|
RealityApologist posted:I don't know why you keep saying this because it's a totally legitimate use of the term. With dollars, if I give you 1 dollar then you get 1 dollar. In strangecoin, if I give you 1 strangecoin you might get a different number of strangecoin, depending on the overall network of transactions. That's a nonlinear relation. If it's based directly on the number of network transactions, then it likely is a linear relation, or at least some other type of relation that can be plotted like quadratic, cubic, exponential, logarithmic, or whatever is used to determine the number of coins. Unless it's a truly random number of coins each time (which would be retarded as hell) there's going to be some type of mathematical relation. And again, WHY? Why should we risk crashing the loving world economy to implement this? E: Also, this post is one of the first I could read without my eyes glazing over. Aim for this level of explanation, not whatever the hell you were doing earlier. fade5 fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Apr 1, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
Serious post, rather than another snipe, but RA, I'd really suggest you take a look at Arguing Constructively by Dominic Infante http://www.amazon.com/Arguing-Constructively-Dominic-A-Infante/dp/0881333271 "Arguing Constructively" is the best book I've read about forming ideas and putting them out there. You need help assembling a cohesive argument and synthesizing and refuting counter-arguments. As is, everyone is calling you on dodging because what you think is answering someone doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I don't know why you keep saying this because it's a totally legitimate use of the term. With dollars, if I give you 1 dollar then you get 1 dollar. In strangecoin, if I give you 1 strangecoin you might get a different number of strangecoin, depending on the overall network of transactions. That's a nonlinear relation. You're using nonlinear incorrectly. Please, don't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Dogstoyevsky posted:It's literally, literally your job to think big and translate that poo poo into a form that people without your level of training can understand, appreciate, benefit from, and act upon. Thats literally why I'm practicing here with goons. Should I be able to do this without practice? Am I blameworthy if this ability doesn't come easy to me? I'm not sure how else to get better but to keep trying, but this thread consistently makes me feel like an rear end in a top hat for trying. quote:This is you making excuses. You are blaming the audience. You just are. I don't know what else to say. You're getting a bad reception. You want to think that you're above the requirements of a performance because you're an academic but you're not, nobody is. I'm not blaming anyone. I'm explaining what I think the challenges are, and how I understand their impact on the reception of my ideas. That's not blaming anyone or making excuses, that's just trying to be understood. Since the majority of the criticisms in this thread are about my character and sanity, I feel like some explanation is necessary. I'm probably wrong about that. The comments in this thread are aimed at stripping me of my legitimacy to speak. It is a way of preventing a discussion from happening at all. That's not an excuse, it's a fact of the social dynamics on this forum. It doesn't matter how prepared and competent I am, if my basic sanity is in question then there's no way I'll be able to communicate with anyone. I'll have to admit to being a little shocked at the claim that people who aren't understood shouldn't be talking. It's a kind of discursive inhumanity. I'm a pompous intellectual, but the claim that people who don't understand shouldn't be talking is far beyond my tolerance for intellectual elitism. I have the exact opposite sentiment: let people speak whatever and however they can. No one has to listen, but if we have good filters we'll find the good bits worth echoing, and separate that from the noise. I'm happy to admit there's a lot of noise in my work. But I think there's a signal there too, and I think the goons hear it, or at least they can spot it when it comes up in other contexts, like that Beula bullshit. In other words, I think the goons are a good filter. Whatever noise is getting pummled out of it by the constant hostility, so whatever remains is polished to a fine shine. If anything, I'd expect you all to think this is good for me. So I'm not making excuses, I'm just trying to explain the circumstances as I understand them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Why put noise in to begin with? Like why have a thought, think "that's noise," then share it instead of keeping it to yourself? Expecting people to listen to your noise is what crazy people do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:I have a question RealityApologist, once you have all the world's uncompressed social economic network technodata that you can assemble into a cool graph like that guy did with StackOverflow or whatever, what happens then? We have cool graphs that show social interaction and economic effects and all that right now and nobody (well, no average person) really pays any attention to them. I don't really see how this would make any of this data or greater economic trends/effects more apparent to the average person unless they spent a bunch of time specifically going out to look for it, and they can do that right now with existing systems and the help of some good statisticians or economists. I mean I have a degree in Computational Mathematics with a minor in Philosophy and I don't really get why applying network theory to economics is desirable or will really do anything besides completely break the world economy during the transition period. You said something like it would be a tool used to bypass or change the world in ways we can't do in our current political climate, but how would