|
Either the value added by endorsers is: -Trivially predictable, in which case the cost of something in Strangecoin just becomes whatever the predicted exchange value is, defeating the point of the coin existing. -Non-trivially predictable. If it is non-trivially predictable, then you've got a couple of different results that follow: -Those that can best predict it can exploit it. If you penalize those who make accurate predictions, you're also penalizing anyone who spends wisely without specifically exploitative goals. -You've introduced uncertainty, which strangles businesses. In the World where it Costs Money to Live, not knowing how much money you will lose or gain on a transaction means that people are going to avoid any sort of spending that is not absolutely vital. This in turn gives EVERYONE an incentive to minimize their holdings in Strangecoin and to barter goods or services directly. You snap your fingers and Strangecoin becomes the global currency tomorrow, and anyone who gets hosed by a transaction they could not predict abandons your currency immediately and starts trading chickens. -You've introduced personal relationships into economic and financial decisions that are inherently unpredictable, and suddenly the friend who already harasses you about buying some Cutco knives figures out that if you bought some they might make EVEN MORE MONEY than they thought and your grandma wants to know why giving you 50 bucks for your birthday resulted in her estranged sister getting 20 bucks. People already don't understand the financial system and make all sorts of poor decisions based on that. And you've "designed" a system that not only leaves that problem, but makes the currency more abstract and difficult to understand, and ALSO makes it more difficult to predict what you can afford to eat and where you can afford to live. I'd love to see you walk into an Econ lecture and try to explain this. CheesyDog fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Apr 1, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 13, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
Slanderer posted:F(q) = q *(1 + e1 + e2 +e3) I can confirm that this is how factoring works, that is not exponential. No exponents are involved. Is non-nonlinear. Please change thread title accordingly, it's really bothering me. e: oh! 
crime weed fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Am I correct in my interpretation that this bit from the op:quote:Similarly, if B = 0, then the user receives a penalty where expenses are forfeit until income brings the balance above 0. Expenses might gradually decay as B approaches 0 to postpone hitting the limit. means that StrangeCoins would be literally without value because not having any didn't mean that you didn't get to spend any? The only way I can possibly interpret this is "if you have zero StrangeCoins, you don't pay for anything, they just give it to you." If I can say "I'll give you a million SC [that I don't actually have but you'll still actually get] for that burger," what incentive does either party have for not taking part in that? And if that transaction DOES happen, then why would anyone ever seek out an income ever? How is this not markedly worse than communism?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
So, when can I start a Strangecoin Ponzi? I need a source of side income since the auto shop doesn't pay well, so since I'm living out of my mom's basement, will she notice the spike in electricity use when I fire up miners hidden under my highly flammable oil-soaked dirty laundry?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
I'm 4 pages into that marble thread somebody linked a little while back, and holy wow does RA have problems. How can somebody function in society if they so clearly don't understand how people work?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:I'm 4 pages into that marble thread somebody linked a little while back, and holy wow does RA have problems. How can somebody function in society if they so clearly don't understand how people work? Fellowship extensions would be my guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Oh, I get it. This was all an April Fool's joke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Oh, I get it. This was all an April Fool's joke. Well, you're in for a surprise...
