Talk:The Consumerium Exchange - Revision history

Jukeboksi: Reverted edits by 46.161.9.22 (talk) to last revision by Juboxi

2016-07-18T10:24:36Z

Reverted edits by 46.161.9.22 (talk) to last revision by Juboxi

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:24, 18 July 2016
Line 134:		Line 134:

	This permits several [[faction]]s to develop and align behind different views, and for those who choose a faction or a point of view defined by a faction on one issue, it permits [[buy or not]] decisions to be made clearly. Without this facility, there will be less "green light" and "red light" clarity, and more "yellow light" ambiguity.		This permits several [[faction]]s to develop and align behind different views, and for those who choose a faction or a point of view defined by a faction on one issue, it permits [[buy or not]] decisions to be made clearly. Without this facility, there will be less "green light" and "red light" clarity, and more "yellow light" ambiguity.

	~~== 35o4jcrw ==~~

	~~<a href=http://nolvadexpct.ru/>nolvadex pct</a> <a href=http://buy-diflucan.review/>buy diflucan</a> <a href=http://buygenericviagraonline.trade/>viagra wholesale</a>~~

46.161.9.22: /* 35o4jcrw */ new section

2016-07-15T17:04:19Z

35o4jcrw: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:04, 15 July 2016
Line 134:		Line 134:

	This permits several [[faction]]s to develop and align behind different views, and for those who choose a faction or a point of view defined by a faction on one issue, it permits [[buy or not]] decisions to be made clearly. Without this facility, there will be less "green light" and "red light" clarity, and more "yellow light" ambiguity.		This permits several [[faction]]s to develop and align behind different views, and for those who choose a faction or a point of view defined by a faction on one issue, it permits [[buy or not]] decisions to be made clearly. Without this facility, there will be less "green light" and "red light" clarity, and more "yellow light" ambiguity.

			== 35o4jcrw ==

			<a href=http://nolvadexpct.ru/>nolvadex pct</a> <a href=http://buy-diflucan.review/>buy diflucan</a> <a href=http://buygenericviagraonline.trade/>viagra wholesale</a>

Jukeboksi: moving a note on verifying Direct Votes...

2003-10-12T15:27:10Z

moving a note on verifying Direct Votes...

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:27, 12 October 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	===Notes on Practical Issues===		===Notes on Practical Issues===
	mmm. as you might have guessed the system for direct voting relies on the vote-challenge-confirmation scheme used by many web based services ie. You get an email that says that "somebody (propably you) voted on these and these issues with your account and to confirm this you have to reply something to this message". As to the question of if this an adequate level of security will propably remain an disputable issue always, but will not propably crash the whole system due to the fact that people who feel that direct voting is not reliable can choose to view only the indirect votes, which are authenticated by cryptographically strong methods such as GnuPG.		mmm. As to the question of if this an adequate level of security will propably remain an disputable issue always, but will not propably crash the whole system due to the fact that people who feel that direct voting is not reliable can choose to view only the indirect votes, which are authenticated by cryptographically strong methods such as GnuPG.

	:Never rely on cryptography exclusively. The April 2000 rebuild of the PGP key tree at the Computers Freedom and Privacy conference, in Toronto, was actually signed by Terence and Philip - the two fictional Canadian comedians from South Park...		:Never rely on cryptography exclusively. The April 2000 rebuild of the PGP key tree at the Computers Freedom and Privacy conference, in Toronto, was actually signed by Terence and Philip - the two fictional Canadian comedians from South Park...

Jukeboksi: about the "trust level number"

2003-10-09T10:02:45Z

about the "trust level number"

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:02, 9 October 2003
Line 114:		Line 114:

	::Agora also implies markets. As it is, you are talking about a [[Consumerium Forum]] I think.		::Agora also implies markets. As it is, you are talking about a [[Consumerium Forum]] I think.
			----
			It is not necessary to trust anyone completely - one might for instance trust [[Greenpeace]] the most but only to a "0.7" level. All other organisations could then be trusted to some number proportional to them, but less than 0.7.

