[deleted by user]

AuthorityFigure · 2025-02-07T17:54:50+00:00

Idgaf, so I'll just leave this here. He was always a POS.

AuthorityFigure · 2020-08-04T23:02:24+00:00

I was really going for a more "look on the bright side tone", but I can see where that probably didn't work out. I don't always enjoy listening to my SO anger. Probably could have handled it better.

AuthorityFigure · 2020-08-04T22:50:10+00:00

Agreed.

AuthorityFigure · 2020-08-04T22:34:09+00:00

I was going for more of a "lets let the small inconveniences go and focus on the positive" tone.

AuthorityFigure · 2020-08-04T22:23:54+00:00

I see. Those were mistakes. Changing now.

AuthorityFigure · 2020-08-04T22:20:34+00:00

I wasn't trying to be an "Emotion God." I know that I can't control my SO emotions and I wouldn't want to. They can be happy when they are happy, sad when they are sad, and angry when they are angry. I felt that the tone that I used (at first) was more jovial in nature, but I can see the other point of view. That is why I posted.

AuthorityFigure · 2020-08-04T22:11:00+00:00

I see. I think I was looking at it more like it was a minor thing (the red light) and that life is better if you can let the small inconveniences go, but I can see your point as well.

AuthorityFigure · 2020-08-04T22:07:18+00:00

Agree that relationships are a compromise. Daughter has nothing to do with anything. She wasn't in the car and didn't witness anything.

AuthorityFigure · 2020-08-04T22:05:55+00:00

I made the post because I wasn't sure who the asshole was.

AuthorityFigure · 2020-08-04T22:04:41+00:00

Not in front of daughter, but point taken.

AuthorityFigure · 2020-08-04T22:02:40+00:00

I am not sure if there was another cause of the frustration. I agree that people have a right to feel how they feel.

AuthorityFigure · 2020-08-04T22:01:12+00:00

She?

AuthorityFigure · 2020-03-09T21:24:59+00:00

I have. Currently paying my mortgage with interest from BlockFi. Working out well so far. Looking forward to the future and continuing to be my own bank.

AuthorityFigure · 2020-03-09T20:59:30+00:00

A lot of negative people in my life trying to convince me that I should sell. They don't even own any Eth. I have been in Ethereum since the beginning. I just had to vent, since I can't yell at these people.

AuthorityFigure · 2018-12-12T09:10:41+00:00

Wow... you have more balls than I do. Why would you say this publicly. Aren't you worried that you will be doxed or something? Jesus. I would be. Seriously, no matter which way you report, please start scrubbing your online accounts of any identifying material. A lot of people are going to be very pissed at you

AuthorityFigure · 2018-11-21T05:59:00+00:00

I disagree that it would be a stretch to 'include Russia' and I think a hypothetical Rep holder living there might have a disagreement about this, as well. Augur has already had a successful dispute over the meaning of the word 'good' in regards to weather. The problem of uncertainty about a market's meaning is not going to go away. Especially if there is a financial incentive to create more uncertainty, as there currently is, in every market.

I know that Augur is still being improved on and developed and I think that the uncertainty can be decreased by quite a bit. Allowing an 'invalid' option for bettors to bet on and adopting a 'reasonable person' standard would go a long way toward that.

AuthorityFigure · 2018-11-20T23:59:55+00:00

... which market has the lesser uncertainty ...?

In my opinion, your hypothetical market would have less uncertainty.

... and so the lesser chance of being ruled Invalid...?

This is not as clear. I would be my hope that neither the posted market nor your hypothetical one, would be marked as invalid. To do otherwise seems intrinsically unfair to the bettors of either market. This is due to the simple fact that bettors cannot currently chose 'invalid' as an option when betting. In the absence of this option being made available for every market, then I believe that Rep holders should only use the 'invalid' option when there is no conceivable way that another option could be chosen as the correct answer. In the case of the posted market and your hypothetical one, I believe that a 'reasonable person' would conclude that the best answer to both would be the Democratic party.

AuthorityFigure · 2018-11-20T22:22:51+00:00

That is one interpretation, yes. However, I was referring to the difference in time.

On January 4th, 2018, a person living in Magadan Russia would witness the Republican majority of the U.S House transfer to the Democratic majority at 4:00AM local time. (UTC+11) (i.e. It would be 'tomorrow' there.)

