How would you phrase the definition from a digital economic network perspective? Do you agree that's the core property, or do you see other aspects as more central to the future deployed useful versions of crypto?
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"formalized" by whom?
-
By "formalized", I'm referring to the protocol spec, white papers, change requests, code, etc. These official, network-wide specs can be contrasted with "babysitters", an economic network with no system-wide specification of the economic roles & rewards.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Blame Churchill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_paper …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I predict that the
#future of#money will not be based on#blockchain technology. It will be something like the#LightningNetwork but with channels between nodes that#trust each other = no collateral (BTC) needed. A trust network of debt/credit relations. -
A friend of mine, Simon Funk, suggested that 20 years ago. And the original payment system called Ripple (not today's XRP) had a similar idea. I think there's possibility.
-
The interesting thing is that the
#LightningNetwork creates a very good starting point for this. All that needs to be added is the option to create trust based channels. This channls would be cheaper to operate (less blockchain tx, no liquidity locked up) = more profitable
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I would say : transparent, tampering-proof network with coded incentives (economic is répartition of assets so could be different).
-
I don't see transparency as key. Privacy coins, mixers, coinjoin, whose goal is to obscure transactions (while maintaining invariants, ie not creating coins), seem like totally legit crypto to me.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Crypto = Cryptography. In all seriousness, "it depends". Are we talking about a protocol? A data structure? A method? An asset? A community? There's probably no one perfect concept it maps onto.
-
Something that covers the planned useful future versions of Bitcoin, Ethereum, EOS, Tezos, Filecoin, Augur, etc, as implemented, operating, and generating value.
-
That probably maps onto the "protocol" meaning, then. So, I'll try: "a protocol for recording, enforcing, and settling obligations, value transfers, or computation, without a central authority, through the use of cryptographic assurances together with economic incentives."
-
Note that interactions need not be economic in nature, nor is the protocol the network, nor is there necessarily anything formal or self-regulating about any of it. (These are, of course, my opinions only - I can be persuaded.)
-
Every interaction is economic in nature. The protocol is the network when it's an open/permissionless system
-
That's using the term "economic" so broadly as to make it meaningless. Of course economic considerations touch everything, but that's not helpful. Also disagree that the protocol is the network. Each component influences the entire system, but they're conceptually separable.
-
Economic in terms of the network protocol, since it all comes down to transaction processing and the dynamics around the blockchain data structure. Essentially for every transaction someone needs to pay for it so it has some potential economic value
-
Yes, of course - but then you can imagine systems where those costs are hidden or implicit, such as permissioned ledgers. It stops being meaningful at some point.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
'A formalized, digital, selfregulating network for economic interaction' seems to be a good definition and includes ideas like the 'Karma Machine' that even though not based on
#blockchain technology, will have the same positive results.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.