|
ITT we are immigrants who have just arrived to the country and immediately starve to death because oops our social network status classifies us as feebleminded
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
Adar posted:ITT we have bad political opinions, get into a car accident, require lifesaving medication and immediately Actually, this is a good example of how discrimination being encouraged is awful. If you get sick, you better hope that there's a doctor in your area that accepts your Endorsement Level, or else you are right hosed.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
ITT we are urban 20-somethings who go home to rural Mississippi for Thanksgiving and cannot buy a ticket out because selling to "those people" would compromise everyone dealing with us in rural Mississippi
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
ITT we are an 18 year old girl in Texas whose last transaction was at Planned Parenthood (hey Eripsa you might've missed this one last time)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
ITT we are an 18 year old boy in Texas whose last transaction was buying gas next to the Planned Parenthood his coupled girlfriend just went to
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
ITT we are 18 year old Jews who don't believe abortion is a sin living in Texas whose last transaction was at Planned Parenthood
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
ITT our Republican boss finds our SA account purchase and visits the first page of GBS
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
ITT we just called nepotism a feature of our glorious new economic system and do not see how that relates to racism at all because
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
ITT our faculty advisor finds our post explaining why it is okay to discriminate against the mentally ill
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:To everyone else, I sorta understand the ant thing. Individual actors can defy expectation or analysis, but zoomed out aggregate pictures of humans can make them look pretty simple. Consider the environment of an international airport. 2+ million people filtering through hundreds of hallways and rooms every day. The place can be structured with the knowledge of "24 gates need to take in international people who need to re-clear security, 12 go to customs," etc. and in use planes who need a particular flavor of gate are directed there. For the individuals to navigate these hundreds of hallways, signage is directed and they take small cues from slips of paper in hand to direct themselves around. Agreed. At large scales, the unpredictability of individual actors is mitigated in large groups with larger and larger groups acting relatively more predictably. However not having a grasp on how large groups operate in all possibilities voids any sort of work that might be done as even likely non-edge cases could occur that throws a wrench into the works. Again: How does the forms of discrimination promoted by Strangecoin is not the types of discrimination already present? Saying there is a preference for friends and family and the desire to grow one's network is not any sort of refutation to the posed question. You're presenting a thing that should happen or what you'd like to think would happen, not anything regarding why the things you're presenting don't correlate with this other thing.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:ITT our Republican boss finds our SA account purchase and visits the first page of GBS ITT Lowtax is a bad businessman so the good news is no one will ever find our posts because search is down, but the bad news is we're irrevocably networked to him and are hosed anyway
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm not claiming that people won't try to maximize their position. I'm claiming that maximizing throughput arbitrarily isn't a way to maximize one's position. One's position is made more powerful first by: Ignoring that this is not what you said, let me take this as the new 'win condition' for Strangecoin and demonstrate how these two goals are incompatible. If my position is stable within the network, I can not become more influential. The act of accumulating greater connectivity and throughput will induce instability to my position. I get a new endorsement/support/couple and suddenly I have to realign my whole day-to-day expenditure account. Of course, the person who endorsed/supported/coupled with me did so by looking at the stability of expenditures before our connection. The act of becoming connected will change the behavior upon which the connection was based. There is no shortage of economic literature on this and similar topics. In Insurance Markets we call this "Moral Hazard." In Macroeconomics we have the example of the Phillips Curve, and the Lucas Critique that followed it. When the incentive structure itself changes, behavior within that incentive structure will change. But it won't change the way you want it. Let me run through an example: Conditions: 1. I make paper. I make me the poo poo out of some paper, and I work real hard to make my paper better than everyone else's. It is more environmentally friendly, reusable, self cleaning, whatever. I have a passion for paper and paper accessories. 