Quote from: nutildah on Today at 09:09:27 AM

Quote from: biolizard89 on Today at 08:00:54 AM

The analogy is actually a bit more complex than that: while PoW is asymmetric in the sense that it's highly expensive to produce a PoW but trivially easy to verify it, bullshit is asymmetric in the opposite direction: not only is it trivially easy to produce bullshit, but it's *also* highly expensive to debunk it.

That makes sense. Guess that's why its not practical to secure a blockchain with bullshit.

FWIW there's an alternate formulation (which I like less) of this general concept called Brandolini's Law. According to Wikipedia it was coined in 2013. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

Quote from: PrimeHunter2023 on Today at 10:40:29 AM

Would either of you speculate on the view that Namecoin is being carefully used not to encourage a decentralized naming system, but to prevent one?

Looking back over Namecoin's history, a common thread seems to be a subtle misdirection of any effort to bring the coin to a wider audience.

Any comment? Or it's just more "bullshit"?

I mean, if you actually provided a specific claim rather than... whatever the hell the above is, I might be inclined to engage. But since you didn't, no, I'm not going to engage with inverse PoW.

That said, the people in a cypherpunk channel I hang out in did appreciate the comic relief about EC math, so thanks for that.