<s​pirobel:kernal.eu> Rucknium: the definitions in this Roughgarden paper are dubious. They define permissionless as "the protocol is oblivious to who executes it". That is not the typically accepted definition. In their lectures they contradict this definition themselves. The widely accepted definition of permissionless is anyone can become a participant in the network without having to ask a central <clipped message>

<s​pirobel:kernal.eu> authority for permission.

<s​pirobel:kernal.eu> Rucknium: ">According to what I'm reading by Roughgarden, the less synchronous you become, the more permissioned the validation must be." According to their crooked definition of permissionless this statement would have to be translated to "the less synchronous you become, the less oblivious the validation must be"

<s​pirobel:kernal.eu> 1. not sure the interpretation is valid / helpful. 2. On the Roughgarden papers in general: they seem like fluff.

<r​ucknium:monero.social> Who else is doing serious game theory in this area? Give citations.

<s​pirobel:kernal.eu> didn't find any. but that does not mean that their stuff is good.

<r​ucknium:monero.social> I first noticed Roughgarden from his paper on the Ethereum fee policy . EIP-???

<r​ucknium:monero.social> I do not necessarily take all game theory as useful. But show me the rigor.

<s​pirobel:kernal.eu> the issue is that it just adds more confusion to redefine permissionless as oblivious. It contradicts empirical evidence as well. According to their framework bitcoin and monero are permissionless aka oblivious

<s​pirobel:kernal.eu> but nodes are not really oblivious to the network

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> xmrack:

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> > ...But you prefer a coin with 50% emitted in the first year and released with a sketchy miner situation? A coin that changes emission schedules after launch? A coin with a shady record of rigged votes? Not to mention one that was born as a clone from a scam coin?

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> From someone else's comments on XMR in another conversation... I +1 what you brought up yesterday.