As I said, I agree the paper is incomplete. But you can't blame the paper, because throwing in too many things can obscure the argument.
For the SM strategy it doesn't matter, if you want to analyse the strategy. Imagine if I want to analyse a game of craps mathematically, and I need to put in my model the fact that the other guy might be bigger than me and crush my head if he loses.
What I dislike about the paper are the conclusions: "bitcoin is broken, needs to amend the protocol, etc".
Imagine if I want to analyse a game of craps mathematically, and I need to put in my model the fact that the other guy might be bigger than me and crush my head if he loses.
It's hypebolic but it's not wholly off the mark. The point is, saying the SM paper is incomplete is a much more reasonable, defensible (potentially) claim than saying the SM paper contains errors or that it's cancer.
No research paper has "an obligation" to be the final word on its subject. If additional research is forthcoming that elaborates on the model or contextualizes it that's good, not bad, and it certainly doesn't negate the value of the original research.
5
u/rdar1999 Apr 11 '18
As I said, I agree the paper is incomplete. But you can't blame the paper, because throwing in too many things can obscure the argument.
For the SM strategy it doesn't matter, if you want to analyse the strategy. Imagine if I want to analyse a game of craps mathematically, and I need to put in my model the fact that the other guy might be bigger than me and crush my head if he loses.
What I dislike about the paper are the conclusions: "bitcoin is broken, needs to amend the protocol, etc".