|
So if I link myself to a partner at a billion to one ratio for a short time and then get a third party to pay my partner a dollar, the 'universal account' will give me a billion dollars? Sounds cool, let's do it.
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm not calling you lazy, I'm accusing you of failing to have any conversational charity. I ask you three times to address the fact that your currency gives everyone infinite money at all times and you still don't have an answer to it. You keep blaming me for being mean and for not helping you enough when I'm actually helping you as much as I can by showing you that your idea is fundamentally flawed and should be abandoned. You don't realise this though because you've been too busy masturbating about how many paradigms you're shifting to actually look at things with a critical eye and thinking about what can possibly go wrong. Now let's all watch as you continue to ignore all of the massive problems with your idea and instead post essays about how it's going to synergise with crowd-sourced self-organising social networks that are indistinguishable from the output of the post-modern essay generator.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
This spec is even more abusable than the one in the OP. It's trivial to get your account balance to the cap at any time by having a sock-puppet node (or nodes) with zero balance making payments to you. It looks like you added in a max payment to try to stop this but all that means is that you need to re-run the exploit a few times to hit the cap. You may already know this because you mention that everyone has effectively unlimited income from the TUA but I thought I'd make it clear just in case. Something you don't seem to realise is that with unlimited income and balance caps there's no reason to form relationships with others at all, nor is there a reason to prefer to engage with people with strong networks. Any person, no matter how large their network, can afford to pay enough to get any other person to the balance cap whenever they want, so the money of a loner is effectively just as good as the money of a twitter superstar. You have completely failed to understand the consequences of the balance cap on the other side of the transaction, and all of the supposed behaviour of the people in the network you have described is pure bullshit because of this. You should note that I haven't even needed to go into the fancy transaction types here, just using the most basic payment will completely break your network and wreck everything you want this network to do. The other transaction types are all exploitable too but I can't be bothered going into all of that because there doesn't seem to be much point when even the simplest payment is fundamentally broken. On a larger level, the real problem with the way you think can be summed up with this line from your current goals: quote:...determine if the network can operate without breaking... No. This is not the next goal. The next goal is to prove that the network can't be broken. There are lots of things that can be done if the circumstances are just right but which fall apart horribly if things don't go according to plan. What you're saying there is the equivalent of balancing three bowling balls one on top of the other and then marveling at your success and telling us all that we need to rethink the layout of bowling alleys, ignoring that if you open a window the whole tower will blow straight over. Consider all possible actions of people, not just the ones you wish people would make, to see if your network is resilient against attack because if a person acting in some way you're not expecting can destroy the network then you might as well throw away the entire idea. Think very very carefully before proposing 'patches' to fix these issues too because poorly thought out ones will either not fix the problem at all (like the coupling ratio limit or the payment cap) or will just open up more problems. This is something you should do for every idea you have, not just this one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:So I'm not richer than you if I can outbid you, because we both have essentially the same access to funds. But I'm still richer than you if I have a big network of endorsement and support, because that means I'm playing a role in more transactions than you, and therefore my activities have a bigger impact overall in the network. No you can't outbid me because we can both pay enough money to anyone to get them to the account balance cap at any time so we can pay exactly the same amount regardless of our number of endorsements. You didn't read anything I wrote. Go back and read it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Yes, you and I can pay the same amount regardless of the number of endorsements we have. But the recipient of our payment Y will receive a different amount of coin depending on our endorsements, and therefore can differentiate between us as customers, even though we have access to the same quantity of funds. Wrong. Throughput is just as meaningless as balance in your network because it's trivial to make it infinite as well. Literally everyone involved can do this at will and if that makes you "rich" as you say in your spec's intro (I notice this isn't used anywhere in the actual spec part of the spec...), then everyone will do it. With all that in mind I would like to propose an alternate currency. I call it DickCoin. Here is my spec: quote:Each node has a balance B which can be set by the user at any time to a value of their choosing between 0 and the account cap C. Please explain how this differs from your new currency from the perspective of a user or group of users. What activities are possible in DickCoin that are not possible in yours? What is possible in StrangeCoin that is not possible in DickCoin? Here's a hint to get you started: There is literally no difference. These two ideas are 100% equivalent from the standpoint of any user. The only difference between the two proposals is that yours has a network linking the nodes which provides nothing at all for the users.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Adar posted:If that is the case, imagine a store selling one (1) piece of bread. Then imagine that two people, one of whom is a Darfur war orphan and the other a hipster from Williamsburg, line up to buy said piece of bread. Is the price of the bread a constant for both of these people (it's not) / does the store have an incentive to sell to one over the other (it does)? Why is this outcome an improvement over the current system? Also what reason would I have to trade these people bread for coins when I can just make up all the coins I want out of thin air at will and keep the loving bread for myself. As far as I can tell your currency has no incentive to use it for economic transactions at all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 10:43
|
|