My comments interspersed
Jim Bell
On Sunday, August 5, 2018, 5:46:29 PM PDT, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I thought about a way to make an "improvement" on the Jim Bell AP.
I think that this will make it "cheaper", faster and so more effective.
It starts from the part that as there could be more assassins competing for the
prize.
Some of them can be uncertain that the prize could be too much low for the risk
of killing the politician.
Presumably, the reward would gradually increase. Some potential collectors
would want to wait, to see that reward get higher. But they know that there
are potentially thousands of others who want to collect the prize, some who
would want to ensure they get it, first.
>But at the same time, because of the possible competing killers, everyone of
>them can even be afraid that another assassin could be brave, skilled or just
>lucky to being able to kill the politician for a lower prize.
So this is already a good incentive to push all the killers to try to kill the
politician for a lower prize.What I thought is a way to make this incentive
even more effective.
Yes.
>"Shared money"
Everyone should be able (if they want) to put their money on more politicians
"contemporary", even on every politicians on the service or others that they
can add later.
Those shared money should be pubblic visible to everyone, so even killers
should be able to see them at any time.
If I understand this correctly, you want to have a given reward payable towards
the death of more than one person. I don't think I wrote this as part of my
original AP idea, but I have considered this as a (good!) variant. Years ago,
probably 2013, I speculated that a Silk-road organization might offer
(hypothetically) a million dollars, per trial, to be paid to anybody who
participates in a criminal trial of a Silk-Road-linked defendant. Say, $250K
for the judge, $250K to any prosecutor. $125K to any (unwilling) prosecution
witness, $125K for any investigator, etc, This would deter any such potential
prosecution.It would not be necessary to name the specific trial, which the
donors don't know because the prosecution hasn't (yet) been initiated.If a
Silk-Road organization made $1 billion in gross sales, and 1% was kept as a
"defense fund", that would be $10 million per year. This would fund $1 million
for each of 10 trials. And as the fund continued to build, the reward
per-trial would increase.
>On the possible interface of the service, it should be possible, by clicking
>on a politician, to see how much money on him are shared with other
>politicians.>So what happen when if one of the politicians that has some
>shared money on him gets killed?>Those shared money will obviously get removed
>by all the prize of all the other selected politicians (chosen before by the
>users that have put their own money) and will go to the winning killer.
>Yes, the potential collector(s) will have to check for this eventuality. With
>this, I think that all killers will then know that while they are thinking
>about killing "Politician A", if the money on his prize is shared with other
>4/5 politicians, they will be now even worried that another killer will
>terminate one of the other politicians, and so then lowering the prize of
>their selected politician as a possible target.
Users will still be happy because another politician has been killed anyway.
Absolutely! You are definitely on the right track!
>Users will then be able to put even 1$ contemporary on every politician of
>their country (or the entire world), waiting that the first one of them gets
>killed.
Then again, 1$ over all the remaining politicians and so on ...
What do you think about this idea/improvement?
Is it clear enough?
Quite so! Not entirely new, but this kind of thing needs to be discussed far
more on the CP list.
