Determinations and proceedings of the Bitcoin Conference, 3rd edition, first day

Saturday, 18 April, Year 7 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

In the town of BsAs (what a name eh ?) on this most auspicious occasion of Friday the 17th, the high priests, pontiffs, eveques &c of the most serene republic determined as follows :

  1. That "sidechains" as a stand-alone consideration (a sort of meme, really) don't make a whole lot of sense nor merit a lot of attention, because inasmuch as the principle is concerned, they have always in fact existed, implemented by, for instance, MPEx ; whereas as much as the "trustless" blabla goes they're self-contradictory, in that on one hand they propose that the history of transactions of fractions of a Bitcoin is not worth the effort to secure through the extant Bitcoin methodology, but at the same time also propose that the same history of transactions is worth the effort to secure through a... copy of the extant Bitcoin methodology. So formulated, the cause appears quite plain, and has been long discussed (for instance, in Bitcoin prices, Bitcoin inflexibility) : the desire of they who lost the race for whatever reasons to cause it to be run again. This is obviously understandable from a personal standpoint, but it doesn't amount to much reason in the public sphere. Sorry folks : you should have been here back then. Not being here back then has a cost, and you will pay it.
  2. That the ESP8266 is rather interesting.
  3. That it seems likely there is some mathematical formalisation of "if one blockchain exists, exactly one blockchain ever exists", probably derived from but not identical to "Nash equilibrium"i and the entire thing should probably be dug up with a fine comb.
  4. That the length of Puerto Madero can in fact be covered on foot.
  5. That cows actually go "meuh" in French, a point of some previous dispute in obscure circles ; and that very raw Argentine beef is indeed very palatable.

Draft list, please add your additions below!

  1. A valuable idea with a lengthy history of incorrect / unrigurous application by lay fans taring it. []
Category: Zsilnic
Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

3 Responses

  1. More 'Schelling point' than Nash eq. in retrospect.

  2. But betcha one could prove Nash. eq. of single blockchain.

  3. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Saturday, 18 April 2015

    Well, the focal point is more of a heuristic in the interpretation of observable phenomena, it doesn't actually aim for a rigurous definition. The Nash equilibrium is tantalizingly formalizable, more or less.

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.