Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
RealityApologist
Mar 29, 2011

ASK me how NETWORKS algorithms NETWORKS will save humanity. WHY ARE YOU NOT THINKING MY THESIS THROUGH FOR ME HEATHENS did I mention I just unified all sciences because NETWORKS :fuckoff:
Yonatan Zunger, the G+ architect guy, just posted a link to an article on technological unemployment and post-scarcity. Although I haven't really relied on post-scarcity in this thread, Yonatan's discussion provided a useful segue into explaining Strangecoin that people who are still looking for a simple explanation might find helpful. Yonatan's post isn't particularly interesting, but it sets up my response.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+YonatanZunger/posts/JBEwFPMhViz

quote:

+Charlie Stross has a challenging and very interesting essay asking the question: Why should we work?

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/04/a-nation-of-slaves.html

We tend to talk around this issue a lot, but a key issue is this: as productivity (the amount of stuff of value we can create per hour of work) goes up, how much of that increase do we put in to increasing the amount of stuff of value we create, and how much do we put into decreasing the amount of work we do -- or put another way, what's the value of leisure?

Another way to look at this is to consider an extreme limit. Say that tomorrow, someone invented a couple of Magic Boxes. One of them lets you pour cheap raw materials (dirt, rocks) in one end, push a button, and anything you request, from a hamburger to a car, comes out the other end. Another one will answer any question you ask, organize anything you need organized, do research for you, synthesize the data, explain things to you, and so on. A third one will pick up any physical item and take it anywhere in the world you need to be. If it's not obvious, these magic boxes are just the limits of technology we already have.

Now in this post-Magic Box world, a lot of good things happen. For one thing, magic boxes themselves are cheap, because they can be made by magic boxes. (Someone will try to ban that, of course, and this will work about as well as banning people from humming songs) It's hard to go hungry when you can just dump dirt into your magic box and get a meal. Likewise, any clothing, shelter, and medicine you might need is just there, and another magic box can help you figure out which things will help you satisfy your needs. If you can afford the cheapest magic box, you can have the riches of Croesos.

On the other hand, you might notice that a huge fraction of all jobs in the world would cease to exist as well. Almost the entire manufacturing, service, logistics, or information sectors would cease to exist. Pretty much the only jobs remaining would be to come up with new designs to fit in to the magic boxes -- and it's not hard to imagine that magic boxes could do a lot of that, too.

If we kept running the world the way we do now -- the way it would happen if someone literally invented these boxes tomorrow -- then we would find ourselves in a very strange state. Having successfully pushed productivity to infinity, and eliminated all possible cause for want in the world, almost everyone in the world would be suddenly unemployed, unable to access a magic box, and would starve to death.

This is obviously stupid.

The flaw in this, of course, is that our tendency to tie work to access to resources makes no sense in a world where the total amount of actual work to be done is much less than the total number of people around to do it. In this post-Box world, there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone.

That's not a bad thing for the basic reason that Stross explains. Most jobs aren't things you would want for their own sakes. Consider: If you suddenly inherited £100M, would you stay in your job? If you would -- if you would do this job even if it had nothing to do with earning money -- then your job is actually worth something to you in its own right, and you would probably keep doing it in a post-Box world. If, on the other hand, you would leave your job immediately, then your job has no value of its own to you: it exists only as a means to an end, and as soon as you have a better means, you're out of there.

The reason this is important is that we're already in the early days of the Magic Box Economy. When we see jobs disappearing around the world and not being replaced by new jobs -- entire trade sectors vanishing -- and the overall actual unemployment rate (not the rate of people looking for work, but the rate of people who aren't working for pay at all) rising, but at the same time overall global productivity is increasing, what we're seeing is that many of the jobs which used to be necessary for us as a species to survive are simply no longer needed.

However, our economy, and our thinking about the economy, continues to be based on the idea that jobs are good, and working is good, and if you aren't trying to work harder, something must be wrong with you. Which means that, as people's jobs become completely obsoleted, with no useful "retraining" available since the total number of jobs has permanently gone down, we conclude that these people must therefore be drains on our society, and cut them off from the magic box, even though a surprisingly small amount of money is (in our semi-Box economy) already enough to survive.

What I've talked about above is the problem -- namely, how to manage the transition between a work-based economy and a magic box economy. There have been many solutions proposed to this, and I'm not going to go into all of them now. (For the record, I suspect that the "universal basic income" approach is probably the simplest and best solution, although my mind is by no means made up)

But it's come time to start thinking about this: As our wealth goes to infinity, how do we avoid starving to death?

Here's my response.

quote:

As Yonatan suggests, part of the challenge is that our current economic framework is grounded in a particular relationship between labor and value that is increasingly obsolete.

I think the key is to recognize that there are both forms of labor and value that aren't well-represented in our existing economic framework. Other economic frameworks representing different conceptions of labor and value might operate perfectly well in a Magic Box world, by considering aspects of human labor and values which the box itself can't provide.

So along the lines of +Russ Abbott, there's nothing you can put into the box that will produce resolutions to our various standing political contexts, that might well rage on despite the abundance of resources. There's also nothing from the box that will produce the interpersonal care and attention required for engaging and maintaining our social networks.

It's relevant to consider that, as jobs are dying off, people are investing unprecedented amounts of time maintaining and pruning their social networks online. It's a huge source of both human labor _and_ value. Much of that work goes uncompensated (although not unrecognized) by the economy, but more importantly there are no standardized ways of managing and compensating that labor in all the various media it manifests.

If you've been following my stream for the last week or so, you'll have seen my discussion of #strangecoin that I think speaks to a lot of the comments in this thread. The point of Strangecoin is to model an economic framework where social labor is the primary influences on economic organization, and where community structure is the primary influence on value.

Our existing economy assumes that our labor is industrial, and that our values are in the material wealth that industry generates, and this breaks down as Magic Boxes come online. But a system like Strangecoin that relies on social labor and community structure would continue to be pertinent to our economic lives whether or not magic boxes proliferate.

I don't think Strangecoin is the solution to our economic problems, but it represents a line of thinking in response to the challenges posed by Yonatan that start to look rather attractive. In fact, after posting my Strangecoin proposal I've found other attempts, like Belua, that appear to be working on similar ideas. And, of course, there are active communities on G+ considering ideas very much along these lines. So this stuff is definitely in the air, even if we don't have all the solutions yet. At least, I'm still somewhat confident that we'll find a solution sometime before there's a magic box in every pocket =).

RealityApologist fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Apr 4, 2014

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

RealityApologist
Mar 29, 2011

ASK me how NETWORKS algorithms NETWORKS will save humanity. WHY ARE YOU NOT THINKING MY THESIS THROUGH FOR ME HEATHENS did I mention I just unified all sciences because NETWORKS :fuckoff:

Tokamak posted:

I hope my explanation was descriptive enough to persuade you that your line of inquiry is fundamentally flawed. I don't think I can state the case more plainly.

