I was going to start my comment by pointing out the silliness of your real estate system. Namely, that if people/society were really that fast to adapt, they would almost all work remotely by now. But on second thought, I think this part was actually intended as April Fools material.

Then I was going to say that the BDSM reference is somewhat distasteful, at least to some people. Not to mention it smells of internet exhibitionism, even if untrue. You could easily pick something better overall.

Then I'd say that while your education and medical care ideas are good, they fail to account for the world-as-it-is. It's easy to imagine a world-as-it-should-be, especially if you assume that people/society are different. It's not enough. You have to design a smooth transition from a world-as-it-is to the world-as-it-should-be.

I'd finish by saying that I don't agree with you that the April Fools excuse will let you get away with as much as you think, especially not in the minds of people outside of LW. This post lowers my estimate of your sanity waterline and I'm accustomed to your writing. Linking here from bloody everywhere was a mistake.

Instead of elaborating on the above, I'll say this: Eliezer, you really need to get your ego below your IQ.

The most dangerous threats to humans are other humans.

In what sense? Other humans are certainly not very high on the list of top causes of death.

The usual: curiosity; deriving security lessons; research practice; prolonged & severe irritation with the incompetence of other Satoshi hunters; the outside chance of undying renown & deathless fame.

EDIT: Seth Robert furnishes a handy example of the crappy reasoning & rampant confirmation bias in such discussions: http://blog.sethroberts.net/2014/03/11/nick-szabo-is-satoshi-nakamoto-the-inventor-of-bitcoin/

My response to that is never before has a Satoshi proposal led to a scrum of reporters on a target's front lawn, and also none of them have been sick or old (except Finney). If Satoshi was ever going to deny it, of the targets so far, Dorian is the best. And there's an additional factor here: Satoshi may feel directly responsible for Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto's problems, given that he could have chosen a globally unique pseudonym (it's not that hard) but failed to do so and so put people like Dorian at risk. This is untrue of any suggestions about Wei Dai, Hal Finney, Nick Szabo, etc.

(This has, incidentally, been a good reminder of why I don't post my Satoshi research publicly, and generally limit my comments to debunking proposals.)

Edited the most recent welcome post and the post of mine that it linked to.

Does anyone have a 1-syllable synonym for 'aspiring'? It seems like we need to impose better discipline on this for official posts.

As I understand it, in (a grossly twisted) Kahneman's language, identity is what System 1 is happy to wear, and what you suggest is to use System 2 to pick the outfit to dress System 1 into. Dangerously stretching this metaphor, one has to make sure that the clothes fit. For example, the growth mindset might not fit well if your System 1 is happy to watch TV all night. You also will have trouble if your identity clashes with what others around you wear. It might be enough to get into sweats and sneakers to find oneself going for a run, or you might look silly if everyone else is dressed for a ball. Hmm, have I just switched from metaphorical to physical clothes?

Agreed with the following two clarifications. (1) By first digit I assume we mean to the left of the decimal point so if the S&P 500 is 1864.33 at close the first digit is a 4 and (2) and by Russian tanks we mean tanks operated by Russian troops not a tank built in Russia.

None of those sound like they require military intervention?

Ah, I see, given these estimates, I can understand why this does not look like a Pascal's wager to you. It seems to me that the odds look so grave to you because you gloss over several steps during this potential escalation. For example, "Russians intervening militarily" could be anything from posturing to weapon shipments to a surgical strike to a Czechoslovakia-style tank-roll or Afghanistan invasion. My guess that the odds of the latter is below 5%, as it has not happened since (Chechnya was the closest case and that was a Russian territory actively hostile to Moscow). Similarly for every other case. Note that the scenario you describe (Soviets invading and losing) happened in a much more tense atmosphere in Afghanistan, and there isn't even a hint of the Soviet leaders at the time seriously considering nuclear escalation. So, the historical reference classes do not seem to bear out your estimates.

No sceptic familiar with the Evil Demon Argument would agree that 2+2=4, as this assumes the mind remains undistorted which is part of what is under discussion.

My belief is belief on probabilities on faith in the religious sense, rather than on evidence, as I do not believe such evidence exists.

What you have is a giant circular argument, and therefore useless. A skeptic doubts the senses give actual evidence, they doubt math, and they doubt your axioms of probability. It is downright retarded to use one of those to prove the others.