I don’t think online currency is a big invention except maybe for efficiency for example diplomas as non fungible tokens or works of arts but I think all the currencies Bitcoin, ethereum, etc. are not very innovative.
I have philoscophical and ontological view of money as creative power. You can give power away for example by charity or you can make more by building a factory for example but I don’t think digital money is revolutionary.
1 Like
Thanks for sharing Peter!
Money is one application in the design space of blockchain applications. It is, perhaps, the lowest hanging fruit, as what’s required to create digital money is a fairly low set of requirements (though reaching broad, cultural acceptance is difficult).
Bitcoin’s goal was to create peer-to-peer money… Ethereum’s goal is not. Ethereum established a broader, more general idea of what could be transmitted on a blockchain protocol, namely computation. Now, experimentation is underway to see what tradeoffs from a blockchain perspective are required to create applications far beyond money; tackling identity, legal contracts, banking, property rights, etc… which will potentially rival, disrupt, and replace the current institutions delivery these solutions.
Yet to be seen, but there’s a fair chance that it impacts the framework for governance systems globally. At least, that’s part of the promise!
What an anti-fragile point of view! Taking fraud and somehow benefitting from it on the other side… hmmm. I’m not sure I have heard of an example, but perhaps there’s one in plain sight that I’m not thinking of. Do you think that punishment for fraud could mean… complete this verifiable proof of computation and when you’ve finished your punishment, you will be allowed back into the system…
Could there be verifiable cryptographic punishment if for some reason fraud does occur?
On the other hand, fraud occurs mostly at the individual level (not protecting keys or falling for a trick/scam) and at the exchange level (where private keys are stored in centralized servers). As blockchain protocols experiment with the tradeoffs of scalability (prioritize speed over security), that’s where we begin to see some of the protocol level attacks.
In general, my attention is focused on Bitcoin, because so long it continues operating without going down, it continues to establish the basis for believing that these blockchain protocols CAN work (remember, it’s both art like economic incentives and science like cryptography and computer science) .
As for how quantum computers could affect cryptography: elliptic curves on which most of the blockchains are based on are theoretically vulnerable to quantum algorithms. Blockchains rely their security on elliptic curves signatures, so one obvious step to make a blockchain quantum resistant is to use a quantum resistant digital signature scheme. There are some schemes in the workings but none have been fully declared secure and standardised yet (see Post-Quantum Cryptography | CSRC), so in my opinion blockchains that claim to be quantum resistant today (I leave to readers to find them) are making premature claims.
For those who wish to read more here’s a quite comprehensive paper https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Quantum-Resistance-in-Blockchain-Networks.pdf
I meant some arrangement in the spirit of Mittnik’s career evolution or ( already mentioned by you) the “Ender’s game”. Also, Mafia’s move to some “legal” activities (including politics) that are much safer and even more profitable. It’s always an interesting story, and I hoped that there are analogs in the crypto field as well.
I am wondering if there is a cryptocurrency that has a goal to increase convenience and security.
I think economics and money and banks and centralization can’t be “solved” which if I understand correctly is the reason for many cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.
I think it would be interested if there a technology that was focused on advances in security through mathematical algorithms in group theory like Edwards twisted elliptical curve algorithm and quantum lattice encryption algorithms and the SHA-3 competition by NIST in 2012 won by Keccak (pronounced Ketchup).
I would like to have a diploma in a digital format when I graduate Marshall University in May 2024, God willing, but I’m not sure the people developing cryptocurrencies are focused on electronic diplomas and other important documents such as deeds for property, houses, real estate, stocks, etc. that need to be securely stored and accessible for example in a datacenter/server with backup.
I think cryptocurrencies don’t change the economic aspect of how value is created and money is increased/generated/created/expanded. I think the people working on adding new features to Bitcoin and Ethereum, which are the only currencies I know about should focus on mathematics and computer science and Internet and networking research. I think another good goal is to make cryptocurrencies have minimal environmental costs.
I am critical of Bitcoin because it has very large environmental costs.
I support Ethereum’s proof of stake model over Bitcoin’s proof of work model because it does saves energy.
Did this end on July 1?
Yes. You can access recordings by registering for this Study Group and then clicking each section link on the landing page.
Check out upcoming Daily Study Groups here: https://www.wolfram.com/wolfram-u/special-event/study-groups
1 Like