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.

ike comments on [Link] Small-game fallacies: a Problem for Prediction Markets - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: Antisuji 28 May 2015 03:32AM

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

Comments (12)

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

Comment author: ike 28 May 2015 03:25:17PM *  5 points [-]

Large stock market gains are trackable. See the investigation of people who bought puts on airline stocks before 9/11, for example. (It didn't end up finding them guilty, but my point is that it could have, the information was there.)

If prediction markets were required to ban anonymous users, then it might be comparable to the stock market.

Do the proponents of futarchy think predicting should be anonymous?

Comment author: gwern 29 May 2015 12:38:38AM 2 points [-]

Do the proponents of futarchy think predicting should be anonymous?

I infer from the timing of Szabo's post (maybe he says more explicitly, I didn't read it carefully since this is an old criticism of PMs) that this post was prompted by the recent progress of Truthcoin/Augur, a prediction market which is now running prototypes on the Ethereum blockchain.

Truthcoin is fully-distributed (judgments are distributed among all traders and honesty incentivized by a clever majority algorithm), and so whether or not one thinks predicting should be anonymous, it will be pseudonymous.