You are saying that we cannot predict what the network will do; there are no algorithmic shortcuts for knowing with complete accuracy the state of the network in its entirety. I understand this, and I also understand that there's no avoiding the hard computational limits.

What I don't understand is why this kind of predictive clarity is necessary to make a framework like this functional and useful, in the sense that it works as a system and the users experience a net positive outcome relative to the existing system or other models because of their incentives in this system. If the only argument in favor of the system is the predictive clarity it provides, than I'm happy to admit that your criticism is fatal. But that's not the force of my argument, and your comment isn't convincing me that it can't be done.

JawnV6, who as far as I can tell has done the most work on it, appears somewhat optimistic that he can build at least some implementation of some parts of the proposal, and while he's recognized lots of concerns about recursive explosions he's not suggested the problem is intractable for the purposes of the working model.

edit: the credit/fraud thing is a problem with synchronizing the network, because you could run exploits in the time it takes for the signal to propagate. These exploits could cause the following problems for the flow and community structure of the network. I understand why this is a problem, but I don't know enough network security to understand even what a solution would look like. But I'm right that this is a distinct problem from the computational complexity one, yes? I suppose they are related, but is it more reasonable to think this can be resolved with standard techniques in network engineering for establishing consensus in a network? Again maybe not with the goal of eliminating all fraud but rather minimizing it's potential impact on the network (in terms of how many connections one can have, and caps on the various transaction types).

RealityApologist fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Apr 4, 2014

Vincent Van Goatse
Nov 8, 2006

Enjoy every sandwich.

Smellrose

Judakel posted:

This is the blind leading the blind. Every single one of you looked exactly like every boorish community college student who has read just enough to embarrass themselves. With one exception, you all sounded exactly like them too. I feel no more enlightened on the warrant of this currency and what problems it seeks to address than I was before I watched that video.

That's because Strangecoin addresses nothing and solves no problems whatsoever. It's pure pseudo-intellectual masturbation.

Actually no, it's worse than pseudo-intellectual masturbation because nobody will get an orgasm out of Strangecoin.

Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Apr 4, 2014

RealityApologist
Mar 29, 2011

ASK me how NETWORKS algorithms NETWORKS will save humanity. WHY ARE YOU NOT THINKING MY THESIS THROUGH FOR ME HEATHENS did I mention I just unified all sciences because NETWORKS :fuckoff:

Wanamingo posted:

Don't tell me you were simply talking about your beliefs towards strangecoin, because if you were then you wouldn't have specified it.

If you look at the thread, I did say that, apparently as you were writing up your response. Again, this isn't me changing my mind or pretending I didn't say something I did, this is a mistaken interpretation.

Tokamak
Dec 22, 2004

RealityApologist posted:

If the only argument in favor of the system is the predictive clarity it provides, than I'm happy to admit that your criticism is fatal. But that's not the force of my argument, and your comment isn't convincing me that it can't be done.

JawnV6, who as far as I can tell has done the most work on it, appears somewhat optimistic that he can build at least some implementation of some parts of the proposal, and while he's recognized lots of concerns about recursive explosions he's not suggested the problem is intractable for the purposes of the working model.

That's it. If you don't have that sort of clarity, then what you are doing is no better then the inefficient old way government/business/academia collates and analyses data. The corruption and inefficiencies that arise in traditionally managed societies is entirely due to the compromises we make to avoid this combinatorial explosion. There is a "middle ground"; for example moving to paperless government, centralisation of records, and financial auditing. But these sort of improvements do not come the sort of computational burden of anything you propose. Even for relatively small projects, such as moving the American armies accounting onto a centralised/electronic system has been a logistical (i.e computational) nightmare.

Jawn is optimistic because they're building a small proof of concept. Wait until someone's built and analysed something, before you argue that it is doable (in practice).

Tokamak fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Apr 4, 2014

RealityApologist
Mar 29, 2011

ASK me how NETWORKS algorithms NETWORKS will save humanity. WHY ARE YOU NOT THINKING MY THESIS THROUGH FOR ME HEATHENS did I mention I just unified all sciences because NETWORKS :fuckoff:

GulMadred posted:

Waitaminute - actually, I think that you win this point on the grounds of "computational complexity." If we assume that a whole-system analysis is too expensive (especially for the smartphones or wearable PCs through which people will perform day-to-day transactions), then there's no such thing as a global scoreboard. My enormous e-peen transaction volume is visible only to the members of the conspiracy, and to our close friends/family (who will presumably refuse to setup strong links with us, so as to avoid being tainted by association). When I walk into a hotel and ask for the Presidential Suite, their computer performs a quick network walk, fails to find me within 7 edges of their corporate core nodes, and so the staff gives me the bum's rush.*

Large network segments could still be impacted by Madoff-type events (in which a malicious actor manages to accrue a large trust position), but the script kiddies can amuse themselves by trading trillion-dollar IOUs back-and-forth without destabilizing anything. Calculating the Universal Account balance and flows at any moment would be difficult; it would presumably be done only by quantum supercomputers at the central-bank-equivalent (for statistical/oversight purposes), or perhaps TUA would be treated as an accounting fiction: everyone would ignore the concept of TUA-stability and just focus on the stability of their own local cluster.

* If this paragraph is accurate, then you should probably avoid references to Bitcoin when introducing your idea to internet/compsci folk, and instead mention Ripple. Doing so would give them a more useful context for thinking about the proposed system, and reduce the risk of immediate misunderstanding (and immediate antipathy - Bitcoin has earned itself a lot of enemies).

Yeah, this is exactly right (which I think echoes my response to Tokamak above as well). Well done.

I especially like the recognition of why "gaming the system" isn't trivial. The local clusters can basically do whatever they want among themselves without changing much about the network. Which is not to say that the system can't be gamed, but it's going to take more than inhibition = 0 :smug:

Since I'm already viewed as a crank, I'll just say this: I've been imagining TUA like the Higgs field: always active and everywhere in the background, giving everything weight and relevance to (almost) everything. So the idea that you can basically ignore it for local calculations is very attractive from the way I'm thinking about it.

Didn't know about Ripple until right now. Thanks.

Vincent Van Goatse
Nov 8, 2006

Enjoy every sandwich.

Smellrose

RealityApologist posted:

Since I'm already viewed as a crank, I'll just say this: I've been imagining TUA like the Higgs field: always active and everywhere in the background, giving everything weight and relevance to (almost) everything.

How can this possibly be achieved? How can you even imagine some kind of human-built computer network thing being as universally active and pervading as a cornerstone of quantum loving physics?

Seriously, requiring something that operates on this scale is basically invoking magic.

RealityApologist
Mar 29, 2011

ASK me how NETWORKS algorithms NETWORKS will save humanity. WHY ARE YOU NOT THINKING MY THESIS THROUGH FOR ME HEATHENS did I mention I just unified all sciences because NETWORKS :fuckoff:

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

How can this possibly be achieved? How can you even imagine some kind of human-built computer network thing being as universally active and pervading as a cornerstone of quantum loving physics?

Seriously, requiring something that operates on this scale is basically invoking magic.

