Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - psztorc

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 31
16
Design / Incentives / Game Theory / Re: drivechain
« on: May 17, 2016, 08:26:40 pm »
A perfect likeness. : )

However, I do not see the contradiction. Conditional on prediction markets existing, one might use a type of market to address the free-rider problem.

X = Blockchain Prediction Markets Exist
Y = Use of PMs to (potentially) address FRP.

So I do argue that X --> Y.

However, in the presentation, I argue that a different free rider problem interferes with the use of blockchain oracles, which are required for blockchain prediction markets.

If we assume:

V = Permissionless Implementation
W = Blockchain Oracles are Possible

I do argue that V --->  not-W.

Since we all agree that W is necessary for X,

V --> not X
V --> not Y.

It's like saying that a sorcerer could use magic to keep himself alive forever. If he's dead now, for any reason, it doesn't matter what he *could* do if he were alive.

 

17
Off Topic / Re: I am selling Augur REP
« on: May 10, 2016, 03:55:12 am »
Haha, I was never offered nor given any Rep.

18
General / Re: How can I get some truthcoin?
« on: April 28, 2016, 11:10:20 pm »
There will exist a mechanism to transform BTC in to Truthcoin's "CashCoin". So, you should just buy more BTC.

Unless you would like to become a reporter. I haven't decided how the VoteCoins will be distributed. It wouldn't hurt if you helped with the code.

Thanks for explanation, how many CashCoin exist totally? How will CashCoin be distributed?  How to secure the CashCoin's network, is it PoS or new Consensus algorithm? Where can I find the documents about this?

CashCoins *are* Bitcoins. They are two words for the same thing -- when BTC are in Hivemind world, they are labeled CashCoins to distinguish them from Votecoins.

19
Advanced / Novel Bearer Assets
« on: April 27, 2016, 05:22:02 pm »
Over two years ago, Dr. Shiller at Yale wrote a mostly-wrong NYTimes piece about Bitcoin.

( It is 'mostly-wrong' because the central premise "it doesn’t really solve any sensible economic problem" doesn't square with the empirical evidence. )

However, he does bring up some "quirky" ideas, for potential Event Derivative assets:

Quote

 * ...since 1967 in Chile, an inflation-indexed unit of account called the unidad de fomento (U.F.), meaning unit of development, has been widely used. ...  In this way, it is natural and easy to set inflation-indexed prices, and Chile is much more effectively inflation-indexed than other countries are.

... Consider rents. Increases may seem unfair to tenants, yet they may be needed to offset inflation. In Chile, a landlord can easily set the monthly rent for the tenant in U.F.s and then never have to change it, reducing the potential for errors, delays and misunderstandings. The name “U.F.” reframes people’s thinking so that keeping real economic values stable is natural and easy.

* ...you would just check off a box indicating whether your payment was in dollars or pesos or euros — or baskets. If you check “baskets,” the computer would calculate the amount of local currency the recipient would need to buy that basket at that time, and it would transmit it, too.

* A third improvement would be to move beyond just one new unit of account to a whole system of them, so that we could have baskets for different purposes. There should be senior baskets representing items consumed by older people in one day in a given country, as well as subsistence baskets representing the consumption of the poor. There should also be a day-wage unit of account representing a day’s work by an average unskilled wage earner.

And there could be a “trills” unit — a concept that Mark Kamstra of York University and I have been advocating — that represents one trillionth of a country’s most recently estimated annual G.D.P. There should also be a unit that grows or retreats with per-capita daily consumption. This could be used for pension and Social Security payments as a form of intergenerational risk-sharing: The idea is that payments to older people would rise and fall with overall consumption. With many kinds of baskets, it will be easier to set prices and make contracts that are sensible for the long term.


The great irony is that all of these are possible with Hivemind, which is itself only possible because of Bitcoin. "it doesn’t really solve any sensible economic problem", indeed!

