All of this is predicated upon one thing: 1 user = 1 account.
So, either design a chain where that is enforced, or design rules where that is not an assumption. Our experiment is based on the latter.
In real life, we do not (yet) demand everybody's full credentials before every interaction; we assume they do not possess a body-double. Here, we assume everybody does :-)
We had a lot of chats about this theme before on Blurt. I can remember even Jacob and Megadrive has been involved and there where plans already to solve the multiaccount problem.
But as it was said on conutless other places: We can't envolve Graphene very well. It seems, we have to wait for the development of a chain on Cosmos hub. It is fact that Graphene has no future because nobody knows the codebase very well.
But now is the time to talk about the layout of a better game on Cosmos. We should not stop to think about how it will work better.
I'm glad they are continuing with Blurt as they move forward with Splash. Due to intrusive government regulations, it appears that for those of us in the U.S. Splash will be (more of) a tax nightmare. Under the current system, our pull from the pool is 50% given to those we vote for. So we only get half that tax liability. Under the Splash model which will be modeled after Whaleshares, we will be responsible for 100% of the tax liability.
Thank you for not only being a catalyst for this post, but for weighing in. You are one of the accounts I look forward to seeing a post by. The combination of intellect and passion you possess and share leaves me grateful.
This right here. The whale that took joy in destroying accounts at the other chains had perhaps thousands of accounts.
Strange, isn't it?
1 user = 1 account. Yes. For voting, yes. Of course some people sometimes need more accounts (for example for different themes).
I think, it's all a matter of definition. People need rules, everything else is unsettling. We have known this at least since the Old Testament.
Besides I'm lazy now... ;-)
https://blurtter.com/blurtlife/@chriddi/qqx8ug
check out the Code of Hammurabi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
"People need rules". Like children. What better trap is there than to encode those rules? ;-)
Every set of rules will have some optimal behaviours, eg, you can be a crook if you're big enough to pay for the law to be friendly.
Once you add money, those optimal behaviours may change to maximise income. Then the game changes. Most people seem to expect the old game with the same rules - not happening. This is still a new science - and far harder than being a mere economist.
Thank you. I know the code - I am a teacher for mentally disabled children.
These children partly can't understand why it is shabby to cut off the very biggest piece of cake, because they are hungry after all and the needs of others don't interest them at that moment. So you have to support them directly with the action regulating.
Is it shabby to farm with 1000 accounts or the biggest stake? It is such a smart idea to make gold from straw very quickly - what do I care about the needs of others?... ;-)
... So you have to support them directly with the action regulating. About coding, great trap.
In the discussion about determination of codes, we must basically assume that not everyone has the same moral sense and the same cognitive prerequisites, which is why nothing at all will regulate itself all by itself.
Your cake example reminds me of a basic, yet interesting, optimisation problem.
How do you get 2 children to share fairly a cake?
As we know, people will look at the tiniest difference to get the larger share.
The solution is that you let one child cut the cake into two parts, then let the other child have first pick of their slice.
The solution is sooo simple... ;-)
However, it is (still?) a mystery to me how we can break this metaphor down to our core problem with many, many children. And the coding of it even more so! But in the end this is fortunately the task of competent mathematicians and computer scientists.
Exactly! The multi-person cake-cutting problem is, however, not so simple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_cake-cutting
It is one of many algos I am looking at - thinking takes time tho ;-)
What the h...! Chapeau if you manage to tailor this insane challenge as an algorithm to our concerns!
Maybe step by step, trial and error? Rome was not created in one day... ;-)
Happy Easter,
warm regards,
Chriddi
That's kinda my job! :-)
Thing is, many of these algos assume an agent-ignorance, a lack of total info, so that agents (sometimes human) act with incomplete knowledge, eg. the Prisoner's Dilemma is only a dilemma because the two people cannot communicate, so each has partial knowledge.
But on a blockchain, one can extract a lot of data so that, in theory, everybody acts from a POV of full-knowledge, not partial. This means decisions can be taken with global consequences in mind. This makes it easier to form allegiances on-chain that can break some of the purity of the algorithms.
I've said this many times, and perhaps takes some time to really sink in to the public: that after writing an algorithm, when you try to optimise its effects, it can end up doing something very different to the original intention.
Just as the 2-person cake sharing is easy, but many-people is hard - not just the process but also potential collusion among cake-lovers.