Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,842
edits
Talk:The Consumerium Exchange: Difference between revisions
m
Reverted edits by 46.161.9.22 (talk) to last revision by Juboxi
No edit summary |
m (Reverted edits by 46.161.9.22 (talk) to last revision by Juboxi) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===Notes on Practical Issues=== | |||
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. | |||
mmm | |||
: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... | ||
---- | ---- | ||
==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 58: | Line 48: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
== | == 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 69: | Line 59: | ||
:::Involving money is unegalitarian | :::Involving money is unegalitarian | ||
::::Not as much as involving all that junk you list at [[ | ::::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]]. | |||
:::::::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 80: | 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 94: | 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! ;-)). | ||
| Line 110: | 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== | ||
| Line 123: | Line 131: | ||
: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. | |||