What Do You Mean, It Doesn’t Grow On Trees?

What is cryptid-currency? It’s the latest brainstorm to come out of the convergence of bankers, cryptographers, and genetic engineers – a blockchain-based form of cryp designed to use the photosynthetically-powered computing capacity of mesh-networked genetically enhanced trees to provide the validation and storage necessary to operate the cryp’s backing protocol, combining environmental friendliness and stealthy operation in a single package.

All you need to do is find the trees. You’re looking for at least six (the minimum needed to form a functional server-grove with enough combined power to reach distant networks) – and bear in mind that since many varieties have been created, such as the byteoak, the moneple, the wishwillow, the cashelm, and the greenwood, not all trees in the grove are necessarily identical. Indeed, the converse is also true, and identical-appearing trees may be of different protocol varietals.

At this point, you can register an account with the appropriate wallet application for the cryptid-currency in question, running on your more conventional computing device. Since no special peripherals are required on ubiquitous cognitive radio hardware, all the data is stored in the tree’s logs (sic), and cryp applications tend to support steganographically concealed keys, a self-destructing app can effectively hide your use of tree-cryp from any and all nosy chaps out there.

So now let’s take a look at some of the more popular cryptid-currencies out there…”

– excerpted from Profiting on the Woodblock-Chain:
A Guide to Cryptid-Currency

11 thoughts on “What Do You Mean, It Doesn’t Grow On Trees?

  1. The moment I started to hear “cryptidcurrency,” a blockchain currency based upon the blockchain collection of mythological monsters, I realized that my skills as a Pokemon Trainer would suddenly become a very valid commodity as I raised mons to make money for my investors…

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Huh, this actually brings up something I saw come up in another work of fiction that I’m curious about, where essentially a AI argued that cryptocurrency isn’t that great as a future-currency because:

    A: The concept of “more processing power makes more money” is less than ideal because it wastes power, and that gets a little ridiculous when you can, say, build entire dyson swarms worth of bitcoin miners.
    B: Having a entire currency that falls apart if someone cracks a single algorithm is less than ideal in a world of geniuses armed with a solution for P=NP.

    So, how do they handle it? Are there just better solutions to making it secure without requiring immense amounts of processing power, and then once they had that they just dropped the whole “whoever wastes the most electricity in the next ten minutes gets 10 coins” part?

    Like

    • The “whoever wastes the most electricity in the next ten minutes gets 10 coins” part isn’t an inherent component of cryptocurrencies, rather merely how some like bitcoin choose to assign new coins and reward those who assist in running the calculations needed by the blockchain. So yeah, they probably dropped that part.

      As for B? I can only assume you’re right, that they’ve discovered some much more secure set of algorithms. Not unbelievable, given we’re developing better algorithms in real life and security and privacy is very important to the Imperials. They’d no doubt have put a lot of resources into this problem.
      We also don’t know if P=NP actually does hold true. That’s an unsolved problem. If it turns out not to be the case, then they’d definitely be able to find nearly unbreakable algorithms that would require processing power so great as to be well beyond the point of gaining any benefit approaching the cost.

      Like

      • I’m not a expert on the inner workings of modern cryptocurrencies, but I was under the impression that the extreme amount of computation that goes into bitcoin actually helps with security, because anyone who wanted to falsify transaction data would basically have to recompute the entire chain, requiring more-or-less as much computing as was invested in it in the first place.

        With B, they have proved that P=NP, it’s called the ‘Isif Theorem’ https://eldraeverse.com/2015/11/19/glossary-of-otherwise-known-terms/
        And they solved it because they have time travel: https://eldraeverse.com/2015/07/31/unmoved-monad/

        But I’m not a expert on data security either, so I’m not sure if there are practical methods of security that are resistant to that. Probably, though, given that data security still exists there.

        Like

        • Huh. My original reply to this somehow got detached and moved to the main thread. Probably took too long to write it or something.

          Anyway, an addendum:

          I’m not sure if there are practical methods of security that are resistant to that. Probably, though, given that data security still exists there.

          There are certainly complexity classes that can’t be practically solved by a computer that can beat PSPACE problems (EXPSPACE) and problems are known to have those complexities. Creating a new EXPSPACE problem or using an existing one to do encryption or signatures is left as an exercise for the reader.