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Fellowship extensions would be my guess. That also requires some modicum of ability to function in society, at least at the start.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Oh, I get it. This was all an April Fool's joke. In the marble thread he cited a study by Mark Levine and then posted a wall of text sci-fi story he wrote to illustrate how great his attention and marble based economy would be. Dude's bananas. Wanamingo fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Wait, isn't most of the point of cryptocurrencies to make transactions secure and virtually untraceable? All cryptocurrencies make transactions extremely traceable, due to all of them being recorded in files present on every user's storage. In fact, the balance of anyone's account can only be determined by replaying all transactions that have ever occurred.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:All cryptocurrencies make transactions extremely traceable, due to all of them being recorded in files present on every user's storage. In fact, the balance of anyone's account can only be determined by replaying all transactions that have ever occurred. The only thing that makes cryptocurrencies less traceable is by obscuring the spending pattern of each individual 'actor' via spreading the transactions between a multitude of unique separate cryptocurrency structures and hoping that the resulting hairball becomes a P vs NP problem of being simple to adjudicate the value of X but hard to identify the pattern of X. Which, if you're being appropriately incredulous, is half the reason of the sudden boom in new cryptocurrencies once the truth of the bitcoin-backsolve issues became popularly disseminated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Am I correct in my interpretation that this bit from the op: I read it the same way: quote:X's account balance = 0 at t. Any additional transactions outgoing from X at t are drawn from TUA. And I see the same incentive problem. The claim is that the optimal strategy is to maintain expense exactly equal to income. I don't see why. Maintaining that balance is a means to an end, not an end of itself. I don't see anything in the system that makes spending lots of currency a less effective way to do those things that everyone typically does with currency. Even if we solve the blank checks problem, there's still the issue of perverse incentives when it comes to valuation. If I want to sell you a burger for a dollar, it's in our mutual best interest for me to charge you an enormous amount of money for the burger and you to charge me an enormous amount minus a dollar for the pleasure of conversation while I make you your change. This is a major problem because quantifying this information is the whole point of the system: quote:In other words, there is some additional value in our fair exchange that is not accounted for in the burgers and the dollars alone. But if our bookkeeping method only counts burgers and dollars, then it's not accounting for the value that accrues in our transactions. Suppose I enter into an otherwise valid, enforceable contract with a friend that I will refrain from, say, purchasing Nickelback albums in exchange for regular payments at whatever intervals and in whatever amounts we find most effective to game the system to force the rate of balance change to zero, so long as I agree to do the same for him. How does the system handle this without assuming a value for refraining from taking the action in question? eviltastic fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:How does the system handle this without assuming a value for refraining from taking the action in question? Principle of Charity, not my problem homeboy! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've not done any of those things. The strongest argument this thread has right now is that I'm a bad writer, which hardly makes me a crank. quote:Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts. 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 quote:Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial. RealityApologist posted:There is not a word about attention in the proposal for Strangecoin. RealityApologist posted:Very similar models of the attention economy have been constructed quote:Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.  So what I'm saying is, you're operating well inside of crank territory. And by the way, another hallmark of a crank is that usually, they are far too invested in their own ideas to be able to objectively evaluate them anymore. Which is exactly what I'd say a good philosopher ought to be able to do. So what I'm saying is you're doing a disservice to both yourself and the field you're claiming to be a practitioner of with the way you've invested yourself in a set of frankly unintelligible ideas to the point where you're now beyond the reach of rational criticism because you've allowed yourself to become far too personally invested in them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
Don't most cranks at least have the decency to pretend to have invented something "useful" though? A working perpetual motion machine would be great. Eripsa's ideas all seem to be chasing the idea of turning the world into some sort of hell or another.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
To be fair, Strangecoin could revitalize the synergy of nonlinear social networks and coordinate the gathering of neural network usage information in the 21st century assuming you had an economy without taxes, payrolls, finance, commodity trading, or commerce that also consists only of sole proprietorships liable for every other company they trade with. edit: Seriously though, on a scale of Method Man at the Source awards to 5 alarm fire at the hash factory how stoned are you exactly? Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 09:58 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
