"Technologists claimed that taint tracking was hard, as they assumed that taint would mix and dilute when coins are joined; yet the relevant case law specifies first-in-first-out tracking, which turns out to be technically easy."
Umm... does 'easy' matter, when the results are absolutely inaccurate? Why do some people have such a hard time understanding that trying to force Bitcoin to adhere to the incumbent systems will simply not work?
@htimsxela these authors seem pretty confused, just by looking at the abstract and the intro
This is Ross Anderson right? Completely bonkers, even downright evil attitude that guy has.
I don't *think* anyone's going to take it seriously.
Demeanour aside, I think this shows that 'smart' is not unilaterally defined. I think there is a lack of creativity inherent here, a presupposition that any 'viable' tech will have to adhere to the rules that certain humans have put in place.
The paper has a reference to Napster being shut down, and then goes on to describe media companies eventually embracing Spotify, etc. Suspiciously... no mention of bitTorrent. I guess it didn't fit the author's narative :p
Good call, seen that before: Kaminska at FT comparing Bitcoin to Napster (I pointed how wrong that was but she just brushed it off, as if it wasn't a big deal). Blindspot doesn't even describe the level of cognitive bias people have. Another finance commentator considers his years old dismissal of BTC completely justified 'because completely centralised control by Chinese miners'. People post-rationalize what they want to believe.