20
Design / Incentives / Game Theory / Re: Trusting Pools vs Oracles
« on: April 27, 2016, 04:45:00 pm »
There are several differences:

1. Mining pool operators can not steal your money, unless they are re-spending money which they owned pre-attack. Oracles can screw up your bet, and steal the money you've wagered.
2. Mining pool operators do not necessarily own mining hardware.
3. The act of mining is expensive, whereas voting is compulsory (ie, "failing to vote" is expensive).

21
General / Re: How can I get some truthcoin?
« on: April 27, 2016, 04:39:33 pm »
There will exist a mechanism to transform BTC in to Truthcoin's "CashCoin". So, you should just buy more BTC.

Unless you would like to become a reporter. I haven't decided how the VoteCoins will be distributed. It wouldn't hurt if you helped with the code.

22
Off Topic / Re: consensus method even cheaper than POW
« on: March 12, 2016, 11:09:02 pm »
All existing distribution mechanisms fail in one of two ways

Bitcoin's seems to be doing fine. To me, anyway.

23
Off Topic / Re: consensus method even cheaper than POW
« on: March 09, 2016, 11:44:48 pm »
How, exactly, is the new system worth 40,000 meals of food (10K more), when nothing of interest seems to have happened?

Its worth 40k because D used POW to invest 10k into it to get control of 25% of the coins.
If 25% is worth 10k, then 100% must be worth 40k.


Yes, yes, obviously. But why did D invest 10k? He didn't seem to get anything out of doing so.

24
Off Topic / Re: consensus method even cheaper than POW
« on: March 07, 2016, 03:55:46 pm »
It seems that no one is better or worse off. A B and C own 10,000 meals of food, before and after. D has 10,000 food meals, and switches them from one form to another.

How, exactly, is the new system worth 40,000 meals of food (10K more), when nothing of interest seems to have happened? Could the value have increased from 30,000 to 40,000 *without* D's contribution?

25
Off Topic / Re: consensus method even cheaper than POW
« on: March 05, 2016, 02:59:46 pm »
Why don't you write down an example of what you are talking about? Put all BTC and share-units in percentage terms. Do not say "50 BTC" or "1000 shares", just say "4% of the BTC" or "before the dilution, X owns 2% of the company".

26
Design / Incentives / Game Theory / Hivemind Lightning Network Spec
« on: March 05, 2016, 12:20:51 am »
I put this here: http://bitcoinhivemind.com/blog/lightning-network

It has many advantages...instant trades (instant settlement), very very low transaction fees, no miner censorship of trades, no miner front-running.

Check it out!

27
Off Topic / Re: consensus method even cheaper than POW
« on: March 03, 2016, 07:51:38 pm »
> Could you explain why diluting the shares in exchange for investment at a higher valuation would lower the market cap?

Question contains a false premise. (The words "valuation" and "market cap" refer to the same thing.)

28
Off Topic / Re: consensus method even cheaper than POW
« on: March 03, 2016, 06:27:06 am »
> How would you change bitcoin's reward schedule to allow for a faster growing market cap?

I wouldn't change it at all. Bitcoin is the e-gold, alternative to managed fiat currencies.

That being said, I've previously argued that this particular version of a fixed reward schedule might have some problems, and we should soft fork it to a different reward schedule.

29
Off Topic / Re: consensus method even cheaper than POW
« on: March 02, 2016, 05:47:32 pm »
>Can you answer the questions?

Sure, but I don't think they will help, as you are very confused about much simpler issues.


> If a fixed supply of shares is best, why are startups willing to dilute shares when they get investors?|

Question contains a false premise. (A fixed supply of shares is not always best.)


> Can you give any reasoning for why it is bad to change the rate of production relative to investment for new coins, but good to change the rate of production to keep it at a fixed ratio to the current price of a coin?

No.

30
Off Topic / Re: consensus method even cheaper than POW
« on: March 02, 2016, 12:36:49 am »
At any given time, there will be 12 inches in every foot.

At any given time, the market cap will be equal to the 'price per share' multiplied by 'the total number of shares outstanding'.

It does not matter if a tree grows from being 40 inches to 50 inches, or the tree is measured in centimeters instead of inches, there will still be 12 inches in each foot.
It does not matter if the price per share rises, or if there is share dilution, the relationship between price and marketcap will be the same.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 31