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. "I'm so super smart about this, and you're all just so loving stupid you cannot contemplate my brilliance."  That's you. That's you, right now. Just thought I'd let you know before I tell you that your idea is a stupid idea. None of the flaws anyone has pointed out, at least that I can see, has been refuted, or explained by you. Someone points out that you can literally get infinite money by using a loop. You immediately go: RealityApologist posted:Did you bother considering any possible solutions to the problem? Why do you think it's a fatal and unresolvable flaw? You are committing a logical fallacy. The 'Burden of Proof'. You have literally come up with this insane, loving insane idea of how to fix everything. When someone points out how stupid this is, the ONUS IS ON YOU. You do not get to just go 'Well don't you see a way around it?' and act like a smug little poo poo when the person says no, of course not. Its *your* theory, if someone points out a stupid mistake or even shows you how it won't work, you can't just ignore it by going 'Well you don't see a way to fix it, do you? Well then I guess you just don't understand.'  I agree with the poster who thinks you're trying to sound smarter than you actually are and are hoping that we'll all have our 'minds blown' and just basically say how awesome you are. And it's backfired. Horribly. Take your lickings, accept defeat, and lurk more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Yes that is linear Good. This is correct. But it isn't the whole story of the payment. Let's keep going with the example, which requires accounting for all the transactions of X and Y that might have an impact on that payment. If X has support, that won't have an effect on this payment. But if Y has support it will. So let's say Y is supported by some people with collective contribution S = s1+s2+s3+..., and let's express the sum of X's endorsements that you've already accounted for with the term E=e1+e2+e3... So if X pays Y q coins, then X loses q coins and Y gains q*(1+E+S) coins. This is still a linear relation. But we're not done yet. The nonlinearities are a product of the coupling relationships X and Y might have with other users Z1, Z2... in a way that impacts their income and expenses. These parameters aren't functions of q, they are the product of coupling relations Cx or Cy, which is a function of the income of the coupled user Z1,Z2,... for each X and Y along with the coupling relation cx1 for each coupled user. Inhibition isn't coupled to any other user income, but scales the user income by a factor of I. So our system of equations now looks like this: dBX/dt = -q * Ix * Cx dBy/dt = q * (1+S+E) * Iy * Cy dCi/dt = ci * dBZi/dt Where: Bi is the account balance of user i q is the purported payment (1+S+E) is a modifier to q, derived from the support to Y and the endorsements of X Ix is the total inhibition on x Ci is the coupling parameter, which changes as a function of the income of coupled users Zi and the strength of the coupled relation ci. While i, S, and E are all constants set by the transaction network, q and Ci are independent variables. That means the change to the balances of X and Y aren't merely proportional to q, but they are also proportional to the income of all users X and Y are coupled to, which is a function independent of q. This is a nonlinearity. This system of equations is still incomplete. As I mentioned in the proposal, we might also choose coupling strengths that decay over time, or inhibitor functions that ramp up quickly as the user approaches account penalties. In other words, the system of equations should also take into account some second derivatives, which change as the system comes up against its constraints. These aspects aren't explicit in the equations above. I'm also not sure I've expressed the coupling function correctly. But making this explicit is fun, isn't it? I'm sure having fun. RealityApologist fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
You're sure off your meds, I know that much. Why do you want me to do a bunch of integrals to use your money system that needs me to put cameras in my eyeballs or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
A lack of data isn't the loving problem with modern economics, or economies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
PrBacterio posted:
My claim is not that experts are wrong in the sense of being stupid or ignorant; my claim is that they are operating on one side of a paradigm shift, and I'm asking questions about issues that concern the results of the shift, under conditions where that shift hasn't fully occurred. That's not a criticism of knowledge, ability, or authority of the experts; in fact, from what I can tell most experts agree, both that the foundations of traditional economics are insufficient for explaining economic activity, and that the tools of network theory have triggered a fundamental reorientation across the sciences that looks a lot like a paradigm shift. So I'm asking what a networked analysis of the economy looks like. That's not cranky pseudoscience, nor is it a rejection of any expert analysis, nor is it a claim that I somehow have insight into scientific truths that evade the experts. re: attention: I introduce Strangecoin in this thread in terms of the attention economy because the people in this forum are familiar with the idea. The proposal itself doesn't employ the concept of attention anywhere, nor does it depend on any particular theory of