I try not to quarrel about things that don’t really matter. I try not to be that guy that always has to point out “Oh, Frankenstein was the name of the scientist, you’re talking about Frankenstein’s monster, aren’t you?”
or the opposite of a futurist?
Let’s call it “mining terms”. Seriously I kinda trust you because you came up with “crypto-medieval” it sounds brilliant (although of course everything was held together by this one huge institution with a virtual monopoly on trust, the Church.)
I completely agree with much of what you wrote here. I’d like to point out a couple things:
First, in regards to “There is no single person in existence who had a problem they wanted to solve, discovered that an available blockchain solution was the best way to solve it, and therefore became…
If you build a trustless network, game theory will suggest, every actor will optimize for the most trustless position they can take on the network.
The guy who bring in a little bit of trust is actually a sucker whose value would be immediately transferred away from the network (E.g; DAO hack)
They are sometimes called ‘oracles’, some trusted source of truth to decide if something has happened. The only way around this is a consensus mechanism: just ask the crowd if something happened and reward them if and only if they are all in agreement. This is not mathematically safe and it requires significant work plus the trust that people will…