2. I have through whatever means set myself up in a stable network of peers, wherein I buy large amounts of paper supplies, convert them to paper, and sell the paper to cover that expense and the other expenses I have. 3. Per non-satiation, I will try to maximize my position in this society. Maintaining 2 while pursuing 3 is impossible. Let's say I improve my product so that people are willing to pay more for it, and people want more of it. I therefor gain more endorsements/supporters/couples/whatever. I immediately get angry calls from all the people who Support me, because suddenly my supposedly stable network is out of order. Now I have additional income that I did not have before, the relationship upon which the original support was constructed has changed and now they have additional expenses they had not planned for, potentially disrupting their daily lives and ruining their economic prospects. My actions of innovation is actively opposed by the people who I am closest to, because my additional income from the innovation can put them in the situation of drawing from the TUA. Then I use my income to buy more paper supplies, help, machines to meet the additional demand for my product and I get angry messages from all my endorsers because now my spending habits have changed from the relationship that the original endorsement was based upon. My increased income not only actively hampers the people who support me, acting upon that income actively damages the people who endorse me. My network starts to fray and come apart. I feel very stressed by all of this, how had my dreams of creating the Ultimate Paper gone so wrong? So I go to the bar and use whatever excess income I have to try and drown my sorrows. Of course all my endorsers throw a shitfit at this as well, because although I may frequent this nice hometown establishment I do not generally consume the amount of alcohol that I am about to. I go to the bar, and wave to the bartender as I take my favorite stool. He starts pouring my usual, but as he is about to slide it to me he gets a notification about my current financial 'success.' With a pained, but determined look he takes his drink back and says, "I'm sorry PC, I can't serve you, I'm not going to risk the stability of my network. You've got too many endorsements and you're about to consume a non-typical amount of alcohol." Stunned, I wander the streets of my hometown and find that all of my friends that I had grown up with shut their businesses doors when I approach. My favorite burger joint will not serve me. I go to my best friend's store and he listens to my woes sympathetically, but will not sell me a coke because my success could ruin him. So I go home, dejected and notice that I have entered the next tier of GoogleZonBay customers. I order expensive alcohols and minutes later a drone delivers a nice big crate of bourbon to my doorstep. As I drink my sorrows away I realize the true extent of the damage caused by my ambition. My network disintegrates around me, because my expensive purchases of alcohol outside the regular pattern of my life has further destroyed my network. People are severing their connections to me. Those businesses I used to frequent are now bereft of the income I used to provide, and must desperately find new income or reduce expenditures, disrupting their own networks. And as I reach the true singularity of alcohol induced unconsciousness, I realize that I have destroyed my world. All for want of making better paper. Moral: Support/Endorse/Couple are all inherently broken and create instability in the system by taking one person's financial, economic and societal well-being and placing it into the hands of someone else who have personal incentives are to take advantage of those network connections to further their own goals, thus disrupting the original pattern of behavior upon which the support/endorsement/coupling was based. Payments are the only economic transaction you've described that make sense. If I want to support someone, I give them money. If I want to endorse someone I give them money, or perhaps use my money to buy something on their behalf so that they are now connected to my network. I maintain completely control over my cashflows in both directions, and it is inherently more stable. If I receive additional income, it does not affect all the people who had previously given me income. If I spend more, on anything, it does not immediately throw out of balance all my previously gained endorsement/income providers. It still allows economic connections and networks to exist, because people will still build personal networks of businesses and people they deal with that can be made available. It removes perverse incentives such as refusing to innovate for fear of destroying your current network, allows people to transact freely based upon the composition of the networks themselves and reduces the risk associated with transactions in the original system you described. Given the choice, everyone will choose Payments. If you force people to support/couple/endorse, then see above. Of course, there is still the underlying problem that holding money is actively disincentivized by the structure of Strangecoin (Balance caps, matched incomes and expenditures, each of which drive money demand lower, setting off inflation which will drive money demand further lower. Combined with, no real risk if things do go bad (TUA), no way for savings to bear interest or even remain stored for future consumption, etc). If we have two otherwise identical people, similar networks, similar industries, similar everything then it will still be true that a difference in throughput will indicate that node is more desirable than the one with lower throughput. So if I want to distinguish myself from my peers, throughput is the way to go. And everyone has the same incentive. There may be additional steps before we get there, but we still get to hyperinflation anyway. So I make strategic purchases/connections in the paper industry to increase my market share, increasing my throughput so I can invest more and so on. At each step along the way I am also accumulating excess which I will spend on other things, really anything because what do people care if I collect rare comic books or antique cars or bottle caps. I'll