You don't seem to be following the conversation very well.

Tokamak
Dec 22, 2004

RealityApologist posted:

edit: the credit/fraud thing is a problem with synchronizing the network, because you could run exploits in the time it takes for the signal to propagate. These exploits could cause the following problems for the flow and community structure of the network. I understand why this is a problem, but I don't know enough network security to understand even what a solution would look like. But I'm right that this is a distinct problem from the computational complexity one, yes? I suppose they are related, but is it more reasonable to think this can be resolved with standard techniques in network engineering for establishing consensus in a network? Again maybe not with the goal of eliminating all fraud but rather minimizing it's potential impact on the network (in terms of how many connections one can have, and caps on the various transaction types).

Yes, payment processors make compromises around determining suspicious activity which require further investigation. They can't simplify it down to a theoretical model, because it is a social problem and not a physics problem. Its a constant back and forth with trying to come up with techniques to catch crooks, while crooks are try to find loopholes.

So things like chip and pin, and calling to confirm international purchases have been developed to help reduce, but not solve the problem. Your solutions rely on ignoring the (potential) incremental improvements and presume a level of information that is impossible to know or account for.

Tokamak fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Apr 4, 2014

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

RealityApologist posted:

Since I'm already viewed as a crank, I'll just say this: I've been imagining TUA like the Higgs field: always active and everywhere in the background, giving everything weight and relevance to (almost) everything. So the idea that you can basically ignore it for local calculations is very attractive from the way I'm thinking about it.

See, it's statements like this that made the Sokal criticism so valid. If you claim the speed of light is a representation of patriarchy or that Heisenberg uncertainty invalidates morality it's really just shines a light that you don't understand the concept your misusing in the least and should probably keep your mouth shut. .

moebius2778
May 3, 2013

RealityApologist posted:

So let's again talk about the incentives of strangecoin. People who do well in strangecoinworld:

A) form strategic alliances with others who perform well
B) maximize their throughput (they form lots of alliances)
C) minimize their impact (they balance their income and expenses)
D) improve the economic situation of everyone else (through a coupling with TUA)

Incentive B is a a disincentive to form tiny cabals of wealthy elite, since it also minimizes the economic influence those small groups can have. Both C and D provide disincentives towards radical disparities in influence or "wealth" (again, not measured in quantity of coin), at least insofar as those disparities have an impact on the overall health of the system.

This doesn't prove that people would do better in strangecoin world, and certainly doesn't suggest that some won't fall through the cracks, but it gives at least some reason for thinking it might.

Is this a goal statement (i.e., "StrangeCoin should be set up such that people who do well in strangecoinworld..."), an axiomatic statement (i.e., "the point of strangecoinworld is to..."), or a derived statement (i.e., "Due to the way StrangeCoin is set up, people who do well in strangecoinworld..."), or something else?

And if it's a derived statement, how is it derived?

Because that's what I couldn't figure out about the lack of an actor model - it wasn't just that I couldn't see any model/expectation for how an actor would behave in strangecoinworld, I couldn't see any way to figure out how an actor should behave in strangecoinworld.

RealityApologist
Mar 29, 2011

ASK me how NETWORKS algorithms NETWORKS will save humanity. WHY ARE YOU NOT THINKING MY THESIS THROUGH FOR ME HEATHENS did I mention I just unified all sciences because NETWORKS :fuckoff:

moebius2778 posted:

Is this a goal statement (i.e., "StrangeCoin should be set up such that people who do well in strangecoinworld..."), an axiomatic statement (i.e., "the point of strangecoinworld is to..."), or a derived statement (i.e., "Due to the way StrangeCoin is set up, people who do well in strangecoinworld..."), or something else?

And if it's a derived statement, how is it derived?

Because that's what I couldn't figure out about the lack of an actor model - it wasn't just that I couldn't see any model/expectation for how an actor would behave in strangecoinworld, I couldn't see any way to figure out how an actor should behave in strangecoinworld.

It is derived. Due to the way strangecoin is designed, one's "wealth" or influence in the system is a product of the alliances one forms, so the more alliances (and the stronger they are), the more influence you have on the organization of the network. People don't need to pursue this if they don't want, but that's what it means to be "rich" in stangecoin, and people who are motivated to pursue additional social resources will seek our more transactions with more people.

Due to the way strangecoin is designed, there are penalties for reaching the account limits, so excesses of income/expenses threaten to impose those penalties and users therefore have an incentive to keep their income/expenses balanced. Hitting account limits essentially signals that you're a poor or unstable economic actor, so these penalties manifest in the sorts of transactions people are willing to have with you.

Due to the way strangecoin is designed, people's individual success improves the economic success of everyone else, because everyone is coupled with TUA, so if I'm going well economically then TUA is too, and vice versa. This is how the coupling transaction works, and since everyone is connected to TUA then I'm also connected to (and coupled with) everyone else in two generations. So everyone's economic fate is rather closely bound.

RealityApologist
Mar 29, 2011

ASK me how NETWORKS algorithms NETWORKS will save humanity. WHY ARE YOU NOT THINKING MY THESIS THROUGH FOR ME HEATHENS did I mention I just unified all sciences because NETWORKS :fuckoff:

Dusseldorf posted:

See, it's statements like this that made the Sokal criticism so valid. If you claim the speed of light is a representation of patriarchy or that Heisenberg uncertainty invalidates morality it's really just shines a light that you don't understand the concept your misusing in the least and should probably keep your mouth shut. .

"I'm using a structural analogy from one formal system to help organize my thoughts in another" is not at all like the Sokal hoax, and equating the two is completely lazy interpretation. The implementation technique that was suggested resonated with the analogy. The comment didn't go any deeper than that.

Doctor Spaceman
Jul 6, 2010

"Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

RealityApologist posted:

It is derived.
More accurately, you hope it can be derived.

JawnV6
Jul 4, 2004

So hot ...
code:
#!/usr/bin/python

from collections import defaultdict

transactionTypes = ['payment', 'support', 'endorsement', 'coupling', 'inhibition']


class User:
	name = ""
	balance = 0
	def __init__(self, name, balance, last_income, last_expenses):
		self.name = name
		self.balance = balance
		self.last_income = last_income
		self.last_expenses = last_expenses
		self.expenses = defaultdict(list)
		self.income = defaultdict(list)
		self.current_income = 0
		self.current_expenses = 0
		self.last_income = 0
		self.last_expenses = 0
#		for i in transactionTypes:
#			self.expenses[i] = []
#			self.income[i] = []

class PaymentEntry:
	amount = 0
	duration = 1
	def __init__(self, amount, duration):
		self.amount = amount
		self.duration = duration
		

class SupportEntry:
	amount = 0
	duration = 1
	def __init__(self, amount, duration):
		self.amount = amount
		self.duration = duration






