|
RealityApologist posted:Again, the model is entirely a description of nodes and transitions. Weng populates the model with data from the Twitter firehose, and generates images like this: I have a PhD in neuroscience; I say this merely to establish my credentials in deciphering academic jargon. Look at that figure you posted and your summation of it. They're more or less eminently understandable. Here is a network of retweets. There are two clouds, which reflects our bipolar political system. Hey, that's pretty neat. But you're not giving us that. You're vomiting out a mishmash of words and phrases and half-baked analogies that don't even come close to approximating that level of clarity. I really do believe that in science at least, an inability to deliver clear information to your target audience is a fault of your own and not the fault of your audience. You get up in front of a comedy web forum, post a treatise that is near-incomprehensible to actual economists, philosophers and other academics, and then whine that you're being attacked? Know your audience. What did you expect? This is nobody's fault but your own.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
Slanderer posted:Have you done that math? I've done some math; the write up is translated from equations I have written down, which can be recovered entirely from the write up. Original drafts had explicit equations, but since I'm concerned about presentation and clarity I described the equations in prose. quote:Let's go with one example--balance limits. You can't just say that income/expenses disappear to avoid hitting a limit, without acknowledging what's happening to them. If I hit the upper limit, is my income being redirected to UniBank1? Or the ether? If it's 0, who is paying the people I owe? If the digital Fed is paying, then this means free currency creation! It's trivially obvious to see how this could be manipulated for directed inflation/deflation. There's a whole section on TUA that addresses exactly this issue. quote:Or maybe we can consider the technical details of a transaction. Let's say, for instance, that I have 4 users: A, B, C, and D. A couples with B, B couples with C, C couples with A. All coupling is 100%. D transfers to any one of them, and it is reflected in the other two...and then to the ones they are coupled to...and it keeps going. Now you have an infinitely expanding number of transactions created that create an infinite amount of money. If you say that the coupling is capped at a certain proportion, then it may or may not converge on a value (i don't want to do the math on that), but in any case, then A, B, C decouple, transfer some amount back to D, couple, and start again. I've talked explicitly about restricting the parameters on coupling so that the must be less than 100%, and other ways of penalizing ring structures to avoid these sorts of issues. These are issues that are resolved by putting constraints on the various parameters I've laid out in the proposal. There's more analysis to do to decide where those constraints should be placed to generate the most interesting dynamics, which is the next obvious step. But the features of a nonlinear currency like strangecoin and their differences from standard currencies can be discussed before doing that analysis. If people would be interested in doing the network analysis with some differential equations, I can post the math, but if you can do the math I'm sure you can recover the equations from the write up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Uglycat's cargocult was Anonymous and Lulzsec from what I recall, anyway. Both him and Eripsa seem really hung up on the idea that the internet will revolutionize every aspect of human existence. Sorry fellas, the only thing that internet does is make you stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've talked explicitly about restricting the parameters on coupling so that the must be less than 100%, and other ways of penalizing ring structures to avoid these sorts of issues. These are issues that are resolved by putting constraints on the various parameters I've laid out in the proposal. There's more analysis to do to decide where those constraints should be placed to generate the most interesting dynamics, which is the next obvious step. But the features of a nonlinear currency like strangecoin and their differences from standard currencies can be discussed before doing that analysis. If people would be interested in doing the network analysis with some differential equations, I can post the math, but if you can do the math I'm sure you can recover the equations from the write up. That's a lot of words to say, "You're right, it's broken, and I don't know how to fix it". Even without 100% coupling it's trivially broken. EDIT: Also you haven't addressed the fact that you're using "nonlinear" in a completely nonsensical way. Please don't. Slanderer fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:
Nah, Mobius dollars are great because you put one into a vending machine and it just keeps going around it in a circle forever giving you infinity credits at that machine. I mean, getting the dollar into the machine is a problem I'm aware of, but I'm just an academic, I leave it to others to hammer out the kinks in my brilliant ideas. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Now that's just unfair to philosophy grads. Eripsa's never actually shown that he has a grasp on the introductory literature (besides saying "I've actually spent a lot of time learning this stuff" and moving on to the next fugue). That's my point, really. He writes like a terrible, terrible grad student whose advisor never beat the poo poo out of his early work in the interests of making him even vaguely coherent. The fact he's a philosophy grad just explains his propensity for using obscure BIG WORDS in weird contexts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've done some math; the write up is translated from equations I have written down, which can be recovered entirely from the write up. Original drafts had explicit equations, but since I'm concerned about presentation and clarity I described the equations in prose. Except, as stated over and over by people whose job it is to present things like this, you're utterly inept at using prose to explain anything. Try and be succinct. Being able to clarify and clearly and concisely explain complex and technical terms shows a high level of understanding. You, however, are neither clear nor concise which sheds doubt on your competence. Your field may be Philosophy, but that's still no excuse to be as verbose and obfuscating as you are. Being a student of Philosophy is no excuse for this in the real world. If you want to be verbose and jack off over your own ideas, go into law. ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:That's my point, really. He writes like a terrible, terrible grad student whose advisor never beat the poo poo out of his early work in the interests of making him even vaguely coherent. The fact he's a philosophy grad just explains his propensity for using obscure BIG WORDS in weird contexts. I do wonder what learning institution is allowing his perpetuation of ineptitude to continue. Xelkelvos fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Hey RealityApologist are you ever going to answer any of the very obvious and simple questions that have been posed here or are you just going to keep up the intellectual masturbation? Can you explain in maybe 2-3 sentences each what the purpose of your five different transaction types is? Also how I would use them to buy bread, and how their use in buying bread would improve my life, or the government's understanding of economics, or anything at all. Why is payment two-sided, but support one-sided? Why does inhibition exist at all? Why aren't you more inhibited from posting?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Also maybe you can write a 2-3 paragraph abstract in the form of a TED talk to a general audience, explaining how your nonlinear cryptocurrency is going to revolutionize the universe. Something like this: Money is great. We all enjoy exchanging money for goods and services. You are paid money in exchange for your labour, and you use that money to pay for rent, utilities and buy groceries. But have you ever stopped to think about all of the problems with money? For example, if you go down to the bakery to buy a loaf of bread, how can the government tell that you're buying bread, or that the bread you are buying is especially popular with single white males age 25-40? Or perhaps you have trouble with accumulating too much money and not knowing what to spend it on? Perhaps your friends are frustrated that they can't mutually agree to make less money without spending the money they already have? That's where StrangeCoin comes in. StrangeCoin is a brand new non-linear cryptocurrency that solves all of these problems. Having trouble buying bread at the bakery? StrangeCoin gives you four different ways to change the structure of your income! All you have to do is decide on a fraction of your income to exchange with the bakery over a designated time period. Too much money and not enough to spend it on? StrangeCoin limits your savings and forces you to spend more of your income so you don't lose it to the aether! Not enough money? The aether will pay for your bread! And best of all, this strange new currency will allow your government to track your spending habits with unprecedented precision! But wait, there's more!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Dogstoyevsky posted:I really do believe that in science at least, an inability to deliver clear information to your target audience is a fault of your own and not the fault of your audience. I'm not denying that the communication problems are largely my fault. I'm trying to explain that I struggle with writing. That's partly because I'm not good with language, and it's partly because the subject matter is difficult and draws from a wide variety of traditions with no settled vocabulary of discussion, and it's partly because my knowledge is incomplete over these range of topics. The Strangecoin proposal was written for bitcoin nerds on HN and not the goons. I'm sharing here because they explicitly requested another thread, because they find ridiculing me for being a tryhard and struggling with difficult problems entertaining. I find the practice of writing for a hostile audience useful for improving my writing and making my ideas more comprehensible. As I said, I'm okay with this dynamic. So I'm not blaming the audience for their reaction. Nevertheless, the hostile reception does cause a number of frustrating problems with interpretation and our basic ability to have a discussion about the topic, quite independent of my ability as a writer, and its reasonable for me to object to this hostility. I'm trying to deflate the hostility by pointing it out where it occurs and refusing to engage it, while responding as best I can to the comments that are earnest. It's the best I can do in the face of such hostility. It's not easy, even if I were more competent. The hostility in this forum has reached a point to where I'm excluded from commenting on any subject on which I'm not an expert. Unless I've obtained a phd in systems engineering I can't say anything on the organization of technical systems, and unless I have a degree in economics or accounting I can't say anything about currency, and if I'm not a expert in math then I can't talk about network diagrams. I think this is an unreasonable demand on anyone, especially in a public informal setting like the SA forums. I write in an academic style because that's my training and it's all I know how to do, but that doesn't mean that every word out of my mouth must be up to academic standards. I have more than enough knowledge in these areas to talk about something like strangecoin in a public forum, and for that discussion to be interesting and productive without having