attention or its utility. I fully admit that the burden of proof is on me to justify, explain, and motivate the theory. I'm trying to do that as best I can. I just want acknowledgement that it's hard to provide justification in the face of a hostile audience who is skeptical of my basic sanity, because that raises the requirements on motivation and explanation to levels that no one can possibly meet. That doesn't remove the burden from my shoulders, but the burden on my shoulders isn't anything close to what this thread thinks it is. For instance, I'm proposing a cryptocurrency, in a historical situation where cryptocurrencies are attracting lots of interest and public discussion. I make clear up front how my proposal differs from the existing discussion, and then I dive into the details of how it works. In any other circumstance, if I were any other person, I might be able to contribute to the discussion of cryptocurrencies on the shared assumption that such discussions are relevant and potentially of interest. In this thread, however, I'm required not only to justify my proposal but also the very plausibility of cryptocurrencies. The shared assumption of reasonable contribution to ongoing public debate has been abandoned, and suddenly I'm responsible for justifying the whole enterprise. There's perfectly good reasons to hold that skepticism, but it's not a burden on my proposal to respond to that criticism. Let me draw a parallel. I hope this is helpful. I'm really trying to be helpful. Let's pretend there's a "traditional theory of family", where familial relationships are determined entirely by the traditional relationships of parents, siblings, spouses, and so on, all connected by blood or by marriage. Now let's suppose that I think this isn't a very good theory; adoption is an anomaly not explained by the theory, but more generally there's lots of close, intimate relationships between persons that are familial in character but that simply aren't covered by the traditional theory, and lots of distant or hostile relationships of blood or marriage that aren't really familial at all. So I'd like to propose a new theory of the family, one informed by social networking. My claim is that there are certain patterns of behavior on social networks that are predictive of "family relations", which are distinct from "professional" or "friend" relations, and that these patterns of activity on the social networks provide a better resource for explaining and predicting the behaviors of families than the traditional theory. My idea is that instead of looking at the relationships of blood and marriage, look instead at the relationships of liking and sharing and commenting on Facebook. I'm proposing that these Facebook relationships develop in ways that spontaneously form little clusters of activity, and by looking at that activity we can get a better picture of familiar relations in general and how they work. Okay, that's what I'm doing. I don't think that's a cranky proposal, or even all that radical of a proposal. But the proposal has the following features: - it presents an alternative to a longstanding, traditional, intuitive theory that basically no one has any problem with. - it proposes to base the theory on social networks that have almost nothing to do with the traditional theory of family - there's no reason to use facebook, there's lots of reasons not to use it, its awful and makes the world awful and brings out the worst traits in people. - clusters of facebook users are not families. Lots of people who are in families don't use facebook - we're never going to start quantifying our family relationships in terms of facebook shares and it would be stupid to do so At least 70% of the criticisms being raised in this thread that aren't just criticisms of my sanity and competence are criticisms of the sort mentioned above. Again, all these things are absolutely true. But they really have absolutely no bearing on the proposal I'm putting forward, and they certainly aren't criticisms of the theory. In some sense they aren't even engaging with the proposal at all, again even though they are true claims about the things referred to in the proposal. It is not a burden on my proposal to respond to these kinds of criticisms. I hope this helps the thread understand why I'm responding as I am. I'm not trying to be dismissive or cranky. This poo poo is hard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
I'm not a mathematician, or even very good at math, but I'm still fairly certain what you described could be put into a linear algorithm. And if it cant then you've made your own supposed goal of tracking spending trends (or whatever you want to do, you've never been the least bit clear about that) a hell of a lot harder than it needs to be. -EDIT- Before anything else, you need to explain why nonlinearity is a good thing rather than a huge flaw. Also: quote:In this thread, however, I'm required not only to justify my proposal but also the very plausibility of cryptocurrencies. That's because D&D has spent an absurd amount of man hours picking apart all the various problems of cryptocurrencies and their inherent issues. So no poo poo you're going to have to deal with that when proposing a new one. That's like complaining that your creationist theory isn't taken seriously by evolutionary biologists. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:For instance, I'm proposing a cryptocurrency, in a historical situation where cryptocurrencies are attracting lots of interest and public discussion. I make clear up front how my proposal differs from the existing discussion, and then I dive into the details of how it works. In any other circumstance, if I were any other person, I might be able to contribute to the discussion of cryptocurrencies on the shared assumption that such discussions are relevant and potentially of interest. In this thread, however, I'm required not only to justify my proposal but also the very plausibility of cryptocurrencies. The shared assumption of reasonable contribution to ongoing public debate has been abandoned, and suddenly I'm responsible for justifying the whole enterprise. There's perfectly good reasons to hold that skepticism, but it's not a burden on my proposal to respond to that criticism. Can you explain, without the use of simile or metaphor, what makes Strangecoin a cryptocurrency and not a traditional currency?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:While i, S, and E are all constants set by the transaction network, q and Ci are independent variables. That means the change to the balances of X and Y aren't merely proportional to q, but they are also proportional to the income of all users X and Y are coupled to, which is a function independent of q. This is a nonlinearity. Nooooooope. For any given transaction, everything is still proportional to q. The fact that i, S, and E are independent of q is what preserves linearity, you loon. I mean, you could have at least pointed out that linearity fails at the limits of B, because that's really about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:in fact, from what I can tell most experts agree, both that the foundations of traditional economics are insufficient for explaining economic activity, and that the tools of network theory have triggered a fundamental reorientation across the sciences that looks a lot like a paradigm shift. Cool, can you provide quotes from economic experts to back this up Much of the hostility you're receiving is because you appear to be deliberately avoiding answering basic questions that you obviously don't have an answer to. Can you give a worked example where you show what new information your new methods allow us to get, that are impossible with traditional methods.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:in fact, from what I can tell most experts agree, both that the foundations of traditional economics are insufficient for explaining economic activity, and that the tools of network theory have triggered a fundamental reorientation across the sciences that looks a lot like a paradigm shift. [citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Dynamite Dog posted:Can you explain, without the use of simile or metaphor, what makes Strangecoin a cryptocurrency and not a traditional currency? I was assuming Strangecoin is implemented with a variation of the blockchain, but that's really not important. The point isn't whether cryptocurrencies are relevantly different from traditional currencies. From the perspective of Strangecoin, both traditional currencies and cryptocurrencies work in the same way. My point was just that there's currently a lot of discussion of new alternative digital currencies like bitcoin, and that the proposal for Strangecoin is contributing to that ongoing public discussion. There was no such public discussion three years ago, so the proposal was given in terms of marbles and looked a lot crazier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Nooooooope. For any given transaction, everything is still proportional to q. The fact that i, S, and E are independent of q is what preserves linearity, you loon. gently caress, to expand further: You're describing discrete functions as continuous ones, which is wrong outside of a macro context. And each transaction is implicitly also a function of time, as coupling variables and account balances sorta change over time. Linearity is dependent on fixing time to a constant, so as to describe the effects of one transaction at a given time versus a different transaction that could have instead happened at the same time. If time isn't fixed, then no currency transaction in the real world right now is "linear", because tax loving changes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
^^^^^ I think the main confusion is that his system actually requires more data. For every point of sale, it requires that you be connected to an online database being constantly updated in real-time that might involve billions of transactions just to buy a donut. I don't see any way it actually produces more data or allows us to track anything interesting we can't already track, but it does require we track a lot of poo poo in order to use it at all. I think Eripsa is mixing up "We'd have to do this poo poo to make my system work" with "My system would accomplish this poo poo". poo poo you have to do to make strangecoin work isn't a feature of it, but he treats it as though it is. Eripsa: Even if you weren't still wrong about linearity: Endorsements do nothing at all for people except in rare circumstances of very limited availability. People selling things don't want to not know the amount they'll get for them. That uncertainty that you're building in with endorsements is a negative. It isn't a positive. It makes it impossible to actually set a product price that will maximize your area under curve. You also haven't dealt with the fact that you just lied about what I said. Can you get around to that at some point? Lying about what other people say is really lovely behavior. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I was assuming Strangecoin is implemented with a variation of the blockchain, but that's really not important. The point isn't whether cryptocurrencies are relevantly different from traditional currencies. From the perspective of Strangecoin, both traditional currencies and cryptocurrencies work in the same way. If you want to implement it using "a variation of the blockchain", go read the goddamn bitcoin whitepaper, go look at the bitcoin reference code, and come back with a proposal so that I can tell you how dumb it is and how easy executing a time machine attack would be. How would rewards be distributed? How would transactions fees be distributed to the computers running the network? How would hashing difficulty be adjusted? Or are you just saying, "OH, WE'LL DO THE BITCOIN THING TOO OKAY?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
