Yes it puts a spin on the “blockchain solves the problem of spacetime” meme.
>From software eating the world to blockchains eating spacetime… On June 8, 2021, Soenke Zehle <[email protected]> wrote: > Thx very much for this. It seems (no tech expert speaking here) that > the shift from proof-of-work to proof-of-space-and-time is putting > another twist on the question of blockchain temporality? > > Btw, as (budding) fan of Blumenberg / theories of metaphor I continue > to be astonished by the poverty of language when it comes to tech. > Chia's recipe for success ("A farmer’s probability of winning a block > is the percentage of the total space that a farmer has compared to the > entire network", https://www.chia.net/faq/), for example, sounds just > like sth from the EU's infamous "general agricultural policy" world > (you scale you win) - and it came right with a global shortage of > storage systems > (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/26/new- > cryptocurrency-chia-blamed-for-hard-drive-shortages). > > Soenke > > Am Mi., 9. Juni 2021 um 07:11 Uhr schrieb Eryk Salvaggio via > NetBehaviour <[email protected]>: > > > > Great work. Struck by the absence of “blockchain” from the original > white paper and the wide possibility of reimagining the “timestamp > server.” The blockchain has always had a gears-in-clocks aspect of it > for me. I explained it to some Swiss folks this way once. In San > Francisco I explained that the blockchain are the panels in an > infinitely written comic strip: “this happened, then this happened, > then this happened.” > > > > But now I have a question: I’d always assumed block time was also > being pushed forward by demand, by transactions. No transactions, no > new blocks, no puzzles. With Bitcoin the story in my head is a clock > ticking at the speed of commerce. In the same way that if we all stood > still maybe the clocks would too. (With Ethereum the story gets more > complicated). > > > > Now I’ll think about the sky’s potential as a timestamp server: a > mechanic sundial designed to spin a small shadow-casting shape in time > with the system, the sun writing new blocks into a photogram cyanotype > until it’s fixed by rain. > > > > Thanks for this! > > > > -e. > > > > > > > > On 8 Jun 2021, at 8:42 pm, Paul Hertz via NetBehaviour > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
