No proposed implementation but here's some fun ideas: http://digitalinterface.blogspot.com/2014/03/strangecoin-proposal-for-nonlin... """ What's unique about Strangecoin? - Strangecoin transactions can be *nonzero sum*. A Strangecoin transaction might result in *both* parties having more Strangecoin. - Strangecoin transactions can be *one-sided* and can be conducted entirely by only one party to the transaction. - The rate of change of one's Strangecoin balance is a more important indicator of economic influence than the balance itself. - Optimal investment strategy in Strangecoin aims to *stabilize* one's balance of Strangecoin. - A universal account provides all users a basic Strangecoin income, effectively unlimited wealth, and direct feedback on the overall prosperity of the network. .... As the example suggests, the dynamics of Strangecoin might be usefully thought of in terms of a "reputation system" rather than a strictly financial tool, even though the basic mechanics involve the regular method of exchanging currency for goods perceived by both parties to be of equal value. Because of the nonlinear relationships among Strangecoin users, each user effectively draws on a network of support in each economic transaction, coupling its activity to the successes (and failures) of the that network of activity. The result is a model of the complex interdependencies within a community of economic agents, and the dynamics by which those networks develop and decay. For this reason, Strangecoin might have implications for quantifying the role of individual choices and responsibility in the context of corporate action, and for resolving other difficult issues in the management and ethics of collective economic action. """ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7494709 """ Other comments suggest that this can be implemented with existing tools, which I take as a virtue of the proposal. In any case, John von Neumann proved a long time ago that any nonzero sum game with n players can be modeled as a zero sum game with n+1 players, where the n+1 player represents the global state. TUA is simply an implementation of this proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game#Extensions I tried to explain inhibition in another comment in this thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7496858 I give an an analogy in the proposal of the popularity of a celebrity couple being a nonlinear relationship to the popularity of each celebrity individually. I think our intuitive understanding of our social relationships is nonlinear in this way generally, and I think Strangecoin can model those nonlinear relationships well. So, for instance, I'm imagining a family, spouses, close friends, and so on entering into extended coupling transactions, so that as a community their prosperity rises and falls together. I might also enter into such transactions with certain business with whom I want to couple my activities, and these coupling transactions might serve in lieu of direct billing or payment. A coupling relationship with a business is effectively a contract, but with traditional currency you need the whole legal framework of contracts to support the transaction, and with Strangecoin the transaction is built directly into the currency, and the interface looks almost exactly like a point-of-sale cash transaction. And I can enter into less serious relationships of varying degrees with other parties. The effect is a way of managing not just financial transactions, but also reputation, investment, and other dynamics social constraints on the economy via the currency itself. Money is memory ( http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr218.pdf), but our existing currencies only represent some aspects of our economic activity, and therefore put limits on the memory stored in the economy. A nonlinear coin like Strangecoin can embed that social knowledge in the currency itself, providing a more robust memory framework on which we can conduct our economic transactions. I only hint at this in the proposal, but I suspect a system like this is required to resolve the twisted legal artifice the corporate veil, because it quantifies explicitly the role individuals have in collective economic activity, and thereby gives a method for explicitly holding persons proportionally responsible (in both credit and blame) for their contributions to that activity. But I think that's a much more radical proposal than the one I've offered for Strangecoin, and I should probably only be defending that here. =) """ - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507
2014-03-30 23:26 GMT+02:00 Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>:
because it quantifies explicitly the role individuals have in collective economic activity, and thereby gives a method for explicitly holding persons proportionally responsible (in both credit and blame) for their contributions to that activity.
This sort of mechanism is explicit with the corporate structure. The suggestion that "Payout% = responsibility%" is highly simplified compared to the current real-world complexity. Not to mention that usually payout means everything is A-Okay.
But I think that's a much more radical proposal than the one I've offered for Strangecoin, and I should probably only be defending that here. =)
Yeah. Because I really don't see the interesting properties emerge from Strangecoin as described. Bitcoin has this issue where people think it's things it's not. In money human perception is vital. Yet (economic) reality eventually persists trough any veil of beauty. Strangecoin *seems *to have nothing but very a-typical properties. Afterwards you seem to describe some properties you'd really like to see. I cannot judge how well you achieved them. Even when you've modeled a good ideal-world, there's still the journey there. With Bitcoin the journey is pretty solid (we're seeing it). The final situation is a subject of much speculation. I suspect Satoshi just checked his own value in the final situation and decided "Awh, what the hell", given it can't go wrong. So, does Bitcoin have any desirable (inherent) property except that it'll spread? Maybe, but it would only be that of cold-hearted economics. The kind humans are exceedingly bad at. Human Failure, much more than economic failure, causes current situations. Human Failure is encouraged by soft-economics, as it reduces the penalty for failure. Things like picking the wrong bank, not spreading risks, etc. There's no course in primary school for evading Human Failure in this aspect, even though it's the very core of humanity's current existence. Any speculation as to why? Either way, no currency alone will solve Human Failure. Even if Strangecoin would have very nice properties there will be misunderstanding of it, and it will be applied wrongly in nearly every situation. It will fail less than it should, because the "brick wall" that should be hit will also have the same misconceptions about finance.