			:This makes sense only if you choose multiple "trust roots" and place some numeric values for the level of trust. If you choose to trust [[Organisation X]] most, but choose no other organisations then the number you set doesn't matter since all scores will be offset by this value equally???
			----
	==Reading sessions of strange papers==		==Reading sessions of strange papers==

142.177.82.161: better topic headers, a few more points

2003-10-08T17:39:28Z

better topic headers, a few more points

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:39, 8 October 2003
Line 48:		Line 48:

	----		----
	==~~The Exchange as a Gamlbling Grounds~~==		== Is Betting essential to any "exchange"? ==

	It is not strange. The entire global economy runs on this principle. And this is the only way to make the project pay for itself.		It is not strange. The entire global economy runs on this principle. And this is the only way to make the project pay for itself.
Line 61:		Line 61:
	::::Not as much as involving all that junk you list at [[Hardware Requirements]]. More people have at least a little money than have all of that junk - and almost everyone can understand how to use a bet, since lotteries are so common on this planet, but how many really understand how to use their [[vote]]? You are making it non-egalitarian with a model that has no role for putting your money where your mouth is. If you want, limit the total amount of bets. All we need is the information - so a 5 yuan bet is as good as a 50 billion dollar one in some ways.		::::Not as much as involving all that junk you list at [[Hardware Requirements]]. More people have at least a little money than have all of that junk - and almost everyone can understand how to use a bet, since lotteries are so common on this planet, but how many really understand how to use their [[vote]]? You are making it non-egalitarian with a model that has no role for putting your money where your mouth is. If you want, limit the total amount of bets. All we need is the information - so a 5 yuan bet is as good as a 50 billion dollar one in some ways.

	::::::Putting your money where your mouth is can be done when shopping if information is readily available which is the reason for the [[Hardware Requirements]]. I've had it almost up to the "here comes the funnel and the KitKat McFlurry"-level with your constant betting centric approach and I'm too tired/bored/aggravated to continue argumentating why it's an unplausible idea to involve any monetary transactions within the exchange.		::::::Putting your money where your mouth is can be done when shopping if information is readily available which is the reason for the [[Hardware Requirements]].

			:::::::Have you ever been shopping with a harried housewife with two kids? I think not. No one is going to read a single word in the store, ever. It will all be up to the lights and numbers, period.

			::::::I've had it almost up to the "here comes the funnel and the KitKat McFlurry"-level with your constant betting centric approach and I'm too tired/bored/aggravated to continue argumentating why it's an unplausible idea to involve any monetary transactions within the exchange.

			:::::::Then what is actually being "exchanged"? What is the unit or [[instruct-ion]] or [[socializat-ion]] that one is exchanging with others? You must have some [[unit of account]].

			== How bets would actually work ==

	A bet. This is an actual monetary bet that over a certain period of time, a certain company, product, industry will not violate the norms, or will improve, or will never be red-lighted etc. Unlike a stock, option or bond purchase, this is a direct bet on the company's good behaviour, like a bail bond. If there is no problem with that product, company or industry, then the bet pays off with a modest return, similar to a bond - 5-10% above inflation perhaps. If there IS a problem, the value of the bet drops very drastically, becoming worthless if the product, company or industry does something to get itself fully red-lighted for the entire span of time of the bet.		A bet. This is an actual monetary bet that over a certain period of time, a certain company, product, industry will not violate the norms, or will improve, or will never be red-lighted etc. Unlike a stock, option or bond purchase, this is a direct bet on the company's good behaviour, like a bail bond. If there is no problem with that product, company or industry, then the bet pays off with a modest return, similar to a bond - 5-10% above inflation perhaps. If there IS a problem, the value of the bet drops very drastically, becoming worthless if the product, company or industry does something to get itself fully red-lighted for the entire span of time of the bet.
Line 72:		Line 80:

	::All information is distorted by money, as much as motion is distorted by the presence of more mass, which creates what we call "gravity". So I am talking about the economic law of gravity here - it all comes down to money. You can deal with it directly, or be manipulated by those who deal with it directly.		::All information is distorted by money, as much as motion is distorted by the presence of more mass, which creates what we call "gravity". So I am talking about the economic law of gravity here - it all comes down to money. You can deal with it directly, or be manipulated by those who deal with it directly.