          I’m fairly certain these technologies slay pretty much any kind of symmetric cryptography, though.

          Like

        • With a teeny bit more research, it appears that one might use a Malament-Hogarth spacetime to perform a hypercomputational task. You can find these around a rotating black hole, of the sort that’s found inside every eldrae stargate. Of course, you have to throw yourself over the event horizon to read the answer to the task, but come the advent of the starleaper initiative you’d be able to use your FTL drive to escape the event horizon and make use of what you’ve just learned. Boom, no more cryptography. And, for that matter, a new generation of weakly godlike intelligences that could outthink the existing crop of recursively-optimised AI. So that’s interesting, too.

          What I’m not sure about is why an M-H spacetime allows hypercomputation and a CTC does not as it would appear that a computer in M-H space still lacks the necessarily infinite amount of storage required to do hypercomputation with a turing-equivalent, but my mathematics and computer science is waaaay too weak to answer that question with the papers I’ve found.

          Liked by 1 person

      • For the purposes of fictive tech development way back in the day, I had to pick a solution to that particular unsolved problem, and assuming P=NP gave me more interesting answers. 😉

        (And, yes, consequentially this means that modern – for values of modern meaning “after the mid-2800s” – cryptosystems are mining EXPSPACE for algorithms.)

        Those who are really serious about their security are, of course, using one-time pads based on one-third XORs of stellar noise.

        Like

    • On A: As driagledd said, that’s not an intrinsic part of the system; that’s just how bitcoin-model cryptocurrencies incentivize people to do the work necessary to validate the transaction blocks. In cryptid-currency, you get that work done for you by the forest in exchange for sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide.

      On B: Yeah, as with other crypto applications, this is where it’s important to pick an algorithm that stays working even when you publish it. 🙂

      (As a side note, most cryp is fairly vulnerable to Powers and others with access to hypercomputational methods or mega-massively parallel systems. Its users rely on the notion that anyone with said access has access to many more resources than could be gained by, and far better things to do with its time, than forging transactions in low-level black markets.)

      Like

  3. @Buggy

    but I was under the impression that the extreme amount of computation that goes into bitcoin actually helps with security, because anyone who wanted to falsify transaction data would basically have to recompute the entire chain, requiring more-or-less as much computing as was invested in it in the first place.

    Its hard if you want to change the past, but you only need hold a majority of the compute power (for a proof of work system) or holds enough of whatever “stake” is defined to be in a proof-of-stake system then you can manipulate any future transaction after the point at which you achieved that status, for as long as you are powerful enough.

    One would hope that the Eldrae have cryptocurrency mechanisms that aren’t nearly so fragile or wasteful as the ones we have.

    With B, they have proved that P=NP, it’s called the ‘Isif Theorem’

    I like that this is a single throwaway line in a 4 year old page, given the magnitude of the consequences of P=NP 😉

    The funny thing is that I don’t think there’s anything in the eldraeverse that requires P=NP. Between quantum computation and time machines, any limtations implied by P!=NP have been quietly sidestepped anyway.

    And they solved it because they have time travel

    The existence and usability of closed timelike curves does not imply that P=NP, it “merely” means you can complete problems in PSPACE (which is a superset of NP problems) in a sensible amount of time. The amount of actual computational steps required to solve an NP problem could still be non-polynomial, its just that from the point of view of an outside observer it seems to take a constant time (possibly longer for PSPACE problems, but I Am Not A Mathematician, so I don’t know).

    It is worth noting that access to CTCs alone does not let you make a hypercomputer, because you are still limited by the amount of storage you need to solve a given problem, which is why you “only” get to defeat PSPACE problems.

    Liked by 1 person

    • At the moment, considering what’s been published, the Theorem mostly shows up in the long backstory of technological development. (And is a lot less relevant now, given said development, than it used to be.)

      Well, and other history: the Great Slump (the severe recession 2840-2848) was directly caused by the abrupt loss of faith its publication caused in secure banking systems, despite it being a non-constructive proof and the means of reversing the then-common public key algorithms not being produced until 2844, well after the majority of them had been phased out.

      But one must publish and be damned, after all.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s