Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

there's actually a real good explanation why most of our sleep cycles are smoothly sloped as shown in the charts.  it's b/c even though i am willing to roll over in bed, look at the news, and even post occasionally, i am UNwilling or unable to do that btwn the hours of approximately 1-4AM.  that is b/c during those hours i am in my deepest REM sleep cycle which rarely i am able to awaken even if i wanted to.  secondly, if i do awaken, i usually will roll over, look at the clock, and if i see the time being btwn those hours, i consciously will NOT pick up my phone to post.  reason being, i know if i do that i will be toast the next day and won't be able to function properly.  which is all the more reason why TPTB_need_war is either superhuman or is more than one guy.

i'm betting on the latter.

[1715556868]

1715556868

[1715556868]

1715556868

[1715556868]

1715556868

[TPTB_need_war]

Suffering insomnia from Multiple Sclerosis and yes somewhat superhuman in terms of athleticism and drive. Also being 50 means I can function without consistent sleep better than you teenagers. Also the average stats you displayed don't reflect that I do sleep but at erratic times, thus the average makes it appear I am always awake.

And I am a bit polymath (but not high genius level, i.e. certainly not 160 IQ, not likely 150, most probably in the 140s although I am not a strident believer in g as a predictor of intellectual performance).

And I will sleep now.

[vokain]

there's actually a real good explanation why most of our sleep cycles are smoothly sloped as shown in the charts.  it's b/c even though i am willing to roll over in bed, look at the news, and even post occasionally, i am UNwilling or unable to do that btwn the hours of approximately 1-4AM.  that is b/c during those hours i am in my deepest REM sleep cycle which rarely i am able to awaken even if i wanted to.  secondly, if i do awaken, i usually will roll over, look at the clock, and if i see the time being btwn those hours, i consciously will NOT pick up my phone to post.  reason being, i know if i do that i will be toast the next day and won't be able to function properly.  which is all the more reason why TPTB_need_war is either superhuman or is more than one guy.

i'm betting on the latter.

He lives in the Phillipines where the culture's sense of time is often at odds with a Western schedule of time (to not consider this might be indicative of anglocentric bias).

I'm of Southeast Asian descent and have long standing ties to such lack of schedule. I also am a typical college student with mobile devices :p

[cypherdoc]

Suffering insomnia from Multiple Sclerosis and yes somewhat superhuman in terms of athleticism and drive. Also being 50 means I can function without consistent sleep better than you teenagers. Also the average stats you displayed don't reflect that I do sleep but at erratic times, thus the average makes it appear I am always awake.

And I am a bit polymath (but not high genius level).

i am older than you.  and not by much.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

If more than 1% of the top 51% decide to try their luck at getting more after the captain is eliminated, then the captain dies.

Assumptions about the rationality of the participants can become extremely complex. Mutual agent-modeling itself, which that is potentially an example of (depending on the assumptions), can actually go "infinitely" complex even in very simple cases:

In most messaging apps, when I send you a message, I can see whether you read it or not. It places a little "Read" next to the message I sent, like this:



That basically tells me whether you know what I wrote.

But the app could, although it doesn't, also proceed to tell you that I read the "Read" on the message; that is, it could tell you that I know that you read it, so that you know that I have seen that you have already read my message. Then it could go even further and tell me that you saw the message that indicated that I had seen that you had read my original message. Then it could tell you that I had seen that, and then me that you had seen that, and so on without end.

This shows how it is an actual "thing" to know that someone knows that you know that they know that you know that they know, etc. By that I mean, each of those endless possible steps are different. "I know that you know" is different from "I know that you know that I know," which is different still from "I know that you know that I know that you know." And so on. One might assume it's just some kind of toggling, like repeatedly multiplying a number by -1, but it isn't. Each successive state is unique and potentially represents a different set of possible real world implications. In everyday life we usually quickly stop caring or get too confused and forget before these can get nested all that deeply, but now...

Imagine a highly communicative environment where you are making very meaningful-feeling eye contact with someone in the moment, where you feel like you have a rather clear picture of their mental state, and they of yours. This is like a situation where the nesting is going very deep in super-fast iterations, possibly a very richly communicative situation where you might even call it a momentary "incredible connection."