the information make itself apparent in a way that would lead to change? I just see this as being useful to slick bastards who can exploit it, confusing to Joe Everyman, and otherwise just academically neato. He already answered this: RealityApologist posted:So here's a model very much like the Strangecoin model, that describes the incentive structures around certain constraints, and the changes in behavior of the agents on the basis of those constraints. It's not necessary to ask of the model "but what do people do with the badges", because the model simply describes their incentive structures within those constraints. Strangecoin has a different set of constraints and so will behave differently, but I'm describing the same sort of model. He has described a model. It's not necessary to answer 'what do people do with the currency', or 'what the gently caress is the point of this', because it is a special class of minimally informative esoteric model of maximally nonlinearly complex behaviour and it is impossible to create even the simplest working example of it. RealityApologist posted:The comments in this thread are aimed at stripping me of my legitimacy to speak. It is a way of preventing a discussion from happening at all. That's not an excuse, it's a fact of the social dynamics on this forum. It doesn't matter how prepared and competent I am, if my basic sanity is in question then there's no way I'll be able to communicate with anyone. There's no way you'll be able to communicate if you never answer the simplest loving question posed of you like 'what is the point of your model' or 'can you provide a working example' which have been asked repeatedly for the last 8 pages without a single answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Thats literally why I'm practicing here with goons. Should I be able to do this without practice? Am I blameworthy if this ability doesn't come easy to me? I'm not sure how else to get better but to keep trying, but this thread consistently makes me feel like an rear end in a top hat for trying. I posted a little bit above with a helpful online tool that lets you know the grade level of your writing, and highlights overly-complicated phrases and poor word choices. Just copy/paste your text in there and have a look. It's designed more for novelists, but it's somewhere to start.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
You're not trying. You refuse to answer actual questions, picking only the ones you can cover in your word-salad and avoid the rest. You don't explain anything, you just repeat yourself endlessly while (mis)using technical terms to cover up the emptiness of your argument. Then you start bitching about how everyone's so mean and why won't you guys have a conversation I just want to talk why isn't anyone interested in this discussion when it's clear that the only one not interested in a discussion here is you. We've seen this time and time again on this forum and it's just pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:You're not trying. You refuse to answer actual questions, picking only the ones you can cover in your word-salad and avoid the rest. You don't explain anything, you just repeat yourself endlessly while (mis)using technical terms to cover up the emptiness of your argument. Then you start bitching about how everyone's so mean and why won't you guys have a conversation I just want to talk why isn't anyone interested in this discussion when it's clear that the only one not interested in a discussion here is you. We've seen this time and time again on this forum and it's just pathetic. All of this is pretty part of the course, really--the thing that gets me is when he says, "I've yet to see any real objections to my grand beautiful vision", even when they are presented again and again and again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Zombie Samurai posted:I posted a little bit above with a helpful online tool that lets you know the grade level of your writing, and highlights overly-complicated phrases and poor word choices. Just copy/paste your text in there and have a look. It's designed more for novelists, but it's somewhere to start.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
A man walks into a bar and buys a beer with a StrangeCoin. The bartender receives a nonlinear sum of StrangeCoins in return. Why? Then he drives home drunk and kills a pregnant lady and anyone who ever drank at that bar or purchased a product that was served there goes to jail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Thats literally why I'm practicing here with goons. Should I be able to do this without practice? Am I blameworthy if this ability doesn't come easy to me? I'm not sure how else to get better but to keep trying, but this thread consistently makes me feel like an rear end in a top hat for trying. If you're flipping out with a little bit of light anonymous internet criticism I have bad news what academia is like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'll have to admit to being a little shocked at the claim that people who aren't understood shouldn't be talking. It's a kind of discursive inhumanity. I'm a pompous intellectual, but the claim that people who don't understand shouldn't be talking is far beyond my tolerance for intellectual elitism. I have the exact opposite sentiment: let people speak whatever and however they can. No one has to listen, but if we have good filters we'll find the good bits worth echoing, and separate that from the noise. Our filter is hostility. It's kind of how this forum works if you haven't noticed. If you want everyone to just hug you and love you for having ideas no matter what your understanding of those ideas is you should probably go to Reddit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'll have to admit to being a little shocked at the claim that people who aren't understood shouldn't be talking. It's a kind of discursive inhumanity. I'm a pompous intellectual, but the claim