Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
We should pay back the money that funded BU and the Gigablock Project. He should be ostracized, starved, driven into every type of desert.
Last edited:
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
@Zarathustra:
Ok, so tell me then, please: Should I assume that nChain is equal to CSW, after all?
For now, I was very willing to separate my views on nChain from those on CSW and also had a quite neutral stance on the former. I have abstained on vote regarding the cooperation agreement between nChain and BU exactly because the relation CSW - nChain is unclear and I don't want to have anything to do with the former.
@jessquit: Oh and, no, I have voiced my concerns about CSW long before the more recent flare-up of the issue, where you assert that it became cool now to dislike CSW. Zarathustra even asserted I was slandering him (which I wasn't - I was just pointing out that he's acting in a IMO quite despicable manner).
I have been testing weakblocks on the giganet but have not had any personal gain from this relationship.
@Zarathustra, because you are essentially now arguing an extended form of "not biting the hand that feeds us" and as nChain is keen on SWPATs, I think I'll definitely look elsewhere to test my code now. You are essentially arguing that nChain should become more influential in BU and I hope you can see this, for once.
Ok, so tell me then, please: Should I assume that nChain is equal to CSW, after all?
For now, I was very willing to separate my views on nChain from those on CSW and also had a quite neutral stance on the former. I have abstained on vote regarding the cooperation agreement between nChain and BU exactly because the relation CSW - nChain is unclear and I don't want to have anything to do with the former.
@jessquit: Oh and, no, I have voiced my concerns about CSW long before the more recent flare-up of the issue, where you assert that it became cool now to dislike CSW. Zarathustra even asserted I was slandering him (which I wasn't - I was just pointing out that he's acting in a IMO quite despicable manner).
I have been testing weakblocks on the giganet but have not had any personal gain from this relationship.
@Zarathustra, because you are essentially now arguing an extended form of "not biting the hand that feeds us" and as nChain is keen on SWPATs, I think I'll definitely look elsewhere to test my code now. You are essentially arguing that nChain should become more influential in BU and I hope you can see this, for once.
@Peter R and others
A reading of the Selfish Mining paper clearly shows that the author purports a problem, which is grounded on what appears to be a VERY false assumption about mining topology, and then presents a solution based on the "problem" that was just identified:
The very next paragraph purports to fix this "problem." So we better be really clear that the problem was correctly stated, since a change is being prescribed.
Now. I've been lurking around Bitcoin since before this paper was written, and I've never seen anyone - not you, not Greg Maxwell, nobody, ever mention the fact that this entire "Problem Statement" is in fact probably completely false because it rests entirely on faulty assumptions about mining topology. If mining is "fully connected" then this problem statement collapses entirely. Maybe there's another, different Problem Statement you can put in its place, but the way this is written, it does NOT hold up.
Since you claim that nothing has been added to the conversation except a bunch of technobabble, and that this is all very old news to the Real Scientists in the room, I'm sure you'll be able to point me to the pre-existing refutation of this fallacious segment of the Selfish Mining paper (which isn't some trivial section of the paper, by the way, as has been claimed by many, but is in fact The Problem Statement).
So tell us where we can go to read this refutation and where is the new Selfish Mining paper that presents a new, unassailable Problem Statement that does not rest entirely on faulty assumptions about mining topology? If I missed it, please accept my apologies.
A reading of the Selfish Mining paper clearly shows that the author purports a problem, which is grounded on what appears to be a VERY false assumption about mining topology, and then presents a solution based on the "problem" that was just identified:
One does not need to be a rocket scientist to read this clear language, to paraphrase, "The SM appears to be at a disadvantage, but because Bitcoin is organized as a random peer-to-peer mesh, it is possible to sybil attack, and thus the SM can achieve near-perfect results (gamma close to 1)."
The very next paragraph purports to fix this "problem." So we better be really clear that the problem was correctly stated, since a change is being prescribed.
Now. I've been lurking around Bitcoin since before this paper was written, and I've never seen anyone - not you, not Greg Maxwell, nobody, ever mention the fact that this entire "Problem Statement" is in fact probably completely false because it rests entirely on faulty assumptions about mining topology. If mining is "fully connected" then this problem statement collapses entirely. Maybe there's another, different Problem Statement you can put in its place, but the way this is written, it does NOT hold up.
