lsparrish comments on Bitcoins are not digital greenbacks - Less Wrong

6 Post author: lsparrish 19 April 2013 06:13PM

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

Comments (159)

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

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 April 2013 09:11:03AM 3 points [-]

due to its deficient monetary policy and associated price volatility it can't grow to very large scales, and by taking over the cryptocurrency niche

I'm also quite worried about this, but on the other hand Bitcoin creates an obvious entry gateway into more advanced cryptographic currencies (i.e. once Bitcoin infrastructure is set up, other currencies can use Bitcoin infrastructure if there's a way to exchange them with Bitcoins, lowering the bar to entry).

I've had all sorts of ideas along these lines, in fact. The main reason I haven't published them is that I'm not sure that more advanced cryptocurrency advances FAI over AGI. In fact, you'd think it would be the reverse - the Great Stagnation may be all that's keeping us alive right now.

Comment author: lsparrish 21 April 2013 06:02:29PM *  0 points [-]

I wonder to what degree FAI/CEV engineering considerations overlap with cryptocurrency/efficient-market engineering considerations. If they are a close match, encouraging the development of the latter would have benefits for the former, and could even be essential to overcoming scaling problems (since FAI is harder to sell investors on than cryptocurrency).

This isn't just a random idea; markets are how humans in the absence of superintelligence actually do try (with some, not-unlimited success) to implement their values. Prediction markets are a possible extension of this concept, but even your run-of-the-mill securities markets are reliant on various kinds of predictive logic that responds somewhat to human desires and needs.

Not trying to trivialize the AGI field since it is outside my specialization, but is there some not-terribly-unlikely way in which a really good cryptocurrency could basically be/evolve into the same thing as an FAI? If so, are there any particular properties that would be likely to nudge it in that direction / away from uFAI?

I'm kind of concerned because I see bitcoin (and/or anything sufficiently similar) funding competition to purchase obscenely large amounts of hardware -- which could possibly even extend to the point of satellite arrays that harvest solar energy, and space based fabrication of new ones. If it gets to that point, we might end up with a Dyson sphere that basically does nothing but compute bitcoin hashes. Extraordinarily wasteful, but not necessarily catastrophic for existing humans if the network continues to recognize them as owners/controllers of the resources in question.

Comment author: jsteinhardt 21 April 2013 07:36:54PM 4 points [-]

If it gets to that point, we might end up with a Dyson sphere that basically does nothing but compute bitcoin hashes.

This seems unlikely. If you're going to invest that much capital, why waste it on bitcoin hashes when you could instead provide a product and sell it? This would be analogous to worrying that everyone will go into the financial sector because it pays so well, and we'll have no one left producing actual goods.

Comment author: lsparrish 21 April 2013 09:28:06PM 2 points [-]

Hmm. I think you're probably right, now that I think about it. The maximum size of the bitcoin reward falls towards transaction fees, which are themselves a small fraction of any given transaction. So there should tend to be significant money out there to reward manufacture of other kinds of space based goods more highly than bithashes.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 April 2013 09:32:11PM 2 points [-]

I wonder to what degree FAI/CEV engineering considerations overlap with cryptocurrency/efficient-market engineering considerations

Basically zero on a technical level. Philosophy of caution overlaps with cryptography. Some econ knowledge overlaps with hard takeoff theory.