3 ms·
The prediction was 131 years -- I'm not sure 15 years early would be considered wildly inaccurate. I'm also not sure why we should believe that the assumptions
by furyofantares 13y ago
The prediction was 131 years -- I'm not sure 15 years early would be considered wildly inaccurate. I'm also not sure why we should believe that the assumptions the article makes will hold true over the next 72-112 years.
- Cushman 13y agoMaybe what I mean is wildly imprecise. The figure of 131 suggests a precision in years, but based on these projections it should clearly be in decades. Since there will likely be dramatic effects to running low on coins to mine, it's a pretty important thing to predict, and if that's not possible it's not a great sign. I guess I don't know what sort of precision the market requires to deal with it, though.
- furyofantares 13y agoThe prediction was given as ~2140 rather than ~131 years, which perhaps implies less precision, and anyway was presented as an estimate.
- Cushman 13y agoFair enough. I don't mean to belabor the point.
- philhippus 13y agoNot long from now, a quantum computer will solve each new block within a femtosecond before getting back to its main task of high freq trading and playing out millions of tactical nuclear war simulations.