|
RealityApologist posted:FWIW, the same basic criticisms being raised in this thread were raised in the HN thread (albeit with much less hostility). The overall consensus seemed to be that the idea was incomplete, confusing, probably straightforward to implement, and novel. People seemed to think that the apparent problems with the proposal could be resolved. All of your ideas are wildly terrible, your presentation of them is awful, you don't ever actually try to learn from the criticisms and improve the old idea, but instead just drop it (like your horrifically stupid attention economy poo poo) and come up with a new random word salad. You will never improve unless you actually start being self-critical rather than so desperately, pathetically, painfully self-congratulatory.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
I guess I just don't understand what problem you're trying to fix. The solutions to our basic economic problems seem to me to be rather well understood, it's just that opposition from powerful, wealthy interests stands in the way of their implementation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:FWIW, the same basic criticisms being raised in this thread were raised in the HN thread (albeit with much less hostility). The overall consensus seemed to be that the idea was incomplete, confusing, probably straightforward to implement, and novel. People seemed to think that the apparent problems with the proposal could be resolved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 12:19
|
|
|
T-1000 posted:Multiple accounts. Alright, I'll say some things about multiple accounts. First of all, if I'm managing multiple accounts I'm effectively distributing my income among those accounts, so they'll each be less influential in the network than I'd be on my own. So there's at least some incentive to maintain a unified account. And as I said, I don't have any principled reason to think people shouldn't be able to sustain multiple accounts if they want, even against the incentive. So I don't think the potential for multiple accounts is a problem. The problem with multiple accounts is that it looks like a free way to get infinite modifiers on my money. That's not really the case, but you have to think about the network and its parameters to see why. Let's say my income is n, and the basic income from TUA is m, and that m << n. The most basic kind of multiple account I might get is an account that only gets basic income from TUA, and pays that entirely forward in support to me. But that support can only be in proportion to the basic income, which is insignificant. So there's no real incentive to have this kind of multiple account. So instead, let's say I set up a lot of empty accounts, all paying forward to me. Enough of these accounts will eventually start draining TUA, which drives down the basic income for all accounts. The relationship between TUA balance and basic income can be tuned in a way so that adding more accounts has diminishing returns on overall income. Perhaps this means there's a limit to the number of accounts I can profitably maintain, and perhaps this number is greater than 1. Notice also that support is really the only useful transaction with an empty account; if the clone accounts were all coupled, it would still only be coupled at the low rate of the basic income, and all excess income/expenses are taken from and deposited to TUA, so they aren't really helping the person maintaining them. So another way to constrain the use of multiple accounts is to put limits on the proportion of income that can be offered as support. If accounts can't pay everything forward but can only offer a small fraction of their overall income as support (which seems like a reasonable constraint), then farms of blank accounts receiving only basic income would have a negligible impact on anyone else's account, and there'd be no reason to go through the effort. There's other ways of managing this too. One might institute some policy in the protocol where certain ring structures in the network result in an overall inhibition instead of an expected amplification, where these policies are designed specifically to prevent this kind of abuse. HN also talked about the possibility of persistent pseudonymous identities as ways of enforcing discrete accounts, but I like this method less. I think the parameters of the network can be tuned so that there's no intrinsic incentive for maintaining multiple accounts so that it's just not a problem. This is a bit of a crazy analogy, but this is the image running through my head as I answer the question: Imagine a big circular room of mirrors, with two little circular rooms that come off the main room arranged like Mickey Mouse's head and ears. The walls are mirrors, and so will reflect and bounce light around the room. Some of that light might find its way into the ear rooms and bounce around there. But these reflections don't make the light grow brighter, they just reflect whatever light comes in, and in the real world those reflections decay over time. If you want the light to grow brighter, you need a light source and not just a bunch of reflective surfaces. If I'm setting up a subnet of multiple accounts, those accounts can only reflect the income I'm bringing into it. It can pass that income around itself for a while and give the illusion of a lot of economic activity, but that's something much different than the generation of new income streams. Setting up multiple accounts of Strangecoin in the hopes of getting rich would be something like setting up multiple cameras in my bedroom in the hopes of becoming a celebrity; It's completely misunderstand the process by which that value is created.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:All of your ideas are wildly terrible, your presentation of them is awful, you don't ever actually try to learn from the criticisms and improve the old idea, but instead just drop it (like your horrifically stupid attention economy poo poo) and come up with a new random word salad. You will never improve unless you actually start being self-critical rather than so desperately, pathetically, painfully self-congratulatory. I didn't drop the attention economy poo poo. I've pretty clearly described how this is the latest iteration and refinement of the idea, and that these refinements were made in light of the criticisms I've been receiving from this thread in particular. Two posts after yours someone shits on me for being self-critical. There's seriously nothing I can do to please these threads.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:
Fixed that for you. quote:
