1\ Physicists have a word "crank": a person who doesn't know physics but persists in promulgating their personal theory. Cranks pop in all fields of physics but especially in certain areas: quantum mechanics, field theories, relativity, cosmology, &c.
2\ Why these subjects? B/c they are abstract & esoteric. It's hard to crank in Newtonian mechanics because your bogus theory is easily disproved by direct human experience. It's easier to crank in quantum b/c few outside the tribe of physics really understand quantum mechanics.
3\ Bad cranks are just crazy people. But good cranks are interesting. Their work *looks like* physics (has math, equations, diagrams) and, because its engaging an abstract subject like quantum mechanics, can be mistaken for real physics by laypeople who can't tell the difference.
4\ Physicists can tell the difference b/c we are trained. We see broken arguments through the veneer of crank-math. We aren't awed by technical jargon such as "wave function". Our depth of knowledge protects us from falsity. So when we get an email from a crank, we recognize it.
5\ But what motivates cranks in the first place? The need to be perceived as brilliant. Cranks work in esoterica because its remoteness from experience allows them to convince themselves and their followings they are the next Einstein. Maybe even do a book tour and make some $.
6\ But what if, beyond intellectual recognition, there were *direct* monetary rewards in doing original physics? If you could make $100M if the world "bought into" your crank theory, how many more cranks would there be? I submit to you this is the situation in #cryptocurrency !
7\ Like physics, #blockchains are an abstract subject filled with specialized jargon. Good #cryptocranks push content which *looks like* a real project (has a "whitepaper", some GitHub links, maybe some math) and lay-investors buy into it b/c they can't tell the difference.
8\ If you believe in crank quantum mechanics the worst you will suffer is some magical thinking. But the consequences in #crypto are more tragic: you can lose your livelihood if you fall for #cryptocranks. How to protect yourself?
9\ #crypto requires depth: you must understand distributed systems, cryptography, economics, & politics. If you don't grok all these subjects (I don't), read people that do. Don't #DunningKruger yourself. Don't enable #cryptocranks. And maybe make friends with more physicists :)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1\ Do any other Bitcoiners like the book "The Once & Future King" by T. H. White?
It's one of my favorites and I've been revisiting it recently, thinking about cryptocurrency, political representation, & blockchains.
2\ It opens with Merlyn teaching a young King Arthur (Wart) about different forms of government, the fallacy of "might makes right", all through a series of adventuresome allegories.
Disney's "The Sword in the Stone", is a cute (if imperfect) adaptation of this part of the book.
3\ But "The Once & Future King" is ultimately a tragedy.
With the help of his storied Knights of the Round, Arthur builds Camelot, the fairest kingdom.
But Arthur is manipulated into self-conflict, his personal desires at odds with the principals he must uphold.
\1 I continue to struggle with @ParityTech's software design decisions. My #Parity node keeps dropping peers. The advice I get is "upgrade to the latest unstable version". Parity is even configured to auto-update itself by default. Why do I have to run at the edge just to work?
2\ Parity is either (a) consumer software or (b) bad software.
It's (sometimes) OK when consumer software forces you to upgrade b/c, as a consumer, you're dumb & insecure. Business (or prosumer) software achieves a higher level of security & control by sacrificing ease of use.
3\ Consider: if Parity upgrades itself automatically that means /usr/bin/parity can edit itself. I have to completely trust that the Parity code, DNS, &c. prevents any peer from causing my Parity to change to something unintended. I hate this "feature", so I turned it off.
1\ A thought experiment: The year is 2277. You're the bartender at a spaceport in a faraway Earth colony on a planet orbiting α-Centauri: a distance of ~4 light years. Guy walks into your bar, slams down a credit chit, and asks for a drink.
How do you know his money is any good?
2\ If the credit chit were guaranteed by a bank or a blockchain or something local to α-Centauri it'd be easy, just like it is here on Earth in 2018.
But say this guy is fresh-thawed after his long journey from Earth aboard a lighthugger. What kind of wealth could he even have?
3\ He's unlikely to be carrying base metals. Like natural resources, they'd still be valuable, but too heavy to transport from Earth. Physical fiat (bank notes) wouldn't be accepted either: too easy to 3D-print forgeries.
So what form of wealth survives interstellar voyages?
1\ Have you heard this reasoning? "#Ethereum is better than #Bitcoin because it can do more." => "The EVM is Turing-complete and Bitcoin Script isn't, so Ethereum is a better cryptocurrency." => "Bitcoin's creators were too early/stupid/blind to make Bitcoin Turing-complete."
2\ This is a blatant misunderstanding! To a non-technical person, Turing-completeness and being able to compute anything is *obviously* better. But programmers know that Turing-completeness is Pandora's box: you don't know what it contains and you can't close it once opened...
3\ ...Turing-completeness is like a nuclear explosion. Once the threshold density/temperature is breached, fission fuel self-ignites and explodes. The hard part isn't blowing past the threshold, but staying as close to it as possible: energy => criticality => balance => control.