# Zolmeister

Karma: 64
• Some highlights from my .vimrc

" Prevent data loss
set undofile
" Flush to disk every character (Note: disk intensive, e.g. makes large copy-pastes slow)
set updatecount=1

" Directory browsing usability
let g:netrw_liststyle = 3 " tree list view
let g:netrw_banner = 0

" Copy for X11
vnoremap <C-c> "cy <Bar> :call system('xclip -selection clipboard', @c)<CR><CR>


Also worth checking out CoC (language server)

• Twitch has recently begun experimenting with predictions for streamers using their channel-points currency.

• The history of central banking (and large scale monetary policy generally), is fascinating. This lecture I found particularly enlightening (George Selgin): https://​​www.youtube.com/​​watch?v=JeIljifA8Ls

Noteworthy remarks:

• Even before central banking, government regulation required banks purchase junk assets (causing failures)

• Nonuniform currency price slippage (when each bank issued its own notes) may have been < 1%

• The National Bank Act taxed private bank notes at 10%, effectively destroying private currency circulation

• National Bank notes were backed by US debt. As the debt shrank, currency became scarce, leading to crisis.

• Canadian banking at the time (not centralized until 1935) was both deregulated and did not suffer currency crises (see 17:54 for graph)

Now, it turns out that the Fed was designed not by politicians, or bureaucracy, but instead by special interest groups (namely Wall St.). See The Meeting at Jekyll Island

• Puzzle 1:

score: 180

• To use a more realistic example, it’s hard for me to agree that a billionaire values their tenth vacation home more than a homeless person who is in danger of freezing in the winter.

I don’t see “value” as a feeling. A freezing person might desire a warm fire, but their value of it is limited by what can be expressed.

That said, a person is a complex asset, and so the starving person might trade in their “apparent plight” (e.g. begging).

For example, the caring seller of the last sandwich might value alleviating “apparent plight” more than millions of shares of AMZN. Whether they do or don’t exactly determines the value of an individuals suffering against some other asset, in terms of the last sandwich.

• What if instead of producing new things to value, people change the things they value. Perhaps increased homogeneity of value creates more efficient economies of scale.

• If I understand correctly, then Rocket Pool fits the bill. It is a network (with mild centralization) that allows people to buy and sell shares of a validator pool. Risk is spread across the network in case of node failure.

Note on 1, the withdrawal key is separate from the validator key, such that one can validate but not withdraw.

Edit: Though I agree on 2, that in the long term the fees such networks will be able to charge will decline significantly.

• It’s not ‘free’, just very very cheap. If food at the mall was as cheap to produce as ketchup, they would probably just make the food free to bring in business.

It’s based on an observation of the continual efficient pricing pressure of competitive markets combined with technological innovation which reduces the real cost of food.

• And when I go spend my money I impose a cost on the world

You impose no such cost, as those willing to exchange your money for their services do so profitably.

• Is working good for the rest of society?

Suppose you do some work and earn $100. The question from the rest of society’s perspective is whether we got more benefit than the$100 we paid you.

We can get more than $100 if e.g. you spend your$100 on a Netflix subscription...

If you receive $100 for work, that means you have already provided at least$100 in value to society. That society might gain additional benefit from how you spend your money is merely coincidental.

• ## Digital Rights Enforcement Agencies

Given a desire for digital rights in the face of Crypto-Anarchy, market-based polycentric law might yield a solution.

David Friedman’s model for market-law involves defense agencies and arbitrators who mediate between those agencies. The system is stable as a repeated game, wherein the cost of fighting other agencies is higher than the cost of peaceful negotiation.

In the digital world, a ‘defense agency’ might look like a professional hacking group. This group would maintain a public identity and offer it’s services to clients that won their case in court. Occasionally groups fight each other, in epic Neuromancer-esque style.

Friedman’s theory uses social-norms (e.g. property rights) as the basis for efficient negotiation between agents. Therefore we might predict that a demonstrably neutral arbitration protocol could form the basis for this new market-based law.

• I was imagining a utility function for fiat with a singular limit at t=15yr, such that any bet paying out fiat is worthless. Think hyperinflation caused by it being obvious that we are facing imminent doom.

I don’t see how stocks necessarily correlate with the prediction you’re making.

• Bet an asset instead of money.
Alternatively, you could bet that market odds will change significantly before then.

Concretely, you could use ETH denominated Augur for a long-term bet, or USDC for a short-term bet on odds.

• I am excited by the self-governance aspect, and the opportunity to live under a more personalized set of social norms.

The structure of monastery is specifically appealing because it greatly reduces ‘distance’ between individuals. See Going Critical.

I have some more concrete ideas about a shared ranch (with fast internet) out somewhere beautiful.

• The premise that psychedelics usually permanently impair your long-term epistemic ability seems dubious.

I’ll caution other readers that fighting a trip is how good trips turn bad.