that people who don't understand shouldn't be talking is far beyond my tolerance for intellectual elitism. I have the exact opposite sentiment: let people speak whatever and however they can. No one has to listen, but if we have good filters we'll find the good bits worth echoing, and separate that from the noise. Assuming you're a grad student, why do you think you're meeting with an adviser and having your paper reviewed constantly rather than just letting you submit it to whatever journals you'd like, whenever you'd like? Academia itself is one big series of filter>filter>filter that you have to pass a priori before anyone takes your ideas seriously. If so far this has been a harsher critique of your paper than you've already received, you really need to transfer programs or at least get a better adviser ASAP because you are wasting your money and time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:All of this is pretty part of the course Ok, so finally answer: how do you collect taxes, and why would a government ever accept currency that they did not originate?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:If you're flipping out with a little bit of light anonymous internet criticism I have bad news what academia is like. I'd like to introduce a new cryptocurrency. Coin mining will be driven by the number of awkward silences at Eripsa's oral defense
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
In a weird way, this reminds me of something my friend Jimmy and I came up with for software patents combined with open source. That you could release your code out into the wild, and people could grab it on their own and pay you for it or bundle it with their own code into programs and you'd get a portion of that. We worked out lots of ways that this could work out. Then we finished the bullshit session since obviously we're not going to move to a totally open-source model and tracking code would be so impossible that you'd have to have a whole NSA just dedicated to it, and even then there'd be ways to steal code. We found it a fun and interesting conversation between friends; it's nice to explore blue-sky ideas, and criticizing them yourself gives a better understanding of limitations in the real world. You're not supposed to hand-wave away all the problems and begin evangelizing those ideas. Coolness Averted posted:Stuff like this is why folks are calling bullshit that you've completed an undergrad degree (at an accredited university), let alone got accepted to a graduate program. I can confirm he really is a grad student or he orchestrates an elaborate fantasy life on the internet, complete with homeworks and student questions and the like. Remember that literal creationists can manage to get advanced degrees. And yeah, his sensitivity is weird for an academic but I figure he doesn't try to get any of this dumb poo poo actually published because he actually knows on some level how bad it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:If so far this has been a harsher critique of your paper than you've already received, you really need to transfer programs or at least get a better adviser ASAP because you are wasting your money and time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:No. That, specifically, is not a nonlinear relation. This is because you have describes all of your other transaction taxes as being proportional. This means if transaction was 2 dollars instead of 1, the amount of taxes recieved/taken would be twice what they were for 1 dollar. Two 1 dollar transactions in a row would lead to the same result as a single 2 dollar transaction. The function describing a single transaction satisfies both the superposition-able and homogeneity criteria of linearity. Right, but users don't just have a single tax amplifying their transactions; each transaction amplifies the others in a cumulative way. If the tax was only proportional to the transaction it would be linear. But the tax is proporational to the network of transactions, and that makes it nonlinear. So for example, let's say X wants to pay Y some quantity q of Strangecoin. Although X pays out q from their balance (so receives a net loss of q Strangecoin), Y could receive more than q depending on the other transactions X has. Say, for instance, X has 3 endorsers E1, E2, and E3, in proportions <e1, e2, e3> respectively. The Y as the result of the payment, Y will receive q coins from X, and e1*q from E1, e2*q from E2, and e1*q from E3. This is not a linear transaction. We might also imagine that shortly after this payment, X wants to pay Y another quantity q of Strangecoin, but in the interim endorser E3 has withdrawn support. So the amount of this transaction will not be the same as the previous transaction, even though both agree to q Strangecoin. Again, this is not a linear relation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Oh my god it is Cookie Clicker. e: Is there a reason that we want combo strings on money? woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Actually, they are both gaining money! It's amazing! Does this mean when he flops his dissertation defense, his undergrads get expelled?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Right, but users don't just have a single tax amplifying their transactions; each transaction amplifies the others in a cumulative way. If the tax was only proportional to the transaction it would be linear. But the tax is proporational to the network of transactions, and that makes it nonlinear. No, economic multiplier effects are absurdly complicated and arcane. Edit: Look at something like the credit default swap chain reaction which literally no one understood.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