Since you claim that nothing has been added to the conversation except a bunch of technobabble, and that this is all very old news to the Real Scientists in the room, I'm sure you'll be able to point me to the pre-existing refutation of this fallacious segment of the Selfish Mining paper (which isn't some trivial section of the paper, by the way, as has been claimed by many, but is in fact The Problem Statement).
So tell us where we can go to read this refutation and where is the new Selfish Mining paper that presents a new, unassailable Problem Statement that does not rest entirely on faulty assumptions about mining topology? If I missed it, please accept my apologies.
Last edited:
@awemany you misunderstand me entirely, as I never mentioned "CSW", "Craig Wright", or any permutation of this name, nor is that name relevant in any way, shape, or form to the discussion I am presenting. Please leave this individual out, as his personhood is entirely irrelevant to the facts of the discussion.
My point is very clear. The SM paper's "Problem Statement" - its very reason for existing - is very clearly based on what is almost certainly a set of quite incorrect assumptions about mining topology.
Where is the new SM paper that corrects these (rather painfully glaring) defects that invalidate the original paper? And - much more importantly - where is the analysis that deeply probes all the other ways that the authors of the paper might have allowed their flawed understanding of mining topology to creep in, as I feel quite certain that the paper's faulty assumptions invalidate more than just its Problem Statement.
My point is very clear. The SM paper's "Problem Statement" - its very reason for existing - is very clearly based on what is almost certainly a set of quite incorrect assumptions about mining topology.
Where is the new SM paper that corrects these (rather painfully glaring) defects that invalidate the original paper? And - much more importantly - where is the analysis that deeply probes all the other ways that the authors of the paper might have allowed their flawed understanding of mining topology to creep in, as I feel quite certain that the paper's faulty assumptions invalidate more than just its Problem Statement.
Last edited:
@jessquit: Fair enough! I guess what irked me (needlessly) was that you seem to assume that "small world network topology" is being actively avoided by people talking about the selfish mining issue.
Questions regarding the validity of their problem statement came up right after they published their paper.
For example, here's Gavin's earliest comment on selfish mining, and he's aiming directly at this very issue, long before anyone else AFAICS.
Note that I am personally not too worried about SM and I was quite a bit annoyed by EGS back then and the way he presented it as a fundamental problem with Bitcoin where it is rather an implementation problem at most. (Proven by himself offering solutions to the selfish mining problem!)
Meanwhile, I briefly talked to EGS at SV and he seems to be a very reasonable guy so, well, I guess it's all water under the bridge now for me.
Again, I also do not see @Peter R . or anyone else having a problem with this kind of view, but maybe I am missing something - ?
I think we don't need Bitcoin-NG right now and it would be a huge change, but if we figure out ways to make SM less likely with minimal/small/contained changes, why not!
Questions regarding the validity of their problem statement came up right after they published their paper.
For example, here's Gavin's earliest comment on selfish mining, and he's aiming directly at this very issue, long before anyone else AFAICS.
Note that I am personally not too worried about SM and I was quite a bit annoyed by EGS back then and the way he presented it as a fundamental problem with Bitcoin where it is rather an implementation problem at most. (Proven by himself offering solutions to the selfish mining problem!)
Meanwhile, I briefly talked to EGS at SV and he seems to be a very reasonable guy so, well, I guess it's all water under the bridge now for me.
Again, I also do not see @Peter R . or anyone else having a problem with this kind of view, but maybe I am missing something - ?
I think we don't need Bitcoin-NG right now and it would be a huge change, but if we figure out ways to make SM less likely with minimal/small/contained changes, why not!
@awemany if the original paper is so clearly built on what appears to be a completely invalid set of assumptions, then I repeat: why are we even discussing it? The paragraph that I quoted (the heart of the paper) is simply absurd on its face. And the claims made later in the paper - that this creates an existential threat to the entire ecosystem - is balderdash. And yet we continue to hold this paper up like it's Settled Science. I can't tell you the number of people I've dealt with in the last two weeks who have told me, "SM is PROVEN."
So where is the new SM paper that corrects these (rather painfully glaring) defects that invalidate the original paper and presents a Problem Statement that isn't laughable on its face?
And - much more importantly - where is the analysis that deeply probes all the other ways that the authors of the paper might have allowed their flawed understanding of mining topology to creep in, as I feel quite certain that the paper's faulty assumptions invalidate more than just its Problem Statement.
