3 ms·

> One of the other things I learned there was not letting the perfect be the enemy of the better. Yes, but when the better is significantly better, and only a

by maaku 12y ago

> One of the other things I learned there was not letting the perfect be the enemy of the better. Yes, but when the better is significantly better, and only a small marginal cost, it's worth doing. > Don't be ridiculous. Bitcoin is not going to run from now until the end of the universe. In a certain form I very much believe it will be, but this is probably not the right venue for that debate. > You seriously think humanity is going to exist for 100 billion years? I plan on being around (at least) that long, though that was not the question asked. > Yes, this hypothetical tool which does not exist, likely will not anytime soon, and which you certainly are not volunteering to write. Actually I am and have: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg03514.html https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourc...

gwern 12y ago
> Yes, but when the better is significantly better, and only a small marginal cost, it's worth doing. No, it's not significantly better, and I'm not sure if it's better at all. Timestamping in the Bitcoin block chain is easy to use, cheap, convenient, highly secure, and relatively easy to explain to others. Your solution does not exist yet, and from the sound of it, even when it exists will have only one of those properties (highly secure), optimistically. > though that was not the question asked. Indeed. I don't expect humanity to be around in 100b years. I don't expect money to be around in 100b years. And I certainly don't expect SHA-256 or the elliptic curves used in Bitcoin to all remain intact over 100 billion years. (What's the longest a cryptographic hash in wide use has ever survived so far? 30 years? What about public key systems? 40 years maybe?) > Actually I am and have: I see. I upgrade my assessment of you from 'preachy asshole' to simply 'clueless person who doesn't understand people and their needs and builds castles in the air'.

by maaku 12y ago

gwern 12y ago

> Yes, but when the better is significantly better, and only a small marginal cost, it's worth doing. No, it's not significantly better, and I'm not sure if it's better at all. Timestamping in the Bitcoin block chain is easy to use, cheap, convenient, highly secure, and relatively easy to explain to others. Your solution does not exist yet, and from the sound of it, even when it exists will have only one of those properties (highly secure), optimistically. > though that was not the question asked. Indeed. I don't expect humanity to be around in 100b years. I don't expect money to be around in 100b years. And I certainly don't expect SHA-256 or the elliptic curves used in Bitcoin to all remain intact over 100 billion years. (What's the longest a cryptographic hash in wide use has ever survived so far? 30 years? What about public key systems? 40 years maybe?) > Actually I am and have: I see. I upgrade my assessment of you from 'preachy asshole' to simply 'clueless person who doesn't understand people and their needs and builds castles in the air'.