TransactionTypes = ['payment', 'support', 'endorsement', 'coupling', 'inhibition']

class Transaction:
	tType = ''
	duration = 1

class Payment(Transaction):
	def __init__(self, initiator, recipient, amount):
		self.tType = 'payment'
		self.initiator = initiator
		self.recipient = recipient
		self.amount = amount
		self.duration = 1

class Support(Transaction):
	def __init__(self, initiator, recipient, proportion, duration):
		self.tType = 'support'
		self.initiator = initiator
		self.proportion = proportion
		self.duration = duration

import random

ledger = []

ordering = ['payment', 'support', 'endorsement', 'coupling', 'inhibition']

def print_users(users):
	line = ""
	for user in users:
		line += user.name + " - " + str(user.balance) 
		for tx in ordering:
			if(len(user.income[tx]) != 0 or len(user.expenses[tx]) != 0 ):
				line += "  : " + tx + " i: " +str(len(user.income[tx])) + " e: " + str(len(user.expenses[tx]))
		line += " :: "
	print(line)

def update_expense(transactionType, user, transaction):
	if transactionType == 'payment':
		return transaction.amount;
	elif transactionType == 'support':
		value = 0
		return value

def update_income(transactionType, user, transaction):
	if transactionType == 'payment':
		return transaction.amount;
	elif transactionType == 'support':
		value = 0
		return value

def process_users(users):
	for user in users:
		user.current_expense = 0
		user.current_income = 0
		for transactionType in ordering:
			#print(user.name + " ttype: " + transactionType + " un " + str(len(user.expenses[transactionType]))+ " " + str(len(user.income[transactionType]))) 
			current_tx_expense = 0
			current_tx_income = 0
			for entry in user.expenses[transactionType]:
				current_tx_expense += update_expense(transactionType, user, entry)
				entry.duration -= 1
				if entry.duration <= 0:
					user.expenses[transactionType].remove(entry)
			for entry in user.income[transactionType]:
				current_tx_income += update_income(transactionType, user, entry)
				entry.duration -= 1
				if entry.duration <= 0:
					user.income[transactionType].remove(entry)
			user.current_expense += current_tx_expense
			user.current_income += current_tx_income
#			if(current_tx_income != 0 or current_tx_expense != 0):
#				print(transactionType + " " + user.name + " CE: " + str(current_tx_expense) + " CI: " + str(current_tx_income) )
		new_balance = user.balance + user.current_income - user.current_expense
#		print(user.name + " BAL: " + str(user.balance) +" NEW BAL: " + str(new_balance) )
		user.balance = new_balance
	for user in users:
		user.last_expense = user.current_expense
		user.last_income = user.current_income

# 

def check_users(users):
	for user in users:
		if(user.balance <= 0):
			return False
	return True

def run_step(transactions, users):
	if(len(transactions) == 0):
		return False
	for transaction in transactions:
		if transaction.tType == 'payment':
			transaction.initiator.expenses['payment'].append(transaction)
			transaction.recipient.income['payment'].append(transaction)
		elif transaction.tType == 'support':
			transaction.initiator.expenses['support'].append(transaction)
			transaction.recipient.income['payment'].append(transaction)
		else:
			return False
		ledger.append(transaction)
	#Uncomment here to see transactions in flight
	#print_users(users)
	process_users(users)
	checkPassed = check_users(users)
	return checkPassed

def run_simulation():
	users = [User("X",100,0,0), User("Y",200,0,0)]
	transactions = [Payment(users[0], users[1], 25)]
	run_step(transactions, users)
	transactions = [Payment(users[1], users[0], 50)]
	run_step(transactions, users)
	running = True
	count = 0
	while(running):
		running = run_step(transactions, users)
		# Uncomment here to see balances only
		#print_users(users)
		count += 1
		if(random.choice([True, False]) ):
			transactions = [Payment(users[0], users[1], count)]
		else:
			transactions = [Payment(users[1], users[0], count)]
			

run_simulation()
Alright, this used to be 3 files, python's not my native language, and it's modeling 2 users here. It's the simplest loop I could whip up to demonstrate the basic usage.

Every transaction has to be stored along with each user. The first 4 types can be put into the income/expense buckets right when they're added, but Coupling will have to be much more complex. Slanderer's simplification makes the ordering irrelevant, but it's still in there since it's 1 line.

Just going to go ahead and post this, a few more thoughts on the implications of TUA coming up.

editing in some info: This sets up 2 users, shows a few transactions and time steps between them, then sets up a loop to randomly select a payment from one to the other or vice versa. It fails out when someone drops below zero, more to provide quick runs that can be printed on a screen. I know accounts can't actually go below zero, that code has to be added too.

There's a lot of dead code, some classes left over before it was obvious every transaction's full information had to be stored everywhere.

update_expense/income is the next place to extend. Support transactions need the math to compute value filled in, then some quick runs to determine what percentages will work to add them in. Endorse will have to be added to 'payment', by scraping through the user.income['endorse'] list for every payment. Which user.income['endorse'] idk lol, but it's in the transaction somewhere!

Apologies for the poor quality and incompleteness, have a flight to catch soon and wanted to open it up.

JawnV6 fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Apr 4, 2014

Vincent Van Goatse
Nov 8, 2006

Enjoy every sandwich.

Smellrose

RealityApologist posted:

You don't seem to be following the conversation very well.

No, I've been following what you're saying all too well.

Wanamingo
Feb 22, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

RealityApologist posted:

If you look at the thread, I did say that, apparently as you were writing up your response. Again, this isn't me changing my mind or pretending I didn't say something I did, this is a mistaken interpretation.

I meant in the very first post where you denied being an extremist. I know you tried to clarify your position by saying you're only an extremist when it comes to certain things, but that's not my problem.

RealityApologist posted:

No, I'm not saying I'm an extremist, especially about the strangecoin stuff which I'm not at all confident about.

That quote right there. You denied being an extremist at all, plain and simple. Unless you're going to tell me that you meant to say something like No, I'm not saying I'm an extremist (about strangecoin), especially about the strangecoin stuff which I'm not at all confident about, which doesn't make any sense, then there's no way around it. By some stroke of luck I managed to find a quote with you directly contradicting yourself there. All I want is you to admit that you were wrong to say that, and that you should have said you are an extremist but just not when it comes to your strangecoin idea.

Somebody, please, back me up on this. I want to know if I'm actually the one being terrible here.

Vincent Van Goatse
Nov 8, 2006

Enjoy every sandwich.

Smellrose

RealityApologist posted:

"I'm using a structural analogy from one formal system to help organize my thoughts in another" is not at all like the Sokal hoax, and equating the two is completely lazy interpretation. The implementation technique that was suggested resonated with the analogy. The comment didn't go any deeper than that.

You implied that in order to function your implementation technique would be pervasive on the order of the field that gives subatomic particles their mass. Analogy or not that's a huge claim and shows just how detached from reality your whole line of thinking is. In order to work you need a device capable of accuracy and operation on a scale that's ridiculously vast.

The analogy disproves the thing it's meant to support.

Wanamingo posted:

I meant in the very first post where you denied being an extremist. I know you tried to clarify your position by saying you're only an extremist when it comes to certain things, but that's not my problem.


