Search Ideas

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?

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.

Idea: when you create a bounty, you set the amount you’re willing to pay per criticism and a ceiling for the total you’re willing to spend (no. of crits * amount per crit).

Your card is authorized for twice the ceiling. In addition, there’s a button to report abuse. If you’re a good citizen, you’ll be charged the ceiling, at most. But if you’re found to submit arbitrary criticisms to avoid paying, the bounty stops early and your card is charged the full authorization.

If you submit a criticism, you won’t want to wait indefinitely to get paid just because others are keeping the discussion going in a different branch.

I suppose that would make it a bit harder for bad actors because they’d need to monitor multiple deadlines, but they could still submit arbitrary counter-criticisms just in time to avoid paying. Or is there something I’m missing?

New arguments may not belong at the bottom of the criticism chain. Depending on context, it may need to be either a new sibling at the top of the chain or a completely new standalone idea.

I didn’t check this exchange in detail to say for sure. But I recommend checking, so I’m marking this as a criticism. If you think the new argument can remain as is, leave a counter-criticism to neutralize my criticism.

… I am getting an error when I try to edit #2479…

Editing ideas should be fixed now. (You won’t need to edit this one, though, since I’ve done the requisite housekeeping.)

That is simply an extension of the fact that solutions to problems don’t come reliably.

Then a bounty can go on indefinitely.

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.

Superseded by #2501.

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).

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.

Is "it contains bitcoin's solutions to fiat, and also solves bitcoin's lack of privacy" easy to vary? Could be made harder to vary by explaining the technicals of zero-knowledge proofs as well (though I'm not konwledgeable enough to do that here).

Thanks for the criticism. New argument: Utility (besides usefulness as money) is not strictly necessary, although it may be nice to have. The value of a currency is set by supply and demand.

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

Demand: Demand is set determined by how well people percieve the currency's features as a store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account. Important factors include: Durability, Portability, Divisibility, Fungibility, and Stability. Gold has had most of these features (importantly scarcity, only 2% inflation from mining). However, it severely lacks in portability due to being a metal, compared to hard digital assets.

So the value of a currency is mostly determined by its perceived usefulness as money, not its utility for other things.

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

I suppose that would make it a bit harder for bad actors because they’d need to monitor multiple deadlines, but they could still submit arbitrary counter-criticisms just in time to avoid paying. Or is there something I’m missing?

I think definitely worth trying, sounds like fun

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.

Yes, that was what I was thinking. Presumably the OP could set their own deadline timeframe too.

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.

As much as I dislike LLMs, I’m thinking of using them to show summaries of discussions at the top of the page. Summaries would reflect ideas without pending criticisms.

But then bad actors could always submit arbitrary counter-criticisms just before the deadline to avoid paying.