Answer: Time is reference frame dependent.
-
-
Yet there's reliable consensus on the order of blocks on the chain, so what gives? ...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Outsideness @jpt401 and
... Clearly Nakamoto Consensus practically resolves the relativistic quandary. (No "spacetime" necessary.)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @puellavulnerata @jpt401 and
Sure, but still: If it resolves the BGP coordination problem, it resolves spacetime relativity.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Outsideness @puellavulnerata and
... The two dilemmas are perfectly (formally) inter-translatable.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Outsideness @puellavulnerata and
... Without a restoration of absolute succession, the double-spending problem is invincible.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Outsideness @puellavulnerata and
... If "first" now has to mean: "First from the perspective of preponderant mining-power" ...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Outsideness @puellavulnerata and
... Then we've learnt something about (real but synthetic) transcendental temporality.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
... Inconsistent low mining-power local time-constructions are in error, saith the blockchain.
-
-
Replying to @Outsideness @puellavulnerata and
Thus why Bitcoin is ruled by co-proximal Chinese ASIC hoard-lords.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jpt401 @Outsideness and
Also now the discussion concerns in-universe blockchains, not bc's as implementation tool.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
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.