yyyyip

This lack of governance as well as scarcity consensus is by far the strongest mechanism to maintain a scarce supply that we have in existence. It is not totally infallible - maybe a superhuman AI could social engineer the entire bitcoin community to increase the cap. But it is the best I can imagine is possible. The network effect of more people buying into it makes that 21 million meme stronger and stronger, and satoshi being "gone" reduces the risk that he comes back and declares that he has "changed his mind". Even if he did do that the core 21 million devotees will fork the coin to a 21 million and that will be the truly scarce bitcoin.

Therefore, this is the most securely scarce asset in existence.

Here's a tune I made with Fiverr.

Bassist from venezuela, rhodes keyboard from greece, rapper from washington dc, rhythm guitar from finland, jazz guitar from USA, mastered by a guy in croatia.

I think Doctors (I am one) definitely err on the side of overtreating in those uncertain situations. Just like politicians, it feels more caring to act than to not act.

If you MRI 1000 people and leave the vague results in the hands of a bunch of physicians, they will tend to be interventional. This will lead to a spate of overtreatment.

Ways around this would be to consent patients for watchful waiting in the case of uncertain lesions. Even so, telling people they have weird looking lumps that you're not going to treat will cause serious anxiety.

This seems like the first actual bit of interesting innovation in smartphones in about a decade..

Do hedge fund investors keep an eye on whether you do what you say? How did Bernie Madoff go for so long if that's the case?

Of course the mechanism is simple and mechanical, but that isn't how you'd market it to investors.

I'll go read the Lo paper...

Say I set up a fund holding a low cost s&p500 index ETF, but at the end of each year sold naked puts with a ~1/25 risk of ruin to earn ~4% return. Therefore my fund consistently makes 4% over the market index, except for 1/25 years when it explodes and loses everything. Because the volatility is low, my sharpe ratio is good (until it explodes), correct?

Assuming it can stay in business >10-15 years won't I be a billionaire hedge fund manager by then and then change to a low risk strategy that only makes 1-2% more than market index with very low risk of ruin and just let my investors lose interest and quit the fund over the next decade while I continue to earn fees from them?

Honestly, who wants to be a billionaire at this point? Even if you promise to give away 99% of your money everyone still hates you.

I just bought quite a few back @ $3800.

You get used to it, this is my 3rd or 4th >80% drawdown. Still remember $30->$2 in 2011/12

Do you then admit that tribes can adapt cognitively depending on their environment? Or does adaptation only occur below the neck?

Finally, cryptocurrencies with fixed, limited inflation schedules provide a competitive non-inflationary alternative to state issued currency.

I mean that if you can produce a fingerprint image corresponding to a blockchain hash and it matches your fingerprint 20 years later, and this is linked to 20 years worth of blockchain recorded credential information, I would find that very compelling evidence that you are who you say you are.

ok Apoorv, if you want credentials, here's Hayek's speech agreeing with me.

https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/la...

If someone had made up a fake Nobel prize in psychology I would diminishing the legitimacy of that too.

The field of economics is far, far less rigorous than any of the hard sciences for which Nobel prizes are awarded. The fake Nobel prize for economics is strongly disputed by much of the Nobel family, Keynes, and it makes economists act more blowhard, self-congratulatory and self-important than they already do.

I say this as someone spends a fair chunk of my time reading economics books and blogs.

Peter Nobel, a human rights lawyer and great grandson of Alfred Nobel explained that "Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society's well-being", saying that "There is nothing to indicate that he would have wanted such a prize", and that the association with the Nobel prizes is "a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation".

So often I read some bullshit article with a headline touting the author as being a nobel prize winner, and it is always the economics prize. It debases the achievements of other nobel prize winners, both in hard science and in literature/peace.

Even Hayek himself was against the Nobel prize for economics because: "The Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.... This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally."