|
Good Citizen posted:Yep But what if you could do it better, adaptively, dynamically? What if intellectuals could collaborate in real time? At the speed of thought? Bro what if instead of sending gold coins with you, I wrote on a piece of paper that I'd pay gold coins to the bearer of the note? DYNAMICALLY
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
Which brings up the better question of why he even brings up "zero sum game" in the first place if it's just a strawman for him to knock over. The idea that value is created through trade is like one of the key underpinnings to the entire idea of economics that is laid out in detail in the key works that launched the discipline. It's like he's trying to reinvent economics from scratch instead of spending time doing real research. I guess it's a lot easier to vomit 1500 words into D&D than to actually read/understand a primer on economics. Or maybe he's trying to write for people who don't know anything about economics? That could be true, but I can't imagine any of them getting a better sense of economics by reading anything written by Eripsa. It's all cargo-cult academic-style writing devoid of any real intellectual value. ErIog fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Bro what if instead of sending gold coins with you, I wrote on a piece of paper that I'd pay gold coins to the bearer of the note? DYNAMICALLY Well, if we could do that, we could save all this effort by never moving the gold at all. These papers could just move around...or even digital representations of them could move at the speed of thought! Hey, if we never moved the gold, and we all agreed on what the paper was worth, we wouldn't even need the gold. And if the amount of goods increases, we could just create more paper without having to dig up more gold! The future is now. BRB, got to call the President.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Which brings up the better question of why he even brings up "zero sum game" in the first place if it's just a strawman for him to knock over. The idea that value is created through trade is like one of the key underpinnings to the entire idea of economics that is laid out in detail in the key works that launched the discipline. It's like he's trying to reinvent economics from scratch instead of spending time doing real research. I guess it's a lot easier to vomit 1500 words into D&D than to actually read/understand a primer on economics. It's definitely written for people who don't understand economics or accounting, but not as a way to get them to understand his proposal. It's written that way so that people who don't know poo poo about the subject will tell him how smart he is. I could post that nonsense-rear end rant on my Facebook and get tons of likes from idiots and a comment from my grandma telling me I'm a smart boy, and that's exactly what he's trying to do but I guess he doesn't have any friends?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
I'm going to be the devil's advocate here a little bit, so bear with me. The fundamental idea expressed here will not work because there's no way to ensure a Strangecoin account user is unique. This is essentially an unsolvable problem. However, this isn't a totally dumb idea (even if Eripsa's explanation is typical Eripsa). I really like the concept of using cryptocurrency in an entirely new fashion that distinguishes itself from ordinary currency by providing different incentives on behavior. By changing the way new currency is created, you could make an entirely new type of economy. For example, if Strangecoin actually worked, it would basically end cash savings. You'd flatten income inequality. Guaranteed income would be built into the currency itself, funded by creating new coins with the poor instead of straight to banks. Even if this particular example isn't workable, I'd like to see people smarter than me play around with variants of the broader concept.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I'm going to be the devil's advocate here a little bit, so bear with me. Even if you solve for the multiple accounts and money hoarding problems, people with competent money managers would just move to liquid property investment vehicles that would allow conversion between cash and some kind of physical inventory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
Yo OP, imma blow yo mind: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3615869
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I'm going to be the devil's advocate here a little bit, so bear with me. People smarter than you and everybody else that advocates for cryptocurrencies recognize there are other forces driving wealth generation beyond cash expenditure. Like physical capital. That's an important thing, economists have written books about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
Ormi posted:People smarter than you and everybody else that advocates for cryptocurrencies recognize there are other forces driving wealth generation beyond cash expenditure. Like physical capital. That's an important thing, economists have written books about it. I'm not a cryptocurrency advocate at all. I'm just saying that I am interested in the concept of alternative currencies that behave differently than ordinary currencies, and how that might impact economic behavior. The specific details, to me, about Strangecoin are irrelevant since we've all acknowledged it's a fundamentally unworkable idea. The broader theme of essentially changing the rules by modifying previously immutable properties (like the fact that your account balance goes down by $25 if you spend $25) of currency seems interesting to me. Yes, I'm not an idiot and I get that wealth generation can happen in a lot of different ways, but that doesn't really impact the overall point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Why would anyone possible think this is a good idea, Eripsa? The only answer to this is that people like Eripsa, who have gotten in on the ground floor, have a large amount of internet fakebux via sole virtue of downloading and running software before anyone else. Therefore, if the world started using those fakebux - in spite of all their massive inherent flaws - then people like Eiprsa would be rich. It's people who played Cookie Clicker and thought to themselves "Yes, this is how the world should be run." Megillah Gorilla fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
Eripsa, why do you believe that the fundamental problems of modern economies are best addressed through currency, which does not precede but proceeds from actual production?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Eripsa, why do you believe that the fundamental problems of modern economies are best addressed through currency, which does not precede but proceeds from actual production? word. poo poo aint new.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I'm not a cryptocurrency advocate at all. I'm just saying that I am interested in the concept of alternative currencies that behave differently than ordinary currencies, and how that might impact economic behavior. The specific details, to me, about Strangecoin are irrelevant since we've all acknowledged it's a fundamentally unworkable idea. The broader theme of essentially changing the rules by modifying previously immutable properties (like the fact that your account balance goes down by $25 if you spend $25) of currency seems interesting to me. Yes, I'm not an idiot and I get that wealth generation can happen in a lot of different ways, but that doesn't really impact the overall point. That's a function of banking and the larger economic system. That is not an inherent property of currency. Currency is just the instrument used to represent value. These kinds of transactions already happen in modern existing economies via monetary policy and fiscal policies that incentivize certain types of economic activity. Those kind of utopian ideas that involve this kind of strict regulation of the banking sector are workable with any existing fiat currency. The price of milk is a good example. A person is paying a certain amount of money with the government picking up the tab on the rest. So a person might be spending $1.50, but receiving $2.00 worth of actual goods due to that fiscal policy of a milk subsidy. In our current economic system the money for that comes through taxes, but you could just as easily fund that program via new printed money. So the kind of situation that Eripsa treats as being wholly impossible in our current system actually happens all the time. Once you have fiat currencies like the ones that already exist, the currency itself kind of ceases to be the issue. The issues that arise are who gets control of the printing press and other things like regulation of banks. This is part of why people are responding so negatively to Eripsa here, and why the response from a lot of people on the first page is, "So... why do we need a new currency?" He's conflating currency with banking with fiscal policy because he actually has no idea what the gently caress he's talking about. ErIog fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:I like how he uses the words accounting and bookkeeping several times while bemoaning his perception that no one is recording the value added in these transactions. He's got a point. It's not like there are any major intellectual disciplines or multi billion dollar industries designed to accurately measure and time the value of those transactions from every angle. Of course they do. I'm not saying I'm measuring anything that's impossible to measure in other ways, I'm just saying that the framework of our existing currency isn't set up to do these things very easily. I'm very much liking the analogy to video compression. I don't think it's controversial to think about money transactions (like a point-of sale transaction) as a way of taking distributed economic data and compressing it into a single value, price, that can then be interpreted by the user relative to other things they value. But not all compression methods are equal; they all involve masking some information while highlighting others, and in the process the economic data becomes distorted and difficult to interpret in a number of ways. There are ways of recovering some of that data, which are the high-level techniques (out of reach of most users) that you mention in your post. They are the equivalent of someone yelling "ENHANCE" over a grainy video. That's fine, but it's not a very good method for managing a system like this. You can think of strangecoin as a different kind of compression technique. Not objectively better, but one that reveals different (and just as real) economic data. I'm claiming that it makes salient aspects of our economic relationships that are really important to our economic networks but simply aren't readily available on the old technology. For instance, it's quite common for nepotism to influence the jobs and roles of economic agents. Money obscures how common the practice is, and Strangecoin bakes the practice directly into the currency. That information might be available elsewhere, but the compression technique here makes it clear that's what you're seeing every time you make a transaction. Strangecoin is modeled on the dynamics of social attention not because I think social attention is the ideal method of economic management, but rather because our intuitive ways for thinking about economic engagement follow the dynamics of attention, more or less in the ways described by the Strangecoin transactions. A currency that is designed to model these dynamics directly will I think provide a more intuitive way to manage the economic system at both a global and local level, and make the tools for that management more accessible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