			== Whether social capital can completely replace financial ==

	:::Better arguments and better facts to back them up is your capital here. And reputation		:::Better arguments and better facts to back them up is your capital here. And reputation
Line 86:		Line 96:

	:The basic idea being of course guessing where the aggregate of all campaigns on some issue will equilibrium. eg. What "light" will prevail for [[Company X]]		:The basic idea being of course guessing where the aggregate of all campaigns on some issue will equilibrium. eg. What "light" will prevail for [[Company X]]

			== All buying is betting ==

	::If I own X, it is so dangerous for me NOT to do the above, that I must do it, for fear that others who promote my competitor Y will do it instead. Also it is possible that there will be NO GREEN LIGHT FOR ANY PRODUCT in some category, which implies that you are asking someone to undergo a lifestyle change, that they may or may not realize is implied by their moral choices. So it might be a lot better to think about a basic model based not on the green light but on choices like "is X so much better than Y that I should pay 4 cents more for it?" - which again brings us to quantified choices. Given the price information also, this becomes a Green light (if X IS that much better, and costs only 4 or fewer cents more) or yellow light (if X IS that much better, but costs more than 4 cents more than Y, leaving you a nickel that you could maybe better spent by donating 8 cents (3 of which are tax-deductible) to save Great Apes)), or red light (if X is not that much better, and costs more, meaning that you are giving more money to those who don't actually share your values much, which you could save and donate to those who actually have your values more than you do! ;-)).		::If I own X, it is so dangerous for me NOT to do the above, that I must do it, for fear that others who promote my competitor Y will do it instead. Also it is possible that there will be NO GREEN LIGHT FOR ANY PRODUCT in some category, which implies that you are asking someone to undergo a lifestyle change, that they may or may not realize is implied by their moral choices. So it might be a lot better to think about a basic model based not on the green light but on choices like "is X so much better than Y that I should pay 4 cents more for it?" - which again brings us to quantified choices. Given the price information also, this becomes a Green light (if X IS that much better, and costs only 4 or fewer cents more) or yellow light (if X IS that much better, but costs more than 4 cents more than Y, leaving you a nickel that you could maybe better spent by donating 8 cents (3 of which are tax-deductible) to save Great Apes)), or red light (if X is not that much better, and costs more, meaning that you are giving more money to those who don't actually share your values much, which you could save and donate to those who actually have your values more than you do! ;-)).

Jukeboksi: "McCat here to see you your trollishness"

2003-10-07T22:41:52Z

"McCat here to see you your trollishness"

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:41, 7 October 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~I have to warn that this is a work in progress and the authentication issue seems so massive that someone please alert the [[troll\|friendly trolll]]s~~		===Notes on Practical Issues===

	mmm. as you might have guessed the system for direct voting relies on the vote-challenge-confirmation scheme used by many web based services ie. You get an email that says that "somebody (propably you) voted on these and these issues with your account and to confirm this you have to reply something to this message". As to the question of if this an adequate level of security will propably remain an disputable issue always, but will not propably crash the whole system due to the fact that people who feel that direct voting is not reliable can choose to view only the indirect votes, which are authenticated by cryptographically strong methods such as GnuPG.		mmm. as you might have guessed the system for direct voting relies on the vote-challenge-confirmation scheme used by many web based services ie. You get an email that says that "somebody (propably you) voted on these and these issues with your account and to confirm this you have to reply something to this message". As to the question of if this an adequate level of security will propably remain an disputable issue always, but will not propably crash the whole system due to the fact that people who feel that direct voting is not reliable can choose to view only the indirect votes, which are authenticated by cryptographically strong methods such as GnuPG.

	:Never rely on cryptography exclusively. The April 2000 rebuild of the PGP key tree at the Computers Freedom and Privacy conference, in Toronto, was actually signed by Terence and Philip - the two fictional Canadian comedians from South Park...		:Never rely on cryptography exclusively. The April 2000 rebuild of the PGP key tree at the Computers Freedom and Privacy conference, in Toronto, was actually signed by Terence and Philip - the two fictional Canadian comedians from South Park...

