Search Ideas

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.

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.

Some people – and I don’t know if this includes you or not – are overly worried about getting embarrassed or making silly mistakes.

There are some exceptions where reputation needs to be taken very seriously, but I think the general view to take in this matter is that no one cares. Think of the deepest embarrassment you’ve ever felt – and then try to replace that feeling with how others felt about your situation.

Like, if you’re on stage playing the guitar in front of hundreds of people, and you hit the wrong note, you may feel embarrassed. But many people didn’t even notice. And those who did probably didn’t care nearly as much about the mistake as you did.

Nevermind, this was addressed by #2462

Why should reacts persist through revisions?

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

Not if I do reactions on a per-paragraph basis. I think that’s a new feature none of those sites have.

The way I picture it, as you hover over different paragraphs, a reaction button appears and moves between paragraphs. So it would always be clear that reactions are on specific paragraphs. The user would pick whatever paragraph they most wish to react to.

Then what does somebody do who wants to react to an idea as a whole? Do they react to the last paragraph?

For reactions to paragraphs, at least you could tell if the content someone reacted to has changed, and only then remove the reaction.

But presumably, the same is true for reactions to ideas as a whole. Reactions would have to be removed for revisions.

It isn’t clear what would happen during a revision. A paragraph might be changed or deleted. Too complicated.

Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.

You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per criticism received, say.

The amount should be arbitrarily customizable.

I could implement reactions on a per-paragraph basis.

There’s value in others being able to react as well. Maybe an idea affects them in some way or they want to voice support.

There’s value in reacting to top-level ideas, too.

Another reason I want people to use their true names is that I want Veritula to be a place for serious intellectuals, not yet another social network where people just screw around. Part of being a serious intellectual is public advocacy of one’s ideas and public updates on changed positions.