All of aysajan's Comments + Replies

The main argument here is that at its current state, you have to invest not-so-small capital in order to be part of the bitcoin production system. If no one puts capital, no bitcoin will be created. In this regard, bitcoin is different from all other cryptocurrencies, including Ethereum (Yes, Ethereum also uses POW but there new blocks can be created much faster with less capital intensity). This has nothing to do with 21 million cap or scarcity. 

Corrected. Thank you for pointing them out. 

"what would really be useful is the valuation of a cryptocurrency relative to fields outside of it." Yes, this is something I want to explore more as part of the value of cryptocurrency in general. I am also aware of these types of projects, at least in the mission statement. But I really don't know if that is really something they want to do, or it is purely for the sake of attracting more investors.

I feel like the question of "what is the value of a cryptocurrency" should be different from "what is the value of cryptocurrency in general?". and I suspect that the answer will extend to beyond cryptocurrency. 

I see. I feel that the value of a cryptocurrency tends to be within/relative to the contexts of other cryptocurrencies (e.g. ETH is BTC but with smart contracts!), and definitely within the space of cryptocurrency in general we can see particular cryptocurrencies offering undeniable value such as DeFi tokens or interoperability projects. However, what would really be useful is the valuation of a cryptocurrency relative to fields outside of it. I do know that there are many projects that try to bridge that, but unfortunately the cryptocurrency space tends to be in its own bubble and usually seems to produce goods of debatable or unrealized value (e.g. IoT / Supply-Chain tracking / provenance-tracking a-la NFTs).

For me, it is the latter question that I am interested in. I agree that if the question is about price, it is relatively straightforward. But I do believe that price is an important component of the valuation and the article you shared seems a good start for this angle. Thank you for sharing it.

Thank you for your comments. Those are all really good points and they inspired me with several new points that I need to think about:

  • Value of something has objective (but not constant) components and high dimensional.
  • A new questions is: Can there be a universal/fundamental component for the value notion such that we can use an equation like this: value of something = universal component + objective component to represent value notion?
  • Regarding your last point, I can't help but think that when different people have different valuations for the same thing b
... (read more)
I'm not sure I agree that there's any objective utility to any component of this.  For relatively liquid markets, there is an objective exchange value at any given instant, but it's based on the relative values of the things being traded. I also oversimplified when I said the individual variance in valuation was irrational.  There's LOTS of rational variance - some people don't like coffee, and most people don't need 50 cups of it all at once.   Ain't nothing here that's objective nor constant.  Differing relative marginal value is it.  Without that, there's no exchange, and no value to think about.

For instance, a computer's CPU is measured in GHz, which is a proxy for the number of calculations the CPU can run per second. So it is about one billion () calculations per second. Now let's suppose the number of calculations your program needs to run is , then you can make a Fermi estimation about the program's run time as , which is millisecond. Usually we would expect the actual run time will be within an order of magnitude of this estimation. 

For Bayes Probability, Bayes rule is a great introduction. Yudkowsky’s intro also endorses this one.

I can relate myself to this post very much. I have not used a cell/smart phone for the past two years now, and I don't feel like I missed anything important in these years. I do have an office phone that I can use to call my family members several times a day. I faced the same problem in terms of setting up my university email earlier this year, but fortunately I could do it using office phone. 

Every time when I had a problem like this, I tried to find a solution and usually I was able to find one. So I don't see myself getting back to a cell/smart phone anytime in the near future. 

 Great points. Two comments: 

  1. Ability to generalize is something we would expect from deliberate optimizers. The point is that the strategies of accidental optimizers do not generalize well compared to deliberate optimizers. 
  2. Deliberate optimizers intend to optimize and they do in fact optimize by applying one or more strategies. We would expect those strategies work well when a different agent applies those strategies to optimize the same criterion. In that sense, if the observer is this different agent, then yes.

If you know how the selection incentive works for a particular situation, you can exploit it to your benefit, or at least prevent yourself from being in an unfavorable position.

First example explains why sales people have such a bad reputation. For the second example, apparently products can't actually be good or bad by themselves. So it's the producer who makes the product. Are we assuming a situation where producer is able to select one time users from repeat users?

Can you elaborate your first example more? How does selection incentive come into play in those situations?

One way of looking at biases is that the bias is a heuristic with its own selection criteria. For example, people decide who to trust with authority based on how tall they are. The tall-bias is a heuristic with its own selection criteria (tallness) that doesn't perfectly match what its' supposed to be optimizing for (trustworthiness). You might predict that people would take steps to create the appearance of tallness in order to manipulate this form of selection. Hillary Clinton apparently requested that her podium for a debate with Donald Trump be modified so that both candidates appeared to be the same height relative to the podium when standing in front of them, and for a step stool so that she'd appear to be the same height as DT when they stood behind the podium. One way of looking at the rationality project is that our social systems have optimized themselves to exploit common biases in the human mind. That intersection will feel "normal." Pointing out these biases isn't just about moving from less truth -> more truth. It's also about moving from more commonly exploited heuristics -> less commonly exploited heuristics. It may be that the new heuristics also have serious failure modes. But if society isn't set up to systematically take advantage of them, being divergent might still be beneficial, even if it's not fundamentally any more secure. It's sort of like choosing an operating system or program that is obscure, because there's less attention devoted to hacking it.

The second one is a good example for selection incentive: the incentives are there regardless of what we want. I like the counter intuitive actions in the third example: organisms are deliberately trying to achieve high reward by taking counterintuitive actions.

It's also interesting to consider that the organisms that eat through filters aren't always doing it deliberately. Some organisms may be designed to eat through filters without knowing what's on the other side. They may have evolved to attack a particular filter, possibly after recognizing it, because filters tend to exist when there is some valuable resource on the other side.

I particularly like the first & third one. John and I talked about incentive mechanisms in biological world (organisms, biological evolution, etc.) and these are really good examples of it.

Yes, "amplitude" is a more appropriate word. I've changed it. Thank you.

I disagree. The key factor to observe bullwhip effect is no coordination among players. For example, retailer does not share consumer demand information with the wholesaler, and the wholesaler does not share demand information with the distributor, etc.

If anyone knows about the simulation, and they play to win, they will implement a dampening effect at whatever stage they are (assuming they don't just say something out loud before things start, and let everyone do it). Depending on the exact mechanics of the game, there are different ways to smooth out demand fluctuations at minimal cost.

Yes. The beer game has been frequently used in undergraduate and MBA programs when professors introduce the bullwhip effect.

It can be any real-valued measurement of objects, as long as we can reasonably assume the three assumptions are satisfied. 

Thank you for your well-thought comment. One of the desiderata used to derive the original product rule is to use real numbers to represent the degrees of plausibility. So, it will be very interesting to see if the result still holds if we relax it to be a complex numbers. 

I've taken the test not long ago and I agree it is quite informative. One concern I always have with these kinds of tests is that we tend to select options (at least in some cases) that highlight who we want to be rather than who we really are. I would like to know how this kind of bias is reduced.