That quote right there. You denied being an extremist at all, plain and simple. Unless you're going to tell me that you meant to say something like No, I'm not saying I'm an extremist (about strangecoin), especially about the strangecoin stuff which I'm not at all confident about, which doesn't make any sense, then there's no way around it. By some stroke of luck I managed to find a quote with you directly contradicting yourself there. All I want is you to admit that you were wrong to say that, and that you should have said you are an extremist but just not when it comes to your strangecoin idea.

Somebody, please, back me up on this. I want to know if I'm actually the one being terrible here.

No no, don't worry at all. You're having the reaction that all sane people do to Eripsathink.

RealityApologist
Mar 29, 2011

ASK me how NETWORKS algorithms NETWORKS will save humanity. WHY ARE YOU NOT THINKING MY THESIS THROUGH FOR ME HEATHENS did I mention I just unified all sciences because NETWORKS :fuckoff:

Wanamingo posted:

I meant in the very first post where you denied being an extremist. I know you tried to clarify your position by saying you're only an extremist when it comes to certain things, but that's not my problem.


That quote right there. You denied being an extremist at all, plain and simple. Unless you're going to tell me that you meant to say something like No, I'm not saying I'm an extremist (about strangecoin), especially about the strangecoin stuff which I'm not at all confident about, which doesn't make any sense, then there's no way around it. By some stroke of luck I managed to find a quote with you directly contradicting yourself there. All I want is you to admit that you were wrong to say that, and that you should have said you are an extremist but just not when it comes to your strangecoin idea.

Somebody, please, back me up on this. I want to know if I'm actually the one being terrible here.

I was responding to the comment about being a crank with a post about extremism. My point was to talk about the dynamics of social opinion.

He responded by asking whether I was implying by the post that I was an extremist. I took the context to be concerning this thread and the other attention economy threads, for which I was being called a crank. Although I have extremist views, those views are different from my views on AE/SC, about which I am merely a crank.

So the interpretation of that sentence is:

No, I'm not saying I'm an extremist (about AE/SC), especially about the strangecoin stuff which I'm not at all confident about

However, I also have political opinions, some of which motivate my AE views. On those opinions I am an extremist. I cite those opinions in the other thread. That's compatible with the above claim.

Perhaps I could have made this more clear, but this is a rapid fire forum and there's lots of parallel discussions going on. For this reason I've been pleading for some conversational charity. There's a difference between a contradiction and a misunderstanding, and this is a case of the latter.

RealityApologist
Mar 29, 2011

ASK me how NETWORKS algorithms NETWORKS will save humanity. WHY ARE YOU NOT THINKING MY THESIS THROUGH FOR ME HEATHENS did I mention I just unified all sciences because NETWORKS :fuckoff:

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

You implied that in order to function your implementation technique would be pervasive on the order of the field that gives subatomic particles their mass. Analogy or not that's a huge claim and shows just how detached from reality your whole line of thinking is. In order to work you need a device capable of accuracy and operation on a scale that's ridiculously vast.

The analogy disproves the thing it's meant to support.

No. TUA is coupled to every transaction in the strangecoin network. The Higgs field is coupled to every particle with mass. In this way the two play structurally similar roles in their respective networks.

I don't even know what you could be possibly thinking to read me as suggesting that we, what, build another Higgs field? What does that even mean?

Again, if you find yourself interpreting someone in a way that makes that little sense, you've probably made a mistake in your interpretation. This is the principle of conversational charity.

JawnV6
Jul 4, 2004

So hot ...
If the TUA can't be empty as I described its transactions do not have an impact on the network. It's merely there to provide a place for the rounding errors, like the very last cell on a balance sheet showing the amount of profit or loss.

Its value may be descriptive of the economy, but it as an entity doesn't have a pressure of it's own. This doesn't take much inspection or logic from the very equations. The TUA must be bounded by C * UserCount for it to have any of the effects you're describing. And if there are less than C * UserCount coins in the system, there's a chance the TUA could run dry, which it seems can't happen either. Between the three cases of <, =, and > I can't figure out which one we're dealing with. None seem particularly interesting, as the boundary conditions on individual accounts seem to be where the actual knobs for control are.

The maximum limit of C implies a maximum price for a transaction. It's interesting to consider that people at the cap could all have an equal chance at something, since even the complications of Endorsements and Coupling don't really make a difference, the recipient can't do anything with it anyway. Must all capital investments fit under the cap? It's tempting to define a payment transaction with a longer duration, or with a duty cycle.

There's been an unstated notion that Endorsements aren't duration dependent, but can be attached to particular transaction.

I don't understand the 'connection' to simulated annealing. I just pointed out the structure of transactions that has been implied made that a potential simplification that we could actually compute rather than the system as it's actually described. The fact that it seems amenable to that technique should have been obvious from the structure described.

Wanamingo
Feb 22, 2008

by FactsAreUseless
The quote of you saying you were an extremist was from an attention economy thread, with you referring to the attention economy.

Vincent Van Goatse
Nov 8, 2006

Enjoy every sandwich.

Smellrose

RealityApologist posted:

No. TUA is coupled to every transaction in the strangecoin network. The Higgs field is coupled to every particle with mass. In this way the two play structurally similar roles in their respective networks.

So it's nothing like the Higgs field, then, because it's part of how Strangecoins are programmed, not an independent thing that effects them.

RealityApologist
Mar 29, 2011

ASK me how NETWORKS algorithms NETWORKS will save humanity. WHY ARE YOU NOT THINKING MY THESIS THROUGH FOR ME HEATHENS did I mention I just unified all sciences because NETWORKS :fuckoff:

Wanamingo posted:

The quote of you saying you were an extremist was from an attention economy thread, with you referring to the attention economy.

In the original AE threads I was raging for all sorts of radical political ends that I thought motivated AE and served as it's theoretical underpinnings. Most of these views are very radical but I don't feel very confident about them and so aren't extremist views. Others I feel more confident about, and some of the theoretical basis for AE I feel very confidently about and I'm quite extremist.

But again, the claim from SedanChair was about whether my presentation in this and the AE thread was characteristic of an extremist, and my answer was no, because extremism is different from being a crank, and I'm really playing the latter role.

