|
2 questions: 1. Have you ever had a job? 2. Have you ever bought anything with money you didn't get from your parents?
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2025 02:39 |
|
|
I'm serious OP, have you ever had a job or made a budget? You could have the most brilliantly complex whatever this is in the world (you don't), and to your average minimum wage worker all they will understand is that each transaction will cost them a perceived random amount of money. Meanwhile you'll have some Important Men in Suits who have min-maxed how long they spend wiping their collective rear end who will realize that selling a poor person a lemon-flavored tampon for a "buck" will actually cost the poor person nine bucks and give them 200, so the Marketing Campaign rolls out tomorrow hope you like your ladies with a refreshing hint of citrus.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Wait, wait, hear me out. You want gold coins because it gets you good and services. What if we cut out the middleman and wrote on a piece of paper that the paper was worth a volume of goods or services to the bearer of Tue note? [I]DYNAMICALLY[/[I] This is an excellent suggestion, but will need to use my new non-linear numbering system. Allow me to demonstrate: 1, 2, hat, -17, 4 pound bag of sunflower seeds, 4, "the number 4", appl3, trukk, and so on in this fashion
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
OP, it may seem like we are criticizing you but you are actually just experiencing non-linear support.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Wikipedia Article on Cranks posted:"According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
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. You haven't done these things? Pfft, look at this guy thinking about time in a non-linear fashion. You will have done them ALREADY.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Right, and Strangecoin provides that kind of shield. Individuals don't assume full responsibility for their transactions; that responsibility is distributed across the network in quantifiable ways. If you can't defend your idea from goons, what will the scores of billionaires who have subverted the corporate legal structure do to it? There are perhaps a dozen exploits already described in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
"So X might be paying a little more or less than q, and Y might be getting a little more or less than q, depending on the networks of transactions X and Y are hooked into" is the worst idea I've ever heard. Pretty much the entirety of human civilization, for all it's flaws, is focused on strategies for obtaining resources as predictably as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Yes, but given that some people have tracked down his RL information using google+ and stuff, he's apparently also a graduate student or has graduated. Unless he's faking someone else's identity. His posts are bad enough that I almost question if this is a classmate playing a prank on him.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Strangecoin: a longshot proposal for avoiding repayment of a decade of student loans Strangecoin: Literally not knowing the value of a day's work
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Engagement with peers goes more positively when you don't communicate in a needlessly esoteric and obtuse fashion that obfuscates what the hell you're even talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
If I give my 13-year-old a Strangecoin to go in and buy a soda while I pump gas, are the oh-so-non-linear aspects calculated based on my economic and social history, my 13-year-old's economic and social history, both of our histories, our collective history, or all of the above?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Kuantum Kash: A Kooky Kurrency In this post I sketch a proposal for a digital currency that works unlike Strangecoin. I'm calling it Kuantam Kash because these are unique ways to spell these words. What's unique about Kuantam Kash? -Kuantum Kash transactions are tied to quantum physics. A Kuantam Kash transaction might result in some or most or all of your money disappearing. -Kuantum Kash transactions can be zero-sided and can be conducted entirely by no parties. -The rate of change in one's Kuantam Kash balance sets your Kuantam Kash multiplier. Spend or receive large amounts at once to for a 10x multiplier! -Optimal invesment strategy in Kuantam Kash aims to stabilize your balance, because the 10x multiplier means some or most or all of your money can disappear 10x as fast. -A universal account balances provides all users with a basic Kuantam Kash income, because the rules are made up and the points don't matter. I've only started thinking through this idea while I let my spaghetti cool, and implementing it would require the intervention of a trickster God. For instance, I'm not sure if Kuantum Kash could be implemented by Loki, or if some fundamentally new God of Screwing You Over is required. If you might know something about Kaos gods, I'd love to hear your thoughts. If you might know how to empower an Avatar of Kaos, I'd love to help you try. But since I don't know of anything else that works like this, this proposal is mostly intended to simply put the idea that a Kurrency tied to random particle decay is more coherent than Strangecoin. Background and Motivation If I give you a dollar for a beer, then I've lost a dollar and gained a beer, and you've gained a dollar and a guy whose about to drink a lot more beer for future dollars. Assuming this was a fair trade (that you're not using those little 4.5 oz taster cups to promote "Dollar Draft Night"), then as a result of the transaction we've simply helped keep your bar from going out of business and gotten me drunk, both of which are fantastically valuable to each of us. What I've lost oh wait I haven't lost anything I wanted to buy the beer and you wanted to sell it THAT'S HOW FUCKEN BUYING STUFF WORKS In game theory, sociopaths continually try to screw each over and that kind of behavior is one of the reasons I have to drink beer, and anyway they're a bunch of fuckers and if going to the bar meant having to consider game theory I'd probably just kill myself. Of course, I wanted the beer and you wanted to sell it, which even a small child or some of the brighter dogs in the world understands. But if our bookkeeping methods only keep track of dollars, then it's not accounting for the fact that we are both happy with this arrangement. In the proposal below, I'll describe Kuantum Kash as a method for needlessly obfuscating this transaction, where parties can enter into financial transactions that may or may not screw them out of both their dollar and