jimrandomh comments on Feed the spinoff heuristic! - Less Wrong

49 Post author: CarlShulman 09 February 2012 07:41AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (85)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JoachimSchipper 09 February 2012 03:52:27PM *  0 points [-]

If I was initially lacking in the capital to do trades, I could publish my predictions online using public key cryptography and amass an impressive track record before recruiting investors.

This is a nitpick, but this protocol is at least underspecified. Aside from the need to prove that you made the predictions before the events, you also need to be able to prove that you made no other predictions before the event.

(I've always wondered why no pump-and-dump scammers use this: after ten "buy/short <volatile stock>" mails, 1/1024 of your mailing list will have received 10/10 correct predictions from you (and another 10/1024 will have received 9/10 correct predictions.) Which should be enough to convince quite a few to buy up some penny stock (with the scammer taking the other, profitable side of the trade.) In the spirit of this post, it's probably not profitable enough. Or spammers are stupid.)

Comment author: jimrandomh 09 February 2012 04:36:52PM *  7 points [-]

(I've always wondered why no pump-and-dump scammers use this: after ten "buy/short <volatile stock>" mails, 1/1024 of your mailing list will have received 10/10 correct predictions from you (and another 10/1024 will have received 9/10 correct predictions.)

Getting someone to receive 11 mails in a row is hard, because of immune responses to spam. Getting someone to actually read those mails is hard, for a similar reason. Needing a large number of recipients and using stock-related terminology both make it harder. And then, even if you got through defenses and actually convinced people that you could correctly predict stock prices, most of them still wouldn't do anything about it.