Connecting Hayek's Denationalisation of Money with Nash's Concept of Ideal Money

So, in Nash's main idea on Ideal Money, there's a postscript where he mentions that it actually goes hand in hand with Hayek's Denationalisation of Money. I've put together a 15-part essay series that dives deep into how these ideas connect. What’s cool is that Hayek talks about a theoretical currency he named "the Ducat," while Nash introduces something called an ICPI (Industrial Consumption Price Index), which is basically a globally agreed inflation target that all central banks would use to track inflation. In my writings, which you can find on my GitHub (link in the original), I explain how these concepts align and why they matter today. I argue that both of their theoretical currencies can be substituted with bitcoin. This leads to a new perspective on bitcoin that's pretty different from what most fans think. Instead of claiming bitcoin will completely replace all central bank currencies, my view is that it could actually help stabilize those currencies and put an end to inflation. Rather than dismissing traditional economics, it actually builds on it.

Bitcoin is the best Ideal money humanity has ever had. How do we know if money is good or bad?  First, we need to understand what money is for. Money was created because it was difficult for people to trade goods directly, The problem with barter systems is that it was not always easy to find someone who exactly had what you wanted and who also wanted exactly what you had to offer. For example, if you produce potatoes and someone else produces meat, in order to trade, that person must want potatoes at that exact moment, and you must want meat. If you don’t want the same quantity or quality of goods, the trade becomes complicated. That’s why money was created ,so they realized they needed a medium that could be used as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, and a store of value. Throughout history, various items have been used as money, like stones, shells, whale teeth, and rai stones, then metals like gold, copper, and silver, later paper, and today digital money controlled by banks. Throughout all these attempts, it became increasingly clear that money must have certain characteristics.For example, durability whatever we choose as money must be long-lasting, because if we chose a banana ,it would spoil quickly and lose its value, so it wouldn’t work as money,it wouldn’t be able to serve as a store of value.Divisibility is one of the important characteristics of money. Money must be able to be divided into smaller parts. Divisible forms of money allow transactions of all sizes and amounts.For example, with gold, divisibility was a problem, so people had to use silver and copper coins.Scarcity  Money needs to be rare enough to maintain its value. If there is too much of something, it loses value. That’s why materials like gold and silver, which are relatively scarce, have been used as money for a long time.Money must be easy to store and transfer, and easy to verify  these are characteristics that good money should have. Gold lacked some of these characteristics, which is why banks, paper money, and debt-based currencies appeared. If you analyze it closely, there is no single physical object in the world that has all the characteristics of good money.The digital age has made it possible to create money that has all the necessary characteristics.

I see you follow the Saifedean school of pseudo-austrian-economic theory.  He fools people with weak intellects that think that money is intuitive and economic is garbage theory. We can reference this thread to which I thoroughly debunk Saife's lies and discordant citations of Mises and Hayek: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5555918.msg65709517#msg65709517 Money wasn't created in a "for purpose" fashion.  No economic literature makes that claim.  You are trying to cite Menger's Origins of Money which describes how it NATURALLY arose without such forethought. I get that it makes sense to YOU...but your intuition is wrong. Yes this is what Saifedean claims and then he cites Mises over 50 times.  But Mises school of thought, again you won't understand this, REJECTS historical based arguments.  Because you can just cherrypick things that support your argument and ignore things that suggest that your argument is wrong.  Thats what Saife and you have done. Right so consider for example if one "sat" one day equalled $100 dollars?  Then is bitcoin divisible enough?  Obviously not. Here you can see Saife saying any amount of divisibilty if sufficient is enough and then you can Hayek stuffing that retarded notion: Bitcoin lacks some important things.  Firstly it doesn't scale.  It can't be everyone's coffee money.  Its also not private and thus not fungible.  Also and you won't understand this because you know nothing about economics, you CAN'T serve an economy with a finitely supplied currency...anyone that has even BEGUN to study economics knows that would be a fallacy to think so: REMEMBER: Saifedean CITES Hayek!!! You have simply decided bitcoin is your king and therefore every property of is the best and perfect and any obvious misgiving pointed out of it is a crackpot theory to ignore. Lastly I'd like to point out you came into a thread about Nash and Hayek's proposals and their significance and relevance to bitcoin and you ignored them, ignored the OP, and ignored the subject.