> I think it was "three replications of room temperature superconductivity by X date" or something like that.
That doesn’t sound like a sufficient market resolution condition. Surely it would need to be something like “declared by specific Party X to be a room-temperature superconductor” where Party X is sufficiently trusted by all market participants.
Thanks. And wow, that's as fuzzy as I was afraid it would be:
> ...Willing to adjust this criterion after receiving more info from relevant theorists/experimentalists...
> ...I don't intend to require that replications be published in a peer-reviewed journal... However, I do intend to wait a few weeks/months to resolve so that any pre-print can be adequately investigated...
> ...Since high Tc superconductivity is not my specific field of expertise, I'm willing to defer to a consensus of subject matter experts on whether a pre-print is convincing or not, and I am willing to contact some beyond the usual twitter personalities...
In other words, if there's any kind of gray area in the results, it's going to be whatever this person decides, whenever they want to decide it. Definitely not something I would ever put money behind.
That doesn’t sound like a sufficient market resolution condition. Surely it would need to be something like “declared by specific Party X to be a room-temperature superconductor” where Party X is sufficiently trusted by all market participants.