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 04:26:15PM -0500, Bryan Bishop wrote:
No proposed implementation but here's some fun ideas:
http://digitalinterface.blogspot.com/2014/03/strangecoin-proposal-for-nonlin...
""" What's unique about Strangecoin?
- Strangecoin transactions can be *nonzero sum*. A Strangecoin transaction might result in *both* parties having more Strangecoin. - Strangecoin transactions can be *one-sided* and can be conducted entirely by only one party to the transaction. - The rate of change of one's Strangecoin balance is a more important indicator of economic influence than the balance itself. - Optimal investment strategy in Strangecoin aims to *stabilize* one's balance of Strangecoin. - A universal account provides all users a basic Strangecoin income, effectively unlimited wealth, and direct feedback on the overall prosperity of the network.
This is exceedingly and wonderfully strange. Let me suggest point 1 can be easily prototyped with a negative transaction fee using an existing coin (might I also suggest a copycatcoin) However, I think the phrase 'effectively unlimited wealth' is a dangerous phrase, as there are some things which are effectively unlimited, like the amount of solar energy that could be captured using existing rooftops. But what is limited is the *time and attention* of the people who know how to install and maintain said rooftop solar. I think it is wise to separate 'basic needs' from 'wealth wants' and that one can be quite happy and content with all basic needs met, but very little wealth. My view is unlimited wealth is somewhat of an inherent contradiction in terms. The very function of 'wealth' is to provide a sorting function
....
As the example suggests, the dynamics of Strangecoin might be usefully thought of in terms of a "reputation system" rather than a strictly financial tool, even though the basic mechanics involve the regular method of exchanging currency for goods perceived by both parties to be of equal value. Because of the nonlinear relationships among Strangecoin users, each user effectively draws on a network of support in each economic transaction, coupling its activity to the successes (and failures) of the that network of activity. The result is a model of the complex interdependencies within a community of economic agents, and the dynamics by which those networks develop and decay. For this reason, Strangecoin might have implications for quantifying the role of individual choices and responsibility in the context of corporate action, and for resolving other difficult issues in the management and ethics of collective economic action. """
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7494709
""" Other comments suggest that this can be implemented with existing tools, which I take as a virtue of the proposal.
In any case, John von Neumann proved a long time ago that any nonzero sum game with n players can be modeled as a zero sum game with n+1 players, where the n+1 player represents the global state. TUA is simply an implementation of this proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game#Extensions
I tried to explain inhibition in another comment in this thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7496858
I give an an analogy in the proposal of the popularity of a celebrity couple being a nonlinear relationship to the popularity of each celebrity individually. I think our intuitive understanding of our social relationships is nonlinear in this way generally, and I think Strangecoin can model those nonlinear relationships well.
So, for instance, I'm imagining a family, spouses, close friends, and so on entering into extended coupling transactions, so that as a community their prosperity rises and falls together. I might also enter into such transactions with certain business with whom I want to couple my activities, and these coupling transactions might serve in lieu of direct billing or payment. A coupling relationship with a business is effectively a contract, but with traditional currency you need the whole legal framework of contracts to support the transaction, and with Strangecoin the transaction is built directly into the currency, and the interface looks almost exactly like a point-of-sale cash transaction.
And I can enter into less serious relationships of varying degrees with other parties. The effect is a way of managing not just financial transactions, but also reputation, investment, and other dynamics social constraints on the economy via the currency itself. Money is memory ( http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr218.pdf), but our existing currencies only represent some aspects of our economic activity, and therefore put limits on the memory stored in the economy. A nonlinear coin like Strangecoin can embed that social knowledge in the currency itself, providing a more robust memory framework on which we can conduct our economic transactions.
I only hint at this in the proposal, but I suspect a system like this is required to resolve the twisted legal artifice the corporate veil, because it quantifies explicitly the role individuals have in collective economic activity, and thereby gives a method for explicitly holding persons proportionally responsible (in both credit and blame) for their contributions to that activity.
But I think that's a much more radical proposal than the one I've offered for Strangecoin, and I should probably only be defending that here. =) """
- Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Troy Benjegerdes 'da hozer' hozer@hozed.org 7 elements earth::water::air::fire::mind::spirit::soul grid.coop Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel, nor try buy a hacker who makes money by the megahash
participants (3)
-
Bryan Bishop -
Lodewijk andré de la porte -
Troy Benjegerdes