And even more importantly, one wonders how much more Settled Science is out there, not being reinvestigated....
So where is the new SM paper that corrects these (rather painfully glaring) defects that invalidate the original paper and presents a Problem Statement that isn't laughable on its face?
And - much more importantly - where is the analysis that deeply probes all the other ways that the authors of the paper might have allowed their flawed understanding of mining topology to creep in, as I feel quite certain that the paper's faulty assumptions invalidate more than just its Problem Statement.
And even more importantly, one wonders how much more Settled Science is out there, not being reinvestigated....
This is a very good question to ask. Per today the only output that CSW has produced (for his company) is in the form of papers. Plagiarism included. If nChain deems this acceptable, they will not take action against Craig. If they are morally Ok with this, they will not take any action against CSW.
So if they will in the next weeks not take action against Craig, you have your answer. They should be considered equal.
I know you had doubts about this before, but let me please point out again that Flowee is using GPLv3 which has a patent clause. I think it would be very healthy for the ecosystem for every major implemetation to move to this same license. For reasons of patents as well as for reasons of building an open source community.
@jessquit: Are we discussing it because "that guy" brought it up, or because EGS brought it up, or because folks who dislike "that guy" brought it up or because Aliens introduced it into our minds with their rays or, ...?
I have no firm data on this, I just like to point out once more that I don't see what you still seem to be seeing, that it is about some issue with "that guy" that folks have.
As a long-time Bitcoiner, you should have noticed that it comes up regularly as some kind of issue since the initial paper was published.
Now, I think the main reason why it comes up is simply because it shows a way for Sybil attacks to be theoretically effective at lowering the 50% threshold with the current implementation of Bitcoin.
And if you are this paranoid security-researcher kind of guy, you kind of start to stick to these issues because they will, in a limited, black and world-view sense (see also the insane notion of applying spherical gow game theory to Bitcoin all the time) allow for some (bit) pattern some "invalid issue" to produce a security issue that might theoretically break Bitcoin (in its current state).
Greg Maxwell and some others from the Core team might be very obnoxious persons, but they definitely aren't all idiots.
They are often black and white thinkers (and I think GM's demeanor is a prime example, though I think he's just pretending to be a black/white thinker for other reasons) and this is what creates the problem here.
It appears to me that maybe we inherited a large chunk of black and white thinking with BCH as well, and I actually don't even mind this, rather welcome this!
It is just that I think we want these folks as canaries be they extreme, paranoid, often simplicist black and white thinkers, but we want people with a more wholesome view of the risk steering this ship.
And BCH is getting there.
That said, I suspect the current meager performance of BCH is making folks somewhat itchy and combative in this space right now, but then I am very bullish on the long term prospects
I have no firm data on this, I just like to point out once more that I don't see what you still seem to be seeing, that it is about some issue with "that guy" that folks have.
As a long-time Bitcoiner, you should have noticed that it comes up regularly as some kind of issue since the initial paper was published.
Now, I think the main reason why it comes up is simply because it shows a way for Sybil attacks to be theoretically effective at lowering the 50% threshold with the current implementation of Bitcoin.
And if you are this paranoid security-researcher kind of guy, you kind of start to stick to these issues because they will, in a limited, black and world-view sense (see also the insane notion of applying spherical gow game theory to Bitcoin all the time) allow for some (bit) pattern some "invalid issue" to produce a security issue that might theoretically break Bitcoin (in its current state).
Greg Maxwell and some others from the Core team might be very obnoxious persons, but they definitely aren't all idiots.
They are often black and white thinkers (and I think GM's demeanor is a prime example, though I think he's just pretending to be a black/white thinker for other reasons) and this is what creates the problem here.
It appears to me that maybe we inherited a large chunk of black and white thinking with BCH as well, and I actually don't even mind this, rather welcome this!
It is just that I think we want these folks as canaries be they extreme, paranoid, often simplicist black and white thinkers, but we want people with a more wholesome view of the risk steering this ship.
And BCH is getting there.
That said, I suspect the current meager performance of BCH is making folks somewhat itchy and combative in this space right now, but then I am very bullish on the long term prospects
What I have clearly observed is that mentioning this topic gets you red-flagged and places you on the "side" of someone who is greatly disliked, and therefore it is a political hot potato that nobody with reputation wants to touch. In fact I cannot even suggest deeper consideration from YOU on this issue without being constantly reminded of WHOSE issue it is.
