Yes, thanks. Lot to mull over. -- Paul
On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 9:56 PM Alan Sondheim <[email protected]> wrote: > > Find the reference to qm somewhat problematic but this is an absolutely > stunning account - at least for me - I've learned a lot from it. Thank > you! > > Wow! - Alan - hope there's a full essay/book emerging - > > On Tue, 8 Jun 2021, rhea via NetBehaviour wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 18:31:08 -0700 > > From: rhea via NetBehaviour <[email protected]> > > To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > > <[email protected]> > > Cc: rhea <[email protected]> > > Subject: [NetBehaviour] Work in Progress: Blockchain Temporalities > > > > Bitcoin secures itself by rewarding the people who run it with payments > in > > Bitcoin. To get the rewards for publishing new blocks of transactions to > the > > Internet every ten minutes (on average), Bitcoin miners compete to solve > > simple but time-consuming cryptographic puzzles. When Bitcoin launched, > > miners could use desktop computers. But as Bitcoin became more valuable > it > > became worthwhile to use more and more powerful hardware in larger and > > larger amounts to continue competing for the block rewards. Bitcoin was > > written to handle this. Its difficulty algorithm creates a new target > schema > > for the block reward puzzles This algorithm targets ten minute block > times, > > and it will make the block puzzles as easy or as difficult as is > required to > > do this. > > > > That singular objective, pursued without concern for externalities, means > > that Bitcoin's difficulty algorithm is a paperclipper. Its > ever-increasing > > energy usage, which has caused such moral panic, would boil the oceans > if it > > thought that the difficulty had to go that high - but then what wouldn't? > > This is the purpose that it embodies in unbounded cryptoeconomic > incentives. > > For Bitcoin, securing the metronomic heartbeat/pulse/breath/throb of ten > > minute blocks of transactions is all that matters. Bitcoin exists to > secure > > the value of those transactions over time. To nestle in that temporality > is > > to subject oneself to blockchain temporality as surely as Stelarc's "Ping > > Body" was subjected to internet geometry. > > > > Block height is a clock. I've met people who have timed meatspace events > to > > it. Block height has a calendar of "halvenings", block reward changes, > that > > are treated as festivals, along with scheduled protocol forks and > > activations. It's more complex than that, though. Cyclical and linear > time > > interplay in the blockchain as they do in capitalism, which is hardly > > surprising given Bitcoin's anarcho-capitalist roots. The different > temporal > > scales and intensities folded into the blockchain in order to produce it > > make it a Deleuzean egg. Which, through a deliberate misreading, makes > it a > > world. We can call it a welt if it helps, which it doesn't. > > > > The word "blockchain" does not appear in Satoshi Nakamoto's 2009 Bitcoin > > Whitepaper. Instead the pseudonymous creator (or creators) of Bitcoin > talk > > about the creation of a timestamp server to ensure the succession of > events > > (transactions) within a system. Time, for Bitcoin, is pure succession > just > > as number is pure succession for XXXXXXXXX. It is in this sense that > time on > > the blockchain is non-relativistic (as per Nick Land). Worse, that time > > occurs *in* time, breaking XXXXXX's argument that it cannot. We can > recover > > from this a little by pointing out that it does not occur within itself, > but > > in an outside temporality, and a reassuringly relativistic one. Still, it > > occurs in time, and produces a time of pure succession. > > > > Bitcoin is the technonomic instantiation of Deleueze?s fourth synthesis > of > > time. It is an empty repetition determined by the future. For Bitcoin > that > > future is the block height (not the date or the Unix timestamp) when all > 21 > > million Bitcoin will have been minted, and the reality of that future > > determines its present - a hyperstition secured with an increasing > fraction > > of the Earth's computing resources by the block difficulty targeting > > algorithm. > > > > This is a purely intensive world, an undialectical history within itself. > > Step back and the onchain world and its history are shown to be > incomplete - > > the private keys that create its transactions are not part of that world. > > This veil of ignorance, similar to the sub-quantum realm's role in > > contemporary physics, also applies to on-chain time. The Unix timestamps > > placed in each Bitcoin block leak the offchain time that each block occur > > at, but they could be a lie. They must increase over time, but compared > to > > the block height (the block number), they do so in irregular leaps. Block > > heights are certain, timestamps less so. > > > > Like cybernetics, block formation is probabilistic, converging on > certainty > > over time as more and more blocks build on top of the chain. This > process is > > irreversible, not just due to probability but to the trapdoor > function-based > > proof-of-work system that secures the Bitcoin blockchain. Although it > can be > > walked via the chain of hash values between blocks. > > > > Blockchain temporality comes into being with the blockchain, and vice > versa, > > at the same moment. This is similar to the reciprocal emergence of > > capitalism with capitalist time as described by Anna Greenspan in > > "Capitalism's Transcendent Time Machine". This is important because > > different temporal orders afford different social orders. We can notice > > this, or we can continue to stan or sulk at atomic clocks. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- ----- |(*,+,#,=)(#,=,*,+)(=,#,+,*)(+,*,=,#)| --- http://paulhertz.net/
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
