5 ms·
> which couldn't be more idiotic Actually, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution to piggyback on the existing telecom infrastructure in a backwards-
by fixermark 8y ago
> which couldn't be more idiotic
Actually, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution to piggyback on the existing telecom infrastructure in a backwards-compatible way.
I think you just described a stepping-stone for moving from a system where humans burn a bunch of time negotiating deals to where deals are auto-negotiated on behalf of humans without having to build out a new protocol from scratch or run a new initiative through ANSI or W3C.
Neat. Beats the pants off the transition plan for IPv4 to IPv6 at least.
- zeusk 8y ago> Actually, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution to piggyback on the existing telecom infrastructure in a backwards-compatible way. > I think you just described a stepping-stone for moving from a system where humans burn a bunch of time negotiating deals to where deals are auto-negotiated on behalf of humans without having to build out a new protocol from scratch or run a new initiative through ANSI or W3C. Except for the fact that Human language is not entirely precise. We can't even implement error-free "smart" contracts in a specialized language and you think doing so in a language with so much more ambiguity using computers is a good idea?