This is not the first time I have found myself ostracized by taking up a cause that happens to be promoted by someone the community despises, as I was previously a vocal supporter of Emergent Consensus, which got me fired from rbitcoin as an undesirable.
Yes, this is exactly my point. Obnoxious people are not always idiots. We can all learn from this.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
Last edited:
And, yes, I still have doubts. I have serious doubts that people will accept GPLv3 code on every occasion, because I strongly suspect there's going to be business reasons to run closed source, modified bitcoinds somewhere in ways that might break GPLv3.
However, and I hope this would make the discussion on this bit more productive, I think a mutual, defensive patent pool that would avoid SWPATs issues in this space would be reat (also, maybe something for @singularity to ponder about and start an initiative?
). And I am pretty sure lawyers could easily find a way to make that compatible with GPLv3 and thus Flowee.
Last edited:
When it was published the topology was very different than it is today. Even Gün stated that the ecosystem has taken action to stop SM.
I think the biggest issue I have with all this is that anyone finds a need to attack this paper in the first place. It hasn't been quoted for years. Its not exactly an important topic. And its mostly a solved problem. Between the network topology which was fixed and the nash equilibrium that makes miners very unwilling to attack each other.
And since you, jessquit, seem to be unable to see why many people have a problem with understanding WHO said a thing, here is the trick to understanding it. It is much less who said it it is much more how they said it. Craig is having problems with everyone because he is attacking individuals. I've been the target in the past, I know how it works.
Here is a very old video which is showing the issue extremely well. In actual fact every single person in this video was wrong on their facts, but the only one that was violent and rude about it was Craig. He is truly a toxic man and we know from experience how toxic people can cause the entire ecosystem to grind to a halt as good people leave and smart people fear speaking their minds.
Again, it is known that every single person in this video was wrong about the facts. The point is about HOW people say things.
Sure, there's always tribalism. But I honestly think you interpreting much more than there really is into it.
And, as I said and pointed out with prior art, I decline it being CSW's invention or original thought. Like so often. He simply says what people want to hear and creates followers this way. If there's a problem with him, it is that, IMO.
Notice that modification of bitcoind is allowed by GPLv3. You only have to provide sources if you distribute the changed binaries. Most examples I know of are companies running those modified binaries for themselves and that is not distribution. The thing that GPLv3 protects is the right of the person running the software. If you got that modified source, you would want the right to the modifications. But in most such examples there is no 3rd party that will demand the sources. So its legal.
Hope I made that a bit clearer.
I look forward to reading a version of the SM paper based on something resembling the actual topology of the network instead of a strawman.
And I refuse to be sucked into anyone's cult of personality or anti-personality.
[doublepost=1523614129][/doublepost]
And I refuse to be sucked into anyone's cult of personality or anti-personality.
[doublepost=1523614129][/doublepost]
No fucks given
@Tom Zander: GPLv3 (and more specifically Flowee) are all fine with me.
But a defensive SWPAT pool would be a much wider, much more fundamental and better solution to the actual problem that starts to appear in this space and be compatible with your decisions.
Not all code is bitcoind and the reality that most implementations (all except yours) did not switch to GPLv3 shows me that the interest in that is low at most.
The true issue is the SWPATs, not some license detail.
Oh, let me also add that if you believe licensing decisions by developers drive this space, I think this would be a repeat of one of the mistakes that lead to the whole BTC fiasco. Not saying you do, but your personal licensing discussion and my personal voicing of concerns and call for a patent pool are simply normal people's voices in this space, nothing more, nothing less.
BCH is led by the financial interest in it, not the developers, both in the form of is as well as ought, for me.
[doublepost=1523614318][/doublepost]@jessquit: Got it. I think we're mostly on the same page then, even. Arguing from status quo is, witness BTC and the blocksize, extremely effective and I think will also be a defense against any sudden and unwanted introduction of major changes like Bitcoin-NG.
I actually don't like the status quo argument to be overused with BCH (BTC is a different matter now ) but I have always been a conservative (like @cypherdoc and others) with changes to the protocol.
Slow and steady, please.
