Messages

> We don't need an oracle to create this type of PM.
> The blockchain doesn't have to learn any meatspace information. It knows how much money was given to the crowdfund.

Yes, you do need meatspace information, to set the Schelling Indicator. Otherwise there's no way to control who gets the money.

> I think you can already do this type of crowdfunding with bitcoin.

Yes this is the Lighthouse project / Anyone-can-spend.

> Couldn't anyone make an altcoin to commit these same attacks that you describe for sidechains?

Yes, but the altcoin would not have sufficient mining power. This is discussed in the blog post "Oracles are the Real Smart Contracts".

A perfect likeness. : )

However, I do not see the contradiction. Conditional on prediction markets existing, one might use a type of market to address the free-rider problem.

X = Blockchain Prediction Markets Exist
Y = Use of PMs to (potentially) address FRP.

So I do argue that X --> Y.

However, in the presentation, I argue that a different free rider problem interferes with the use of blockchain oracles, which are required for blockchain prediction markets.

If we assume:

V = Permissionless Implementation
W = Blockchain Oracles are Possible

I do argue that V --->  not-W.

Since we all agree that W is necessary for X,

V --> not X
V --> not Y.

It's like saying that a sorcerer could use magic to keep himself alive forever. If he's dead now, for any reason, it doesn't matter what he *could* do if he were alive.

Haha, I was never offered nor given any Rep.

There will exist a mechanism to transform BTC in to Truthcoin's "CashCoin". So, you should just buy more BTC.

Unless you would like to become a reporter. I haven't decided how the VoteCoins will be distributed. It wouldn't hurt if you helped with the code.

Thanks for explanation, how many CashCoin exist totally? How will CashCoin be distributed?  How to secure the CashCoin's network, is it PoS or new Consensus algorithm? Where can I find the documents about this?

CashCoins *are* Bitcoins. They are two words for the same thing -- when BTC are in Hivemind world, they are labeled CashCoins to distinguish them from Votecoins.

[move beyond just one new unit of account to a whole system of them]

Over two years ago, Dr. Shiller at Yale wrote a mostly-wrong NYTimes piece about Bitcoin.

( It is 'mostly-wrong' because the central premise "it doesn't really solve any sensible economic problem" doesn't square with the empirical evidence. )

However, he does bring up some "quirky" ideas, for potential Event Derivative assets:

* ...since 1967 in Chile, an inflation-indexed unit of account called the unidad de fomento (U.F.), meaning unit of development, has been widely used. ...  In this way, it is natural and easy to set inflation-indexed prices, and Chile is much more effectively inflation-indexed than other countries are.

... Consider rents. Increases may seem unfair to tenants, yet they may be needed to offset inflation. In Chile, a landlord can easily set the monthly rent for the tenant in U.F.s and then never have to change it, reducing the potential for errors, delays and misunderstandings. The name "U.F." reframes people's thinking so that keeping real economic values stable is natural and easy.

* ...you would just check off a box indicating whether your payment was in dollars or pesos or euros — or baskets. If you check "baskets," the computer would calculate the amount of local currency the recipient would need to buy that basket at that time, and it would transmit it, too.

* A third improvement would be to move beyond just one new unit of account to a whole system of them, so that we could have baskets for different purposes. There should be senior baskets representing items consumed by older people in one day in a given country, as well as subsistence baskets representing the consumption of the poor. There should also be a day-wage unit of account representing a day's work by an average unskilled wage earner.

And there could be a "trills" unit — a concept that Mark Kamstra of York University and I have been advocating — that represents one trillionth of a country's most recently estimated annual G.D.P. There should also be a unit that grows or retreats with per-capita daily consumption. This could be used for pension and Social Security payments as a form of intergenerational risk-sharing: The idea is that payments to older people would rise and fall with overall consumption. With many kinds of baskets, it will be easier to set prices and make contracts that are sensible for the long term.

The great irony is that all of these are possible with Hivemind, which is itself only possible because of Bitcoin. "it doesn't really solve any sensible economic problem", indeed!

There are several differences:

1. Mining pool operators can not steal your money, unless they are re-spending money which they owned pre-attack. Oracles can screw up your bet, and steal the money you've wagered.
2. Mining pool operators do not necessarily own mining hardware.
3. The act of mining is expensive, whereas voting is compulsory (ie, "failing to vote" is expensive).

There will exist a mechanism to transform BTC in to Truthcoin's "CashCoin". So, you should just buy more BTC.

Unless you would like to become a reporter. I haven't decided how the VoteCoins will be distributed. It wouldn't hurt if you helped with the code.

All existing distribution mechanisms fail in one of two ways

Bitcoin's seems to be doing fine. To me, anyway.

How, exactly, is the new system worth 40,000 meals of food (10K more), when nothing of interest seems to have happened?

Its worth 40k because D used POW to invest 10k into it to get control of 25% of the coins.
If 25% is worth 10k, then 100% must be worth 40k.

Yes, yes, obviously. But why did D invest 10k? He didn't seem to get anything out of doing so.

It seems that no one is better or worse off. A B and C own 10,000 meals of food, before and after. D has 10,000 food meals, and switches them from one form to another.

How, exactly, is the new system worth 40,000 meals of food (10K more), when nothing of interest seems to have happened? Could the value have increased from 30,000 to 40,000 *without* D's contribution?

Why don't you write down an example of what you are talking about? Put all BTC and share-units in percentage terms. Do not say "50 BTC" or "1000 shares", just say "4% of the BTC" or "before the dilution, X owns 2% of the company".

I put this here: http://bitcoinhivemind.com/blog/lightning-network

It has many advantages...instant trades (instant settlement), very very low transaction fees, no miner censorship of trades, no miner front-running.

Check it out!

> Could you explain why diluting the shares in exchange for investment at a higher valuation would lower the market cap?

Question contains a false premise. (The words "valuation" and "market cap" refer to the same thing.)

> How would you change bitcoin's reward schedule to allow for a faster growing market cap?

I wouldn't change it at all. Bitcoin is the e-gold, alternative to managed fiat currencies.

That being said, I've previously argued that this particular version of a fixed reward schedule might have some problems, and we should soft fork it to a different reward schedule.

>Can you answer the questions?

Sure, but I don't think they will help, as you are very confused about much simpler issues.


> If a fixed supply of shares is best, why are startups willing to dilute shares when they get investors?|

Question contains a false premise. (A fixed supply of shares is not always best.)


> Can you give any reasoning for why it is bad to change the rate of production relative to investment for new coins, but good to change the rate of production to keep it at a fixed ratio to the current price of a coin?

No.