This is such a minor interpretive mistake that it's silly to have it. But you're calling me a liar, and its the kind of accusation that raises the hostility and tension in the thread, and I'm trying to resolve it by clearly explaining myself

moebius2778
May 3, 2013

JawnV6 posted:

code:
def process_users(users):
	for user in users:
		user.current_expense = 0
		user.current_income = 0
		for transactionType in ordering:
			#print(user.name + " ttype: " + transactionType + " un " + str(len(user.expenses[transactionType]))+ " " + str(len(user.income[transactionType]))) 
			current_tx_expense = 0
			current_tx_income = 0
			for entry in user.expenses[transactionType]:
				current_tx_expense += update_expense(transactionType, user, entry)
				entry.duration -= 1
				if entry.duration <= 0:
					user.expenses[transactionType].remove(entry)
			for entry in user.income[transactionType]:
				current_tx_income += update_income(transactionType, user, entry)
				entry.duration -= 1
				if entry.duration <= 0:
					user.income[transactionType].remove(entry)
			user.current_expense += current_tx_expense
			user.current_income += current_tx_income
#			if(current_tx_income != 0 or current_tx_expense != 0):
#				print(transactionType + " " + user.name + " CE: " + str(current_tx_expense) + " CI: " + str(current_tx_income) )
		new_balance = user.balance + user.current_income - user.current_expense
#		print(user.name + " BAL: " + str(user.balance) +" NEW BAL: " + str(new_balance) )
		user.balance = new_balance
	for user in users:
		user.last_expense = user.current_expense
		user.last_income = user.current_income

# 

Also keeping in mind that Python isn't anything close to a language I'd consider myself fluent in... in the function above, you're removing entries from lists (user.income and user.expenses) while you're iterating through them. From what I can find from quick searches, this is, as always, a bad idea, and the behavior of the iterator isn't guaranteed.

Wanamingo
Feb 22, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

RealityApologist posted:

In the original AE threads I was raging for all sorts of radical political ends that I thought motivated AE and served as it's theoretical underpinnings. Most of these views are very radical but I don't feel very confident about them and so aren't extremist views. Others I feel more confident about, and some of the theoretical basis for AE I feel very confidently about and I'm quite extremist.

But again, the claim from SedanChair was about whether my presentation in this and the AE thread was characteristic of an extremist, and my answer was no, because extremism is different from being a crank, and I'm really playing the latter role.

This is such a minor interpretive mistake that it's silly to have it. But you're calling me a liar, and its the kind of accusation that raises the hostility and tension in the thread, and I'm trying to resolve it by clearly explaining myself

I'm talking about this post right here, in case anybody wants some context.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of lying, or anything malicious, or anything else like that. My problem, which I stated very clearly in the second post I made on the subject, is that you made a mistake. That's it. I know I am being incredibly dogmatic here, but I feel that you have severe problems when it comes to owning up to your mistakes. Whether it's this, or the linear thing from earlier on, you just can't admit to ever doing anything wrong. All I want is for you to say that you weren't an extremist back then, or that you were and it was foolhardy to feel so strongly towards the attention economy, or something like that. I probably want to drop this as much as you do, but I really don't feel that I'm in the wrong here.

RealityApologist
Mar 29, 2011

ASK me how NETWORKS algorithms NETWORKS will save humanity. WHY ARE YOU NOT THINKING MY THESIS THROUGH FOR ME HEATHENS did I mention I just unified all sciences because NETWORKS :fuckoff:

JawnV6 posted:

If the TUA can't be empty as I described its transactions do not have an impact on the network. It's merely there to provide a place for the rounding errors, like the very last cell on a balance sheet showing the amount of profit or loss.

Its value may be descriptive of the economy, but it as an entity doesn't have a pressure of it's own. This doesn't take much inspection or logic from the very equations. The TUA must be bounded by C * UserCount for it to have any of the effects you're describing. And if there are less than C * UserCount coins in the system, there's a chance the TUA could run dry, which it seems can't happen either. Between the three cases of <, =, and > I can't figure out which one we're dealing with. None seem particularly interesting, as the boundary conditions on individual accounts seem to be where the actual knobs for control are.

The maximum limit of C implies a maximum price for a transaction. It's interesting to consider that people at the cap could all have an equal chance at something, since even the complications of Endorsements and Coupling don't really make a difference, the recipient can't do anything with it anyway. Must all capital investments fit under the cap? It's tempting to define a payment transaction with a longer duration, or with a duty cycle.

There's been an unstated notion that Endorsements aren't duration dependent, but can be attached to particular transaction.

I don't understand the 'connection' to simulated annealing. I just pointed out the structure of transactions that has been implied made that a potential simplification that we could actually compute rather than the system as it's actually described. The fact that it seems amenable to that technique should have been obvious from the structure described.

This is incredibly interesting; I'll find a python compilers and mess with it tomorrow. I haven't seriously looked at code for over a decade, and I only know a tiny bit of Python, but I'm undertanding most of what I see.

Is there any reason why C can't vary across persons? Perhaps even as a simple linear (!!) function of their income (like 5x income) so that every user (no matter what their income) would be expected to max their accounts after a specific quantity of time (like a week) unless their expenses are improved. Then have TUA = max(C) * USERCOUNT, where max(C) is the maximum C across all users. I'm suggesting it just in case it would help distinguish between different users sitting at the cap.

Also my suggesting was that both support and endorsement are time dependent in the sense that they attach to every particular transaction that occurs for that duration. So I endorse you only for some set duration of time (across whatever transactions you engage in over that time). I was thinking of support in a similar way.

Even if this shows me to be a complete crackpot, your work is highly appreciated JawnV6.

RealityApologist
Mar 29, 2011

ASK me how NETWORKS algorithms NETWORKS will save humanity. WHY ARE YOU NOT THINKING MY THESIS THROUGH FOR ME HEATHENS did I mention I just unified all sciences because NETWORKS :fuckoff:

Wanamingo posted:

I'm talking about this post right here, in case anybody wants some context.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of lying, or anything malicious, or anything else like that. My problem, which I stated very clearly in the second post I made on the subject, is that you made a mistake. That's it. I know I am being incredibly dogmatic here, but I feel that you have severe problems when it comes to owning up to your mistakes. Whether it's this, or the linear thing from earlier on, you just can't admit to ever doing anything wrong. All I want is for you to say that you weren't an extremist back then, or that you were and it was foolhardy to feel so strongly towards the attention economy, or something like that. I probably want to drop this as much as you do, but I really don't feel that I'm in the wrong here.

Another thing that is going on here is that I've developed significantly my views on extremism since those original threads. If anyone is wrong, it's me back then.

But I don't think you're wrong, I just think it was a confusing statement that supports both your interpretation and my intention. I feel like the comments in that post (and the ones leading up to it) are clearly discussing broader political issues and not AE/SC issues in particular. I do hold those beliefs, and I am an extermist in those ways, but I agree with SedanChair that it's better in this context to call me a crank. It's in that spirit my claim was made. That doesn't make you wrong, that makes writing loving hard.

JawnV6
Jul 4, 2004

So hot ...

moebius2778 posted:

Also keeping in mind that Python isn't anything close to a language I'd consider myself fluent in... in the function above, you're removing entries from lists (user.income and user.expenses) while you're iterating through them. From what I can find from quick searches, this is, as always, a bad idea, and the behavior of the iterator isn't guaranteed.
It's utter garbage, I'd be surprised if that was the only egregious error. The tests I've done are only putting one tx into each list at a time, this would only break if there were multiples. I'd be tempted to call it forcing one transaction per step, but it's really just a stupid bug and I won't hide behind a plausible lie.

Still, the 'aging' functionality that block is trying to emulate could be pulled out and put before the user last/current copy in however pythonic way one would filter elements with particular values (duration=0) from a list.

