I really want to see who I can get to publish an article about how blockchain solves Ballistic Missile Defense.
I bet MDAA would run with it. 
#PhDLifepic.twitter.com/fZe3vnV9sz
"Blockchain is a revolutionary approach to an internet of value. And what do we value? Missile defense. Adding blockchain would, thus, revolutionize missile defense. Because we have faith in math, and we have faith in code. Did I mention it is revolutionary?"
-
-
"I could explain the math to you, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is that when I say 'blockchain,' you think, 'revolutionary,' got it?" (This is only *slightly* paraphrased from a talk I saw about blockchain a few weeks ago.)
-
I saw someone do something similar at the 5 Eyes Analytic Workshops conference I went to. The math got blackboxed.pic.twitter.com/f50Mc25Kzl
-
The math bothers me less than the code — which is often a weak point in systems that seem secure on paper — and the fact that I've never seen a really convincing explanation of how blockchain can be used to securely account for real-world objects (as opposed to virtual).
-
I totally buy that blockchain would create a reliable accounting of a virtual asset (like Bitcoin). But making the jump to real-world assets (esp. ones you care about, like warheads) seems like it involves a lot of things that coders don't think about.
-
At least, I haven't seen it explained to a degree that I would have any confidence in it. And, again, the ratio of "revolutionary" talk to actual explanations has been in my experience suspiciously lop-sided.
-
I think this was the moment I kind of checked out on it to be honest:https://twitter.com/techreview/status/933670922720108544 …
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.