most of the counterparties would either not pay out or would be insolvent in the event of a payout
At this rate there is unlikely to be any counterparties, despite me being the one taking a financial risk. I suppose that rationalists have begun updating on this question, or simply not many people saw the bet.
Out of curiosity, since you mention evidence, what odds would you find acceptable? (In the non-escrow case, where I will pay immediately but you don't)
I'm sorry, but 20:1 is too low for me.
(we already talked previously)
Not that it matters, but I don't believe that we did. I'm a different user.
what odds would you allow for someone willing to put their money in escrow?
75:1
Sure. If you could document liquid assets of an amount where paying off the bet would not appear to present any financial issue, I would go as low as 100 to 1.
Not simply if new claims are made, but if new evidence emerges and is confirmed by the same standards used in Yudkowsky's bet. In contrast to my bet, Yudkowsky didn't want the criteria to include new events that emerged after the bet was made. In my bet, non-prosaic origins of any past evidence or evidence that emerges during the 3 year interval is fair game.
I'm a different person from the thread maker. I'll agree to 150:1 odds and pay out $1000 if I can get some assurance of your reputability. You can see the details of my bet here.
I'm a different person starting a new bet like this one. I'm looking for 150:1 odds for a 3 year time frame. I suspect people are less willing to make this bet today than they were in July.
(Edit: I am not the user RatsWrongAboutUAP.)
I'm offering a new bet along similar lines to Yudkowsky's bet with the user RatsWrongAboutUAP in this thread last month. My bet has these similarities (here added explicitly after some confusion in the comments):
Mine doesn't either, I only ask for a credible reputation. My offer was to lower the odds from 150:1 to 100:1 if the other party would give additional financial evidence.
For the people who got better than 150:1. But otherwise, I think that my bet is more appealing due to the reduced time frame. But more importantly: the ontology most frequently professed on LW, at least formerly, could not consistently allow for accepting this bet at 50:1 yet not at 150:1.
... (read more)