First Bass posted:[citation needed] I don't know what exactly you're looking for, but there's plenty of work being done on the foundations of economics. For instance: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674430006 There's probably more important and relevant work being done; economics isn't my area. But I don't think its controversial to claim that there's a general acknowledgement that the foundations of economic theory are impoverished. I've already cited John Baez's attempts at unification through network theory, which is a huge inspiration. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/networks/ http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:My claim is not that experts are wrong in the sense of being stupid or ignorant; my claim is that they are operating on one side of a paradigm shift, and I'm asking questions about issues that concern the results of the shift quote:Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important. quote:Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Or are you just saying, "OH, WE'LL DO THE BITCOIN THING TOO OKAY?" Hey man I'm more than happy to admit I need help with the math. You've already helped me a lot. I did 6 hours of math homework last night because of your drat question. So please keep it up, because I need it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I don't know what exactly you're looking for, but there's plenty of work being done on the foundations of economics. For instance: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674430006 How can you remotely justify discussing the topic of a fundamental shift in economics and then say 'economics isn't my area'? It's like saying 'I'm proposing a radically new way of sequencing DNA (all those previous hacks are a bunch of alchemists), but biology isn't my area'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:There's probably more important and relevant work being done; economics isn't my area. But I don't think its controversial to claim that there's a general acknowledgement that the foundations of economic theory are impoverished. quote:I've already cited John Baez's attempts at unification through network theory, which is a huge inspiration.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I don't know what exactly you're looking for, A quote from an actual economist. quote:but there's plenty of work being done on the foundations of economics. For instance: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674430006 That book is utterly irrelevant to everything you've posted. quote:There's probably more important and relevant work being done; economics isn't my area. So why are you confident making statements about the level of knowledge available to economists quote:But I don't think its controversial to claim that there's a general acknowledgement that the foundations of economic theory are impoverished. You'd be wrong. Provide examples. quote:I've already cited John Baez's attempts at unification through network theory, which is a huge inspiration.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Hey man I'm more than happy to admit I need help with the math. You've already helped me a lot. I did 6 hours of math homework last night because of your drat question. So please keep it up, because I need it. If that's the case, maybe just trust me when I say it's linear. (It's super linear. Linear as gently caress). Similarly, when I say it's a noncurrency...
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
PrBacterio posted:Right, exactly. You're claiming your ingenuous "discovery" is so important as to constitute a paradigm shift in the field of economics, which is a common claim found with cranks, re: I explicitly denied the second claim in that post. Concerning urgency, I don't think my proposal (or paradigm shifts in general) are "urgent" in any existential sense. Perhaps you're mistaking urgency for being trendy? I'm just trying to take advantage of the *coin conversation while it's hot because it makes available certain conceptual resources that look insane when put in terms of marbles. That doesn't mean it is the most important issue of the day or anything so grandiose. My actual view on *coins (which I've repeated on this forum plenty of times) is that they'll eventually function like ant pheromones, as an external signal used for organizing social activity and coordinating a division of labor. Money fills that function now, but it's signals are confusing and disorienting and need differentiation. *coins will eventually fill that roll, but after a long period of memetic development. This stuff probably wont settle into a stable economic infrastructure for a century or more; we're really still decades out from developing the theoretical tools to even describe such systems. I think I'm contributing to that discussion, but as only one voice in a sea of voices. My Strangecoin proposal seemed to have had a minor impact on that discussion, for a day, on a HN thread. I have no pretensions that my role in this process is any more significant than that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 13, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
Why isn't this thread gold yet? Another post! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 16:40
|
|
