4 ms·
Yeah agree, time is far from precise, and maybe not much useful for the use-case I mentioned Tough I still think it is a really cool project, to me is the cool
by madacol 4y ago
Yeah agree, time is far from precise, and maybe not much useful for the use-case I mentioned
Tough I still think it is a really cool project, to me is the coolest use-case of blockchains beyond money (maybe the only one?)
If you don't want to trust anybody, you can ignore all time references, and just look at the proof of work on top of the attestation.
If you estimate the world's ability to generate proof of work, you can get a lower bound of how much time must have been passed in order to produce that proof, or estimate how much it cost, and you can be as conservative as you'd like, you'll still get a meaningful lower bound of time. Your only assumption is your own estimate
And from the proof of work point of view, it scales infinitely, you can put as many attestation as you can fit in a merkel tree into a single bitcoin transaction
- preseinger 4y ago> If you estimate the world's ability to generate proof of work, you can get a lower bound of how much time must have been passed in order to produce that proof, or estimate how much it cost, and you can be as conservative as you'd like, you'll still get a meaningful lower bound of time. Your only assumption is your own estimate You literally can't! All you can get from this is a lower bound on the _reported_ amount of time. But there's no way, definitionally, to assert any constraint on the _actual_ time. This is my point.
- madacol 4y agoI don't follow, why do you say "reported amount of time"? You can ignore any time anybody ever reported, the only thing you need reported from others are the proof of work accumulated from the attestation block to the latest block
- preseinger 4y agoI think terminology might have gotten mixed up. Maybe my mistake. You can approximate duration, but wall-clock time is unknowable, is my point.