|
Title: Speculating on the unknown unknowns Post by: jehst on December 16, 2015, 11:05:13 PM Quote from: Donald Rumsfeld [A]s we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones. Bitcoin examples: Known knowns: We know that we know there will be a block halving in 2016. Known unknowns: We know that we don't know who Satoshi Nakamoto is. Unknown unknowns: We don't know that we don't know_________________? Let's speculate on the things that we don't know that we don't know! Title: Re: Speculating on the unknown unknowns Post by: rjclarke2000 on December 16, 2015, 11:07:41 PM I know I don't know what I just read. Maybe my brain is unknown?
Title: Re: Speculating on the unknown unknowns Post by: rjclarke2000 on December 16, 2015, 11:08:59 PM Yellen is satoshi?
Title: Re: Speculating on the unknown unknowns Post by: mirana12345 on December 16, 2015, 11:42:20 PM It's quite strange question, but there's a flaw to it; you can't not know that you not know, because the second you do, you no longer not know.
I'll be interested to see some of the attempts tho, but i'm fairly certain i'm right. Title: Re: Speculating on the unknown unknowns Post by: jehst on December 16, 2015, 11:44:19 PM It's quite strange question, but there's a flaw to it; you can't not know that you not know, because the second you do, you no longer not know. I'll be interested to see some of the attempts tho, but i'm fairly certain i'm right. You're right. It's a paradox. The act of identifying something as an unknown-unknown changes its character to "known unknown." I make this thread half-jokingly. Title: Re: Speculating on the unknown unknowns Post by: Biodom on December 17, 2015, 12:14:44 AM It's quite strange question, but there's a flaw to it; you can't not know that you not know, because the second you do, you no longer not know. I'll be interested to see some of the attempts tho, but i'm fairly certain i'm right. You're right. It's a paradox. The act of identifying something as an unknown-unknown changes its character to "known unknown." I make this thread half-jokingly. there is an infinite number of unknown unknowns with also unknown probability scale, so speculation on such matters will not be beneficial. I can make one categorical prediction, though: it will be impossible for bitcoin to be both a dominant cryptocurrency driving world's commerce and having just 21 mil units of account. I know about infinite divisibility, but such matters will look progressively silly at some point and there will be pressure to allow for more coins. Maybe bitcoin will be a founding substrate of another coin (BTC 2.0), but the total coin number will not be fixed at 21 mil in perpetuity. There will be unbearable pressure on developers to adjust in some way...and they will. Title: Re: Speculating on the unknown unknowns Post by: jehst on December 17, 2015, 12:27:08 AM It's quite strange question, but there's a flaw to it; you can't not know that you not know, because the second you do, you no longer not know. I'll be interested to see some of the attempts tho, but i'm fairly certain i'm right. You're right. It's a paradox. The act of identifying something as an unknown-unknown changes its character to "known unknown." I make this thread half-jokingly. there is an infinite number of unknown unknowns with also unknown probability scale, so speculation on such matters will not be beneficial. I can make one categorical prediction, though: it will be impossible for bitcoin to be both a dominant crytocurrency driving world's commerce and having just 21 mil units of account. I know about infinite divisibility, but such matters will look progressively silly at some point and there will be pressure to allow for more coins. Maybe bitcoin will be a founding substrate of another coin (BTC 2.0), but the total coin number will not be able to be fixed at 21 mil in perpetuity. There will be unbearable pressure on developers to adjust in some way...and they will. I think, in a way, that this is what the whole shitcoin explosion was about. Litecoin, for example, isn't really about "scalability" or "decentralization" or "speed." Maybe those things are 10% of the reason for LTC's existence. In reality, litecoin is about having more coins. It's about giving another group of people the experience of being a bitcoin early adopter at the "top" of the new pyramid. Title: Re: Speculating on the unknown unknowns Post by: TERA on December 17, 2015, 01:33:07 AM I thought Litecoin was about hashing with Scrypt in an attempt to get away from ASICs.
Title: Re: Speculating on the unknown unknowns Post by: r0ach on December 17, 2015, 01:58:01 AM I think Donald Rumsfield ended up owning the patent to some artificial sweetener (maybe aspartame) and the FDA said it was basically rat poison but he pulled strings to get it rubber stamped for the public.
Title: Re: Speculating on the unknown unknowns Post by: glendall on December 17, 2015, 02:00:24 AM "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." --hero of the empire Donald Rumsfeld
|