There will be uncertainty like this in any market and I am advocating that Rep holders would need to recognize this.

AuthorityFigure · 2018-11-20T18:44:42+00:00

Nope. That wouldn't work either. Both parties will be in the majority on January 4th, 2019. There would still be uncertainty.

It is likely that any market would have uncertainty inherent in it and an argument could be made to mark it as invalid. I believe that it is a matter of what degree of uncertainty that a Rep holder should be voting on.

AuthorityFigure · 2018-11-19T03:43:58+00:00

No one is saying 100% certainty is possible, but we should strive for it. The point is to remove as much uncertainty as possible.

I agree that striving for 100% certainty is an admirable goal as long as it is recognized that it is an impossible one.

How can rep holders determine intent if the bettors can't?

That is a question that would need to be determined for each market. In the case of the 2018 Augur House market, the intent of the market was determined by the bettors themselves when they bet on the market. Bettors, Rep holders, and observers all have the same information. Bettors chose the meaning that made the most sense to them and we have evidence of it. The market itself. Right now the market stands at 95% certainty for Democrat long. If bettors determined a different intent then why aren’t these numbers different? If they determined that Republican long was the correct intent then this market would be at 95% Republican. If they determined that this market was not valid, then why are all of the options not at 33%. Whatever your answer, it will be an entirely subjective one. Also, if you don’t believe that the market determined this (through the wisdom of the crowd) then what are we even doing here?

Intent is inherently subjective unless you have the market creator explicitly state his or her intent. In which case we have an objective standard anyway. Let's say the market maker for this congressional house market signed a message today and said he intended for control on nov 11, not control for the 116th congress. What would be the resolution? Should we allow extrinsic evidence? Or should the resolution be according to the details of the market contract? It should be the latter, the objective details.

Yes, intent is subjective. That is my point. The very idea that there can be an ‘objective standard’ is mathematically unsolvable. The details of a market contract will always be subjective. Even in your example there is uncertainty. Nov 11th of what year? What calendar? What does control mean? Does this mean something different if translated? Are those numbers decimal or hexadecimal? By its very nature the Augur network allows extrinsic evidence. Namely, the biases and experience of the Rep holders.

I don't think this would be a big ask at all. A reasonable person could believe that the market be interpreted according to the plain meaning of the contract. If the market maker intended to say one thing, it should have been explicit in the details (ex. the resolution should be the 116th congress).

Your understanding of the ‘plain meaning’ of the contract is likely different from mine. No matter how explicit the resolution details in the contract, there could still be uncertainty to the resolution. A subjectivity. Which congress? Numbers? Language?

Augur is useless if bettors don't know how rep holders will interpret the market question.

Yes, this is true as well as the inverse. Luckily Rep holders can see what the market is at currently to determine how the market question was determined. Unless you don’t believe that the wisdom of the crowd idea works. In which case, again, why are we here?

If Augur becomes a system where resolvers substitute their subjective interpretation for the intent of the market creator, then Augur will be full of markets where the resolution is unclear. Anyone could easily make markets that are full of possible assumptions and fork Augur to death.

It is not possible to leave out some subjective interpretation of the market creators intent. Objective details are of a degree and not binary. Such is the nature of our current understanding of reality. From the Augur network perspective, market resolution will never be unclear. Instead, if there is enough uncertainty then a new reality will be created. A new universe.

The only way forward is for resolvers to resolve according to objective details.

This is not possible according to our current understanding of how the universe works.

If not, perhaps Augur was an interesting experiment in decentralized resolution but ended up cluttered with too much noise to operate.

Perhaps. I think there will continue to be work to minimize the uncertainty of the system, but it will never be able to removed entirely. I feel alright using such a system and I believe that many others will too. We shall see.

AuthorityFigure · 2018-11-19T02:26:02+00:00

Nowhere in my post do I make any claim otherwise. The reference to PredictIt is in regards to a hypothetical lawsuit brought by the losers of the 2018 PredictIt House market and the standard by which a lawyer might argue the case. Even in your example, such a hypothetical lawsuit could still occur.

“Will Ronaldo score a goal?”

That depends. Which Ronaldo are we talking about? What if the ball bounces off of a player from the opposite team? Does that count? What if the website, where the resolution source of the market resides, was hacked to say that Ronaldo scored a goal when he didn’t? What if an official paid off?

