Search Ideas

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.

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).

The part that is easy to vary is that an arbitrary amount of different cryptos can be made with the same features.

The features themselves can be as specific as you like but the overall argument is still extremely easy to vary, because it is an argument for a specific cryptocurrency.

It is the same as arguing for a specific god because the god you like has specific features. The god itself is still easy to vary.

The counter-criticism moves the deadline forward again the same fixed amount.

The timeframe to address the criticism should start counting down from the moment the criticism is made, rather than the original post. So it would be a continuous thing rather than a single deadline for everyone.

The OP could end the bounty if there are no outstanding criticisms and he no longer seeks a solution.

I think it is more that it is a permanent record of things I have written that may one day be used as an attack vector. It means I need to really mean what I write, so that I can stand behind it (even as potentially an honest mistake) if someone tries to use it against me.

Why should reacts persist through revisions?

How do you ensure the criticism is worthy of the bounty?

I notice that when I amend a criticism I have made, I’m not able to see what I am criticising. It would be good if the edit screen showed the comment I am disagreeing with similar to how it does when I first go to write a criticism.

I notice that when I amend a criticism I have made, I’m not able to see what I am criticising. It would be good if the edit screen showed the comment I am disagreeing with similar to how it does when I first go to write a criticism.

Why not some other cryptocurrency that also has those features?
For example, why not an existing or future fork of Zcash?

“[Insert favoured cryptocurrency] will become the next money” is an extremely easy to vary statement.

Why not some other cryptocurrency that also has those features?
For example, why not an existing or future fork of Zcash?

“Bitcoin is not backed by anything” can also be stated as “Bitcoin is not redeemable in anything”.

“POW” or “computational work” or “encryption” and not things you can redeem if you own bitcoin.

This is in contrast to gold-backed currencies, for example, which are currencies which can be redeemed in gold. The United States Federal Reserve Note only became fiat when it was no longer redeemable in gold.

Bitcoin (and by extension Zcash) does not solve fiat. The problem of fiat is that it isn’t backed by anything. Bitcoin isn’t backed my anything, and as far as I know, neither is Zcash.

Pure genetic knowledge could colonise the galaxy, it'd take much longer than with memes.

Deutsch disagrees. Quote:

The difference between biological evolution and human creative thought is that biological evolution is inherently limited in its range. That’s because biological evolution has no foresight. It can’t see a problem and conjecture a solution.

and quote:

The bombardier beetles squirt boiling water at their enemies. You can easily see that just squirting cold water at your enemies is not totally unhelpful. Then making it a bit hotter and a bit hotter. Squirting boiling water no doubt required many adaptations to make sure the beetle didn’t boil itself while it was making this boiling water. That happened because there was a sequence of steps in between, all of which were useful. But with campfires, it’s very hard to see how that could happen.

Humans have explanatory creativity. Once you have that, you can get to the moon. You can cause asteroids which are heading towards the earth to turn around and go away. Perhaps no other planet in the universe has that power, and it has it only because of the presence of explanatory creativity on it.

Pure genetic knowledge could colonise the galaxy, it'd take much longer than with memes.

Deutsch disagrees. Quote:

The difference between biological evolution and human creative thought is that biological evolution is inherently limited in its range. That’s because biological evolution has no foresight. It can’t see a problem and conjecture a solution.

and quote:

The bombardier beetles squirt boiling water at their enemies. You can easily see that just squirting cold water at your enemies is not totally unhelpful. Then making it a bit hotter and a bit hotter. Squirting boiling water no doubt required many adaptations to make sure the beetle didn’t boil itself while it was making this boiling water. That happened because there was a sequence of steps in between, all of which were useful. But with campfires, it’s very hard to see how that could happen.

Humans have explanatory creativity. Once you have that, you can get to the moon. You can cause asteroids which are heading towards the earth to turn around and go away. Perhaps no other planet in the universe has that power, and it has it only because of the presence of explanatory creativity on it.

No, I think the ‘Popperian Wikipedia’ idea is too different to Veritula for it to be a competitor. Veritula is primarily a discussion tool. I envision more of an encyclopedia of competing ideas presented independently of each other, with no (or very little) discussion functionality.

For example, on the topic of addiction, this site would contain different articles explaining different models of what addiction is, how it works, etc. Each article would explain the given model from within its own framework, rather than from some pre-approved framework and set of sources (as is currently the case at Wikipedia).

I realise “methods of criticism” in my reply above may have confused that somewhat.

I think my idea could be made within Veritula, if you would be interested. Different explanations could be cataloged in Wikipedia-style articles (with versioning), which could then be referred to and discussed in threads here.

At the end of the day, I think something like that should exist in the world, and I am indifferent to how it might come about. It wouldn’t bother me if I wasn’t involved. I would also consider financially supporting someone who gave me good reason to think they had the vision, the motivation, and the technical skill to create it.

No, I think the ‘Popperian Wikipedia’ idea is too different to Veritula for it to be a competitor. Veritula is primarily a discussion tool. I envision more of an encyclopedia of competing ideas presented independently of each other, with no (or very little) discussion functionality.

For example, on the topic of addiction, this site would contain different articles explaining different models of what addiction is, how it works, etc. Each article would explain the given model from within its own framework, rather than from some pre-approved framework and set of sources (as is currently the case at Wikipedia).

I realise “methods of criticism” in my reply above may have confused that somewhat.

I think my idea could be made within Veritula, if you would be interested. Different explanations could be cataloged in Wikipedia-style articles (with versioning), which could then be referred to and discussed in threads here.

At the end of that day, I think something like that should exist in the world, and I am indifferent to how it might come about. It wouldn’t bother me if I wasn’t involved. I would also consider financially supporting someone who gave me good reason to think they had the vision, the motivation, and the technical skill to create it.

I think correspondence is to epistemology as adaptation is to evolution. Knowledge that corresponds more to reality tends to be more useful (and with more reach), similar to biological adaptation.

@dennis-hackethal* Please share your reasoning for your request that Veritula users use their true names.

Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.

Veritula emphasises making one point at a time for ease of criticism and discussion, which is useful in a forum but makes absorbing the totality of an idea a little more tedious compared to a quick glance at an encyclopedia article. (It is possible I have misunderstood some aspect of Veritula here.)

Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.

One thing that Wikipedia articles are very good for is providing well-structured information on a given subject. Discussion threads are not so well structured (the order of information is not based on how high-level or foundational it is, like an encyclopedia entry would be, but rather on the nested chronology of whatever discussion happened to take place.)

I started a discussion earlier, and what I wrote in the “about” section of the discussion was not written well. I would like to revise it. Is this possible? If not, is there an intention to make this possible eventually?