It'd be interesting to see what happens in an EVE-like MMO set up with an economy like this as hordes of huge nerds try to figure out how to exploit it (my hunch: it ends in hyperinflation as big cooperative efforts come together to cycle through currency as fast as possible acquiring game assets). Then you'd at least have some experimental data to compare and contrast the behavior of this system with that of traditional economies. Without any idea of how this would actually work in practice, any discussion of actual applications for it is just pseudointellectual wanking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
quote:I'm very much liking the analogy to video compression. You're very much like a monkey shoving its thumb up its rear end and then holding it under everyone elses nose to smell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I'm going to be the devil's advocate here a little bit, so bear with me. There are people smarter than you with regards to economics, they're called economists. As far as I'm aware they prefer things like taxes and accounting to paradigm-changing crytocurrencies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:There are people smarter than you with regards to economics, they're called economists. As far as I'm aware they prefer things like taxes and accounting to paradigm-changing crytocurrencies. While I will admit this idea seems pretty crappy overall, there is a discussion worth having about the concept of alternatives to our current system of economics. I for one don't think that our current market based system is especially good at sending resources where they will actually do the best good, and despite the respect I have for many economists I don't think you are going to see solutions to those problems coming out of people who have devoted their lives to the study of the current system. Cryptocurrencies are stupid. Coming up with new ways of looking at and organizing economic activity in an increasingly digital age isn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
Kilty Monroe posted:It'd be interesting to see what happens in an EVE-like MMO set up with an economy like this as hordes of huge nerds try to figure out how to exploit it (my hunch: it ends in hyperinflation as big cooperative efforts come together to cycle through currency as fast as possible acquiring game assets). Then you'd at least have some experimental data to compare and contrast the behavior of this system with that of traditional economies. Every single transaction type Eripsa specified in his word salad of an essay already exists in very basic banking and contract law using existing non-pseudointellectual dollar bills and contracts. The only thing that would change from today is a basic income coupled with an account balance cap as an incentive to spend. What would happen in a videogame is a lot of people with massive account balances scattered between many accounts and, yes, a hyper-inflationary scenario for the average space peasant whose basic income wouldn't cover upgrading a newbie ship (as the goon cartel would simply acquire hard assets as fast as they could, then keep them cycling among themselves to avoid any penalties). Assuming every player was magically restricted to one account because Eripsaland, they would still form a cartel and the cartel would quickly own 100% of the videogame since there is nothing in the earlier sentence that *requires* multiple accounts to work. Assuming no cartels because Eripsaland, the currency itself would likely become worthless as a store of value as players repeatedly failed to understand why they were being penalized for success and the medium of exchange would shift to an in-game item. What would happen in reality (given the other attention essays; I make no claim on the feasibility of balance caps + basic incomes in general other than to say the combination is probably still pretty ruinous) is that a lot of plebes would starve and the world would be run by Youtube trolls, but Eripsa describes this as a feature so it's not actually a negative for him. Adar fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
Reality Apologist/Eripsa, please answer this poster's questions with brevity and clarity:T-1000 posted:Why is it desirable for income to equal expenses rather than exceed it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
Caros posted:Coming up with new ways of looking at and organizing economic activity in an increasingly digital age isn't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTkGDXRnR9I
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 09:37
