You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Dr_Manhattan comments on Bitcoin Cryonics Fund - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: lsparrish 14 April 2013 05:59AM

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

Comments (67)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 10 April 2013 03:33:20PM 3 points [-]

I think the goal is very worthy, and also interested in promoting cryonics. But why tie it to a particular highly speculative currency? I don't have any advantage as a currency trader.

Comment author: lsparrish 10 April 2013 06:17:48PM *  3 points [-]

They both fall under the category of a highly underestimated long bets in my mind. Bitcoin's recent rise in value vindicates my earlier speculative feelings and makes me wish I had listened to them more consistently (not selling out my personal stock, e.g.). So I should be more confident associating it with cryonics than I was before.

If you think of them as simple independent variables, success for both cryonics and bitcoin would appear a less probable conjunction than success for either cryonics or bitcoin. However popularity can drive technology and vice versa in both areas. So given that both are early-adopter material at present anyway, it is plausible that they would complement / benefit from association with each other overall.

Another point is that cryonics encourages long-term thinking about end of life / post-death long term trusts for patient care. If we assume the thing that makes it harder to win in bitcoin is the urge to spend too soon, this gives cryonicists a competitive advantage.

Comment deleted 15 April 2013 01:14:05AM *  [-]
Comment author: lsparrish 15 April 2013 01:56:13AM 0 points [-]

Even if the value of investing in bitcoin has been underestimated in the past, it doesn't follow that the value of cryonics has been underestimated.

Not what I was trying to get at, sorry for the confusion. My aim is to boost cryonics reputation, and my concern was that e.g. associating it with bitcoin could harm it if bitcoin becomes devalued. (Actually a fairly minor concern, since cryonics already has a lot of early-adopter types.)

Why should we assume that?

Learning from experience. I had 400 bitcoins at one time. Had I held them, they would be worth $40k at $100 each today. This is roughly what I would have predicted at the time, too. I let short-term fluctuations ruin my confidence despite knowing the technology was good.

Beware of the hindsight fallacy.

Yeah. But I have to update based on evidence.

Beware of the conjunction fallacy.

Success of cryonics and success of bitcoin aren't necessarily independent variables. Holding some bitcoins for cryonics could boost the chance of e.g. having assets needed for cryonics research, or having the ability to get people signed up to take advantage of cryonics.