So many things about this reminds me of Bitcoin and bitcoiners. Self-interest, incentives, few can take over the world, etc etc
This would have got more love on SN I think had you put “Game Theory” before the video title.
It was a fascinating watch and very well put together.
reply
For sure. Maybe you can post it again with a new title 😉
reply
No need haha. Thanks for sharing it
reply
Just tried to post it and saw that it was already posted, haha
However, picking a territory was nontrivial. I would have gone for ~culture (I wasn't aware of ~videos when I made that decision).
@mf, can you share any insights into your territory decision process with this video? :)
reply
I always thought that being a mirror to everyone would always be better and fair. The good get good back, the bad get bad back. Reward the good, punish the bad.
And come to think about it, this is how nature works. While interacting with the environment, the good experiments (ie new technology) get rewarded with more resources, the bad experiments (ie: getting your armed shopped) are punished with less resources, and usually the level of good or bad is propotional to the size of the carrot or stick. No second chances, tit for tat.
reply
Very interesting. Also very relieving to see that being nice, forgiving, retaliatory and clear can be a winning strategy:
Imagine a world that is a really nasty place to live, more or less populated with players that always defect, except there's a little cluster of tit-for-tat players that live in some kind of nucleus and they get to play with each other a lot because they're geographically sequestered. They will start building up a lot of points, and also because that translates into offspring, they'll start to take over the population. So in fact, Axelrod showed that a little island of cooperation can emerge and spread and eventually will take over the world, which is fantastic.
Seems to be very similar to the game theory of bitcoin.
reply
Video appears unavailable here.
reply