still be a stable node in that I provide the service (Paper and paper accessories), pay the suppliers/employees that I use to provide that service and invest in the future as well. Of course, all of those people are doing the exact same thing as I am. Maybe in different industries, maybe in the same industry. And it doesn't have to be narrow selfishness. Maybe I'm building my network and increasing my throughput so that I can use that to give my children a head-start into a better network than the one I started with. Maybe I use my network to provide charity, and want to grow an ever larger network to give out more charity. Throughput may not be a singular goal, but assuming we're already maximizing in the other ways (which we will be) then throughput will be the deciding factor to separate one similar network from another. So long as throughput and balanced accounts are any incentive at all the result will be the same, because maybe I'm not trying to maximize relative to the whole system. I may just want the highest throughput in my network or industry, as does everyone else. Please, do tell me I don't understand your system again. Quote: "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." -John Maynard Keynes
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Hitting the balance cap shouldn't be a visible event to people who have merely Endorsed me, they're dealing with outgoing coins instead of the incoming. There's two things going on here that are confusing me, and both are my fault. The first is that the revised spec claims that hitting either end of the balance limit kills all modifiers to a payment: quote:To evaluate Pays(X, Y, q) So the way it is written, hitting the balance cap would stop any further modification of payment, including endorsements. But you are absolutely right that endorsements deal only with outgoing and not incoming coins. So if I'm at C and I pay out 5 coin, then my balance is now at C-5 and my endorsements kick in again. So in this sense C is not the limiting factor for endorsements. So again you are right. The other thing has to do with the Cantorcoin alternative, where the modifications are on the buyer's end of the transaction instead of the seller's. So the example I elaborate in this post is iin the cantorcoin framework, with the seller at C. In the case where the seller is at C, the buyer's endorsements cut off because the payment just goes to TUA, and thus is worth less. But that's a flipped case from the one you describe in Strangecoin, and where your description is exactly right.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Adar posted:ITT Lowtax is a bad businessman so the good news is no one will ever find our posts because search is down, but the bad news is we're irrevocably networked to him and are hosed anyway No, dude, as the point of genesis for Strangecoin those of us that survive the brutal sad-brain holocaust will be lauded as heroes for stoking the fires through which the glorious system was forged.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:To everyone else, I sorta understand the ant thing. Individual actors can defy expectation or analysis, but zoomed out aggregate pictures of humans can make them look pretty simple. Consider the environment of an international airport. 2+ million people filtering through hundreds of hallways and rooms every day. The place can be structured with the knowledge of "24 gates need to take in international people who need to re-clear security, 12 go to customs," etc. and in use planes who need a particular flavor of gate are directed there. For the individuals to navigate these hundreds of hallways, signage is directed and they take small cues from slips of paper in hand to direct themselves around. Another small-scale example of the same sort of comparison: http://nautil.us/issue/13/symmetry/want-to-get-out-alive-follow-the-ants quote:Want to Get Out Alive? Follow the Ants edit: cut the essay RealityApologist fucked around with this message at 17:56 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Can we please not bring up ants again? Even if we're being as charitable as possible it's still a completely retarded comparison.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Eripsa, if you want to keep talking about ants, you might want to play with this old program: https://archive.org/details/NeuralNedinNEDsWORLD_1020
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
ITT, Eripsa proposes that we model the currency (not currency) of the future on the behavior of a mindless species that nonetheless has both slaves and race riots, over and over again, almost as if he was following a circular trail that leads to nowhere that he is physically unable to get away from
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
A crowd flows and water flows so let me explain how humans (which are 70% water) should switch to HoseCoin
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Another small-scale example of the same sort of comparison: This post is superfluous without an actual stated point. If you're agreeing, then you don't need to copypasta such a large part. Just the relevant bits (it is not all relevant).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
ITT we spend a few thousand years of stability evolving ourselves back into the morlock caste and the eloi caste (you see, the introverts would starve to death but fortunately the shadow economy sells all the necessary tools for harvesting some strangepork)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
