What is Reddit's opinion of Introduction to Graph Theory (Dover Books on Mathematics)?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

> "every single fork is "valid" (according to its own rules)." Exactly, it does run antithetical to Bitcoin but people have the ability to do that. > >

Of course people can do that. The point is that there is no utility (or dramatically less utility in doing so).

Basically, this approach just trends back towards centralization and localization, which is AGAIN antithetical to Bitcoin and nakamoto consensus.

>Yes and Maxis have to live with that.

lolwut? No. Maxis don't have to live with that because the trend is toward unification, not localization.

Jesus Christ, man. You are literally just going in circles at this point.

>People write the code and make decisions on what to put in the code. People operate with incomplete information. Without perfect information there is no guarantee that the code and governance will be perfect.

Nobody said the code or governance was or will be perfect. This has nothing to do with the consensus protocol, which is designed to conform consensus around a unified, singular chain.

I have literally explain this to you dozens of times at this point. This is literally what Bitcoin is all about: a single, unified chain based on decentralized consensus (through its PoW scheme).

I cannot continue to run in circles with you. You either have to rub some of those brain cells together and start making progress, or this conversation is effectively dead in the water.

>You got me on this one. I dont have a degree in mathematics nor CS and am by no means an expert in either as you can tell. It does look intriguing though. I'm excited to understand it more.

So go fucking educate yourself. Stop playing armchair expert on reddit when you clearly no very little about this topic.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BX1DX9U/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0

This book covers many of the basics, including terminology, Euler's formula, how to determine if a graph is planar, the five color theorem and explains many of the proofs in an accessible way.

>>1) Unified networks provide exponentially more utility than disparate networks.

>>You agree with this, right?

>Yes

>>2) Free markets aim to maximize utility (rational choice theory, etc.)

>>Do you dispute this?

>No

Okay, then what exactly are you disagreeing with? If you agree with these two axioms, then you must share the same conclusion as me... and yet you don't... because you're just an idiot BCash shill.

>I would add that in the market you are dealing with incomplete information. That is the reason there are other coins. There is an amount of information on BTC currently.

Yes, the markets are irrational and speculative to begin with. They become less so over time, as efficiencies reduce information asymmetries and the markets trend towards a more efficient equilibrium. This is how nascent markets mature over time.

>Someone can reveal a new piece of information and use it as an advantage to exploit the network by securing value in a newly formed part of a market. Thats not to say that BTC can't adopt that new information in the future to acquire that value for itself.

What vague gibberish is this?

>It took 24 hours but this is a paragraph that is well written and articulates your position. I particularly like this logic and support it. I dont know if I'm fully convinced that I should disavow any other coin but this is sound rational as to why not any smaller network at least. By this, the fact that btc has its current rules coupled with the amount of users on the network means that the consensus it is in is the most efficient by definition. And because of the size of the network the consensus should be able to override any entity that would want to inject nefarious governance. Or more simply there are enough people invested in btc that they would sound the alarm if it wasn't perfectly efficient.

Yes, this is the utility that consensus confers. It's not that the rules can't change, it's that they will change only based on consensus. So if the markets decide that 8 Mb blocks are the greatest thing since sliced bread, then BTC will naturally fork into this ruleset, giving it identical properties to BCash, but with the huge added advantage of consensus and much larger network effect.

This is why BCash is dead no matter what. Even if the consensus rules are ultimately shown to be optimal, it has long since lost any claim to being a dominant network and market. So those rules would just be co-opted by Bitcoin and BTC would refork (with consensus and market following).

Not that I think that's the case. I think it's possible that Bitcoin will hard fork upgrade in the future (meaning the fork retaining the vast majority of hashing power/price), but I think that will only happen after a lot of deliberation and consensus building around what the right changes to make are. And I think those changes will likely be very conservative and highly tested and contested in debate.

But I'm not even so sure that will happen. It's equally or more likely from my PoV that Bitcoin will remain exactly the same because it works fine the way it is and its immutability is such a key determinant of its utility, that the benefits of a hard fork would really have to confer much greater utility in order to actually move the markets.

>Ultimately what just laid out does resonate with me and does make me reconsider my viewpoint. I still think the completeness of information plays a role and as more concepts are discovered the set of information may necessitate changes to code and governance.

Cool, but you realize that just about any use case that has been proposed can be done on Bitcoin through abstracted layers like Taproot or LN, right? And most of those upgrades (like Schnorr) can be done through a soft fork.

I personally think that "DeFi" and "smart contracts" and "NFTs" and most other shit that ETHtards hype up is worthless or has very little utility, but it's not like those things can't be done through Bitcoin. And it's actually much more advantageous to do it through Bitcoin because Bitcoin is ultra secure and decentralized, unlike ETH, EOS, ETC, Tron, etc. Which are highly decentralized and don't even have a sound economic model for securing the chain. (PoS is a joke)

Have you read this paper? https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/john-pfeffer/An+Investor's+Take+on+Cryptoassets+v6.pdf