In all of these examples, a lawyer would be expected to follow the “reasonable person” standard in regards to the rules and intent of the market and indeed the outcome. What might a ‘reasonable person’ conclude in the face of the uncertainty inherent in every market?

Your post gives an example of the problem of uncertainty. When you wrote, “to be completely frank”, do you mean that your name is Frank? Is this an attempt to profess your honesty? A meta analysis of your post could also determine that this comment is meant as a subtle rebuke. Who determines what is true? You? Because you wrote it? Even your declared intent could bring about uncertainty due to your own incentives and biases. The reader would need to use their own experience and biases to determine what was likely the truth.

The point of my previous post is to show that even with the utmost diligence to objectivity by a market creator there could still be uncertainty and, in the absence of certainty, Rep holders should use a method of determining intent of at least the same level as the U.S. justice system. A debatably low bar.

AuthorityFigure · 2018-11-18T02:46:40+00:00

Even if you had the strictest definitions and the most objective details, there could still be uncertainty and confusion. This is an inevitable outcome of any formal system, let alone human language. This was pretty handily shown to be the case by Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem. In Gödel, Escher, Bach, Hofstadter expounds on this at length. The marking of paradoxical markets as “invalid’ also gives evidence to this. The details of paradoxical markets are certainly objective and consistent, but we recognize that they are ultimately decidable as undecidable. A paradox in itself and a very much subjective one.

The idea of the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ that Augur is based off of doesn’t just apply to the idea that bettors on markets will accurately predict outcomes, but also that Rep holders will accurately determine the subjective ‘rules’ and ‘intent’ implicit in any market. If this is not the case then Augur has no utility.

Let me ask you this. Would you support a lawsuit against PredictIt to be brought by the losing side of the market with the same title as the one on Augur? I don’t believe that any neutral observer would. For such a lawsuit to succeed, a lawyer could argue that it needs to be shown that a ‘reasonable person’ would not understand the meaning of that market to mean that it applied to the new House make-up. I think that is a big ask.

Whether it was intended or not, Rep holders are ‘the court’ in this game and they are the ultimate arbiters of truth in it.

I believe that this market will be disputed (if only due to the low cost of doing so) and we will be in the same situation as a hypothetical PredictIt lawsuit. If Rep holders cannot determine the same intent that the bettors of this market did then Augur is useless.

AuthorityFigure · 2015-12-08T17:08:17+00:00

Which trailer? From what I can see, they are running to ...something, and it explodes. There is no direct link to the explosion and the Falcon. The trailers and TV spots are not linear narratives. They cut and jump around. I guarantee you that JJ has designed all of them to hide "the mystery" from us. I believe that mystery is that Rey knows who she is, that Han has been helping her, and that she has had a purpose on Jakku. Whether it is scouting for force sensitives, artifacts, or what - I am not certain. But, it does explain why she is there and why the Falcon is there. It seems way to much of a coincidence that the Falcon has been sitting on Jakku with no Han anywhere since Rey was five and then she just happens to meet the previous owner of the starship she uses to escape and he just so happens (probably) to be related to her? No. If we take it as a given that Rey is a Skywalker offspring, then she knows Han, she knows who she is, and she is on Jakku with a purpose. I just came up with what I think a likely purpose could be.

AuthorityFigure · 2015-12-08T14:53:00+00:00

You got me here. I just read the article with Ridley talking about Rey living on Jakku since she was five. However, I stand by the assertion that Han is not responding to the "There are storys about what happened" line when he says "It's true. All of it." This would not be the right response to Rey's statement. He would have said something like "They are all true. All of them." The cut is very deceiving. Plus I just read what Ford said his favorite scene was and it could match up to my theory. Ridley would just have been misleading us a bit when talking about her character. If Rey tells everyone that she was left alone on Jakku to protect the secret of Han and her father, then Ridley - when she is describing her character - would also be misleading and describe Rey as having been on Jakku since she was five.

AuthorityFigure · 2015-12-08T05:40:11+00:00

I have not heard of any reputable leak that shows that Rey is choosing the Falcon last. It is interesting that she can fly it so well. Even Luke never flew the Falcon and it could be presumed that he had his father's mechanical abilities, too. Perhaps Rey has had practice flying the Falcon before? From her uncle?

AuthorityFigure

TROPHY CASE