ProfessorCurly posted:Please, do tell me I don't understand your system again. Your argument is "if I try to get influence in the system it's going to be a lot of hard work trying to balance that additional power". You somehow think this is a criticism. You don't understand the system. Yes, gaining influence introduces instabilities into the system. Individuals are faced with the choice between a comfortable, stable life with whatever lot they have, or an unstable, difficult life attempting to harness the reins of power. Your last argument was "but people always want power and will do anything they can to have it." Now you've come to realize that gaining power in Strangecoin is nontrivial and probably a huge headache, and you seem to be arguing that no one will do the work it takes to acquire it. If anything, your most recent post serves as an argument against the one before, and shows why Strangecoin doesn't need the New Soviet Man to work.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
ITT, individuals are faced with the choice between a comfortable life at minimum income, a comfortable life at maximum income, or an unstable, difficult life when someone they know does something, anything
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Your last argument was "but people always want power and will do anything they can to have it." Now you've come to realize that gaining power in Strangecoin is nontrivial and probably a huge headache, and you seem to be arguing that no one will do the work it takes to acquire it. Also, being efficient, aspiring to things, trying to acquire social status above the minimum, making a purchase, speaking to a human being without auditing their life history, etc
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Adar posted:ITT we have bad political opinions, get into a car accident, require lifesaving medication and immediately Strangecoin is post-scarcity and post-death
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Know Your Place, Citizen So whatever horrible caste system that emerges from the strangeconomy will be strictly enforced. Awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
GAH. Look, it's been at least fifty pages in two threads since this was first brought up and you haven't explained this: if I can pay anyone I want as much as I want out of TUA, how on earth does it even matter the size and shape of my support network? Regardless of what my nominal balance is, I actually have infinite Strangecoin, right? How on earth does my surrounding network determine what I can buy? Or am I stupid and/or crazy for failing to understand some details? Let me narrow that down, actually: I have 50 Strangecoin. I spend 500 on a new boat -- accounting for inhibition, coupling, endorsements, and support. I do this again every day for five weeks. How am I prevented from spending further Strangecoin? Inhibiting won't work because I can simply spend even more Strangecoin per transaction. And since my Strangecoin's as good as anyone else's, why wouldn't a merchant take it? (other than the fact that he, too, has access to infinite Strangecoin, and therefore has no particular need to sell things to have money). I tried to think this over from your standpoint but I couldn't really come to an option that doesn't assume Strangecoins are valueless. (either because the rest of the market is willing to dedicate infinite Strangecoin towards inhibiting me or merchants are universally willing to turn my currency down for the sake of spiting me.)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:There's two things going on here that are confusing me, and both are my fault. Jawn is at C. Jawn is endorsed by Bob. Jawn makes a Payment to Eve. At no step of Pays(Jawn, Eve, 5) does Jawn's account trip condition (1) since he was at C. Note that Bob could also be at C, it really doesn't matter since nothing will trip (1) the way it's worded since we're already at C. There is no effect of my endorsements or endorsers if I'm at C and having income going to TUA in the stated rules. If there are new rules you're not telling us, that's going to make discussion difficult. You keep wanting to talk about cases where Eve's balance hits C as a result of the payment and we're not talking about that. We're not talking about the recipient of a payment. So let me go back to the story where our plucky protagonist, at finding himself at C: quote:I'll have reached my balance cap, and that means any additional transactions will be stripped of modifiers. Which means my payments become worth less RealityApologist posted:The other thing has to do with the Cantorcoin alternative, where the modifications are on the buyer's end of the transaction instead of the seller's. So the example I elaborate in this post is iin the cantorcoin framework, with the seller at C. In the case where the seller is at C, the buyer's endorsements cut off because the payment just goes to TUA, and thus is worth less. But that's a flipped case from the one you describe in Strangecoin, and where your description is exactly right.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Krotera posted:
The merchant wouldn't take it because your coins are different from somebody else's coins. So you would then go to the friendly black market vendor down the street who takes your infinity coins at a 20% discount and launders them through a common wallet, for example by recording a price of 100 strangecoins on legitimate goods that he really sold for 80 coins (the counterparty to that trade is fine with this because he'll get half of the profits as a "gift" in a week) Eventually the vendor would get caught, and by vendor I mean a single representative of the shadow economy that is by then running the entire country because the legitimate side is so thoroughly hyperinflated that a single wheelbarrow costs more than the entire several ton weight of the USB chips holding the trillions of strangecoins it takes to buy a loaf of bread, and by eventually I mean next Tuesday. also Eripsa understands none of this because economics is as beyond his ken as racism or human interaction as a whole
