Skip to main content
Asked a question 3 months ago

First of all, I'd like to thank the real vision team and community for the high quality interviews with such a wide variety of guests. The macro picture and knowledge of systemic factors in market players you provide along with what I've learned of trading and investing has instrumental in growing capital. In fact, with your help, one year of capital markets has been more profitable than 7 years of work in academia. Since the March lows, as the crypto bull market expands and accelerates, real vision has invited on a series of guests who describe likely futures of different crypto blockchains; one common thread among these conversations tends to be references to game theory. I'm guessing they are referring to game theory concepts such as the prisoners dilemma, tit for tat, forgiving tit for tat, contrite tit for tat, pavlov, etc. developed by Axelrod, Rapoport, Hamilton, etc. Ari Paul mentioned a vulnerability in bitcoin blockchain, when there were multiple forks with the same hash algorithm, there were possible costless benefits for strategies of destroying the forked blockchain, or from short-selling and then destroying other blockchains. When it comes to the destruction of one's own blockchain, Ari, argues that the security comes from the sunk cost into hardware than can only be used to mine bitcoin. But that means if at any point in the future, the most efficient bitcoin mining hardware ceases to be bitcoin specific, or even mining specific, then this deterrent from mutually assured destruction loses some of its force. Then there is also the question of using quantum computing to decipher the blockchain private keys. From what I understand, this is still possible once someone developes such a computational technology. And the main game theory deterrent, is something like, quantum computing able to decipher current encryption would be much more useful in terms of espionage than bitcoin theft or destruction, so no one one tip their hand and reveal possession of such technology on bitcoin and motivate everyone to fix the encryption weakness. But that seems less likely as bitcoin becomes ever more valuable through widespread institutional and governmental adoption. For cardano, Charles Hoskinson has been developing a blockchain encryption that would be resistant to quantum computing, and though that is an amazing anticipatory development, my view is that that involves protection against a tactical exploitation. I'm wondering what else could be done to protect from strategic weaknesses. For example, it seems that many bitcoin maximalists view fiat currency, central banks, and large government as their nemesis. And Hoskinson has mentioned that he considers big tech - Google, Amazon, Tencent, Alibaba, etc. - to be cardano's prime competition. I think blockchain's major systemic risk would actually be a strategizing artificial superintelligence. If most of blockchain's security comes from our understanding of game theory, then any computational model capable of strategizing with multiple orders of magnitude more complexity would be able to find strategic exploits not yet considered. Would it be possible to invite someone working on the cutting edge of AI development to real vision? Perhaps someone like Anima Anandkumar, David Chalmers, Runyao Duan, Demis Hassabis, Ray Kurzweil, Stuart Russell, Bart Selman, Jaan Tallinn, Liu Wei, or Leo Zhu?

Where am I?

In The Exchange you can ask and answer questions and share your experience with others!

No answers yet.

Question Stats

26 view
1 follower
Asked a question 3 months ago
Views this month