Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - axismoto

Quote from: psztorc on June 19, 2014, 07:46:00 PM

Good + Crazy = ?
Another idea, the NashX idea, is to just destroy all Trader's money if the network fails to agree (Global Certainty between .4 and .6). This has the drawback of being insane, but it is very incentive-compatible. You would not 51% attack such a network (buy up 40-60% of the Votecoins solely to gain nothing).

People don't usually like this because they intuitively perceive something called the "trembling hand" (accidental / irrational / forward-induction-threat-credibility-building-rational destruction of their entire payout). I don't think the trembling hand is as relevant here, as we can make it costly and complicated to trigger, with multiple people needing to make costly mistakes.

How would that solve anything?-- According to your definition Global Certainty is a aggregate average of all decision contracts.  A attack could just vote correctly for 99% of all decision contracts to make Global Certainity at 99%, but vote against one decision contract-- the Hillary Election 2016 that has millions on the line. 

Would it be better to refine this-- Global Uncertanty Penalty for specific contracts.  Only top 5% (or something else) Decision Contracts by truthcoin market value would be subjected to this penalty.  Where if a contract represents greater than 5% in value out of all those in the period and network fails to agree on its particular outcome, then the money in that decision contract would get destroyed.  So instead of destroy the trades of all decision contracts-- you would be destroying the one contract.
Development / Re: Branching
May 30, 2014, 01:00:36 AM

Maybe some developer could answer this.  Could a semi-fork be possible, where the votecoin will be forked into two seperate branches, but still use the same truthcoin pool.  like an embedded exchange.
Development / Re: Branching
May 30, 2014, 12:46:06 AM
Quote from: psztorc on May 29, 2014, 11:44:08 PM
I was thinking it over today, and I like the colored coin idea a little more. It makes creating branches similar to normal transactions. As "normal transactions" already work, this is something I like. Again the crucial thing will be awareness of the colored coins. They can't accidentally be mixed, and people must be able to assess which colors are the 'right' ones to a] make contracts on, and b] own.

A system of tags for the prediction markets (Politics, Sports, etc), coupled with a field tracking the Cumulative Trading Fees of each "color", would be a relatively simple way, I think.

I had always imagined that the PMs would have tags, to be searchable.

How would this work? 
Let's say Bob has one Truthshare with three separate colors: Original Genesis Truthshares (colored red).  FinanceTruthshares (colored blue).  And PoliticsTruthshares (colored white).  Because his Truthshares are colored these three colors, he can vote on all three markets.  However for one week Bob votes on Genesis and Finance Market, but forgets to vote on Politics Market.  Now he faces losing his Truthshares, even though he missed out on one market.  Instead of getting punished for one market, its like he's getting punished by all three. 

Moreover, who will this three-toned coin go to?  Will it go to someone with 5 colors?  Or some lucky fellow who only has one red color?