I didn't realize you maintained a ranking of cryptocurrency builders. Maybe you could save the world some time and publish your ranking so we can all know who the top people are without having to actually talk to people and find out what they have to say.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
Touché. No offence intended. I was merely trying to point out that there are stronger participants that you could be talking to. The rankings are public. The evidence is in what they've built and written.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @n00buntu
So far I have not seen any cryptocurrency systems I consider to be good, so if I was to take that "evidence", then my conclusion would be that there is no one worth talking to at all.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori
That's fair, but it's also a bias. The question then is: what if your assessments based on what you consider "good" are wrong? You taught us that engineering is all about tradeoffs. Is the market wrong? Also, what if you are right? What should we prioritise as we build?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @n00buntu
You are arguing my point for me. The goal of these interviews is to gain perspective. That is why I _didn't_ create a ranking like you suggested, to avoid bias in the first pass.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
Would you allow me to give examples of why you need better interlocutors? 1) You mentioned the problem of irreversible transactions and were given a strange answer about a hypothetical protocol yet hash-time-locked-contracts already exist in Bitcoin:https://docs.lightning.engineering/the-lightning-network/multihop-payments/hash-time-lock-contract-htlc …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @n00buntu @cmuratori
2) You mentioned (perhaps tongue in cheek?) the "problem" of sending to the wrong address: This, in practice, is a difficult mistake to make e.g. by typos, because bitcoin addresses have inline checksums and your wallet will refuse to send: https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/checksum …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @n00buntu @cmuratori
3) You mentioned the oracle problem and how on-chain contracts can't enforce real-world contracts. But we do this every day using over-collateralised multisig on-chain escrow for large and small amounts of money: https://hodlhodl.com/pages/faq
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @n00buntu
No, you do not, because it is mathematically impossible. The two generals problem is unsolvable, and is proved unsolvable, so off-chain delivery of goods can never be "handled".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Generals%27_Problem …
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
I am trying to provide an example: I and many others take delivery of real-world goods using multisig escrow to align incentives. I'm not talking about mathematics but practice.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, but the practice is just that: it's a social practice. Blockchain offers nothing new here. It has all the same problems as existing currency, with nothing to add. That is the point.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @n00buntu
Remember the context here is "does this do anything our current banking system doesn't do". In order for that to be true, the government must not be a crucial actor. If they are, we're back to the same system, regardless of the underpinnings.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @n00buntu
The point of this line of questioning is to emphasize how, whether you like it or not, the two generals problem ensures that you will need a third party to enforce off-blockchain activity, because there simply is no other way.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.