to lay out my credentials and motivations in every post. Again, these are just unreasonable demands on the conversation; no one could ever live up to them, especially me. But more generally, my training is in philosophy in the philosophy of science, which is historically a discipline which looks at the practices of sciences across many disciplines, and derives abstract frameworks that can help coordinate and unify those domains as a coherent epistemological network. In the 80's and 90's this happened with the cognitive science, which was motivated by philosophical discussions in the 60s and 70s that brought together linguists, psychologists, computer scientists, and neuroscientists under a unified framework. Something similar is happening today, with the economists, and social psychologists, and data analysts. This is fueled partly by philosophical discussions in the 90's and 00's about the extended mind and collective action, but is really rocketed forward by the developments of social networking, and the huge quantities of information about social activity they've made available. This is a kind of disciplinary reorientation around network-theoretic tools. I consider my work as contributing to the philosophical background in which this transition happens; my public writing on G+ is mostly about organization and digital politics, and Strangecoin is a product of my thinking in this direction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The hostility in this forum has reached a point to where I'm excluded from commenting on any subject on which I'm not an expert. Unless I've obtained a phd in systems engineering I can't say anything on the organization of technical systems, and unless I have a degree in economics or accounting I can't say anything about currency, and if I'm not a expert in math then I can't talk about network diagrams. I think this is an unreasonable demand on anyone, especially in a public informal setting like the SA forums. I write in an academic style because that's my training and it's all I know how to do, but that doesn't mean that every word out of my mouth must be up to academic standards. I have more than enough knowledge in these areas to talk about something like strangecoin in a public forum, and for that discussion to be interesting and productive without having to lay out my credentials and motivations in every post. Again, these are just unreasonable demands on the conversation; no one could ever live up to them, especially me. You've got a habit of making reference to your expertise and academic credentials, then acting like we're all just commenting on a cat video when the real PhDs show up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Perhaps this better situates the proposal I'm offering, and what I'm expecting of it. I've described a network of nodes and relations, and although my description is in prose it was written to be precise enough to formalize straightforwardly (I identify all relevant parameters of the model explicitly in the proposal). I'm claiming that populating this model with data from the real world will provide us with a picture of the economic network that is explanatory and predictive of emergent phenomena in our economic organization. I'm also claiming that this model will give insight into certain patterns in our economic activity that is obscured by traditional economic tools. And finally, I'm claiming that giving people access to this kind of data as feedback informing their activity might help them perform better as economic agents and improve the economy as a whole. Having finally finished slogging through the OP's  and the rest of the thread, I've yet to see any elaboration on this. Setting aside the practicality of the whole thing for the sake of argument, what new data do you predict this model will give us and how will it make us better people? The whole thought experiment rides on this claim and I'm really not seeing the evidence to support it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:
But you haven't improved. Not one iota. You write exactly the same as you used to. It's just as bad. You haven't improved at all. quote:The hostility in this forum has reached a point to where I'm excluded from commenting on any subject on which I'm not an expert. Unless I've obtained a phd in systems engineering I can't say anything on the organization of technical systems, and unless I have a degree in economics or accounting I can't say anything about currency, and if I'm not a expert in math then I can't talk about network diagrams. I think this is an unreasonable demand on anyone, especially in a public informal setting like the SA forums. I write in an academic style because that's my training and it's all I know how to do, but that doesn't mean that every word out of my mouth must be up to academic standards. I have more than enough knowledge in these areas to talk about something like strangecoin in a public forum, and for that discussion to be interesting and productive without having to lay out my credentials and motivations in every post. Again, these are just unreasonable demands on the conversation; no one could ever live up to them, especially me. These aren't the demands, though. The demand is that you stop saying incorrect things about those disciplines and that, when someone in those disciplines corrects you, you listen to them. You do not have enough knowledge to talk about it. You have proved this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The hostility in this forum has reached a point to where I'm excluded from commenting on any subject on which I'm not an expert. Unless I've obtained a phd in systems engineering I can't say anything on the organization of technical systems, and unless I have a degree in economics or accounting I can't say anything about currency, and if I'm not a expert in math then I can't talk about network diagrams. You don't have to have any credentials; this is the internet there is no way to know what they are anyway. Your credentials are your ability to communicate and defend your ideas. You are in an environment with a lot of experts you should have humility when you are talking about something that you don't know 100%