That's another example, with nested iterations of modeling each other's modeling of each other's modeling of each other's mental state, etc... Akin to placing two mirrors opposite one another and seeing the nested pattern that forms and trails off into "infinity."

It is a tangent to remark that "infinity" or boundless possibility is praxeologically baked into human relationships, when there is an effort to concentrate on that nesting and the modeling is fairly accurate (during a makeout or vibing or very same-wavelength joking around or whatever).

In any case, modeling other people - at least during these kinds of interactions - is impossible in the sense that if they're trying to model you while you're trying to model them, you have to try to model their modeling of you while they're trying to model your modeling of them, and then their modeling of you modeling their modeling of them, etc. It's not just a trivial toggling, but an endless blossoming of intricacy.

So I don't think there is an unambiguously correct answer to the pirate puzzle as stated, due to way too much underspecification of assumptions, and I think that's exactly the aim.

But anyway, what of Paul Stzorc's response to Vitalik? Riskless counter-contracts. In general with PoS it seems to me that Vitalik and the other PoS people are falling into the "make the security model confusing enough that even really smart people can't understand it = good security" error. Sure, PoS doesn't seem confusing, but with things like stake-grinding plus an endless parade of more unfamiliar-to-security-researchers workarounds it optimizes for a security model that's difficult to poke holes in during debate, but that a motivated attacker could eventually figure out how to attack precisely because it's too opaque to know that what the attack vectors are so that they can be defended against.

[OROBTC]

...

When I was younger (20s, now in my 50s), I had a job that featured extremely irregular hours (oilfield work).  For some of the rigs I helped service, I had to go twice per day.  For about 2 - 3 months I was on a sleep twice per day schedule (say 3 - 4 hours per rest), and those two sleep periods came at differing times as well.  I did just fine once I got used to it.

And as vokain sort-of points out above, there ARE cultures where sleeping in the afternoon is normal, a siesta when it is HOT and you have no A/C just makes sense...

*   *   *

cypherdoc

I went to look at MY posting times at profile.  There are several hours where I do NOT post.  Does that make meus normal?

[TPTB_need_war]

I went to look at MY posting times at profile.  There are several hours where I do NOT post.  Does that make me normal?

Definitely not green blooded like us.  



Hey Cypher & iCe, wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to squabble any more about scaling and threat issues because there are none. Isn't that worth an attempt?

[TPTB_need_war]

Assumptions about the rationality of the participants can become extremely complex.

But that is my entire point — I didn't have to make those assumptions because the conditional probability of losing 1% to the unknown is so much greater than the conditional probability of losing 50% to the unknown, so that is clearly the inferior risk in an ambiguous specification (which might actually be the captain's information set).

[TPTB_need_war]

But anyway, what of Paul Stzorc's response to Vitalik? Riskless counter-contracts. In general with PoS it seems to me that Vitalik and the other PoS people are falling into the "make the security model confusing enough that even really smart people can't understand it = good security" error. Sure, PoS doesn't seem confusing, but with things like stake-grinding plus an endless parade of more unfamiliar-to-security-researchers workarounds it optimizes for a security model that's difficult to poke holes in during debate, but that a motivated attacker could eventually figure out how to attack precisely because it's too opaque to know that what the attack vectors are so that they can be defended against.

I maintained since 2013 that PoS can't pull from a large enough pool of entropy. The randomization of order can be gamed. Note a natural source of external entropy can't be employed (as this would require centralization).

The excessive use of resources in PoW can be easily solved by lowering the debasement rate (and transaction fees), but before you do this you have to remove the 50+% attack. (So what is the point of the mining eh? You'll have to wait for the details to be revealed, then it will make sense)

And now I am really telling you too much of my design so I will STFU now.

Hopefully I have made my case about Bitcoin threats and the need to keep an open mind to new crypto-currency designs. I don't want to repeat all that I wrote in this thread again. Readers can go back and re-read all my post in this thread someday if ever it is worth doing so.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Assumptions about the rationality of the participants can become extremely complex.

