Search ideas

Yes. But again, because it solves certain problems with existing money. There could similarly be good and bad explanations why certain religions would spread in the future.

I agree that it would be optimal if Zcash and Bitcoin had such price floors. But couldn't it still be the best alternative in certain jurisdictions, e.g. where it's impossible/impractical to own gold, and the local currency gets inflated away?

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.

Fixed as of f7833c6.

In a way, reactions might have epistemological relevance.

If an idea has pending criticisms, it can still have parts worth saving in a revision. Reactions based on paragraphs (#2458) could point out those parts.

The red “Criticized” label is far more prominent than reactions would be.

Between two abstractions (ambiguous statements made by us, and perfectly precise propositions).

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.

I could still see someone with knowledge of psychology and theology provide a good explanation as to why certain gods and religions have spread in favour of others. All ideas are solutions to some problem.

Value comes from solving a problem.

Money solves (among other things) the problem of barter by being a medium of exchange. Different media solve this problem better than others. That determines its value.

I still don't see why there has to be a price floor set by the commodity's utility (for other things than being money)? Also, the value could still go to zero if that utility was no longer needed: Gold isn't guaranteed to be valued in industry or jewellry in the future.

Yes #2494 may have been slightly better as a criticism of #2411, though this still works IMO. But good to know for next time :)

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.

Done as of 7061786.

… I still think there are good and bad criticisms …

To conclude that a criticism is bad, we first need counter-criticisms. Otherwise, we have no reasons for considering a criticism bad. And once we have those reasons in the form of counter-criticisms, we can just state them.

"that"

Why is this word in quotes? If you mean to emphasize, use asterisks.

Since you’re voicing a disagreement, this idea should presumably be marked as a criticism.

… there is no difference between what I said and what you said.

Unclear what “what I said” and “what you said” refer to. Quotes

than

Should be ‘then’. I remind you to run your ideas through Grammarly before posting.

You can still tell whether some knowledge is true. You just can’t tell infallibly, ie with absolute certainty. There is a difference between certainty and knowledge.

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.)

Do you have a quote of Edwin saying good = not bad?

We could try to save Deutsch’s terminology this way, sure. But I don’t think that’s what he means. He sees room for different gradations of ‘good’. For example, from BoI ch. 9:

[W]e should choose between policies not on the basis of their origin, but according to how good they are as explanations: how hard to vary.

It’s an understandable concern. I subscribe more to the insight from BoI chapter 10. Open societies inadvertently give their enemies more access than closed ones, but they also gain so much more knowledge and strength because of their openness that they can deal with their enemies better than if they were closed.

(I went back and forth on whether to label this as a criticism. I decided to do so but I want to be clear that it doesn’t mean I’m trying to tell you how to live your life.)

Superseded by #2524.

I’m not sure yet, but I’m playing with the idea that the criticism can’t have any pending counter-criticisms by some deadline. Each counter-criticism could reset the deadline to give everyone ample time to respond.

As a reminder, at some point we will need to do some housekeeping because any criticisms of #2108 are probably also going to be criticisms of #2109 and we want an intact criticism chain.

I’m marking this as a criticism so we don’t forget. And when we’re done with the housekeeping, we can say so in a counter-criticism to ‘check off’ that todo item.

Sorry but I don’t see how that solves the bad-actor problem. Bad actors would still be able to draw out the discussion to avoid paying, wouldn’t they?