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Even if this particular example isn't workable, I'd like to see people smarter than me play around with variants of the broader concept. I don't think its been established that the idea is unworkable. Most of the criticism have been attacks at me personally, or at the presentation (which is pretty straightforwardly in the terms of network theory, since I'm describing a network). There's been a few genuine worries (like multiple accounts) that I think can be solved, and are discussed in greater detail in the HN thread. But the mere existence of a potential difficulty has convinced this thread that the idea is fundamentally broken to the point of incoherence. That has more to do with the animosity this forum shows me, and has almost nothing to do with the ideas themselves. No one has raised the issue of multiple accounts with any interest in trying to solve it; they only raise the problem in order to tear me down. This is exactly why I'm talking about a hostile audience and conversational charity. In any case, my whole point in offering this write-up is not to be technoidealist about anything, but just to say "Hey bitcoin nerds, you are thinking inside a very small box, and these currencies can do much different things." You're absolutely right, the details don't matter as much as pushing the boundaries in this direction. I think it's surprising that no one else has proposed ideas like this, and I definitely hope much smarter minds than me think through the implications. So I appreciate that you're at least able to see the promise of an idea somewhere buried in this mess. I've done a lot of research in this area, despite the rhetoric against me in this thread. I've pointed to some of that research in this and other threads, and will happily point to more if anyone is interested. The truth is that people really don't understand the incentive structures that guide economic behavior, and they don't really have a strong understanding of the impact that money has on the way we reason about and engage in economic relationships. Adar is right, and I've admitted as much in the OP and several times during the thread, that these aren't utterly new financial tools, and they aren't doing anything that isn't possible with existing currency. But it does change quite dramatically the feedback and interface users would use to engage in these transactions. Contract law has a long precedent in legal theory, but from the perspective of users it is often opaque and confusing, and sound economic decisions are difficult to make. Giving people a different tool for interpreting and responding to economic signals can have a dramatic impact on the behavior of the economy, even if it is doing things that were possible in principle with standard currencies. RealityApologist fucked around with this message at 09:58 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
Adar posted:Every single transaction type Eripsa specified in his word salad of an essay already exists in very basic banking and contract law using existing non-pseudointellectual dollar bills and contracts. The only thing that would change from today is a basic income coupled with an account balance cap as an incentive to spend. What would be real-world examples of coupling and inhibition? I'm having a little trouble penetrating the overly technical language, but they appear to be agreements between two people that end up pulling extra money out of the Monopoly bank rather than each other, and I'm not aware of anything similar in reality. Also, if there really is no functional difference aside from the balance cap, but this system would still result in hyperinflation, then would just imposing a wealth cap in the real world also result in hyperinflation? Honest, non-rhetorical questions here, this isn't my strongest subject.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I don't think its been established that the idea is unworkable. On the last page I posted a completely trivial method for anyone to generate unlimited money for themselves using your stupid 'coupling' transaction but feel free to keep ignoring it buddy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
MoaM posted:Reality Apologist/Eripsa, please answer this poster's questions with brevity and clarity: 1. Because there's a cap on balances, and when you hit that cap all the modifiers to your income (which make you a desirable partner in a transaction) vanish. That doesn't prevent people from hitting the cap, but it provides a pretty strong incentive to avoid it. 2. Because it motivates people to balance their accounts both globally and locally over time. 3. If by "subsidiaries" you mean other nodes in the network, then nothing. The point is to encourage that behavior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
Contra Duck posted:On the last page I posted a completely trivial method for anyone to generate unlimited money for themselves using your stupid 'coupling' transaction but feel free to keep ignoring it buddy. Did you bother considering any possible solutions to the problem? Why do you think it's a fatal and unresolvable flaw?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
Why the hell would anyone want any of these features in a currency? Why would anyone want to couple their currency to an analysis of the social relationships within the world of finance? Why would anyone want accounts with balance caps? Why would you want any of these transaction types to even vaguely be possible except for 'payment'? Why do you want a currency with infinite currency-producing loops (and infinite currency-destroying loops) in a world where geography and scarcity exist? EDIT: RealityApologist posted:Did you bother considering any possible solutions to the problem? Use dollars instead of a currency where the amount of currency in circulation can fluctuate by multiple orders of magnitude on a day-to-day basis? Ratoslov fucked around with this message at 10:44 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Why the hell would anyone want any of these features in a currency? Why would anyone want to couple their currency to an analysis of the social relationships within the world of finance? Social relationships have an impact on economic relationships, and vice versa. If those social relationships are obscured by the medium of