No, he was mocking you, not actually saying you were being self-critical in some meaningful way. You also have a really hard time understanding things other people say to you. And this isn't a 'refinement' of your horrible, unworkable attention economy idea. It's just another related pile of pseudointellectual crap in a random area. Go back and read the accountant dude's post, he really took the time to engage with your idea and show you were you're off the walls. Really, really read it, especially the bit about how you transform what could easily be expressed in a single sentence into a baffling wall of text. Even if there are any shreds of iotas of specks of good ideas in your howling vortexes of garbage that you spew out, they're being suffocated and buried under the greasy lard of your hyperpretentious writing. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Nothing I've said commits me to thinking that they are. I respond to a similar question in the Hacker News thread as follows: You say that it's a thought experiment that might lead us to learn things about currency in general. But why don't you just tell us what you've learned rather than present the thought experiment without the conclusions? You also say that strangecoin demonstrates someone's importance to the economy. But you also say that it's possible for two people to have an exchange where both leave with more strangecoin than they started with, meaning holding large quantities of the currency is only contingent on holding smaller quantities of the currency earlier, rather than being integral to the economy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
PrBacterio posted:I guess I just don't understand what problem you're trying to fix. The solutions to our basic economic problems seem to me to be rather well understood, it's just that opposition from powerful, wealthy interests stands in the way of their implementation. "Oh I know perfectly well how to change the tire. I have a new tire in the trunk. I just lack a tire iron, so I have no way of removing the old tire and securing the new one." Well, then, I don't really know how to change the tire, do I. I'm of the opinion that there are no solutions for implementation using the existing economic and political tools that are on the table. I believe that there are better circumstances we might easily enjoy with existing technologies, but the tools we have give us no way of getting there from here. This is a common scenario in dealing with complex systems, often discussed in terms of path-dependence. The point of discussing new technological frameworks is precisely that they might open up new paths to system equilibrium that weren't available before. If it helps, imagine we lived on land divided by a huge mountain range. It might be possible to travel across the land on foot, although parts of the journey might become so treacherous as to limit passage to only the most hearty travelers. But then someone invents a helicopter capable of reaching all points in the land. No new places were introduced by the new technology; in principle everything in the land was accessible the whole time. But the introduction of the technology might nevertheless have a dramatic impact on how and which people can move across the land. The technology has introduced a new path through the same space, and the new path changes the way they conceive of that space. Strangecoin allows for transactions that are available on in traditional economic frameworks, but it approaches those transactions in a fundamentally different way. I'm suggesting that these differences allow us to move through economic space in different ways, and that these differences may allow us to overcome the implementation issues that currently stymie our progress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:"Oh I know perfectly well how to change the tire. I have a new tire in the trunk. I just lack a tire iron, so I have no way of removing the old tire and securing the new one." Are you suggesting that switching to an entirely new and alien form of currency would be any politically easier to achieve?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:"Oh I know perfectly well how to change the tire. I have a new tire in the trunk. I just lack a tire iron, so I have no way of removing the old tire and securing the new one."
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
This thread is why I have a hearty belly laugh whenever some full-of-himself math/comp sci major tells me that sociology isn't real science 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
I'm serious OP, have you ever had a job or made a budget? You could have the most brilliantly complex whatever this is in the world (you don't), and to your average minimum wage worker all they will understand is that each transaction will cost them a perceived random amount of money. Meanwhile you'll have some Important Men in Suits who have min-maxed how long they spend wiping their collective rear end who will realize that selling a poor person a lemon-flavored tampon for a "buck" will actually cost the poor person nine bucks and give them 200, so the Marketing Campaign rolls out tomorrow hope you like your ladies with a refreshing hint of citrus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
Hey OP why do you think HackerNews is a good source of critique rather than academic review by actual experts in the fields of study that you wish to revolutionize? Actually, I know the answer to that, I was just wondering if you were self aware.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:But what if you could do it better, adaptively, dynamically? What if intellectuals could collaborate in real time? At the speed of thought? Wait, wait, hear me out. You want gold coins because it gets you good and services. What if we cut out the middleman and wrote on a piece of paper that the paper was worth a volume of goods or services to the bearer of Tue note? DYNAMICALLY
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Do you want to talk to people about money? Then say "Accounts have a max balance and any money put in over that balance is lost". If I tried to hand what you just typed up here to a manager he would throw it in my god drat face, and rightly so. Oh so wait, between this and the sentence about income gradually being diminished as the account gets closer to the cap, Eripsa is basically saying we should adopt the Warcraft 3 economic system?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Oh so wait, between this and the sentence about income gradually being diminished as the account gets closer to the cap, Eripsa is basically saying we should adopt the Warcraft 3 economic system? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Wait, wait, hear me out. You want gold coins because it gets you good and services. What if we cut out the middleman and wrote on a piece of paper that the paper was worth a volume of goods or services to the bearer of Tue note? [I]DYNAMICALLY[/[I] This is an excellent suggestion, but will need to use my new non-linear numbering system. Allow me to demonstrate: 1, 2, hat, -17, 4 pound bag of sunflower seeds, 4, "the number 4", appl3, trukk, and so on in this fashion
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:This is an excellent suggestion, but will need to use my new non-linear numbering system. Allow me to demonstrate: So you're saying we should all switch to speaking moundsbarian? (Props to anyone who gets the reference).