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
I think you mentioned the "fed, or whatever" as enacting monetary policy, but taxes directly control how much money the private sector gets to play with. How exactly could strangecoin ever be used to discharge tax obligations? Is a currency really a currency if you can't pay taxes with it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Wikipedia Article on Cranks posted:"According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
I've not done any of those things. The strongest argument this thread has right now is that I'm a bad writer, which hardly makes me a crank.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I think you mentioned the "fed, or whatever" as enacting monetary policy, but taxes directly control how much money the private sector gets to play with. How exactly could strangecoin ever be used to discharge tax obligations? Is a currency really a currency if you can't pay taxes with it? Given that currencies were invented in order to pay taxes with them, it's safe to say that no, no it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Why do you believe that economic principles should be encoded within the paradigm of the currency rather than using currency as a method of accounting and simple store of value?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Okay, I think I understand.quote:I find the practice of writing for a hostile audience useful for improving my writing and making my ideas more comprehensible. As I said, I'm okay with this dynamic. Some people enjoy being flagellated in public, okay. I think the proposal itself is just an excuse to get attention, and the amount of thought that has gone into it reflects that. e: realtalk though this type of behavior is something a therapist would be really good to pull into the loop on. e2: now you're banning corporations?!? Okay, how?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Corporations. Part of the point of a system like strangecoin is that you wouldn't need corporations as distinct legal entities, since their function would be entirely redundant. Individual agents themselves are capable of forming spontaneous corporate structures simply by engaging in the transactions. To put it another way, Strangecoin are an alternative to corporate structure, not to money. Strangecoin tells you how much you are invested in which enterprise, and the influence you have over that corporate body's direction. I've already mentioned in this thread the idea of using this as a solution to the corporate veil, because it makes explicit exactly what contributions are being made by what parties, and therefore provides means of holding individuals accountable for collective action.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've not done any of those things. The strongest argument this thread has right now is that I'm a bad writer, which hardly makes me a crank. Give an example of you genuinely engaging with anything anybody else has said, please.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've not done any of those things. The strongest argument this thread has right now is that I'm a bad writer, which hardly makes me a crank. No, you have absolutely overestimated your own knowledge and ability, and you have absolutely dismissed actual PhDs (thats #1). You also claim that your theories have "changed these forums" (that's #2) When actual PhD's post at you, you ignore them entirely (that's #3) And you won't shut the gently caress up (that's #4)
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've not done any of those things. The strongest argument this thread has right now is that I'm a bad writer, which hardly makes me a crank. You haven't done these things? Pfft, look at this guy thinking about time in a non-linear fashion. You will have done them ALREADY.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've not done any of those things. The strongest argument this thread has right now is that I'm a bad writer, which hardly makes me a crank. Thank you. This thread has provided me with the most genuine laughs I've had all month.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Part of the point of a system like strangecoin is that you wouldn't need corporations as distinct legal entities, since their function would be entirely redundant. Individual agents themselves are capable of forming spontaneous corporate structures simply by engaging in the transactions. RealityApologist posted:Part of the point of a system like strangecoin is that you wouldn't need corporations as distinct legal entities, since their function would be entirely redundant. Individual agents themselves are capable of forming spontaneous corporate structures simply by engaging in the transactions. RealityApologist posted:Individual agents themselves are capable of forming spontaneous corporate structures simply by engaging in the transactions. RealityApologist posted:
Hi, my factory in Taiwan needs 10,000 tons of steel by Monday. Can you spontaneously collect a network of friends to spontaneously facilitate this transaction post-haste?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Part of the point of a system like strangecoin is that you wouldn't need corporations as distinct legal entities, since their function would be entirely redundant. Individual agents themselves are capable of forming spontaneous corporate structures simply by engaging in the transactions. Okay I actually agree with some of your ideology but you really, really suck at this dude. The whole gently caress in point of a corporation is limited liability, keeping you personally exempt from the consequences of collective action.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Hi, my factory in Taiwan needs 10,000 tons of steel by Monday. Can you spontaneously collect a network of friends to spontaneously facilitate this transaction post-haste? I'm marbling the gently caress out of this iron ore over here, so the first step is taken care of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Part of the point of a system like strangecoin is that you wouldn't need corporations as distinct legal entities, since their function would be entirely redundant. Individual agents themselves are capable of forming spontaneous corporate structures simply by engaging in the transactions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