But that is my entire point — I didn't have to make those assumptions because the conditional probability of losing 1% to the unknown is so much greater than the conditional probability of losing 50% to the unknown, so that is clearly the inferior risk in an ambiguous specification (which might actually be the captain's information set).

Ah, that's one way to look at it. I assumed from the way the puzzle was presented that any interpretation that involved probabilities was not be considered. Just because that seems to be the cultural norm for such questions. I think IQ tests are more about culture + a decently high bar for IQ, than a direct measure of anything. That is, over a certain number what they're really measuring is how clued in you are to the tacit assumptions of academic/mathematical/mind-puzzle culture. Kind of like I can usually predict how highly a LessWrong.com comment will be upvoted almost solely on how LessWrongian it sounds, regardless of actual content.

By the way, it seems that I, too, never sleep:



Some of us just have very irregular sleep schedules. I've been up all night and it is now 8am in Japan, and I'm about to do 4 hours a work if I can just get break out of the Bitcoin news cycle.

[cypherdoc]

Assumptions about the rationality of the participants can become extremely complex.

But that is my entire point — I didn't have to make those assumptions because the conditional probability of losing 1% to the unknown is so much greater than the conditional probability of losing 50% to the unknown, so that is clearly the inferior risk in an ambiguous specification (which might actually be the captain's information set).

Ah, that's one way to look at it. I assumed from the way the puzzle was presented that any interpretation that involved probabilities was not be considered. Just because that seems to be the cultural norm for such questions. I think IQ tests are more about culture + a decently high bar for IQ, than a direct measure of anything. That is, over a certain number what they're really measuring is how clued in you are to the tacit assumptions of academic/mathematical/mind-puzzle culture. Kind of like I can usually predict how highly a LessWrong.com comment will be upvoted almost solely on how LessWrongian it sounds, regardless of actual content.

By the way, it seems that I, too, never sleep:



Some of us just have very irregular sleep schedules. I've been up all night and it is now 8am in Japan, and I'm about to do 4 hours a work if I can just get break out of the Bitcoin news cycle.

No, you have the sleep slope too. Wrap it around end to end like we do with finite fields.  

I'm ignoring the time x-axis location because we're all from different time zones.

[solex]

If you try to argue TPTB don't exist or don't intend to do this, then I have no rebuttal other than  

They don't exist as the monolithic self conscious entity that you picture.

Thanks for calling this out.
I, for one, really struggle dissecting the good points (and there are many) from posts which are framed within a TPTB, NWO or a (Blacklist-style) Cabal world-view.

[cypherdoc]

If you try to argue TPTB don't exist or don't intend to do this, then I have no rebuttal other than  

They don't exist as the monolithic self conscious entity that you picture.

Thanks for calling this out.
I, for one, really struggle dissecting the good points (and there are many) from posts which are framed within a TPTB, NWO or a (Blacklist-style) Cabal world-view.

The good points are there but the method keeps changing depending on who's posting. Digital Kill Switch or not depending on if it can scale or not. The unsaid conclusion is always the same though; Bitcoin won't help you because of the coming doom and gloom so you might as well accept your current masters.

[vokain]

If you try to argue TPTB don't exist or don't intend to do this, then I have no rebuttal other than  

They don't exist as the monolithic self conscious entity that you picture.

Thanks for calling this out.
I, for one, really struggle dissecting the good points (and there are many) from posts which are framed within a TPTB, NWO or a (Blacklist-style) Cabal world-view.

To me, nefarious PTB are what most term in a conspiratorial light. Those that conceal the truth via disinformation obfuscation and other games usually do it in an us vs. them frame. The prototypical battle between light and dark, whether in the confines of our minds or the actions we chose to take between each other. The thing is, how are we to know one from the other without the other?

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

Thank you.

edit:

[TPTB_need_war]

The good points are there but the method keeps changing depending on who's posting. Digital Kill Switch or not depending on if it can scale or not. The unsaid conclusion is always the same though; Bitcoin won't help you because of the coming doom and gloom so you might as well accept your current masters.

I hope some investors have reading comprehension and memory retention that you seem to lack.

Or you are intentionally disingenuous.

