression Theorem With Games as Pre‐Market Commodity Valuators

  4. On the Szabonian Deconstruction of Money and Gresham’s Law

  5. The Bitcoin Community is a Sybil Attack On Bitcoin

  6. On The Satoshi Complex

  7. On Cantillon and the Szabonian Deconstruction of the Cantillon Effect

  8. Understanding Hayek Via Our Szabonian Deconstruction of Cantillon

  9. On the Tools and Metaphors Necessary To Properly Traverse Hayek’s Denationalization of Money In the Face and Light of Bitcoin

  10. On the Sharpening of the Tools Necessary As a Computational Shortcut for Understanding Hayek’s Proposal The Denationalization of Money in The Context of the Existence of Bitcoin

  11. Our Tool for Szabonian Deconstruction of Highly Evolved Religions

  12. Thought Systems As Inputs For Turing Machines‐Our Tool For Framing Metaphors Of Intersubjective Truths

  13. On the Szabonian Metaphorical Framework For Objectively Traversing the Complex History of Mankind

  14. On the Synthesis and Formalization of Hayek, Nash, And Szabo’s Proposals For The Optimization of The Existing Global Legacy Currency Systems

  15. On The Re‐Solution of Central Banking and Hayekian Landscapes

Here I read the 15 numerated essays aloud posted on X: https://x.com/Soaker_Patoshi/status/1956163331917582720

And the same playlist on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_VzRSPfA1fvllWWum1lU-EqBXt1kCqSk

2 Likes

Kyle Torpey is really the only known name I have that has read the simpler set/version and he seems to have found the insights quite agreeable (he’s thus a reasonable persons to ask questions to about the series). The series ends by showing the mathematical equivalence between Szabo’s re-arrangement of his earlier bitgold paper, Nash’s proposal for an ICPI based global economy, and Satoshi’s implementation of Szabo’s bitgold.

I think it’s interesting that the essay titled “The Theory of Bitcoin Backed Central Banks” is surprisingly quite relevant to today’s spam debate. Here is the intro:

A Not So Secret History of Bitcoin

We will explore the origins of a certain source of contention surrounding Bitcoin and the relevant ramifications of how Bitcoin will unfold with respect to our global financial system. This contention refers to the introduction of a transactional throughput limitation that Satoshi committed to bitcoin’s source code:

Originally, Bitcoin’s block size was limited by the number of database locks required to process it (at most 10000). This limit was effectively around 500-750k in serialized bytes, and was forgotten until 2013 March. In 2010, an explicit block size limit of 1 MB was introduced into Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto. He added it hidden in two commits[1][2][3] in secret. This limit was effectively a no-op due to the aforementioned forgotten limit.

In 2013 March, the original lock limit was discovered by accident (Bitcoin Core v0.8.0 failed to enforce it, leading to upgraded nodes splitting off the network). After resolving the crisis, it was determined that since nobody knew of the limit, it was safe to assume there was consensus to remove it, and a hardfork removing the limit was scheduled and cleanly activated in 2013 May. From this point forward, the 1 MB limit became the effective limiting factor of the block size for the first time.~Block size limit controversy - Bitcoin Wiki