	The dual voting (direct+indirect) system provides improved reliability and flexibility for The Consumerium Exchange at the same time. Due to the dual voting system the exchange is less susceptible to distortion. It is propably better left unknown how people value these different votes on each issue or in general because it provides the intrigue and safety of not-knowing

	~~:Yes, very important.~~

	~~----~~

	This permits several [[faction]]s to develop and align behind different views, and for those who choose a faction or a point of view defined by a faction on one issue, it permits [[buy or not]] decisions to be made clearly. Without this facility, there will be less "green light" and "red light" clarity, and more "yellow light" ambiguity.
	----		----
	==Red, Yellow and Green Lights==		==Red, Yellow and Green Lights==
Line 33:		Line 24:

	:The trust algorithms can be quite individual, or specific to a region (especially an ecoregion) of origin (if the issue is how it is produced) or consumption (if the issue is how it is disposed).		:The trust algorithms can be quite individual, or specific to a region (especially an ecoregion) of origin (if the issue is how it is produced) or consumption (if the issue is how it is disposed).

	----		----
	==Attack Methods and Countermeasures==		==Attack Methods and Countermeasures==
Line 69:		Line 59:
	:::Involving money is unegalitarian		:::Involving money is unegalitarian

	::::Not as much as involving all that junk you list at [[~~hardware requirements~~]]. More people have at least a little money than have all of that junk - and almost everyone can understand how to use a bet, since lotteries are so common on this planet, but how many really understand how to use their [[vote]]? You are making it non-egalitarian with a model that has no role for putting your money where your mouth is. If you want, limit the total amount of bets. All we need is the information - so a 5 yuan bet is as good as a 50 billion dollar one in some ways.		::::Not as much as involving all that junk you list at [[Hardware Requirements]]. More people have at least a little money than have all of that junk - and almost everyone can understand how to use a bet, since lotteries are so common on this planet, but how many really understand how to use their [[vote]]? You are making it non-egalitarian with a model that has no role for putting your money where your mouth is. If you want, limit the total amount of bets. All we need is the information - so a 5 yuan bet is as good as a 50 billion dollar one in some ways.

			::::::Putting your money where your mouth is can be done when shopping if information is readily available which is the reason for the [[Hardware Requirements]]. I've had it almost up to the "here comes the funnel and the KitKat McFlurry"-level with your constant betting centric approach and I'm too tired/bored/aggravated to continue argumentating why it's an unplausible idea to involve any monetary transactions within the exchange.

	A bet. This is an actual monetary bet that over a certain period of time, a certain company, product, industry will not violate the norms, or will improve, or will never be red-lighted etc. Unlike a stock, option or bond purchase, this is a direct bet on the company's good behaviour, like a bail bond. If there is no problem with that product, company or industry, then the bet pays off with a modest return, similar to a bond - 5-10% above inflation perhaps. If there IS a problem, the value of the bet drops very drastically, becoming worthless if the product, company or industry does something to get itself fully red-lighted for the entire span of time of the bet.		A bet. This is an actual monetary bet that over a certain period of time, a certain company, product, industry will not violate the norms, or will improve, or will never be red-lighted etc. Unlike a stock, option or bond purchase, this is a direct bet on the company's good behaviour, like a bail bond. If there is no problem with that product, company or industry, then the bet pays off with a modest return, similar to a bond - 5-10% above inflation perhaps. If there IS a problem, the value of the bet drops very drastically, becoming worthless if the product, company or industry does something to get itself fully red-lighted for the entire span of time of the bet.
Line 123:		Line 115:
	:Having almost read it half way through I got this idea that it might be interesting to have sort of "Futures" in the exchange. No monetary bets I guarantee, but more of a chance to gain prestige as having the gift of foresight or an educated guess in seeing what kind of support different things will aqcuire once voting gets onway.		:Having almost read it half way through I got this idea that it might be interesting to have sort of "Futures" in the exchange. No monetary bets I guarantee, but more of a chance to gain prestige as having the gift of foresight or an educated guess in seeing what kind of support different things will aqcuire once voting gets onway.
	::See http://longbets.org - maybe we can make a close cooperation with them, as they are doing this now, and betting money that goes to charity? I think without money it makes little sense, as there must be some real pain for placing wrong bets, and a way to prevent someone from hedging too much.		::See http://longbets.org - maybe we can make a close cooperation with them, as they are doing this now, and betting money that goes to charity? I think without money it makes little sense, as there must be some real pain for placing wrong bets, and a way to prevent someone from hedging too much.
			----

