The Contradiction Between the Two StatementsPosition 1: "Nobody was promised rewards would scale with difficulty"Nobody was promised that rewards would scale with difficulty.
If some puzzles are no longer economically attractive, that's just the market. Nobody rewrites the rules because the expected return isn't what people would like it to be.
But the puzzle creator himself says the opposite:This puzzle is very strange. If it's for measuring the world's brute forcing capacity, 161-256 are just a waste. The puzzle creator could improve the puzzle's utility without bringing in any extra funds from outside - and roughly treble the puzzle's content density.
I am the creator.You are quite right, I honestly just did not think of this. What is especially embarrassing, is this did not occur to me once, in two years. By way of excuse, I was not really thinking much about the puzzle at all.I will spend from 161-256 to the unsolved parts,
as you suggest.
Probably in the next few weeks. At any rate, when I next have an extended period of quiet and calm, to construct the new transaction carefully.
While you claims
nobody rewrites the rules and rewards were never promised to scale with difficulty,
sabbybibi pointed out the puzzle's flawed density — and
the creator himself agreed, admitting the design was flawed and deciding to
increase the reward density by a factor of 10. This directly contradicts the claim that the market alone determines outcomes and that the rules never change.
