Assassination Politics AP
jdb10987 at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 1 00:15:31 PDT 2019
On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 11:35:03 PM PDT, grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> limited funds
>The first number of successful AP influences (proving runs)
might be performed via AP boards that allow users to specify
runoff of their donations, but that do not show that computation
to potential predictors. Such that the influence funds shown as
available to predictors might put every target of influence at the
same rate, or at least raise the apparent reward for all targets
across the board on average given the variety of runoff donations
>This might give the initial handful of proving predictors
equal incentive to prove the system. ie: Whereas a pool
of willing predictors might not be in regional proximity to
the hot targets, this could also serve to level that out,
if again, helpful for the proving case. Similar to leveling
soft and hard targets into easier proofs.
On the other hand, such runoff and or levelling systems
may be seen as artificial market regulations
that should not be implemented.
A few years ago, I heard of a new version of the "Grand Theft Auto" program, maybe it was 'version 5', that was going to have an "assassination contract" feature built in. I didn't, and don't, know anything else: My video-game playing days virtually ended about 1997, and I didn't play anything more modern later, (I can remember when Doom I was thought of as "realistic".)
But it seemed to me that video games, especially modern ones, tend to lend themselves to immerse players in a modern, semi-realistic environment. If we want to learn as much as possible about the behavior of people with access to "assassination contract" scenarios, I assume it should occur in such games. What could have been learned, I never checked out.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 3097 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the cypherpunks