transaction, then it will impact the extent to which those economic relationships can be managed. quote:Why would anyone want accounts with balance caps? Adar's post above is a good post, and among other things he mentions is the fact that the value of the currency probably drops to zero in a system like this. That's might be the case, but as I say in the OP it doesn't really matter. What matters is the rate of change, and again this matters because of the balance caps. So you want balance caps because it puts the right sort of constraint on the system. People in this thread seem to be struggling with the idea that the balance of Strangecoin isn't an issue, and what matters is really the rate of change, or throughput of coin. This shouldn't be really that hard to understand; it's basically the attitude we have towards bandwidth. Any particular bit is not really interesting, and internet traffic will often drop a substantial percentage of its packets without any real impact on overall throughput. The bits don't matter, what matters is how many bits you are pushing over time. A balance cap is something like a buffer cap: you can push as many bits as you like, but if you overrun the buffer then it's going to cause problems for the stability of the whole network. quote:Why would you want any of these transaction types to even vaguely be possible except for 'payment'? As many others have said, these transactions types aren't foreign to our existing economy. They just aren't baked into its basic infrastructure, which contributes to why our economy is so confusing and difficult to manage. quote:Why do you want a currency with infinite currency-producing loops (and infinite currency-destroying loops) in a world where geography and scarcity exist? Because that's how social networks develop. For the ingroup there is seemingly unlimited good will and charity, and for the outgroup there is all manner of competition and danger, and we organize our social networks in ways that presume unlimited quantities of both. This is how our brain's native social management system developed, also in a world of scarcity and geography. Of course we've historically tried all sorts of ways of managing the relations between ingroup and outgroup; this is the basis of all politics. I'm not trying to rework these foundations. Instead, I'm bringing the theoretical resources of network theory to bear on these dynamics, because I think they are explanatory in ways that other frameworks (like traditional economics) are not. 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. quote:Use dollars instead of a currency where the amount of currency in circulation can fluctuate by multiple orders of magnitude on a day-to-day basis? Nothing about the amount of currency in circulation changes in the proposal I've given.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
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. holy poo poo i can't breathe send help
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:1. Because there's a cap on balances, and when you hit that cap all the modifiers to your income (which make you a desirable partner in a transaction) vanish. That doesn't prevent people from hitting the cap, but it provides a pretty strong incentive to avoid it. Will debt still be a thing? If I want to buy a house, how do I save up for it - is the income cap so large as to be arbitrary for most people? Or can I still get a mortgage? And no, by subsidiaries I mean multiple accounts. As Adar described, you could get people churning massive amounts between multiple accounts owned by themselves (which you say can be prevented by unspecified means) or within cartels. It seems like you're just trying to track trading metadata in an overly complicated way. What does that solve? Why call it a currency? RealityApologist posted:No one has raised the issue of multiple accounts with any interest in trying to solve it; they only raise the problem in order to tear me down. This is exactly why I'm talking about a hostile audience and conversational charity. RealityApologist posted:The truth is that people really don't understand the incentive structures that guide economic behavior, and they don't really have a strong understanding of the impact that money has on the way we reason about and engage in economic relationships. RealityApologist posted:Adar is right, and I've admitted as much in the OP and several times during the thread, that these aren't utterly new financial tools, and they aren't doing anything that isn't possible with existing currency. But it does change quite dramatically the feedback and interface users would use to engage in these transactions. Contract law has a long precedent in legal theory, but from the perspective of users it is often opaque and confusing, and sound economic decisions are difficult to make. Giving people a different tool for interpreting and responding to economic signals can have a dramatic impact on the behavior of the economy, even if it is doing things that were possible in principle with standard currencies. And I'm just going to point to my first post: T-1000 posted:I don't see any example comparable to tracking the increase in utility by tracking burgers and dollars exchanging. Can you give a worked example? If I want to buy a hamburger with strangecoin, how does that happen? T-1000 fucked around with this message at 11:31 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Did you bother considering any possible solutions to the problem? Why do you think it's a fatal and unresolvable flaw? You're kidding right? You posted this garbage idea where people can make up money out of thin air without considering even for 5 seconds how this could be abused and you have the gall to call me the lazy one? How about rather than posting yet another rambling techno-fetishist essay you try posting an idea that doesn't involve everyone having infinite money at all times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 11:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:holy poo poo i can't breathe send help
