I am sure Roger Ver and Crew will appreciate me tearing apart core's credibility

[JalToorey]

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/open-let ... .queqbwxft

Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

I was in core’s slack for 2 days. I had dialogue with about 10 players including Adam Back. Each of them (excluding Back) made fun of me as soon as I started talking. Some of them were disgustingly cruel. One of them berated me for quite some time about how value and price are the same thing (hint: they aren’t).

But over some period of time I was able to convince the sincere ones, that I absolutely know what I am talking about when it comes the macro-economics implications of bitcoin. I suspect Back is one of them because he said I might be able to convince Ver to lift his tacit assumptions and that Trace Mayer would probably be really interested in the subject of the macro-economic implications of bitcoin (Trace would be FAR more interested in my understanding of David Bohm’s work).

But the berating of me wouldn’t stop, and so when I bit back I was warned. I was in a private dialogue with shino who asked me to calm down, I explained I am calm but not being treated fairly when another “mod” moved me to the troll thread and said I am only welcome there.

I refuse to speak from that position. It’s terrible treatment, simply for the fact that I have something to offer that brings awareness to core’s ignorance.

Shinmonkey knows that I know what I am talking about, and yet they have decided that they understand Nash’s argument while simultaneously confessing that they haven’t read it. They DON’T understand. But shino understands enough to confirm that I know what I am talking about, and they were also one that was making fun of my intelligence. But then started to defend me and tell others to spend time with the points I am making because they are clearly (supra-)rational.

I watched brg444 as they allowed tdny to continually bash me about value and price. tdny I don’t know if they are a core dev but I do know if they are they are a security leak. Their ignorance is astounding and they think value and price are the same thing.

Core is being irresponsible. You cannot decide the fate of bitcoin while ignoring the macro-economic implications of it. This is a very important technology and the direction we take it matters.

I did not find a single scientist in that group (save Back). Every person was willing to argue against Nash argument without hearing it. And when I suggested they read the source material the general consensus was there is no need to (WHEN is this acceptable?).

I showed a superior communication protocol and explained why it is relevant, and not a single developer there can recognize a communication protocol when they see it. That’s a problem.

For 20 years John Nash expounded on what could happen if an international e-currency with a stably issued supply was released unto our global financial system. He was incredibly methodical in his explanation and his works will have a profound impact on how our global civilization will unfold. It is an argument Nash had been refining for nearly 70 years.

Core remains willfully ignorant of his works.

I say willfully because enough players in that group are now aware that they are wrong about how they view the macro-economic implications of bitcoin. Even the player that thinks value and price are the same thing and thinks that my arguments are unfounded illogical and backwards knows that they cannot hold a candle to me on this subject.

It cannot be that in the face of truth there is only fear, attack, and rejection of it.

I was told my tone is bad and so my argument is wrong. It’s not my argument, it’s John Nash’s and it’s not wrong. It’s certainly not wrong because core is unwillingly to learn about it.

I have shown that core is making haphazard choices with the direction they are taking bitcoin. I have shown that if core doesn’t consider Nash’s argument when making choices there is great potential to destroy bitcoin’s gold like qualities. This would affect bitcoin’s value and could endanger the project.

Core’s ignorance is it’s biggest security leak.

[Decoded]

Here we go again.

We all know that the core Devs aren't the most caring about the implications of their changes. Segwit, it does work fine, yes, but actually going through with it is a different thing.

But honestly, what are you going to do? BU, which most of the people here already like, still had many flaws, like Core. Nothing is perfect.

I understand the blocksize issue, and that we'll need a change soon, but no options right now, are viable. Core (Not Segwit) is the only one with a stable community and has been tested on a huge scale.

[patrick.miller]

Juice,

Frankly, you come off as a know-it-all about theoretical economics who is on a personal crusade to enlighten people about John Nash. I've read your posts, and you tend to talk at people, not with them. You seem obsessed with John Nash, as brilliant as he is. Nobody owes you the time of day to listen to you talk about him or his ideas though. Also, nobody owes you respect. It is something you earn. I'm surprised that you think you can just jump into their slack channel, start rambling about John Nash, and expect them to take you seriously.

I personally cannot take you seriously when you make generalizations about a loosely organized group of 100+ contributors such as this: "Core remains willfully ignorant of [John Nash's] works."

Wish you the best though, take care.

[JalToorey]

patrick john nash is a very respected mathematician you buffoon. you are not smarter than him. you are also not a scientist.

[patrick.miller]

patrick john nash is a very respected mathematician you buffoon. you are not smarter than him. you are also not a scientist.

I realize John Nash is a very respected mathematician, but calling people names directly, doesn't win people over to your arguments - at least it certainly hasn't worked in my case.

[JalToorey]

patrick john nash is a very respected mathematician you buffoon. you are not smarter than him. you are also not a scientist.

I realize John Nash is a very respected mathematician, but calling people names directly, doesn't win people over to your arguments - at least it certainly hasn't worked in my case.

your assertion that the argument is wrong because you don't like the tone is asinine.

[patrick.miller]

patrick john nash is a very respected mathematician you buffoon. you are not smarter than him. you are also not a scientist.

I realize John Nash is a very respected mathematician, but calling people names directly, doesn't win people over to your arguments - at least it certainly hasn't worked in my case.

your assertion that the argument is wrong because you don't like the tone is asinine.

The real problem is that you didn't really make an argument, you just complained about not being listened to. You also didn't provide the chat logs to prove that you were mistreated. Regardless, mistreatment has nothing really to do with your subjective conclusion that "Core remains willfully ignorant of [John Nash's] works."

I believe this is about you and your desire to proselytize your opinion, and if people disagree with you, or don't listen to you, you don't have the ability to convince them to do so.

I'm not a good at convincing people either, nor am I a great writer, so I don't really fault you for this. I typically don't try to discuss things with people when they aren't interested. And I don't complain when they don't listen to me.

[JalToorey]

The real problem is that you didn't really make an argument.

John nash made the argument.

[patrick.miller]

The real problem is that you didn't really make an argument.

John nash made the argument.

I like John Nash, and have followed his work and lectures. And frankly, his central argument that technology would solve the problem of ideal money is spot on, but... it's still too early, and we have many phases to go through before we get there.

I trust Bitcoin Core will guide us through

[JalToorey]

The real problem is that you didn't really make an argument.

John nash made the argument.

I like John Nash, and have followed his work and lectures. And frankly, his central argument that technology would solve the problem of ideal money is spot on, but... it's still too early, and we have many phases to go through before we get there.

I trust Bitcoin Core will guide us through

you haven't traversed his argument, you have no idea what it means, and core is being very ignorant and irresponsible.

[patrick.miller]

you haven't traversed his argument

Have you written a paper that traverses it? I would like to read it if so.

[JalToorey]

you haven't traversed his argument

Have you written a paper that traverses it? I would like to read it if so.

Cheers, ya i have. Remember that I told core they aren't scientists because they don't believe reading the SOURCE material is important? That was funny. And right.