Search Ideas

Would ideas that no longer have pending criticisms (perhaps because the criticism chain has been flipped further up), be pulled out of the archive?

Idea: ‘Conjecture Arena’, ‘CA’

Idea: ‘Reason Arena’, ‘RA’

I like something with ‘Arena’ because it would imply action, some ideas winning out over others, and has a Darwinian aspect to it. Our best ideas are the tentative champions in the arena of ideas, waiting for the next challenger.

Idea: Conjecture Arena

Idea: Reason Arena

I like something with ‘Arena’ because it would imply action, some ideas winning out over others, and has a Darwinian aspect to it. Our best ideas are the tentative champions in the arena of ideas, waiting for the next challenger.

To be clear, if you copy the entire box quote and paste it into a textarea, it will start with the > sign. I just double checked.

This doesn't work for me the way it does for you. I tried copying the entire quote, and also in a separate attempt, copying extra stuff above and below the box quote, and neither gave me the > sign.

I have tried on my windows computer and my iPad.

When copying a box quote from Veritula, the box quote formatting (>) is lost.

It is one thing to explain why a particular god spread more than others in the past, but it is another thing to claim that your specific god of choice will spread more than others in the future.

Your claim is that Zcash is the next money, which is analogous to claiming your niche god of choice is under-appreciated and will be the next big one.

It is one thing to retroactively explain why a particular god spread more than others in the past, but it is another thing to claim that your specific god of choice will spread more than others in the future.

Your claim is that Zcash is the next money, which is analogous to claiming your niche god of choice is under-appreciated and will be the next big one.

It is one thing to retroactively explain why a particular good spread more than others in the past, but it is another thing to claim that your specific god of choice will spread more than others in the future.

Your claim is that Zcash is the next money, which is analogous to claiming your niche god of choice is under-appreciated and will be the next big one.

I don’t deny that Zcash might be decentralised and private.

For Zcash to become the next money, it is not sufficient for it to just be durable, fungible, private, decentralised, etc.

As long as it doesn’t have any underlying value, it will not be suitable as money.

You are using secondary attributes of good money as positive justifications for Zcash as good money, but you are failing to answer the criticism that Zcash has no underlying value.

Money needs to be a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value.

Features that support a price floor create the conditions where one can expect that their wealth won’t completely evaporate for one reason or another. Something that has no features supporting a price floor is not good money.

If gold no longer has features supporting a price floor at some point in the future (as you claim might happen), then gold would also not be good money in that future.

Zcash has nothing going for it that makes it a store of value. To the degree that it is ‘worth’ anything in the future, it is because of the dynamics I refer to in #2497.

Thank you for sharing this. I missed this in my read of BoI, and I agree now that Deutsch is wrong on this point.

Separate from Deutsch and going forward with our own epistemological practices, I think it would be appropriate for us to use terms like ‘good’ and ‘hard to vary’ in the sense of ‘not bad’ and ‘not easy to vary’. This eliminates the problem of gradation and positive argument, while preserving a shared and otherwise useful set of terminology.

If “good” is considered the same as “not bad” (or the equivalent in any epistemological dichotomy) doesn’t that close the gap between Deutsch and Popper?

If “bad” = “contains known flaws”,
and “not bad” = “contains no known flaws”,
why can’t “good” = “contains no known flaws” too?

I can see no reason that “good” means anything more than “not bad”.

Similarly, “hard to vary” would just be an equivalent of “not easy to vary”.

We don’t need to take ‘good vs bad’ to be the only meaningful dichotomy for the idea to stand, so Edwin’s idea is not important to the argument.

I meant this conception from #2073:

My current view is that the only meaningful dichotomy is good vs. bad

If we take ‘good vs bad’ to be the only meaningful dichotomy, and if we state that ‘good’ is the equivalent of ‘not bad’, I think that bridges Popper and Deutsch.

If “good” is considered the same as “not bad” doesn’t that close the gap between Deutsch and Popper? (Using Edwin’s conception of good and bad.)

If “bad” = “contains known flaws”,
and “not bad” = “contains no known flaws”,
why can’t “good” = “contains no known flaws” too?

I can see no reason that “good” means anything more than “not bad”.

Similarly, “hard to vary” would just be an equivalent of “not easy to vary”.

If “good” is considered the same as “not bad” doesn’t that close the gap between Deutsch and Popper?

If “bad” = “contains known flaws”,
and “not bad” = “contains no known flaws”,
why can’t “good” = “contains no known flaws” too?

I can see no reason that “good” means anything more than “not bad”.

Similarly, “hard to vary” would just be an equivalent of “not easy to vary”.

If “good” is considered the same as “not bad” doesn’t that close the gap between Deutsch and Popper?

If “bad” = “contains known flaws”,
and “not bad” = “contains no known flaws”,
why can’t “good” = “contains no known flaws” too?

I can see no reason that “good” means anything more than “not bad”.

Yes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).

The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.

Edit: after reviewing the thread, I see that you were more focused on the bad actors problem while I was more focused on giving people fair time to respond. I believe what I am saying still stands, but maybe it belongs somewhere higher up the chain.

Yes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).

The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.

Edit: after reviewing the thread, I see that you were more focused on the bad actors problem while I was more focused on giving people fair time to respond. I believe what I am saying still stands.

Yes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).

The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.

Since I am getting an error when I try to edit #2479, I will make a new criticism. I think #2479 is unclear.

I would have it that each criticism and counter-criticism resets the countdown on the bounty deadline. This means everyone involved is given fair time to respond at each turn.

A small downside is that a bounty can go on indefinitely, but that is simply an extension of the fact that solutions to problems don’t come reliably.

Supply: A limited supply (scarcity) may increase the value.

The scarcity of a useless thing doesn’t make it less useless.

Durability, Portability, Divisibility, Fungibility, and Stability

These are all secondary values.
The durability of something is irrelevant if the thing itself is useless.
The portability of something is irrelevant if the thing itself is useless.
The divisibility of something is irrelevant if the thing itself is useless.
Etcetera, etcetera.

The only demand for something like this comes from either a mistaken understanding of what ‘value’ is/means (e.g. believing that the ‘durability’ of something otherwise useless makes it valuable), or from the Keynesian Beauty Contest linked above.

This dynamic makes cryptos wonderful as instruments of speculation, but they will never be money unless they are backed by some independently useful commodity (which IIRC some actually are), or are made legal tender by some government (which defeats the point).