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:Know Your Place, Citizen Nonono, see, all any minority has to do to move up in the social strata is for them to all endorse one another and then- oh, whats that? The higher classes have all inhibited the minorities to a greater degree than they could ever self-endorse out of, effectively locking them in ghettos with literally no way out? Well don't you know, that's a feature!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Adar posted:The merchant wouldn't take it because your coins are different from somebody else's coins. No, see, I thought about this, though: if every merchant turns everyone who cheats the system down, and everyone cheats the system (because why the gently caress wouldn't they?) then every merchant has zero income. Meaning that to survive, they too are cheating the system. So I feel like your whole analogy falls apart at the assumption that my illegitimate coins are different from everyone else's coins, because unless you're a massive loving altruist everyone is cheating the system by default. But it's a good point that it fails even if some people don't cheat. Krotera fucked around with this message at 18:15 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Krotera posted:GAH. It's desirable to have a nominally zeroed balance. So spending is about as bad for your valve as selling. Other people can confirm or deny you based on your endorsements and connections.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:It's desirable to have a nominally zeroed balance. So spending is about as bad for your valve as selling. Other people can confirm or deny you based on your endorsements and connections. Why is it desirable? As far as I can tell you can spend as little or as much as you want at any given time, meaning that all you've got is the assumption that people who aren't cheating the system will refuse to take your coins because presumably they care more about maintaining the Strangecoin system than about actually having Strangecoins. (which is a valid assumption when you realize that at any time they too can have as many Strangecoins as they want, instantaneously, by default, and therefore have no need to take yours) (Is it possible that Strangecoin both disincentivizes spending and saving?) I like the "it's an economy based on air, and some people have leafblowers" analogy. Krotera fucked around with this message at 18:20 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Krotera posted:No, see, I thought about this, though: if every merchant turns everyone who cheats the system down, and everyone cheats the system (because why the gently caress wouldn't they?) then every merchant has zero income. Meaning that to survive, they too are cheating the system. They are different, though. That's a feature that's at the very bedrock of the foundation strangecoins are built on (and by bedrock I mean quicksand mixed with tar pits). It is unquestionably true that when I am born with a mild facial deformity, am gay, am black, etc. my coins are worth less than your coins. You are of course correct that this instantly implodes under its own weight, I'm just saying that for the week or so it exists the eloi celebrity caste would run wild with purity checks before the morlocks eat them all.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Ok, Eprisa set the example that if we have a burger seller who sells burgers that cost 3SC to make, he can either sell it for 3SC to people with a Network Value(NV) of 0, sell it for 2SC to people with NV1, or for one coin to people with NV2, and that he would choose which clientele based on which group is larger. But why would he keep a static price when he can change it and vastly increase his customer base. Have an NV6? Well then your burger costs .5SC. Do you have NV-3? Well your burger costs 6SC. There is absolutely no reason to discriminate based on network value. Your coins will never be worth more or less than anyone elses, because you can always just increase or decrease your amount of payments until the seller gets exactly what he wants. There is literally no part of the StrangeCoin spec that works as intended.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Which spec?  (In practice, whether it's the payment amount or the worth of each coin that changes is meaningless for this specific purpose since either way the shadow economy launders the gently caress out of it in exactly the same ways)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
What would stop people from programming their google glass to automatically scrape transaction data about people they run across, allowing quick and easy flash lynch mob formation? I feel like humanity could revert to some bizarre, basic form of tribalism, and catastrophic economic collapse would ensue. e: actually, ant colonies murder one another, don't they? We're supposed to be ants, right? crime weed fucked around with this message at 19:07 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
"could"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Kjoery posted:What would stop people from programmingt their google glass to automatically scrape transaction data about people they run across, allowing quick and easy flash lynch mob formation? You don't need to program that, everyone is constantly seeing everyone else's transaction data according to Eripsa.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
Install Windows posted:You don't need to program that, everyone is constantly seeing everyone else's transaction data according to Eripsa. Wasn't that his replace-technology-with-magic-why-aren't-you-taking-me-seriously "aura" idea?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 19:12
|
|