RealityApologist posted:

Also my suggesting was that both support and endorsement are time dependent in the sense that they attach to every particular transaction that occurs for that duration. So I endorse you only for some set duration of time (across whatever transactions you engage in over that time). I was thinking of support in a similar way.
That's the spec, yes. But in your explanations of how corporations might work it came up as a potential method for making large capital purchases.

RealityApologist posted:

Is there any reason why C can't vary across persons?
You didn't say it could. That's pretty much my entire reasoning on it.

moebius2778
May 3, 2013

RealityApologist posted:

It is derived. Due to the way strangecoin is designed, one's "wealth" or influence in the system is a product of the alliances one forms, so the more alliances (and the stronger they are), the more influence you have on the organization of the network. People don't need to pursue this if they don't want, but that's what it means to be "rich" in stangecoin, and people who are motivated to pursue additional social resources will seek our more transactions with more people.

Due to the way strangecoin is designed, there are penalties for reaching the account limits, so excesses of income/expenses threaten to impose those penalties and users therefore have an incentive to keep their income/expenses balanced. Hitting account limits essentially signals that you're a poor or unstable economic actor, so these penalties manifest in the sorts of transactions people are willing to have with you.

Due to the way strangecoin is designed, people's individual success improves the economic success of everyone else, because everyone is coupled with TUA, so if I'm going well economically then TUA is too, and vice versa. This is how the coupling transaction works, and since everyone is connected to TUA then I'm also connected to (and coupled with) everyone else in two generations. So everyone's economic fate is rather closely bound.

Okay, if I understand what you're saying, wealth in strangecoinworld is the ability to affect strangecoinworld (where strangecoinworld is the user balances and the transactions, and nothing else).

Are StrangeCoins or StrangeCoin transactions intended to be exchangeable for stuff outside of strangecoinworld (e.g., goods and services), and if so, is there a set of types of exchanges that do not cause the four derived statements to no longer be derivable? (E.g., if you allow free exchange of StrangeCoins for goods and services under any circumstance - i.e., treat StrangeCoin as money - that's probably an incentive to be able to generate StrangeCoins as needed so you can buy stuff. And I'd expect that would have the potential to change agent behavior in strangecoinworld fairly drastically.)

BernieLomax
May 29, 2002

moebius2778 posted:

Also keeping in mind that Python isn't anything close to a language I'd consider myself fluent in... in the function above, you're removing entries from lists (user.income and user.expenses) while you're iterating through them. From what I can find from quick searches, this is, as always, a bad idea, and the behavior of the iterator isn't guaranteed.

This was a real issue (ie. would cause crazy behaviour) prior to real iterators in python (2.2?), but since it's a native list (and not a hacked type) that should work. Still something you should avoid (build a new list or create a list of candidates to remove).

I'm tempted to help clean up the code if it's put out on a repo.

Precambrian Video Games
Aug 19, 2002



RealityApologist posted:

Yonatan Zunger, the G+ architect guy, just posted a link to an article on technological unemployment and post-scarcity. Although I haven't really relied on post-scarcity in this thread, Yonatan's discussion provided a useful segue into explaining Strangecoin that people who are still looking for a simple explanation might find helpful. Yonatan's post isn't particularly interesting, but it sets up my response.

Wow, are you ever a douche.

moebius2778 posted:

Are StrangeCoins or StrangeCoin transactions intended to be exchangeable for stuff outside of strangecoinworld (e.g., goods and services), and if so, is there a set of types of exchanges that do not cause the four derived statements to no longer be derivable? (E.g., if you allow free exchange of StrangeCoins for goods and services under any circumstance - i.e., treat StrangeCoin as money - that's probably an incentive to be able to generate StrangeCoins as needed so you can buy stuff. And I'd expect that would have the potential to change agent behavior in strangecoinworld fairly drastically.)

Why are you calling them derived statements? None of them are derived. He has made no effort to derive any of them.

RealityApologist posted:

This is incredibly interesting; I'll find a python compilers

Why are you looking for a python compiler?

Vincent Van Goatse
Nov 8, 2006

Enjoy every sandwich.

Smellrose

eXXon posted:

Why are you looking for a python compiler?

Because it'll bring John Frum Strangecoin.

Badera
Jan 30, 2012

Student Brian Boyko has lost faith in America.
/\/\ I laughed.

eXXon posted:


Just out of curiosity, RA, when you discuss ideas like reifying the class structure by assigning people coloured buttons identifying their social class and when you advocate a system that would admittedly make it more difficult for poor people to buy food and basic necessities, are you making any kind of value judgement on the merits of such a system? It's hard for me to reconcile 'worried about hypothetical silent discrimination against cyborgs' RA vs 'likes the idea of clearly identifying poors with brown badges to more easily refuse to serve them' RA.

This is actually a really good question that I'd like to see your answer to as well.

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

Badera posted:

/\/\ I laughed.


This is actually a really good question that I'd like to see your answer to as well.

I, too, would like an explanation and hope that the thread has matured enough that RA feels we can handle the answer.

RealityApologist
Mar 29, 2011

ASK me how NETWORKS algorithms NETWORKS will save humanity. WHY ARE YOU NOT THINKING MY THESIS THROUGH FOR ME HEATHENS did I mention I just unified all sciences because NETWORKS :fuckoff:

eXXon posted:

Wow, are you ever a douche.
I just mean that it isn't adding anything to the discussion of post-scarcity that this thread doesn't know and hasn't covered in great detail in past threads. My point is that I'm not sharing the post because it offers some unique insight into the issue that I think people in this thread are missing, and I'm not just going to start posting post-scarcity posts in this thread because it isn't itself particularly pertinent to the discussion. I'm only sharing because it sets up my response.

quote:

Why are you looking for a python compiler?

Or whatever it takes to run the code above. I don't know python.

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

RealityApologist posted:

Or whatever it takes to run the code above. I don't know python.

If you don't know python then what would running the code tell you? Don't you think you should actually have a basic understanding of something before you try to dive head-first into the shallow end?

-EDIT-

Sorta like, you know, economics? Are you starting to see a detrimental pattern in your own behavior yet?

Who What Now fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Apr 4, 2014

JawnV6
Jul 4, 2004

So hot ...

BernieLomax posted:

I'm tempted to help clean up the code if it's put out on a repo.

Ok I don't know how all these newfangled techmologies work but here's a thing https://github.com/jawnv6/strangesim

Back into 3 files, does Support transactions. Duration isn't handled right, check the last commit note for details.

Obdicut
May 15, 2012

"What election?"
I hadn't made the John Frum connection. But that's exactly what this is. It's cargo-cult thinking. I mean, he doesn't even understand the incredible straight-forward example of the tragedy of the commons. It's language-as-cargo-cult.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

RealityApologist
Mar 29, 2011

ASK me how NETWORKS algorithms NETWORKS will save humanity. WHY ARE YOU NOT THINKING MY THESIS THROUGH FOR ME HEATHENS did I mention I just unified all sciences because NETWORKS :fuckoff:

Who What Now posted:

I, too, would like an explanation and hope that the thread has matured enough that RA feels we can handle the answer.

