Hi Eray,
I think you mistake the intended audience for my post. I state in several different ways that this is a work in progress, there may be mistakes, I don’t know exactly what I’m doing, etc. The point of writing this post, besides giving a status update and basic “hand-waving” about what I’m trying to do, was to give non-scientists an idea of what doing science is like. Perhaps if you actually paid attention to what I wrote you wouldn’t have had to waste your time writing these messages restating what I already put in the article about how I don’t know what the answer is yet. Your aggressive attitude does nobody any favors — have you tried speaking with strangers in good faith as I am trying to do with you?
I do not believe in gestating ideas for years in seclusion, working out the perfect theory, and then presenting it to the world as if you ripped it out of the mind of God himself. What a discouraging way to present science to the world and effective tool to keep people away. What sort of damage does that do to science in the long run? I try to present science in a *human* fashion, that shows uncertainty, doubt, confusion, and speculation. This apparently does not suit your tastes, and that is totally fine. I am writing for the everyman. The only thing I expect scientists to take out of this is to let their guard down a bit and not be afraid to make mistakes in public. It’s OK.
I have bigger ideas than I am capable of fully elucidating right now. That is perfectly OK with me. I would rather get the very rough drafts of those ideas out there so that others, many more skilled than I, can develop them at a quicker rate than little old me could do in seclusion.
Anyways, I don’t think you would write this unless you had at least a little interest in why I think the Holochain security model works despite not yet having any proof. That is because it is modeled after how Nature works. Your body consists of trillions of independent cells who only coordinate with each other locally. There is no CEO cell in charge, or any notion of a readable global state. Yet the coordination of trillions happens seamlessly. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel on how to coordinate billions of people, why not try copying what Nature has already perfected? Holochain is one attempt at that. I don’t know if it is the right way to do it (as I write in earlier posts), but it is the best one I know of for now. If you know of any other distributed computing models based on natural systems, I’m all ears. My willingness to take Nature as provisionary proof is due to my background as a physicist, where Nature is regarded as the ultimate arbiter.
In terms of automatically proving security features — I did not want to use this terminology in the article to avoid jargon saturation — but I had sheaf cohomology in mind. Cohomology formalizes the notion of how to answer boolean questions about geometrically structured data. I believe (and so do folks at Statebox and other category theorists) that there is a natural sheaf geometry lurking somewhere around consensus models. What is it? I do not know and I repeatedly say so in the article. It is at the point of feeling only just beyond our grasp. Ignore it at your own risk.
