at least when humans are making the deliveries there's an incentive for the payload to be not-immediately-harmful
-
-
I agree. Or I can find you and might in theory win my case, but don't have $30,000 to pursue you paying me $500 for my cat. You know this and laugh in my face.
-
i also laugh at your yelp review and social media storm
-
I get my revenge by ordering from you from hotel room and stealing the bot. I reprogram them to be 'mine' and open pizza shop in another town. Greed spreads this cycle til all pizza shops are run by criminal gangs and no one else can start one.
-
speaking of threat modeling... if you want to check out something unusual, here's an experiment i'm planning. i've been getting only positive feedback for some reason, so i'd love to have a more critical eye: https://circulation.msiegel.org/
-
OK, immediate reaction - sounds like you want to loan me money at a high interest rate. I get $50 now, in 6 weeks I hand out $60. The only winner is whoever defects. It's like a bad parody of a ponzi scheme. I'd rather just take $10 and give it to the couple signing.
-
good morning, and thanks for looking! :) yes, to game the system i think the best strategy is to defect immediately after receiving the first payment. if you wait and *send* any payments it's less then optimal.
-
in fact, participants who act in good faith are guaranteed to give more than they receive. the whole thing is based on an anti-capitalist pattern. since a group's maximum size is fixed and participation is by invitation only, vetting prospective participants should mitigate risk.
-
once the group reaches its maximum size, the scheduling/coordination algorithm can ensure everyone has put the same amount of money into circulation. the money supply can then stop growing and just circulate among all group members.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.