I responded to this on the last page.

RealityApologist posted:

I would only advocate for the idea if I thought it had a chance to change the social circumstances for the better. The reasoning is something like the following:

1) People are psychologically disposed to reasoning about community membership (identity), their status within those communities (influence), and how to engage those communities(culture/convention). This is what significant portions of their brains evolved to do.
2) People are not particularly disposed to reasoning about traditional economic frameworks (supply and demand, wealth, etc), their status within those framworks (class, inequality), and how to engage those those frameworks (making sound economic decisions). They can do this, and the ones that do, do really well, but its hard and most people can't and suffer because of it.
3) It would be easier for most people to do well in a system that emphasized transactions of the type that people are typically good at reasoning at than ones they are typically bad at reasoning at.
4) Therefore, we should prefer an economic framework that emphasizes reasoning of the former and not the latter type.

I'm not saying this fixes all inequality and suffering, but it makes it easier for people to do things that might be harder in other frameworks. Homeless or destitute people, for instance, might have an easier time finding coalitions of support than in a traditional economic framework. Why? Well, first because the cost to anyone helping that person is distributed across the network in a way that minimizes the burden that anyone would bear in the process; in other words, it's in people's interest to help because of the incentive structure of Strangecoin. And second, because the only thing you really need to do to generate a flow of resources is to find other people who want to collaborate, which in the very act of collaboration generates an economic flow that can prevent destitution. So it's just much harder to "bottom out" in the network.

Which isn't to say that it is built to be perfect for everyone or that some people won't fall through the cracks, but just that it might do a better job than the tools that we have in place.

If this answer was insufficient I'm happy to refine it. I am hesitant to talk to much about my "ideal" society because this isn't about any particular configuration within the social system. Strangecoin might even encourage certain kinds of relations that I'd find objectionable or offensive or immoral, and I'm not advocating any particular end-state utopia. Instead, my ideals are all methodological or pragmatic: the system needs to be capable of certain kinds of transformations and stay within certain organizational limits, and I'm not really concerned with much else except these practical issues about the overall dynamics. The general methodological principles all stem from what I've called in other threads the "digital values":

https://plus.google.com/+DanielEstrada/posts/TXUwt32fWU8

quote:

AN INCOMPLETE LIST OF DIGITAL VALUES

1. Participation: Everyone is encouraged to contribute.
2. Inclusivity: By everyone, we mean everyone.
3. Open Access: Everyone's contributions are shared with everyone.
4. Collaboration: Everyone is free to use everyone else's contributions.
5. Self-Organization: Everyone has a say in how those contributions get organized.

edit:

6. Perpetual beta: Everything is open to revision.

Just to briefly clarify, the digital values aren't the only values relevant to consider here. I consider the digital values to be like the normative expansion pack for traditional humanitarian values (of freedoom, justice, beauty, happiness, etc). The important difference is that the humanist values are grounded in reason and free individuals, and the digital values are grounded in discourse and collective action (or again, networks). The digital values don't reduce to the humanist values or derive directly from them, and while they are in some sense compatible, the digital values shake up the importance of many humanist values (especially privacy). The digital values haven't always been imperatives, but as tools like the internet become more ubiquitous there becomes more normative justification for operating within its framework. I can elaborate more (in simpler terms) if anyone is interested.

So Strangecoin is, methodologically, supposed to instantiate these values, in that it encourages self-organized participatory collaboration between persons, and everyone is coupled through TUA as an inclusive whole.

Within that framework, Strangecoin users can arrange themselves however they want. Given my description, its possible the network reverts to a simple-minded kind of tribalism around race, religion, and other political divides that is far more brutish and nasty than we have now, like some hellish global stanford prison experiment. I've argued in this thread that people are psychologically disposed to an identity politics that encourages tribalism, and it's also undoubtedly true that the history of human civilization reveals our species to be incredibly clever and efficient at dishing out immense amount of pain and suffering to its members. So let me be absolutely clear that I don't think the worry being raised by these questions is idle or off base. If a working model of Strangecoin ultimately increased or magnified the pain and suffering and economic calamity of humanity, that would be a failure and I'd condemn it alongside all of you.

But I've given reasons for thinking that the incentive structure of Strangecoin, and the values it represents, will at least discourage any simple recapitulation of the these standing and apparently impassable political arrangement. I thought one of the most productive parts of the hangout was making explicit the idea that money in traditional economics isn't a measure of value, as if the value were a free-standing objective fact in the world and money were the thermometer that put a value to that fact. Instead, money creates value in its simple being-there. A different economic tool with different incentive structures will create different arrangements and values. I was somewhat disappointed by the Butler talk last week, but she hits the nail on the head in Gender Trouble: "“There is only a taking up of the tools where they lie, where the very ‘taking up’ is enabled by the tool lying there”.

So while it's true that people are disposed to tribalism, I see no reason for thinking that they'll find the old political tribes to be any more useful in Strangecoinland than they already are in our world. Strangecoin doesn't suddenly make the existing political cabals go away, but it doesn't dramatically increase their power either. Rather, it put certain kinds of pressures on their ability to persist and maintain themselves as strong entities, and some of the tribes today might fare better or worse under those new economic conditions. More importantly, it ensures an economic framework through which collaboration can develop across the old political divides, so at the very least there are procedures in place that keeps reconciliation possible. In the hangout, I talked about class and economic influence being, from the perspective of the end user, vague at the borders and amorphous in its impact on the overall economy. The same is just as true of race, nationality, ethnicity, generation, gender, and all the other political divides through which we organize ourselves. In Strangecoinland, our economic collectives are defined with digital precision, and their impact on the economy is explicit signal in every transaction. This doesn't solve class struggles, but it does motivate thinking about them in terms of strangecoin where the tools for addressing the problems are also available.

I have basically the same view of money that I do of race and class and so on. I think our psychology requires that we socially mark ourselves in various ways (either literally or conventionally) in order to coordinate a division of labor, and we look for ways of making this marking process easier. Skin color can be a convenient tool for doing that if you're trying to control a large population with mostly agrarian technologies, especially when no one is around to stop you for being a complete oblivious rear end in a top hat; hence racism in both its interpersonal and institutional varieties. But in just about every other way race is a terrible tool for organizing a division of labor because it tracks almost nothing of value. It's merely a labeling technique. I don't see any reason why that particular labeling technique becomes any more potent in Strangecoinworld, especially when so many other, useful labeling techniques are available that don't rest on the same old entrenched political divides. Again, those divides don't go away, but I see no real reason for thinking they become dramatically worse. Maybe new divides arise in Strangecoinworld that are much worse, but that's yet to be seen, but I'm not terribly worried that racism is becoming a bigger problem than it was in the past. Entirely apart from Strangecoin, that's not the direction culture is headed.

That's not a sufficient answer, of course, but perhaps it says a little more about where I'm coming from.

  • Locked thread