			This permits several [[faction]]s to develop and align behind different views, and for those who choose a faction or a point of view defined by a faction on one issue, it permits [[buy or not]] decisions to be made clearly. Without this facility, there will be less "green light" and "red light" clarity, and more "yellow light" ambiguity.

142.177.104.12 at 17:47, 7 October 2003

2003-10-07T17:47:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:47, 7 October 2003
Line 29:		Line 29:

	:This process will of course get a lot more complicated in practice due to that one has to take a stand on how to trust direct and indirect votes and further on how to trust different classes of direct votes and then there is of course the selective exclusion of votes that also affects the algo, not to forget the fact that an [[industry]], [[company]] and/or [[product group]] may be targeted by campaigns that could [[Cascading Campaign\|cascade]] to the [[product]] itself and one would have to figure out how to value these cascading votes ... -[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 17:14 Oct 1, 2003 (EEST)		:This process will of course get a lot more complicated in practice due to that one has to take a stand on how to trust direct and indirect votes and further on how to trust different classes of direct votes and then there is of course the selective exclusion of votes that also affects the algo, not to forget the fact that an [[industry]], [[company]] and/or [[product group]] may be targeted by campaigns that could [[Cascading Campaign\|cascade]] to the [[product]] itself and one would have to figure out how to value these cascading votes ... -[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 17:14 Oct 1, 2003 (EEST)

			:Yes, there are [[correlation]]s potentially between any industry, company, product, resource or method and any other. These can be quite strong or so weak as to be irrelevant. Best to think of it as a general map of all to all...

	:The trust algorithms can be quite individual, or specific to a region (especially an ecoregion) of origin (if the issue is how it is produced) or consumption (if the issue is how it is disposed).		:The trust algorithms can be quite individual, or specific to a region (especially an ecoregion) of origin (if the issue is how it is produced) or consumption (if the issue is how it is disposed).
Line 47:		Line 49:
	::This is not allowed by definition. But [[TCE]] having no legistlative support to maintain it's integrity, unlike gov't moderated commodity and equity markets, will have to rely mostly on social control to limit this kind of behaviour. Carefully using FOAF techniques to map out the field and then placing higher value on untainted grounds should make hedgers degrade to just noise eventually?		::This is not allowed by definition. But [[TCE]] having no legistlative support to maintain it's integrity, unlike gov't moderated commodity and equity markets, will have to rely mostly on social control to limit this kind of behaviour. Carefully using FOAF techniques to map out the field and then placing higher value on untainted grounds should make hedgers degrade to just noise eventually?

	:::It is not relevant what is "allowed" only what is technically possible. You are designing a high security system here.		:::No, you can't count on your FOAF map to actually reflect the hidden power and money relations. Look at http://disinfopedia.org for a futile attempt at that. This is far too fragile, [[reputation]] is over-estimated as a way to determine who provides accurate [[instructional capital]] - the [[prediction market]] does a better job, a [[proxy market]] for votes can enhance but not replace it. There is also no [[social control]] that will hold world wide - because there is no [[social capital]] on such a large scale. It is not relevant what is "allowed" only what is technically possible. You are designing a high security system here.

