4 ms·

Financial forecasting and risk-elimination in a system like a blockchain would be my guess — and in that respect it’s probably the most important problem out th

Financial forecasting and risk-elimination in a system like a blockchain would be my guess — and in that respect it’s probably the most important problem out there IMO.

tzahola 9y ago
What??
- qubex 9y ago
  I think we have just been exposed to somebody's Markov Chain Natural Language Generation experiment.
  - throwwit 9y ago
    Ha... I guess I can be a bit terse. Just think of the “turbulence” in navier-stokes as valuation fluctuations. Without the realworld dampening effects of regulation, slow tranactions, and managed markets — volatility along the lines of the infinite incongruities posed in the article are possible. ( note: Im not referring to a pendactic ‘infinite’ wrt a blockchain).
    - qubex 9y ago
      Ah OK I get it now. I’m an applied mathematician and a macroeconomist that studied turbulence in financial markets and crashes thereof. I can assure you that the dynamics are pretty distinct. In economics wealth is not a conserved quantity whereas in physics energy and momentum are.
      - throwwit 9y ago
        I think bitcoin’s fixed-limit and deterministic transactions makes it a uniquely closed & conserved system (regardless of deflation and lost wallets). The discrepancies in valuation among exchanges & localities seem to show a relativistic (to borrow a physics term) quality. [I’m however not really into bitcoin or an economist though]
        qubex 9y ago
        > bitcoin's fixed limit That's what makes it unsuitable for being a currency. > a uniquely closed & conserved system Nope. Bitcoin may or may not be (lost wallets, as you point out, is one way in which it is not). But the ‘system’ is the economy, because money is moving in and out of bitcoin because it can be exchanged for other assets (goods, services, or other currencies when doing conversions). So no. I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm just trying to nip this apparently valid but flawed analogy in the bud. The only commonality is the word ‘turbulence’ which is being used as a label for two entirely different phenomena that have some similitude and points of contact but are largely distinct and unrelatable.

Financial forecasting and risk-elimination in a system like a blockchain would be my guess — and in that respect it’s probably the most important problem out there IMO.

tzahola 9y ago

What??

qubex 9y ago
I think we have just been exposed to somebody's Markov Chain Natural Language Generation experiment.
- throwwit 9y ago
  Ha... I guess I can be a bit terse. Just think of the “turbulence” in navier-stokes as valuation fluctuations. Without the realworld dampening effects of regulation, slow tranactions, and managed markets — volatility along the lines of the infinite incongruities posed in the article are possible. ( note: Im not referring to a pendactic ‘infinite’ wrt a blockchain).
  - qubex 9y ago
    Ah OK I get it now. I’m an applied mathematician and a macroeconomist that studied turbulence in financial markets and crashes thereof. I can assure you that the dynamics are pretty distinct. In economics wealth is not a conserved quantity whereas in physics energy and momentum are.
    - throwwit 9y ago
      I think bitcoin’s fixed-limit and deterministic transactions makes it a uniquely closed & conserved system (regardless of deflation and lost wallets). The discrepancies in valuation among exchanges & localities seem to show a relativistic (to borrow a physics term) quality. [I’m however not really into bitcoin or an economist though]
      - qubex 9y ago
        > bitcoin's fixed limit That's what makes it unsuitable for being a currency. > a uniquely closed & conserved system Nope. Bitcoin may or may not be (lost wallets, as you point out, is one way in which it is not). But the ‘system’ is the economy, because money is moving in and out of bitcoin because it can be exchanged for other assets (goods, services, or other currencies when doing conversions). So no. I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm just trying to nip this apparently valid but flawed analogy in the bud. The only commonality is the word ‘turbulence’ which is being used as a label for two entirely different phenomena that have some similitude and points of contact but are largely distinct and unrelatable.