reply on: Prediction Markets Have an Elections Problem \ stacker news ~oracle

pull down to refresh

503 sats \ 5 replies \ @ek 1 Feb \ parent \ on: Prediction Markets Have an Elections Problem oracle

But when the stakes are really high, there's a phase transition, and I expect more conspiracies, not less. I'm a fat tail conspiracy theorist maybe.

I think you're onto something there. :)

But aren't the stakes with bitcoin already quite high? Will not anyone who holds bitcoin (in a non-custodial way) today more or less be public enemy no. 1 in the future depending on which side of history we will find ourselves?

But yes, you're also right here:

Anyone who's ever managed a large group should know how impossible it is to orchestrate things like that.

So I guess you're onto two things actually! It might just come down to personal preference. I rather be too paranoid and suffer the consequences from that than to not have been paranoid enough and suffer the consequences¹ from that.

However, these consequences might only be potential while being too paranoid has direct consequences on your mental health. ↩

390 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury OP 1 Feb

I rather be too paranoid and suffer the consequences from that than to not have been paranoid enough and suffer the consequences

That's pretty wise, on the individual level, if you can walk the line and weight your response by riskiness, or maybe, credible riskiness, as Ray Dalio might say. Easier said than done over time, though.

341 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 1 Feb

I rather be too paranoid and suffer the consequences from that than to not have been paranoid enough and suffer the consequences from that.

Now you're onto something. Whether you allow more type I or type II errors should depend on the costliness of each type of error. Oftentimes, the cost of subscribing to a false conspiracy theory is just looking silly, while ignoring a true conspiracy theory might come at a ruinous cost.

618 sats \ 2 replies \ @elvismercury OP 1 Feb

Now you're onto something. Whether you allow more type I or type II errors should depend on the costliness of each type of error.

That's true. However:

Oftentimes, the cost of subscribing to a false conspiracy theory is just looking silly, while ignoring a true conspiracy theory might come at a ruinous cost.

It's not a one-time game. There's a cost to crying wolf, or heeding the cry. The cost of endless conspiracy theories that you either promote or accept is that both your credibility and your discernment trend to zero, which hurts both you and the community in which you operate -- and possibly the world, if you want to really get serious.

The damage done to btc adoption by having its most prominent and loudest voices be a mental landfill of extremism, midwit pseudo-intellectual blathering, and aggression, is hard to understate. If you think btc is an important thing for the world, then setting adoption back a decade by these folks being the public face of it [1] should make you upset.

[1] Of course the public face is always in the process of shifting. But this was true for a long time and is still significantly true.

155 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 1 Feb

All valid points and I didn't say anything about how you should be probability weighting when updating/forming opinions too. So, any utterly preposterous theories should be rejected regardless of how costly they'd be if true.

I was more thinking about competing explanations that have similar levels of plausibility.

290 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 1 Feb

The damage done to btc adoption by having its most prominent and loudest voices be a mental landfill of extremism, midwit pseudo-intellectual blathering, and aggression, is hard to understate. If you think btc is an important thing for the world, then setting adoption back a decade by these folks being the public face of it [1] should make you upset.

Yeah, I think these public figures totally ignore that you have to meet people where they are if you really want to convince them.

Footnotes