So is your worry that the SM-folks want to change Bitcoin in undue ways, or is it something else?
But a defensive SWPAT pool would be a much wider, much more fundamental and better solution to the actual problem that starts to appear in this space and be compatible with your decisions.
Not all code is bitcoind and the reality that most implementations (all except yours) did not switch to GPLv3 shows me that the interest in that is low at most.
The true issue is the SWPATs, not some license detail.
Oh, let me also add that if you believe licensing decisions by developers drive this space, I think this would be a repeat of one of the mistakes that lead to the whole BTC fiasco. Not saying you do, but your personal licensing discussion and my personal voicing of concerns and call for a patent pool are simply normal people's voices in this space, nothing more, nothing less.
BCH is led by the financial interest in it, not the developers, both in the form of is as well as ought, for me.
[doublepost=1523614318][/doublepost]@jessquit: Got it. I think we're mostly on the same page then, even. Arguing from status quo is, witness BTC and the blocksize, extremely effective and I think will also be a defense against any sudden and unwanted introduction of major changes like Bitcoin-NG.
I actually don't like the status quo argument to be overused with BCH (BTC is a different matter now
) but I have always been a conservative (like @cypherdoc and others) with changes to the protocol.Slow and steady, please.
So is your worry that the SM-folks want to change Bitcoin in undue ways, or is it something else?
Last edited:
@awemany I was around when a clear and present charlatan stole someone else's ideas lock, stock, and barrel, and transformed the entire computer industry, because the people he stole the ideas from (who were in every way superior scientists and engineers, some of the world's very best and brightest researchers with tremendous credibility and a near-infinite R&D fund) lacked the capability to put their ideas into useful products.
This individual was excoriated by the technical crowd for blatantly plagiarizing the work of others and adding no particular value of his own, yet without this person's vision of THE BIG PICTURE we might have waited another decade to get the innovation that made computers accessible to everyone.
At the time, I hated this person, and what he did to his buddy with whom he started his business, and subsequently pushed to the side. I still believe the person was a loathsome, cringeworthy individual entirely, frankly. He mistreated everyone around him, he lied and made up facts to suit his agenda, he treated his friends and family like shit, he flaunted the law because it inconvenienced him, and he unashamedly stood on the heads of others and took credit for what were not his creations. And, he looked like a pompous suspender-wearing asshole all the while.
So I learned a lesson. The lesson is this. I really don't care if the charlatan does his own science (he didn't) or if he steals someone else's creation and calls it his own (he did) or if he even understands how to build the thing he's selling (he couldn't) or if he's a greedy, arrogant asshole (he was) because in the end, good ideas stand on their own, independent of personalities -- and the people focusing on the personalities instead of the ideas will lose every time to the assholes and charlatans who just don't care what has to be done, as long as the thing gets done.
TLDR if you can't separate the idea from the mouth it came out of, then you're at a disadvantage to those who can
This individual was excoriated by the technical crowd for blatantly plagiarizing the work of others and adding no particular value of his own, yet without this person's vision of THE BIG PICTURE we might have waited another decade to get the innovation that made computers accessible to everyone.
At the time, I hated this person, and what he did to his buddy with whom he started his business, and subsequently pushed to the side. I still believe the person was a loathsome, cringeworthy individual entirely, frankly. He mistreated everyone around him, he lied and made up facts to suit his agenda, he treated his friends and family like shit, he flaunted the law because it inconvenienced him, and he unashamedly stood on the heads of others and took credit for what were not his creations. And, he looked like a pompous suspender-wearing asshole all the while.
So I learned a lesson. The lesson is this. I really don't care if the charlatan does his own science (he didn't) or if he steals someone else's creation and calls it his own (he did) or if he even understands how to build the thing he's selling (he couldn't) or if he's a greedy, arrogant asshole (he was) because in the end, good ideas stand on their own, independent of personalities -- and the people focusing on the personalities instead of the ideas will lose every time to the assholes and charlatans who just don't care what has to be done, as long as the thing gets done.
TLDR if you can't separate the idea from the mouth it came out of, then you're at a disadvantage to those who can
@jessquit: There is much more than one person who can see the big picture. Like yourself.
So why select one who has all that baggage and problems attached as a thought leader?
