|
Boner Slam posted:Regular information deficiencies, found in new institutional economics but pretty much everywhere else as well today. Perhaps you can walk the dog on this for me because I don't know of any actual theory that supports your argument (which was something about the scammer not having as much utility for the money as the scammee or something).
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 17:56 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 02:21 |
|
|
HA HA HA HA HA HA, you can tell from his silhouette that Atlas is wearing a fedora. loving awesome. I wouldn't have wanted it any other way
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 17:57 |
|
|
Atlas is on and he appears to be wearing a top hat...
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 17:58 |
|
|
Oh my God, Atlas is doing the interview as a black silhouette to remain anonymous. I am not kidding.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 17:58 |
|
|
Make sure someone asks Atlas about his javascript mining enterprise.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 17:58 |
|
|
The beauty of bitcoins is that delusional people are the best and most convincing liars. They believe they're telling the truth after all! And a person that profits from a scam in any way is a scammer in my eyes.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:01 |
|
|
Again, the difference here is that no wealth is created in the long term, only in the short term. When it crashes, all that has happened is that money has moved around.Insert puns here posted:Oh my God, Atlas is doing the interview as a black silhouette to remain anonymous. I am not kidding.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:01 |
|
|
^^ And a whole tone of resources have been wasted. Ohh god, are they going to be silhouettes? I am shrugging the poo poo out of this already.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:01 |
|
|
This is going to be 5 shades of e: corrected myself
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:02 |
|
|
 Not display pics, they're actually sitting in shadow. They also have no idea why they've been asked onto the show. Bruce doesn't seem to have any idea either.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:02 |
|
|
Does anyone know who Atlas really is?
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:02 |
|
|
alreadybeen posted:Does anyone know who Atlas really is? *Shrugs*
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:03 |
|
|
Oh, they just fell off the air. I don't have volume. Might anyone know why they aren't broadcasting?
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:05 |
|
|
Sometimes you think things can't get any better. Then they do.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:05 |
|
|
phosdex posted:Make sure someone asks Atlas about his javascript mining enterprise. This would be absolutely amazing.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:06 |
|
|
They've decided that the best way to protect Atlas' identity is to not do a show. Seems like o1tv has been hacked. There's just been a massive selloff at Meze Grill and the price of burritos has dropped to almost nothing.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:07 |
|
|
Its a power outage. Too many mining rigs, clearly!
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:08 |
|
|
Hungry Gerbil posted:And a person that profits from a scam in any way is a scammer in my eyes. I don’t follow. If you are the owner of a worthless asset and someone sees the value in it for any reason, why is it unethical to sell them this asset? Is the only ethical course of action to go down with the ship? Suppose you happened to own stock in Pets.com back in 1999. Company is losing money hand over fist, business model makes no sense, investors keep throwing it more money. Is it unethical to sell your stock because you know it’s worthless? How about selling a condo in Miami at the height of the market to a flipper because you know that no one actually lives in the complex? If anything, someone who mines these things and immediately sells them is doing a service compared to someone who mines them and hoards them. The act of selling them to a willing buyer should lower the price and limit how much money they ultimately lose. Or if they do become a new world currency and they keep going up, then they are taking that risk too. Either way, I don’t see what the deal is.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:11 |
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:*Shrugs*  Also someone should enhance a screen cap of Atlas, so we can see his nerdy white rear end.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:12 |
|
|
wyoak posted:if i sell someone a bitcoin all i'm selling them is a bitcoin. there are no guarantees or promises of future value or golden offspring. if i sell you a goose and it winds up laying golden eggs, good on you, and if it's just a goose then you got what you paid for. There are, in fact, implicit promises of future value in bitcoin. Zeta Taskforce posted:I don’t follow. If you are the owner of a worthless asset and someone sees the value in it for any reason, why is it unethical to sell them this asset? Is the only ethical course of action to go down with the ship? You are essentially transferring your losses. Instead of you losing, someone else loses. It's not black or white. It depends on the possible worth and utility of the asset, it depends on the price you're selling it for, etc. In the case of bitcoins, bitcoins could easily become almost completely worthless, so it does feel unethical. In the case of a house, you can live in it.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:19 |
|
|
Zeta Taskforce posted:... Well that depends, did you make up "pets.com" or was it an actual entity with assets? Your wrong turn is treating this like there is some underlying worth. There is no use or value for these, it's literally a negative value because it takes energy and produces nothing. The only thing comparable in the investing world is a ponzi scheme. (and I see the humor in implying pets.com produced anything of worth  )
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:20 |
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:There are, in fact, implicit promises of future value in bitcoin. I'd still love to hear how they aren't exactly Leprechaun gold.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:21 |
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:21 |
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:Well that depends, did you make up "pets.com" or was it an actual entity with assets? and i know there's people offering some lovely services for BTC. they're not literally worthless. Pedro De Heredia posted:You are essentially transferring your losses. Instead of you losing, someone else loses.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:22 |
|
|
wyoak posted:can't you still buy drugs, or did that get shut down Can you still buy web cam time with women of questionable age? Well there you go. Pedro De Heredia posted:Yes. What are you confused about? And? Why exactly is this bad?
