In short: Yes, I do think it's valid.
But, I read it when it came out 2 years ago, and that was a fairly quick read through because it was so novel. My mind was so blown by the ideas in it that I knew I'd need a long time to let it sink in.
So reading it aloud has given me that time to think deeply about its foundations, implications, and applications. Ever time I record, I wonder if when I get to the end again, I'll spot some glaring error or something that just doesn't work. The biggest open question people had was whether it was really feasible for Bitcoin to secure anything other than itself, and that's the last part that I'm going through now.
So I guess, until I've spoken aloud ever single word in it, I'll withhold final judgement.
Login to reply
Replies (2)
That was always what I wondered about the Softwar thesis: how is Bitcoin securing anything outside of itself / its network. That feels like a peg and pegs are fake.
This is a bit of a stupid and trivial example, but in the casine on cornychat, we'd bet on the last letter on the block hash for a specific block in the future.
It makes for a very fair and egalitarian betting scheme, where there's no house advantage. So Bitcoin's mining can actually secure globally synchronized random outcomes for use in other places.