their beer based on the random particle decay. In this way, Kuantum Kash is a model of randomness of the universe. The trick is to implement UP TO A 10X POWERBALL-STYLE MULTIPLIER so that other parties who are not themselves involved in the transaction can see 10 beers get poured straight down the sink while I set ten dollars on fire to make a philosophical point about how life sucks sometimes. If this seems counter-intuitive, a nonfinancial example might help: it's not unusual for three stooges to gain greater stooge status upon entering into a comedy trio. Although strictly speaking the relationship is between the three stooges, the greater injuries of their japes and follies results in more overall popularity than any initially had prior to opening a comically-named plumbing service. As the example suggests, the dynamics of Kuantum Kash might be usefully thought of in terms of "potential comedy value" rather than a strictly financial tool, even though the basic mechanics involve the regular method of exchanging Kurrency for beer and is perceived by both parties to be an awesome idea. Because of the random nature of Kuantum Kash, each user effectively provides observers with two opportunities for seeing someone lose or gain comically large amounts of Kash or beer during each economic transaction, coupling their drunkeness (and sobriety) to how busy the bar is and how much I win with my beer multiplier. The result is a model of the complex randomness within the universe, by which particles develop and decay. For this reason, Kuantum Kash might be infuriating and most likely would result in a terrible night out. I will say more about Kuantum Kash after I get my garlic bread. CheesyDog fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The only relations you can be in with other people are the ones described in the OP. You wouldn't need to give your kid strangecoin because he's got his own account, and it's probably coupled to yours. You wouldn't need loans because you'd never be short of cash. You wouldn't invest in businesses, you invest in people by coupling/supporting/endorsing, and the transaction itself accounts for the dividends from that investment. Why do I want to give a thirteen-year-old access to a personal account that's never short of cash?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Why do I want to give a thirteen-year-old access to a personal account that's never short of cash? Seriously OP, I'm wondering what sort of life experience you've had. It's like you've spent your entire life reading music theory books without ever picking up an instrument or listening to a song.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Wee Tinkle Wand posted:Let me just swoop in to share this. I see his mistake here: assuming Bitcoiners have relationships SedanChair posted:Hey, define ontologically basic Eripsa.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I suspect that's because its be harder to be as aggressively hostile when talking to a a real person than it is to poo poo all over some text on the forums. It's because watching philosophy dudes talk on a webcam is the most boring thing imaginable. Sorry that you're also unemployable in the Attention Economy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm not going to talk about gender identity and cyborgs any more because you are all obviously too immature to handle the discussion. I'm sorry that this is so difficult for you. I can't imagine what it must be like to be forced to post.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
It's like you approach a practical idea repeatedly only to reveal yet another profound ignorance of human nature.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:That's why I asked if he's ever had a job outside of academia. He seems like exactly the kind of yuppie that's never had to meaningfully provide for himself. I think I may have asked him this on the first page actually. E: if being "shady as gently caress" deterred people there are entire industries that should never have even existed but instead absolutely thrive CheesyDog fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I can imagine lots of reasons. If it was mandated by a legitimate criminal justice system, for instance. So, it's one sided if one side is big enough. E: What happens when one area's criminal justice system legitimately inhibits someone and another does not? CheesyDog fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
moebius2778 posted:Is there actually a model of how people will behave under StrangeCoin? Because that's one of the things that's always seemed odd to me about trying to code the entire system up - you've got a bunch of rules about what sorts of actions an actor can take in the system, but no real way to model how an actor would act in the system. "So, I can have more of these coins but actually have less spending power because of that?" *Abandons Strangecoins, starts barter economy, re-enacts the entire history of economy until we end up with government-backed currencies again*
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
If the coin is not important but the endorsements are you'll just have people buying things with the endorsements, which I somehow think you'll say is a feature but really you've not encapsulated social influence, you've just swapped dollars for something else with no real features added besides obfustication
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Adar posted:and now we're once again back to "this is exactly the same as any other economic system except the parts where I wave my hand around and say it's not" No, you see, there are no loans in Strangecoin. What he's describing is just temporarily lending your economic influence to someone after weighing the risks and rewards and assigning the other party a rate of repayment in order to protect your interests. E: Christ every response RA makes in the thread will now tell people they have to sit through an hour of pasty goons Skyping before they can have an opinion. CheesyDog fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Why do any of you give a poo poo what this chucklefuck "thinks" about any of these subjects? So much effort has been put into disillusioning an individual with the logical capacity of an ornery toddler to literally no end, over and over and over again. Please, for your own goods, find something better to do with yourselves. Just Stop Posting. It's funny to see what stupid thing comes out next
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Do you think it's inappropriate to continue doing that work here, given that I'm not likely to develop the academic or financial connections to do this seriously anywhere else? Also not understood: "doing work", "having fun"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