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
I look forward to another endless discussion of why Von Mises is awesome and every other economist is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Strangecoin mining is modeled on bitcoin mining. There are a finite amount of bitcoins, and once they are mined there are no more bitcoins. There's also a finite amount of Strangecoin, and when they are minded they are deposited into TUA, and once they are all mined there aren't any more. If the balance of coins doesn't matter then there is no reason to mine them. Simply have [X] amount from the start, rather than starting with [X/y] amount and "mining" from there. -EDIT- Not that it matters. You still don't have a solution to implementing such a system, or even simpler problems to questions like "why is a new currency necessary" or "how is it less complicated than the current system". Instead you rely of 'conversational charity' to solve all of these things for you, and get pissy when people won't do your thinking on your behalf. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
Don't have any money? "IOU $5 - DQ" Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
I still haven't gotten an answer why this system should be implemented, so I'm just going to assume it's because normal currency and the normal economic system are triggering to autists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:I still haven't gotten an answer why this system should be implemented, so I'm just going to assume it's because normal currency and the normal economic system are triggering to autists. The USD is just so... problematic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Traditional economics is like alchemy, and I'm like one of the early chemists before the periodic table or anything else was developed but who has a pretty good sense that alchemy is just bad methodology and that there's an alternative science just around the corner. And you all are like "but why should I believe in the atom" as if I'm heretical for suggesting alchemy needs some updating, and there's honestly nothing I can say to satisfy the lot of you. The only thing I can do is be earnest and try my best. It's never good enough, but I can't reasonably expect anything more. Allow me to repeat my sage advice from when you went off bemoaning the horrible discrimination you envisioned cyborgs (like yourself) experiencing at some point in the future, which you expected to be as bad, if not worse, than that of racial minorities and homosexuals: get the gently caress over yourself, Eripsa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
Sorry op you're too late, the new medium of exchange is going to be pics of my dick. Now just give me a few minutes and I'll set y'all up for life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
DeepQantas posted:Don't have any money? Get chartered as a bank and you're good!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
brakeless posted:Sorry op you're too late, the new medium of exchange is going to be pics of my dick. Its worthless without a way to exchange it for USD. So, your dick is worthless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its worthless without a way to exchange it for USD. Wow wasn't expecting this level of hostility in an open discussion forum. Mods???