You know what I'm feeling generous so I'm going to translate your idea into obscure beep boop probability to see if that tanks through that head of yours. T = condition meets a 'true' value. F = conditions meets a 'false' value. We have two conditions to meet. -Society implements strangecoin [c1] And -Strangecoin is actually a viable system. [C2] This results in four possibilities set out at [c1, c2] [T, T] = X [T, F] = Y [F, F] = Z [F, T] = W So e.g value X equates to society setting up a strangecoin system and strangecoin actually turning out to be a viably good system. Right, now we have to assign probability to the variable we are (in an educated sense) gambling on. I'll be generous and say that under the principle of radical uncertainty the chances of strangecoin being viable are 50 percent because you so far haven't given us much evidence it should be more than that. We then should attempt to assign predicted or established utility (benefit) gains from each of the possible outcomes. So let's start with the outcomes that are obvious. Say the average utility gained from the current system is 10 for simplicity. Most of us derive some benefit and have a continued interest in its existence. This means that for both W and Z we are guaranteed 10 utility. For Y and X however things are a bit different. Again let's say in the spirit of generosity that your system means we derive significant benefit, nearly twice as effective at distributing resources as a measure of utility. So 20. However if your system is unviable, not only is it worth nothing, but the active cost to infrastructure and damage it would do in general would probably generate significant negative utility. So we shall assign that scenario an additional -10. For possibility X, we get a guaranteed value of 20. For possibility Y, we get a guaranteed value of -10. Each is as likely as the other. Therefore the expected value of going with your theory (c1=T) calculates as follows (20*0.5) + (-10*0.5) = 5 The expected value of not going with your theory (c1=F) (10*0.5) + (10*0.5) = 10 (guaranteed by picking F). 10 > 5, therefore it does not make sense for us to choose your system even if it is possible that it produces twice as effective results. The options for you to change this are as follows. -Demonstrate with factual evidence a model of this economy working in some format to convince people that the probability of it succeeding is greater than 50%. (NB holding all other factors equal, in order to make your system more appealing in this sense you must demonstrate it has a success rate of 70 percent or higher.) -Demonstrate that your system is so good that it is more than doubly as efficient as our current one. Infact your system would have to be a whopping 300% more effective by this sketch, which is quite a tall order. This is of course assuming risk neutrality and in actual fact it would probably take a far larger expected payoff from your system even if it was probabilistically likely due to the inherent risk aversion found in making large scale, community based decisions like this. (This would require a supermajority which is largely conservative in risk estimates did to need of consensus and compromise.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:
I'd like to note that this makes endorsers absolutely useless, since you never get the money from them, it just flows to whoever you buy stuff from. Why just one hop? Who the gently caress knows. Unless you can advertise your endorsers in real-time, merchants don't actually 'agree to q', they agree to some unknown number. If they do know your endorsers, then they don't agree to q, they agree to q + e1*q e2*q e3*q. You don't ever really even think about your own system. Not really. These errors are just lying on the surface. Also (q + e1*q e2*q e3*q) That's linear, isn't it? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
fade5 posted:If it's based directly on the number of network transactions, then it likely is a linear relation, or at least some other type of relation that can be plotted like quadratic, cubic, exponential, logarithmic, or whatever is used to determine the number of coins. Unless it's a truly random number of coins each time (which would be retarded as hell) there's going to be some type of mathematical relation. Nonlinear doesn't mean random.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Nonlinear doesn't mean random.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'll have to admit to being a little shocked at the claim that people who aren't understood shouldn't be talking. It's a kind of discursive inhumanity. I'm a pompous intellectual, but the claim that people who don't understand shouldn't be talking is far beyond my tolerance for intellectual elitism. I have the exact opposite sentiment: let people speak whatever and however they can. No one has to listen, but if we have good filters we'll find the good bits worth echoing, and separate that from the noise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Right, but users don't just have a single tax amplifying their transactions; each transaction amplifies the others in a cumulative way. If the tax was only proportional to the transaction it would be linear. But the tax is proporational to the network of transactions, and that makes it nonlinear. Let me stop you right there---where is this in your writeup? Are you just making this up now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I mean "spontaneous" not in the sense of "easy" but in the sense of "you already have a corporation once you've engaged in transactions with its members. There's no additional contractual hurdles to jump through." Engaging in a transaction just is forming a corporation. And how does all this account for actual physical manufacturing and so forth? Like say under your system the government wants to order an aircraft carrier (I'm using this example because I'm a naval historian with a PhD and everything). How does all this stuff about transactions between members translate into an organization that can order the thousands of tons of steel, miles of wire, and all the assorted electronics and valves and other doodads and geegaws that you need to build a ship. Furthermore, how does this apparently