And when everyone points out that professional athletes hitting golfballs with baseball bats in front of an audience is likely to result in a fan getting killed by a dangerously fast-moving golfball, and you respond that you don't see the problem as that would be either a foul ball or a homerun and those are both accounted for in the rules of the game, it kind of calls into question your personal character.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
I'm probably being more petty than anyone else in this thread, but I honestly and legitimately cannot understand a context for such a terrible idea that does not require some inquiry into the background about the economic and financial position of the "theorist" who devised it. RA has shown such a poor understanding of economics and of the daily struggle required on the part of most of humanity to have food, shelter, and some level of personal security that it suggests a good deal of detachment from the problems he's trying to solve with his theory. poo poo, if RA is going to style his every idea and sentence as some sort of philosophical inquiry, then I'm going to do what *I* was trained to do in my academic area and look at the context in which his ideas are formed. Psychological and sociological theorists are ethically obligated to examine their personal biases and the social contexts in which their theories are developed, and should actively try to avoid normalizing their perceptions of the world to the rest of humanity without this examination and without extensive research. My tone may be flippant and petty some or all of the time in this thread, but I admittedly am trying to provoke RA to examine the fact that the personal experiences of someone with ten years of schooling in Philosophy have with human behavior are going to differ wildly from those of someone who is homeless, mentally ill, disabled, impoverished, or who is otherwise under financial constraints that are a matter of daily survival for them. Simply put, to me he writes and thinks like someone who has never had to deal with the reality of a lovely job, and that prevents him from seeing how his theory would actually affect the majority of society. The fact that he insists on doing things like defining "science" in terms of some niche philosophical theory and not in the terms of 99% of active scientists and researchers is just bonus humor.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
As soon as someone's Strangecoin rep (which will have to act as a metacurrency because the actual currency is unlimited and valueless) falls enough that people start refusing to trade with them, they'll either have to remain in-system and be exploited, circumvent Strangecoing through bartering or other exchanges, or both. You can give an impoverished person foodstamps now so that they can feed themselves. What happens in the Strangecoin economy, where TUA provides "universal welfare" but no one will trade with them?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:edit: GulMadred made clear that the Strangecoin network depends on antecedent social ties that motivate developing the network in certain ways (parents supporting children or whatever). I'm making that structure explicit so we can talk about ways of managing that network, which is entirely the opposite of freemarketism. When I asked about lending my 13-year-old a Strangecoin for a soda you explained that this wouldn't happen because he'd have his own account.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:If X supports Y then X and Y have different accounts. If you are supporting your kid then he has a different account. I meant "support" in the technical sense of the transactions in the network. And, just because I didn't get an answer last time, why do I want my 13-year-old having an account that literally anyone can support exactly?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
No, it's the difference between giving a kid an iPhone, letting them play with mine, or letting ANYONE ON EARTH send my kid an iPhone.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Suppose someone wants to open a gay bar in a religious area in the Strangecoin economy. Is there any mechanism for overcoming the possibility for community inhibition of their transactions other than hoping they get enough countersupport? Contrast with the current system, in which the religious folks could either boycott, protest non-financially, or most directly try to buy the building, in the Strangecoin economy they can literally deny the value of the bar's transactions.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:It also indicates a very, very stable family situation. When I was younger I thought all my holidays would be with my family in Georgia. Then my parents got divorced and I got engaged. Her parents are also divorced, so holiday planning involves splitting the 2 big ones among those 4 parties and trying to keep air travel and other budgets down. I can't imagine predicting my own holiday plans in the 5+ year range, much less my entire family's. My partner and I were together for ten years before we had a Thanksgiving where neither of us had to work. Must be nice not having any friends or family in retail, service jobs, or anything with on-call hours!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:Nah. Inhibition (as per the original spec) requires the consent of the target. community. Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven. Inhibition, endorsement, it will all ultimately boil down to a rep system pretty quickly and the various metrics are just different ways of expressing it. If we're going to work under the assumption that this model somehow isn't stillborn, then I predict that the various reputation metrics will quickly coalesce into an aggregate "Trust" score. The reputation metrics may be initially distinct, but the metrics that go into a credit score are even more distinct and despite consumer debt being near $12-trillion my bank is certainly happy to look at the one number and make decisions. I suspect Strangecoin would reduce down to a similar metric.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
I agree, you can absolutely predict the stereotypical effects of a divorce based on "folk theories".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:In the first goddamn sentence of my post I say you can't predict the effects better. I don't understand your distinction between "predicting" and "reasoning about" probable outcomes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2025 02:39 |
|
|
How does the Strangecoin model account for a black market?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 12:35
|
|