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:23 |
|
|
wyoak posted:can't you still buy drugs, or did that get shut down I'm sure magic beans could get you some drugs if you are convincing enough.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:26 |
|
|
This stream is amazing.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:27 |
|
|
"We like to refer to ourselves as 'on the sovereign web'" FIRST. THING. THEY SAID. This is going to be great. Prepare for the best quotedump ever at the end of this.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:27 |
|
|
sanchez posted:This stream is amazing. I think we can all agree on that.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:28 |
|
|
Zeta Taskforce posted:And? Why exactly is this bad? Why are you asking me if it's bad? You are trying to get rid of the asset. You would prefer to get rid of the asset, rather than keep the asset. This is because you would prefer not to lose money. This shows us that losing money is bad. Or, at least, losing money is less good than not losing money. You are trying to sell someone an asset that will, according to your perception, make them lose money (if you sell it at a price that will allow you to lose no money). In other words, by selling them the asset, according to your own view of things, you are in all likelihood making them go from a good position, to a less good position. Or, making them go to a bad position. Therefore, it's bad. If losing money weren't bad, you wouldn't exactly mind losing the money in the first place. Again, it depends on the possible worth and utility of the assets/stocks, the price you're selling at, etc.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:28 |
|
|
"We need to convince more businesses and enterprises to invest" (in a silhouette interview )
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:30 |
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:"We need to convince more businesses and enterprises to invest" (in a silhouette interview ) "Which one of you is talking right now?"
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:31 |
|
|
bewbies posted:Perhaps you can walk the dog on this for me because I don't know of any actual theory that supports your argument (which was something about the scammer not having as much utility for the money as the scammee or something). I used scammer in "" so you would understand that I don't actually give a gently caress about whether or not there is an information deficiency (there always is) IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE. My point was that it is usually beneficial to do something against transactions with information deficincies. The utility of the payment is one way to explain it with traditional diminishing return in utility: The scammer ends up with more money and a relative lower utility earning than the scammee would have, since both value the product at the original price. The optimal distribution would then obviously be at that price point. This is really just the consequence of the idea of an pareto-efficient market and how an information deficity changes that market to something else - which then by definition pareto inferior. However the theory is not about scamming but about information. What kind of scam could be going on is dependend on what information is missing. You have things like hidden characteristics, actions and intentions, insecurity about price or utility etc. etc. It's a whole field of science. All in all the end result is always inferior to a market solution, which is the mathematically ideal solution. So up to a certain ideal point it is efficient for a society to try to combat information deficencies because it does not conform with the idea of a market solution edit: To further this a bit. Just uncertainty about utility in the long run can lead to some really irrational behaviour of the market subjects. This is also where the free market idea immediately falls apart. So really, Bitcoin fans should have a strong interest in combating uncertainty and information issues!
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:31 |
|
|
Zeta Taskforce posted:Suppose you happened to own stock in Pets.com back in 1999. Company is losing money hand over fist, business model makes no sense, investors keep throwing it more money. Is it unethical to sell your stock because you know it’s worthless? It depends. If it's insider trading it's immoral.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:32 |
|
|
Haha, the Javascript miner "was only on for 24 hours."
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:33 |
|
|
VICTORY! Bruce asking the hard questions!
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:33 |
|
|
Oh boy they're talking about the javascript mining now. 
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:33 |
|
|
loving sweet! Bruce asked them about the javascirpt miner. Atom tried to play dumb by saying "Javascript miner? What? In what context?", and then tried to dance around it, but Atlas ended up saying, "We tried it out, but then people got annoyed so now its off".
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:34 |
|
|
It's our fault our CPU's couldn't handle their javascript mining.
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:35 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 02:21 |
|
|
spidoman posted:Haha, the Javascript miner "was only on for 24 hours." Not before saying "We found our users' CPUs weren't good enough..." Wow way to spin it dickface!
|
| # ? Jun 28, 2011 18:35 |
|
