3 ms·
"Proof of stake" does not appear to have anything to do with "proof" in the logical sense. I really, really do not think the incompleteness theorems are at all
by Sniffnoy 9y ago
"Proof of stake" does not appear to have anything to do with "proof" in the logical sense. I really, really do not think the incompleteness theorems are at all relevant here. Apologies, but this reads just like every other nonsensical attempt to invoke the incompleteness theorems without a good understanding of what they actually say. (Like, how are you possibly going to get proof of stake to simulate arithmetic?)
- ShabbosGoy 9y agoProof of stake is just another way to achieve distributed consensus. Not sure how that’s impossible or violates the laws of physics.
- Sniffnoy 9y agoWhile Hermel certainly appears to have no idea what he's talking about, that doesn't make this reply of yours correct either. In particular, the incompleteness theorems are not physics.
- ShabbosGoy 9y agoI never made the assertion that Godel’s incomplete theorems are physics. My comment was to point out that if one makes the claim “X is impossible”, the burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim or assertion. Simply making an assertion or premise does not prove nor disprove it.