For example, I present the outline of a design which solves the problem then you allege I am pushing that we accept our current masters 

[TPTB_need_war]

I, for one, really struggle dissecting the good points (and there are many) from posts which are framed within a TPTB, NWO or a (Blacklist-style) Cabal world-view.

You won't have the problem with recognizing reality (of a boot on your face) in a few more years. But by that time it will presumably be too late for you to act on the realization.

For example, you prefer to live in delusion and denial of Anthony Sutton's detailed research. You ignore Larry Summers blatant record and current actions. Guess you ignored my link to the Princess of the Orient documentary as well.

Probably you just don't want to know (accept), thus you won't until it is too late for you.

I don't know why it is so impossible for you all to comprehend the concept of a power vacuum. A 160 IQ high genius first mentioned that two word phrase to me and I instantly got the point. But you all can't seem to conceptualize what "power vacuum" means.

Use the example of my answer to the pirate booty question as an example of how I am able to conceptualize and pull out the generative essence that most people can not.

So yes you struggle, but that doesn't mean you are correct.

[cypherdoc]

The good points are there but the method keeps changing depending on who's posting. Digital Kill Switch or not depending on if it can scale or not. The unsaid conclusion is always the same though; Bitcoin won't help you because of the coming doom and gloom so you might as well accept your current masters.

I hope some investors have reading comprehension and memory retention that you seem to lack.

Or you are intentionally disingenuous.

For example, I present the outline of a design which solves the problem then you allege I am pushing that we accept our current masters 

The example being part of a bizarre strategy of offering hope beyond your alleged flaws in Bitcoin.

Your whole position, sales pitch, and illogical presumptions are a Sybil attack unto itself. "5000 years of slavery and domination, including Bitcoin, yet for $10000, I have the solution".

[TPTB_need_war]

The good points are there but the method keeps changing depending on who's posting. Digital Kill Switch or not depending on if it can scale or not. The unsaid conclusion is always the same though; Bitcoin won't help you because of the coming doom and gloom so you might as well accept your current masters.

I hope some investors have reading comprehension and memory retention that you seem to lack.

Or you are intentionally disingenuous.

For example, I present the outline of a design which solves the problem then you allege I am pushing that we accept our current masters  

The example being part of a bizarre strategy of offering hope beyond your alleged flaws in Bitcoin.

Your whole position, sales pitch, and illogical presumptions are a Sybil attack unto itself. "5000 years of slavery and domination, including Bitcoin, yet for $10000, I have the solution".

How much BTC would you like to bet on that the claim that I am only offering hope and not a solution?

Define the parameters of the bet.

I warned you 100 pages ago that you are going to eat your words. I am not posturing. I am entirely serious about having solved the major problems that no one else has in crypto-currency.

All who doubt me will be humiliated.

Just continue trying to convince yourself that I am not the real deal. You will be late to the party and then I can point out how you missed the train by a country mile.

[cypherdoc]

The good points are there but the method keeps changing depending on who's posting. Digital Kill Switch or not depending on if it can scale or not. The unsaid conclusion is always the same though; Bitcoin won't help you because of the coming doom and gloom so you might as well accept your current masters.

I hope some investors have reading comprehension and memory retention that you seem to lack.

Or you are intentionally disingenuous.

For example, I present the outline of a design which solves the problem then you allege I am pushing that we accept our current masters  

The example being part of a bizarre strategy of offering hope beyond your alleged flaws in Bitcoin.

Your whole position, sales pitch, and illogical presumptions are a Sybil attack unto itself. "5000 years of slavery and domination, including Bitcoin, yet for $10000, I have the solution".

How much BTC would you like to bet on that the claim that I am only offering hope and not a solution?

Define the parameters of the bet.

I warned you 100 pages ago that you are going to eat your words. I am not joking.

Only an idiot would even propose such a bet as the conclusion of such a bet could not even begun to be assessible for at least a decade.

[TPTB_need_war]

Only an idiot would even propose such a bet as the conclusion of such a bet could not even begun to be assessible for at least a decade.

It will be clear from the analysis of the technical merits and also the shift in the community's thinking.

Right now you are all are just thinking I am bullshitting or that I have some flaw due to lack of peer review.

That is amusing when a technical idiot calls an expert an idiot.