spontaneously-formed "corporation" of members direct and assemble the raw materials into a ship? How do they get the skilled welders, steelworkers, electricians, pipefitters, engineers and so forth together to build the ship? How do they schedule deliveries of raw materials? In summary I don't think you actually know what a corporation is and what it does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Right, but users don't just have a single tax amplifying their transactions; each transaction amplifies the others in a cumulative way. If the tax was only proportional to the transaction it would be linear. But the tax is proporational to the network of transactions, and that makes it nonlinear. What is the incentive for nations and the general population to adopt your currency? What problems does this solve that outweigh the problems implementing it would cause? It's the most important question and the one you've consistently refused to answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Let me stop you right there---where is this in your writeup? Are you just making this up now? No, he made it up in a blog post 3 months ago where he referenced some published research, vomited out a series of words about social media network graph theory topological defects, and concluded that StrangeCoin naturally solves this problem in an even more elegant way than described in the actual publication.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:And how does all this account for actual physical manufacturing and so forth? Well it's a social network so as long as the government is Strangecoin Facebook friends with electricians, steelworkers, welders, pipefitters and engineers a ship is spontaneously built because the network directs the world to create a ship because twitter or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
eXXon posted:He already answered this: Asking RealityApologist again because I'm not entirely convinced he's just performing the academic equivalent of auto-fellatio: why should we care? You've claimed your model will provide us useful economic data and turn people into better economic actors: how and why will it do this? We are dying to know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:'because I'm a naval historian with a PhD and everything' I've got to say, I'm really enjoying academics from a myriad of disciplines and titles all coming out against this crackpot for their own specific reasons. It's like the freeper thread in that there is always more problems to find with it, all you need is a different perspective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'd like to note that this makes endorsers absolutely useless, since you never get the money from them, it just flows to whoever you buy stuff from. Why just one hop? Who the gently caress knows. Unless you can advertise your endorsers in real-time, merchants don't actually 'agree to q', they agree to some unknown number. If they do know your advertisers, then they don't agree to q, they agree to q + e1*q e2*q e3*q. These are not errors, this is how the system works. Describing the system doesn't constitute an objection unless you've already assumed its in error. You say this makes endorsement useless, but I'm not sure why you draw that conclusion. If you want money to go to X, you support X. If you want money to go to the people X pays money to, then you endorse X. When two parties engage in a transaction, they are essentially agreeing to distinct quantities. This is why the system is nonlinear. I'm not sure that the advertisers need to know e1*q e2*q e3*q in detail, but only its sum as a single modifier on the transaction (so as to preserve the anonymity of endorsement, if we want). Let's call that modifier m. So when X and Y engage in a transaction of q coins, Y has an additional incentive m to engage in that transaction on top of the value of q. So when I endorse X, what I'm doing is making that person more attractive to potential parties they might transact with. That's why it's an endorsement. Support doesn't work this way; support changes the income of a user, making them more attractive for coupling transactions but not necessarily for payments. I'm glad we are finally talking about details. The fact that you guys haven't put this stuff together already kind of takes the air out of a lot of the criticism that's been leveled so far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:I've got to say, I'm really enjoying academics from a myriad of disciplines and titles all coming out against this crackpot for their own specific reasons. It's like the freeper thread in that there is always more problems to find with it, all you need is a different perspective. I'm an English major and professional copy editor!
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
I can probably fix your laser if you have a broken laser.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:(q + e1*q e2*q e3*q) No. It would be linear if it was proportional by some constant. This is proportional by a function of multiple variables. It is nonlinear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
How high are you right now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:So for example, let's say X wants to pay Y some quantity q of Strangecoin. Although X pays out q from their balance (so receives a net loss of q Strangecoin), Y could receive more than q depending on the other transactions X has. Say, for instance, X has 3 endorsers E1, E2, and E3, in proportions <e1, e2, e3> respectively. The Y as the result of the payment, Y will receive q coins from X, and e1*q from E1, e2*q from E2, and e1*q from E3. This is not a linear transaction. Okay, so I go to the bakery and want to buy a load of bread for one StrangeCoin. I pay one StrangeCoin, but two people are endorsing me for 50% of my expenses, so they also pay the baker an additional ha'coin each, and the baker nets two StrangeCoins. Why???
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:51
|
|