DINKDINK

>Given the public ledger of Bitcoin, I would hardly say it has "censorship resistance".

Conflates two orthogonal issues: Identifiable payment vectors and publishing preservation / ability to be censored.

All economic goods experience production pressures when their replacement costs are lower than their market prices. When the marginal production costs of a money is effectively 0 and the market price for new money is >0 (Seigniorage), the long term supply will tend towards infinity. Hence money systems have developed with competitive Seigniorage; e.g. producing marginally more money is in direct competition acquiring the money from a private owner (bitcoin).

This is the discussion around prices/exposure swapping/speculation I wanted to occur.

If someone has the ability to buy yes exposure at 1 cent, subsequently kill me, and then collect 100 cents that's pretty high pay out odds. The potential hitman has 99 cents of margin to use to kill me and still be profitable.

If the hitman buys at 99 cents, he looses the majority of the bet if he doesn't kill me. The person who took the other side has significant margins to protect me (from their prospective they bought no at 1 cent).

at 50 cents we both loose or gain the same amount of money.

I think I'd be more concerned for my safety in case A,B than in case C.

The other dimension of derivatives is how much "Open Interest" (OI) -- or the quantity of contracts/exposure -- that exists for a contract. I think I'd be concerned for my safety if there was any appreciable "yes" OI for the contract that wasn't me. So my strategy would be to buy up all "yes" contracts -- e.g. the people who want exposure to me dying or believe I will die -- so no one has an incentive to kill me.

The available price is 99 cents

>Prediction markets would influence the processes they're supposed to be impartially observing.

Who said anything about impartiality (/cordially a strawman)?

Changing behaviors is a feature not a bug. Your health insurance writer (who's bought "No optimalsolver will not get sick") loses money if you do in fact get sick. Your fire insurance writer has an incentive to provide you free fire inspections because it reduces their payouts. A farmer plants a lucrative but fragile crop because a meteorologist can better price weather risks than they can.

Swapping exposure across space and time is a productive act.

A more accurate phrase is "Event Derivative"

A derivative (a contract which is representative of some good, right, entitlement) based on the outcome of an event occurring or not.

Event derivatives are all around us. You buying fire insurance grants you the right to sell, to an insurance writer, a smoldering pile of wood (worth $2) at a price of say 30% of the unburned value of your home (similar to an OTM put option). An accidental-death insurance contract being worth a negligible amount until the subjects death.

What people often get wrong about EDs is

1. Whether or not they accurately predict events: they don't; they reflect the price, or odds, at which a market is willing to swap exposure. e.g. One pays a insurance costs because it's more profitable to swap risk than deal with exposure.

2. Confusion around incentives: Yes, each party swapping exposure will change their behavior -- which is a feature, not a bug. A company buying fire insurance can now enter into commerce otherwise prohibitive unlocked by swapping fire risk with an insurance writing company who has incentives to prevent a fire risk -- and do so at scale, coordinating multiple parties.

3. Lack of information about unfettered demand for the products. People claim there's no demand for EDs but neglect to take into account regulations: prevent people from purchasing them freely, political manipulation of prices when buyers are unhappy with the market price for risk, regulatory capture creating anticompetative producer protections, observe that because because of bans the inferior counts some EDs have been forced into are insufficient.

The global policy failure of covid has been around risk pricing, risk-exposure swapping, and effective, at-scale incentive coordination.

An exercise: An assassination market opens for the price of your head. In which case(s) should you be most concerned for your life:

[A] Exposure available at .99 on the 1

[B] Exposure available at .01 on the 1

[C] Exposure available at .5 on the 1

@HarryDCrane on Twitter is an applied researcher in this area, read him if you're interested in more -- I know I have.

>Now you know what it is like to be a black person

What makes you think this person isn't black?

Maybe the first step we can take to ensuring all people are treated with dignity and respect is to not assume Group X is that group other there, an other. Maybe we can instead assume Group X is everywhere.

Let's think of cancers as biological errors in the growth instructions for cells. ITT, people are pointing out that ionizing radiation can cause genetic perturbations to cause cancers. Let think of that as a bit-flip in the genetic code. Then commenters posit that "if non-ionizing radiation isn't strong enough to cause genetic perturbations, it can't be responsible for sources of cancer". Biological systems respond to environmental stressors by trying to resist them and regenerate. Each regeneration genetic code is copied. Each copy has some probability of an error in it. Let's call this genetic bit rot. So it seems plausible that if non-ionizing radiation induces elevated genetic regeneration, it could cause an increase in genetic degeneracy such as cancers etc.

Also stressors are does dependent, e.g. despite earth's atmosphere being 78% by volume Nitrogen: the marginal effect on your health of marginally more nitrogen isn't stable/linear. I wouldn't recommend you increase it so much, so to some degree we need to discount opinions that "we exist in a EM/RF soup ergo an iota more isn't hazardous).

Let's also not confuse the ensemble and individual components. As RF electronics, protocols improveve, so does the minimum necessary energy. That is "the minimum necessary energy for 5G radios" <= "the minimum necessary energy 4G" isn't the comparison we should be making. What we should be assessing is going from effectsOf(2G,3G,4G) < Safelevels to effectsOf(2G,3G,4G,*5G*) < Safelevels. e.g. adding another layer of EM energy

I have no idea if the health assertions in this article are true or not but rather than unjustifiably upgrade an opinion of "I don't see how that could be the case" to "that *can't* be the case" I'll stick with the skeptics response of "I don't know".

Developers have no ability to coerce what software bitcoin users run -- that's the entire point of bitcoin. If a competing developer fails to gain user adoption, it's on them that they haven't convinced users to switch consensus rules. It makes for a convincing inflammatory, but false story, for detractors or grifters though (see the myriad of Bitcoin clones: "Bitcoin" KYC, "Bitcoin" Diamond, "Bitcoin" Cash etc etc)