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Grandma, why did you send me $1000?! I told you my balance was capped! Now the money is gone and I can't eat next month. No, I owe that money to Joe, I can't pay him yet cos his balance is capped, too. Why did you send me $1000 bucks, grandma? What? No... don't send it again, my balance is capped! No!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
In this post I'm going to assume you can get over the technical problems of a *coin such as 51% forks and transaction volume limits and actually create something instead of wanking about it on your blog. Obvious 2 seconds of thought problems from someone who knows a little something about accounting and finance: Corporations. Corporations are legally distinct entities and would need a seperate accounts. Many would need balances far exceeding an individual account to operate but the entities themselves are trivial to create. Any rich person would be able to exploit your dumb system and any safeguards against it would collapse the finance system in on itself. I could literally go on all day just on this one point and I'm not even touching partnerships and sole proprietorships. Physical stores of value. People would be able to store value in systems besides your dumb coins. If people were restricted in cash then they would just store value in some other item that could be easily converted between coins and that item. Governments. Literally every single country in the world would need to adopt your dumb coin to avoid people socking money away in other countries. You can see the problem with this right? Industries like mine would spend obscene amounts of money crushing your idea. Even assuming you got past us (you wouldn't) then the black market would take over on day one and crush your dumb coins for us. The switchover. My god, the transition. Can you even begin to imagine how the transition from pure cash to pure coins would work? It would be god drat financial Armageddon. I can't even begin to describe the problems here while phone posting on my way to the office. Your whole idea is so easily torn apart that it's silly. We have solutions to the problems you think exist within the confines of the existing monetary system. They're more feasible than your idea but still outside the realm of reality currently because of established interests. You're just more interested in sounding smart on the Internet than actually advocating for real solutions. You're a joke and the only person who isn't in on it is you
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:This thread is why I have a hearty belly laugh whenever some full-of-himself math/comp sci major tells me that sociology isn't real science RealityApologist/Estrada is a philosophy grad student.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
So, uh, speaking as someone who majored in Earth Sciences and tried reallllllly hard to read the OP and the subsequent posts... if I understand it correctly, the OP describes basically a system where the money is on fire? And whenever you buy something with it, some of the pieces fall off and you get more flaming money? So the faster you play the game of hot-potato, the more flaming money you can make?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:So, uh, speaking as someone who majored in Earth Sciences and tried reallllllly hard to read the OP and the subsequent posts... if I understand it correctly, the OP describes basically a system where the money is on fire? And whenever you buy something with it, some of the pieces fall off and you get more flaming money? So the faster you play the game of hot-potato, the more flaming money you can make? To be fair, this is basically how the finance industry works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:I still haven't gotten an answer why this system should be implemented, so I'm just going to assume it's because normal currency and the normal economic system are triggering to autists. ding ding ding ding ding
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:If I give you a dollar for a burger, What's the cuil factor of a Strangecoin?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Allow me to repeat my sage advice from when you went off bemoaning the horrible discrimination you envisioned cyborgs (like yourself) experiencing at some point in the future, which you expected to be as bad, if not worse, than that of racial minorities and homosexuals: get the gently caress over yourself, Eripsa. Wait a moment, what is the basis exactly for fearing future cyborg discrimination? There are people right now with mechanical prostheses, and they donīt seem to be objects of hate and discrimination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:I still haven't gotten an answer why this system should be implemented, so I'm just going to assume it's because normal currency and the normal economic system are triggering to autists. Its because a bunch of armchair economists want their little digital collection to make them rich. Its basically the same as Beanie Babies, its a gimmick that will fade into time when people lost interest, but it will always be there in the background.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
Ok I re-read part of the OP for some unfathomable reason and it seems like the stupid rules of this system could be implemented entirely with electronic currency and by banning physical currency like coins. Then presumably the government could closely track all StrangeCoin transactions for the purposes of turning the world into a carefully engineered quote:Support is a one-sided transaction over some duration t. If X supports Y over t, then X contributes additional S to Y's income from X's balance, expressed as a proportion s of Y's income over t. X's support effectively amplifies Y's income. To initiate this transaction, X specifies Y, t, and the proportion s of Y's income that X will contribute as support. Since support is a one-sided transaction, Y does not need to approve of the support to receive the additional income. How is this different from giving someone money or paying them for nothing? Is it supposed to be? Why? quote:Inhibition is a two-sided transaction over some duration t. If X inhibits Y over t, then X reduces the income or expenses of Y over t by some proportion i. By inhibiting Y, X effectively reduces the impact that Y has on the Strangecoin network by i over t by forfeiting that proportion of income and expense. To initiate the transaction, X specifies Y, t, and i, which must be approved by Y. Why would I ever want someone to have the ability to reduce my income? What the gently caress? quote:Endorsement is a one-sided transaction over some duration t. If X endorses Y over t, then X contributes additional S to Y's outgoing expenses, expressed as a proportion e of Y's expenses over t. X's endorsement effectively amplifies the payouts of Y's expenses. To initiate the transaction, X specifies Y, t, and the proportion e of Y's expenses that X will contribute as endorsements. Since support is a one-sided transaction, Y does not need to approve of the endorsement or the additional expense, which is drawn entirely from X's account. Could you give some examples of transactions of this sort that could not possibly be represented by just giving someone money and how an average person would learn to utilize these transactions? Also why, that point is important. Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Escolopendra posted:Wait a moment, what is the basis exactly for fearing future cyborg discrimination? There are people right now with mechanical prostheses, and they donīt seem to be objects of hate and discrimination. Mechanical prostheses don't count. Those aren't part of your "identity" like your tools (read: Google Glass and Smartphone) are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:"Oh I know perfectly well how to change the tire. I have a new tire in the trunk. I just lack a tire iron, so I have no way of removing the old tire and securing the new one." Wait, wait, wait. What if... massive bong rip skateboards attached to little goats. cough No, no, no listen, right, we'll plant grass all over the city and
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 16:18
|
|
