Strangecoin: a calvinball economy

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Strangecoin: a calvinball economy

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

ToxicSlurpee posted:

BitCoin, as we've seen time and time again, was a terrible idea and every "well it's like BitCoin but different" currency that comes out is just as dumb.

Cryptocurrency is not the future. Let it die.

Yeah, OP, in seriousness, you're not going to get any serious discussion about your new "coin" because the flaws in Bitcoin and its clones have already been repeatedly documented.

This simplest question for a new coin is "why should we adopt it?" and/or "why should we replace the US Dollar with it?" The answer is, bluntly, there is no reason to replace the US dollar, it's good as is. Now, if you're talking about the the distribution of the US Dollar, then yeah, that's got a lot of problems, but the US Dollar itself as a currency is sound, all complaining to the contrary. So, in other words, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

# ¿ Mar 31, 2014 02:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:24

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

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.

I've certainly not proposed anything where the number of coins in circulation is fluctuating by orders of magnitude on a regular basis.

Ah, there we go, deflationary currency. The Bitcoin threads explained repeatedly why a deflationary currency is a very bad idea and pretty much tore it to shreds. I'm not sure if it will make a difference to anyone, but the very simple gist is that a deflationary currency discourages spending; if you're money's going to be worth more tomorrow, why would you spend any more than you absolutely have to today? Since consumer spending is the bedrock of an economy, any deflationary currency will have a dysfunctional economy at best, with those who have vast stores of wealth (the rich) being the best off, and those with little wealth (the poor) being the worst off.

Good Citizen posted:

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.

This, this, loving this. Even if a system is a marked improvement over what we have, trying to implement something new is essentially impossible. During the debt ceiling crisis (both of them :suicide:

) it was mentioned that the US financial system is pretty much running on 1970's coding and technology, with less than 200 people even knowing how it works or how to modify it. The system works that way because it was designed to be backwards comparable with loving punch cards, and any glitches caused by upgrading to a modern system would throw the world economy into chaos. That's something that needs an upgrade, and we still aren't going to do it until we absolutely have to.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2014 16:35

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

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

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

RealityApologist posted:

I've repeatedly insisted that the proposal is not intended as a solution to any problem.

So then what's the loving point? This all seems like kind of a boring waste of time. You said you can't implement Strangecoin yourself (I'm assuming this means not even a test version of it) and nobody is going to do it for you, partially because they'd have no loving idea how to even start writing the code for it.

E: Hah, same question, posted one minute apart. Maybe this is a cue that you should, you know, answer it.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2014 03:08

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

RealityApologist posted:

As far as I know, I won the argument between Slanderer and me about whether or not this is a nonlinear system, and the description is appropriate.

jre posted:

You 'won' by adding new random elements to the equations which weren't mentioned in the op, and it took you three goes of 'is it non linear now ?' which clearly showed you had no idea what it meant.

Why does it even loving matter to you whether you won or not? If you were wrong, then accept that, and stop calling your coin "non-linear". You don't just loving change your idea so that calling it non-linear is the correct term, that's completely rear end-backwards.

If you say a human has nine toes and someone calls you out on it, you don't cut off your own loving toe to prove yourself "right". (Well, if all the cyborg poo poo is true, maybe you would, but most normal humans wouldn't.)

# ¿ Apr 3, 2014 01:02

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

CheesyDog posted:

I've only started thinking through this idea while I let my spaghetti cool, and implementing it would require the intervention of a trickster God. For instance, I'm not sure if Kuantum Kash could be implemented by Loki, or if some fundamentally new God of Screwing You Over is required.

You'll want to go with the Hulk, after all Loki is a puny god.

_{That is still the greatest scene ever.}

# ¿ Apr 3, 2014 01:25

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

SedanChair posted:

Hey Eripsa you want to see some actual loving cyborg discrimination you sheltered lunkhead? How about the employment rate of war vet amputees with prosthetic limbs? You think maybe that's a little more real than me thinking you're an rear end in a top hat because you point Glass at me?

Pesmerga posted:

To suggest that someone who is told they can't wear Google glass in a nightclub is suffering the same sort of violation of personal integrity as someone who has a limb blown off, and is treated badly by both systems and individuals afterwards demeans their suffering.

This, loving this. There's shades of this on Tumblr as well, co-opting terminology used by discriminated groups and pretending they're part of that group too, or in this case pretending that "cyborg discrimination" is anything like the real discrimination faced by LGBT people.

RealityApologist posted:

I'm not going to talk about gender identity and cyborgs any more because you are all obviously too immature to handle the discussion.

RelityApologist/Eripsa please read this article about the living hell of being a gay teen in Michele Bachmann's district (God I loving hate her) and afterwards please tell me that you sincerely think that your "discrimination" is anywhere loving near what those kids face.

Just read the article, that's all I ask. Everyone else should read the article too, but as a warning, it's depressing as all gently caress. :smith:

fade5 fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Apr 3, 2014

# ¿ Apr 3, 2014 19:07

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

Who What Now posted:

Yeah, you know what I want to do every time I buy groceries? Play a rousing game of Monopoly! That's not completely stupid at all.

Also Monopoly is a poo poo game and literally no one likes to play it. They just own a copy as a cultural novelty and tradition. So you're kinda proving the point that no one would play Strangecoinopoly.

Install Windows posted:

While no one plays rulebook Monopoly, tons of people enjoy playing house rules Monopoly.

Monopoly actually works best when you don't do the usual house rules. The thing is, the goal of Monopoly is to Bankrupt everyone as fast as you can, and the house rules slow that down. All the house rules basically aim at putting more money in circulation, which makes the game last longer. It's basically a really crude form of wealth redistribution to give everyone a fighting chance, especially if they get lucky.

You're supposed to play like a ruthless capitalist when you play Monopoly, but surprise, most people don't find loving over their friends and family all that much fun, hence the house rules to make the game more "fair"/fun.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2014 22:04

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

Obdicut posted:

Monopoly was actually designed to demonstrate to people what happens in a monopoly. It wasn't supposed to be fun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game

It was made by a Georgist, who are some of the only decent Libertarians.

Ah, there we go, that's exactly what I was getting at. Thanks Obdicut. I read a post somewhere on the forums explaining why Monopoly in it's base form wasn't meant to be fun and it made all the house rules make complete sense.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2014 22:31

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

ProfessorProf posted:

RealityApologist, please describe a situation where someone with more connections than me on the strangenet could impact me, and what that impact would entail.

Please answer this. "I don't know" is a valid answer, but it means you haven't even though about a basic part of the system you're proposing.

RealityApologist posted:

I've made mistakes in this thread, many of which I've admitted to and tried to compensate for.

Wanamingo posted:

Give me specific examples.

Please answer this as well. I'm interested in the answers to both of these questions.

CheesyDog posted:

Seriously guys, if you haven't look up Whuffies. It's clearly what he's trying to describe, only he's slapped on (valueless coin) and a bunch if half-understood theories so his idea can be an original one.

Hahahahaha holy poo poo, it really is. Oh this is just the cherry topper.

# ¿ May 1, 2014 22:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:24

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

So Erispa, did you and/or the Synereo guys ever fix the blatant problem that was repeatedly brought up in the goldmined thread?

You know, the whole thing where Synereo will end up being used as a child porn distribution network and/or an ISIL recruitment hub if massive changes aren't made to it.

Because answering the question "what will your network do about child pornography" is kinda loving important, and I'd like a real answer to it. :colbert:

# ¿ Mar 5, 2015 00:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Strangecoin: a calvinball economy