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Nothing about the amount of currency in circulation changes in the proposal I've given. Hm. You're right. Unfortunately, you can see how I am confused, because when someone brought up the idea before, you didn't actually outright it didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Social relationships have an impact on economic relationships, and vice versa. If those social relationships are obscured by the medium of transaction, then it will impact the extent to which those economic relationships can be managed. RealityApologist posted:Adar's post above is a good post, and among other things he mentions is the fact that the value of the currency probably drops to zero in a system like this. That's might be the case, but as I say in the OP it doesn't really matter. What matters is the rate of change, and again this matters because of the balance caps. So you want balance caps because it puts the right sort of constraint on the system. RealityApologist posted:Because that's how social networks develop. For the ingroup there is seemingly unlimited good will and charity, and for the outgroup there is all manner of competition and danger, and we organize our social networks in ways that presume unlimited quantities of both. This is how our brain's native social management system developed, also in a world of scarcity and geography. 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.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 11:28
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Nothing about the amount of currency in circulation changes in the proposal I've given. RealityApologist posted:All newly mined Strangecoins are deposited directly into TUA, with a coupling bonus to the miner. It never changes but new coins are being made. Seems reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
Contra Duck posted:You're kidding right? You posted this garbage idea where people can make up money out of thin air without considering even for 5 seconds how this could be abused and you have the gall to call me the lazy one? How about rather than posting yet another rambling techno-fetishist essay you try posting an idea that doesn't involve everyone having infinite money at all times. As Eripsa has explained several times in so many (oh god, so, so many) words, his real interest is in using the forums to criticize and refine his ideas and arguments for him. Only at this point it seems he'd rather just try to crowd source the whole thing and bemoan anyone too mean to play along. So if you could please, do try harder to think up solutions for the myriad holes you might poke through his rambling madness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
Contra Duck posted:You're kidding right? You posted this garbage idea where people can make up money out of thin air without considering even for 5 seconds how this could be abused and you have the gall to call me the lazy one? How about rather than posting yet another rambling techno-fetishist essay you try posting an idea that doesn't involve everyone having infinite money at all times. I'm not calling you lazy, I'm accusing you of failing to have any conversational charity. In a normal conversation, parties attempt to interpret each other in the most charitable possible light. That means if you come across something that looks contradictory, your first reaction should be to look for alternative interpretations that make better sense of the claims. You've demonstrated no attempt to give a charitable interpretation of my views, you've knee-jerk rejected them without any consideration beyond the first apparent inconsistency you think you've found. That's not an objection at all. Imagine I was trying to explain to you government assistance for children, and you responded "lol so I get paid more if I have more children? what stops me from having a hundred kids and becoming instantly rich? THEORY FAIL." Should I take this seriously as a challenge to the idea of welfare? Of course not. The claim demonstrates no attempt to understanding the proposal under consideration, they've merely caricatured one aspect of it and then laughed at it. That's not an objection, that's a strawman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
OP, the bad news is that your idea may be/probably is poo poo, but on the plus side you made Hacker News which is probably the most impressive accomplishment anyone in this thread will ever make in their lives. So congrats or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
Contra Duck posted:It never changes but new coins are being made. Seems reasonable. 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. I've certainly not proposed anything where the number of coins in circulation is fluctuating by orders of magnitude on a regular basis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
DayReaver posted:OP, the bad news is that your idea may be/probably is poo poo, but on the plus side you made Hacker News which is probably the most impressive accomplishment anyone in this thread will ever make in their lives. So congrats or whatever. 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. My goal was just to take the conversation in a new direction, and I feel like I succeeded beyond my expectations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 12:05
|
|