The main purpose of a corporation is legal liability shield for the owners.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Hi, my factory in Taiwan needs 10,000 tons of steel by Monday. Can you spontaneously collect a network of friends to spontaneously facilitate this transaction post-haste? Do you really need that steel though??? Challenge your preconceptions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Hi, my factory in Taiwan needs 10,000 tons of steel by Monday. Can you spontaneously collect a network of friends to spontaneously facilitate this transaction post-haste?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Part of the point of a system like strangecoin is that you wouldn't need corporations as distinct legal entities, since their function would be entirely redundant. Individual agents themselves are capable of forming spontaneous corporate structures simply by engaging in the transactions. I honestly don't even know where to begin typing out how much worse this idea is than everything you've said so far. I started typing something about liability for 'stockholders'. Then I deleted it and started typing something about access to capital. Then I deleted that and started typing something about large purchases and variable corporate sizes requiring individually set balance caps and the lobbying fuckery that would allow. But in the end it's just easier to type 'jesus gently caress you're out of your depth on this issue'
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No, you have absolutely overestimated your own knowledge and ability, and you have absolutely dismissed actual PhDs (thats #1). I haven't dismissed or ignored any experts. I'm not sure what you are even referring to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Sorry, Bill hit a cyclist while driving the work van so we're all in jail. Please make relationships for my commissary. Or, more libertarianesque: "Yes, it's true that Bill was driving a truck because I was paying him (or whatever the gently caress the cognate of paying is in this stupid system) to do it but since liability doesn't transfer he's solely responsible for that accident." Edit: It's neat seeing everyone identify the main obvious problem with what Eripsa comes up with on the fly. Why he can't do that, I have no idea, except that he seems profoundly ignorant--but it might just be his lack of willingness to subject his ideas to any self-criticism at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The main purpose of a corporation is legal liability shield for the owners. Right, and Strangecoin provides that kind of shield. Individuals don't assume full responsibility for their transactions; that responsibility is distributed across the network in quantifiable ways. It doesn't provide immunity from legal responsibility, so in that sense it's different than the existing legal framework for corporations. Are we now defending the corporate legal structure in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
I'm really confused and kinda annoyed by the idea of a spontaneous corporate structure to meet a need. Do you realize how long, even now, it takes to set up a structure to meet even a simple need? To meet complex tasks, such as designing and building a supercomputer or a rocket or a nuclear reactor or design a plane, it can take years to set up a proper organization. There's intense pruning and organizing and training. Even finding people that meet some of the requirements for a given task, whether that's intellectual expertise or leadership or a sufficient understanding of "the big picture" in a particular field that they can take on a leadership role, can be an incredible pain in the rear end. When you do find these people, they will take time to be trained in additional tasks necessary to their position or even to fully integrate into their role in the organization. Further, you need lawyers and HR and every other bit of infrastructure to facilitate communication and ensure legal protection for the people in the organization. Transactions require both a need and an organization that can meet that need, and the organizations often remain long after a need disappears or is replaced because their expertise and value transcends that need.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I haven't dismissed or ignored any experts. I'm not sure what you are even referring to. Obdicut posted:[...] Really? You have no idea of when you ignored 75% of an actual experts post not but a few short pages ago? Really?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Right, and Strangecoin provides that kind of shield. Individuals don't assume full responsibility for their transactions; that responsibility is distributed across the network in quantifiable ways. See, so as not to handwave, you should explain these quantifiable ways. A flaw has been found in your system. Instead of dealing with it, you just assert that it's dealt with in your system. This is not good, or sufficient. Explain how that responsibility is distributed. ^^^^ I'm not a good expert, I'm just a sociologist. I can just see the common-sense flaws that everyone else can. That accountant dude, the neuro guy, those are better examples of experts he's just blithely passing by as they tell him he's wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
Has the OP answered why we'd want this system yet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:31
|
|
