This assumes that we’re in a type of simulation that’s variable-load.
(As an example of a type of simulation that isn’t variable-load, consider a ‘naive[1]’ Game of Life simulation on a bounded grid. Computational load is (quasi)-constant regardless of how complex the pattern is.)
Bitcoin could be such computation. The computation input should be based on some random numbers so it can’t be reused for different simulations
Not “can’t”. Just more difficult. (And that’s assuming that they can’t easily break SHA, which seems doubtful seeing as they can simulate quantum processes.)
For an obvious way to do so:
Any time you (as in the simulator) see a Bitcoin miner, replace it with a black box that doesn’t simulate the computation at all (with proper “am I being observed” checks of course). At the appropriate randomized time interval directly output a result memoized and reused across simulations.
Bitcoin results are not easy to reuse in different simulations, as people are making different transactions and it affect computations of the blockchain.
If the simulation is a simulation of every atom in the universe, it is computationally expensive, and there is no many such computations, so I am unlikely to be in it.
Bitcoin/blockchain force cohesion of a set of sims around the merkle tree, but you can still have many different sims that share variations of the same transaction history (they just differ then only in details).
But looking at it another way blockchains are also strong useful constraining evidence, so historical sims would always just recreate the same merkle trees. This leads to the interesting idea that you could attempt to preserve blockchain wealth post-sim … but of course you would just be sharing it with other versions of yourself, and potentially your simulators.
Interesting ideas.
> Overloading attack.
This assumes that we’re in a type of simulation that’s variable-load.
(As an example of a type of simulation that isn’t variable-load, consider a ‘naive[1]’ Game of Life simulation on a bounded grid. Computational load is (quasi)-constant regardless of how complex the pattern is.)
Not “can’t”. Just more difficult. (And that’s assuming that they can’t easily break SHA, which seems doubtful seeing as they can simulate quantum processes.)
For an obvious way to do so:
Any time you (as in the simulator) see a Bitcoin miner, replace it with a black box that doesn’t simulate the computation at all (with proper “am I being observed” checks of course). At the appropriate randomized time interval directly output a result memoized and reused across simulations.
Not something like e.g. HashLife.
Bitcoin results are not easy to reuse in different simulations, as people are making different transactions and it affect computations of the blockchain.
If the simulation is a simulation of every atom in the universe, it is computationally expensive, and there is no many such computations, so I am unlikely to be in it.
Bitcoin/blockchain force cohesion of a set of sims around the merkle tree, but you can still have many different sims that share variations of the same transaction history (they just differ then only in details).
But looking at it another way blockchains are also strong useful constraining evidence, so historical sims would always just recreate the same merkle trees. This leads to the interesting idea that you could attempt to preserve blockchain wealth post-sim … but of course you would just be sharing it with other versions of yourself, and potentially your simulators.