	Now the opinion that X is good gets attacked and I lose reputation for that identity, the opinion that X is bad gets reinforced and I see by who. Third identity exploits the fact that it is taking a "moderate" position, and uses all the arguments launched on either side to bolster its own reputation. Now I have one spam identity that everyone knows is just saying X is good, I discard that, leaving me with two identities with good reputations: one that is seemingly opposed, one that is seemingly a moderate critic, of X, which I secretly own... if anyone has been foolish enough to publish their own opinion as themselves, I know who they are and can work out their motivations and other opinions, and attack their reputations selectively. However, you cannot trace MY three identities back to one body even if you force me to provide my DNA, because I can just pay others to front for me and pretend the opinion I pay them to have, is theirs. The only thing you can do is make it cost me money to do this, in proportion to the impact my opinions have, and that at least forces overall accountability back to the same wallet, if not the same body. See the point? This is exactly why the global economy is built on a casino model.		Now the opinion that X is good gets attacked and I lose reputation for that identity, the opinion that X is bad gets reinforced and I see by who. Third identity exploits the fact that it is taking a "moderate" position, and uses all the arguments launched on either side to bolster its own reputation. Now I have one spam identity that everyone knows is just saying X is good, I discard that, leaving me with two identities with good reputations: one that is seemingly opposed, one that is seemingly a moderate critic, of X, which I secretly own... if anyone has been foolish enough to publish their own opinion as themselves, I know who they are and can work out their motivations and other opinions, and attack their reputations selectively. However, you cannot trace MY three identities back to one body even if you force me to provide my DNA, because I can just pay others to front for me and pretend the opinion I pay them to have, is theirs. The only thing you can do is make it cost me money to do this, in proportion to the impact my opinions have, and that at least forces overall accountability back to the same wallet, if not the same body. See the point? This is exactly why the global economy is built on a casino model.
Line 102:		Line 104:

	:I thought it had fun analogies, but perhaps it is a bit misleading. The analogies being the ability to IPO new [[campaign]]s, the ability to "buy" and "sell" "share(s)" on the campaigns. The ability to [[merge]] and [[split]] and [[Nullify\|Bankrupt (Nullify)]] campaigns. The ability to aggregate information to form all sorts of [[indices]] that can be used as reference points when evaluating stuff. The ability to plot long term performance of different instruments and composites. _If_ the implementation has a proper signal-noise-ratio and enough volume then it could be an another source of information for people trading in real equity markets. Megalomaniac, me?!?!		:I thought it had fun analogies, but perhaps it is a bit misleading. The analogies being the ability to IPO new [[campaign]]s, the ability to "buy" and "sell" "share(s)" on the campaigns. The ability to [[merge]] and [[split]] and [[Nullify\|Bankrupt (Nullify)]] campaigns. The ability to aggregate information to form all sorts of [[indices]] that can be used as reference points when evaluating stuff. The ability to plot long term performance of different instruments and composites. _If_ the implementation has a proper signal-noise-ratio and enough volume then it could be an another source of information for people trading in real equity markets. Megalomaniac, me?!?!

			::OK, so the [[campaign]] in this model is an analogy to the [[stock]] in the market? That at least lets you treat campaigns as [[option]]s of a sort, a [[pure play]] on the success or failure of the campaign itself. I think you should work this out in detail, but do read the Adler paper when you have time. It's a good balance to Hanson. Also you need to understand [[portfolio management]] basics, see http://mark-to-future.com for [[Ron Dembo]]'s model of [[regret]] as actually being the only way to objectively measure [[risk]]. Then you might see how [[financial capital]] is built from [[social capital]], [[instructional capital]] (the [[future]]s we believe in stated each as a [[scenario]], combined in a weighted way, the process and comprehensive outcome knowledge itself). Then it may be more obvious how this stuff must fit together.

	:So whatsithen? The Consumerium Agora?		:So whatsithen? The Consumerium Agora?

142.177.104.12: oop - browser glitch

2003-10-07T17:20:00Z

oop - browser glitch

Show changes

142.177.104.12 at 17:19, 7 October 2003

2003-10-07T17:19:26Z

Show changes

Jukeboksi: reorganizing for readability and distinction of subjects + RE

2003-10-07T10:32:54Z

reorganizing for readability and distinction of subjects + RE

Show changes