On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:30:22PM +0100, Cathal Garvey wrote: > > Moore is dead, long live Moore (in 3d volume integration > > of molecular components, coming in a couple decades). > > Well, I'm no singulatarian, but I do think it's naive to expect > something as complex and immutable as a block-chain based currency of > *any design* to last longer than a decade (or even half that) these
Never mentioned Bitcoin, and I would agree in principle. Due to network effect and apparent good design Bitcoin may last a lot longer than its detractors like to think, but it will fall, eventually. > days, before needing replacement. What you should aim for is relative > stability in that term, not the "long term", so that you can transition > gently to updated 'coins as they emerge to tackle new technology. > > Thankfully we do generally get good advance notice of new technologies. > We know that there's progress in Quantum, but we know its not there I disagree there's palpable progress in QC inasmuch practical computing is concerned, at least in the open literature. > yet. We know there are proof of concept DNA computers, but for now DNA computers basically don't work. > there's no conceivable architecture for a general-purpose DNA computer; > each must be built for the mathematical task to hand (although that > doesn't rule out a mental genius creating a sha256-hashing DNA computer > and brute-forcing through nigh-infinite parallelism). You're sampling conformation space of a linear molecule with lots of viscous drag. There is very little infinity in that. > So; design your coins to last as long as they're likely to last. Don't > expect or desire them to outlast that. Given the leverage a currency > has on an economy, you could even regard a new 'coin as a "budget plan" > for the next few years, though god help you if you get it wrong. :)