Case in point and to combine this thought it with the parallel, ongoing discussion with @Tom Zander , SWPATs are bad for BCH because they will prevent the small guys from entering this space, concentrate power in the hands of a few (e.g. nChain can say what is BCH and what isn't and will drive and test the U.S. legal system against the decentralized blockchain, a scenario that should be avoid for as long as possible!) and create a massive chilling effect against smaller actors, single creative folks, startups and so forth in this space, who will risk being sued into oblivion by patent trolls in this space.
I personally dislike SWPATs first and foremost for the very fundamental reason of them impeding and colliding with free speech and thought: I cannot publish free or open source software in certain areas of the world, my free speech is curtailed, because of some bullshit patent infringing on my inalienable rights. In my country, SWPATs are illegal, yet lawyers advised people to shut up and take software off the net because of SWPATs that shouldn't even be legal here.
But that is independent of my extended dislike which also sees the economic chilling effect it can have on a field/market that is poisoned by these landmines.
Everyone who wants BCH to suceed should think twice, thrice, many times whether it is a good idea to let a single entity have this much say.
Any guy who misses to see this at least as a concern this simply fails to see the big picture.
So why select one who has all that baggage and problems attached as a thought leader?
Case in point and to combine this thought it with the parallel, ongoing discussion with @Tom Zander , SWPATs are bad for BCH because they will prevent the small guys from entering this space, concentrate power in the hands of a few (e.g. nChain can say what is BCH and what isn't and will drive and test the U.S. legal system against the decentralized blockchain, a scenario that should be avoid for as long as possible!) and create a massive chilling effect against smaller actors, single creative folks, startups and so forth in this space, who will risk being sued into oblivion by patent trolls in this space.
I personally dislike SWPATs first and foremost for the very fundamental reason of them impeding and colliding with free speech and thought: I cannot publish free or open source software in certain areas of the world, my free speech is curtailed, because of some bullshit patent infringing on my inalienable rights. In my country, SWPATs are illegal, yet lawyers advised people to shut up and take software off the net because of SWPATs that shouldn't even be legal here.
But that is independent of my extended dislike which also sees the economic chilling effect it can have on a field/market that is poisoned by these landmines.
Everyone who wants BCH to suceed should think twice, thrice, many times whether it is a good idea to let a single entity have this much say.
Any guy who misses to see this at least as a concern this simply fails to see the big picture.
Last edited:
1. 5% this: Yes, I've heard noise about needing to change the protocol to address SM. NACK. At least, not until someone produces a position paper than even I can trivially refute.
2. 95% this: What I really want the community to do is to open its mind to all the various ways that our shared misunderstanding of mining topology may cause us to reach invalid conclusions in all areas of design. The obvious failure of SM to address emergent topology is only one atom, we need to back up and re-assess the entire structure. It is painfully obvious that we have not done so. I suspect that most everything that we think we know about Bitcoin can be either upended or extended by revisiting it with the correct topology model in mind. Who is doing this? Where can I read the exhaustive study?
YOU JUST DID IT AGAIN.
BECAUSE I AM ADVANCING AN IDEA THAT IS BEING ATTACHED TO THIS PERSON, NOW HE'S MY THOUGHT LEADER, AND NOW I'M BEING TOLD TO DEFEND HIM.
STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP DOING THIS FOR FUCKS SAKE.
LET ME MAKE THIS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR: I'M MY OWN FUCKING THOUGHT LEADER. NOBODY LEADS MY THOUGHT.
ONLY A SMALL MINDED PERSON ATTACKS ANOTHER PERSON BECAUSE HE HAPPENS TO REPEAT WORDS ALSO UTTERED BY UNDESIRABLES.
THIS THING YOU'RE DOING IS AT LEAST AS TOXIC AS ANYTHING ELSE BEING DISCUSSED AND PROBABLY MORESO.
Now that I believe I have made my position clear I would like to go back to being friends having polite rational discussion of ideas please.
Last edited:
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Bitcoin 's network passively resists discovery of the topology, does it not?
We know certain facts (such as certain elements that constitute it, e.g. relay networks).
But I think some people are claiming to know more about the overall topology than they actually do.
It is incumbent that we start to question the fundamentals, and demand solid science.
We know certain facts (such as certain elements that constitute it, e.g. relay networks).
But I think some people are claiming to know more about the overall topology than they actually do.
It is incumbent that we start to question the fundamentals, and demand solid science.
