Read the ungated one, it’s not particularly revolutionary or impressive, and contains much which is wildly inaccurate.
However, here’s some actual deep, pioneering work by @evoskuil on cryptoeconomics:https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Cryptoeconomics …
O...k?! You have a different definition of "irrelevant" than I do. Sounds hella confusing to me, but must be the fact that I'm not a native speaker ;-)
-
-
You seem to have a unique interpretation of ignore. If something is valued at zero it is not ignored - it has been considered.
-
You just made it more confusing... So you value hardware cost at zero always, now & future? And because you treat this cost as zero it doesn't factor into your Bitcoin security calculation? But you don't call this... ignoring?
-
Maybe you should follow my subsequent posts.
-
Read it, don't agree with it. What you call "absolute", I call extremely simplified abstraction of reality. What you call "relative", I call that real-world economics. Your theory is only as good as situations & factors on the ground.https://twitter.com/evoskuil/status/1029206261047279619 …
-
You can call things whatever you want, but it doesn’t qualify as an argument. Nor does stating you disagree. Saying something is “on the ground” doesn’t mean anything except maybe that it’s not airborne. If you have something meaningful to add I’m happy to discuss.
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.
