The problems of provable (formally-verifiable) program safety and determinism became crucial in the age of modern LLMs. I am developing #AluVM# and @CationLang as a constructionist and ultrafinitist tool: in each type is a finite set of constructable objects; so there is type N8 made of all natural numbers (0 is not natural!) in range 1-256 included, N16, N32 and N64. There are integers of the same sort (0 included), I8, I16, I32 etc. There are no floating-point numbers, only rationals (in the Norman Wildberger @n_wildberger style), no sine/cosine - only rational trigonometry. Integers are pairs of numbers, not just “unsigned with a sign bit”, rationals are pairs of integers (i.e. quadriples of numbers). It uses dependent types (calculus of constructs), but restricts to finite types only. All functions are total, the termination analysis proves that. There is no recursion which can’t be reduced to a provable-terminating computation at compile-time. This gives a language and computational system which is formally analyzable at compile-time, by its structure.additionally to that, a binary compiled code is also formally analyzable and has a verifiable properties.

I have spent a lot of my time over the last two years designing a programming language which allows to (relatively easy) write a correct by construction code, i.e a code which formally verifies itself and does a lot of logic at compile time. The language is called cation @CationLang, which is a feneric programming language. Its dialect Contractum is made for smart contracts running @UVioletAI (RGB successor and superset). You may think of it as Lean 4, but able to do what you usually do with Zig. The new age of vulnerability discoveries highlights the importance of such language. Human programming is still at the amateur stage, and we need a new generation of tools to write software which is provably safe.

Let me unpack what this actually means for Bitcoin (not trying to prove anything to anyone, just share results of my personal “do not trust verify” of the @GrassFedBitcoin claims). 1. Any minority with hash power ~10-20% and minority of nodes (by count, economic value) of <1% may activate a soft fork, causing a chain split and putting the majority funds into a double-spend risk for weeks/month, stopping main chain from efficient operations. 2. This is not how SegWit was activated and was not known before. It is not “just a UASF”. 3. Even if you do not see how pt 1 is possible, it is possible (game-theoretically proven, see my tweets over pas week and discussions with @giacomozucco) and IS a strategy officially used by BIP-110 gang which they proud of discovering, claiming this is a “distributed authoritarianism” and it is good for Bitcoin. 4. Unlike them I see this as a bad thing and not an authoritarianism, but rather a form of destructive nihilism. 5. In pt 5 “possible” doesn’t mean “it will certainly happen”. Yet still just a fact of its theoretical possibility is already a problem: the system with such feature/bug is vulnerable to the whole range of new types of attacks, so even with BIP-110 abandoned, the damage is already done and there will be more followers to this strategy. 6. This vulnerability is specific to PoW consensus with public ledger (“blockchain”), where miners and users see and verify transactions of the entire world. “ZK” do not protect from them. The only protection is a PoW consensus _without_ blockchain - like I proposed few years ago (Prime, for which our team is building a proof of concept).

My understanding: it is all about game theory, and the solution for UASF having minority hashpower has no stable Nash equilibrium, but multiple equlibria (“local optimums”). We may face multiple “phase transitions” between those unstable (horse-seat) equilibria which you describe as “reorgs” or “chainsplits”, but they are mich more dangerous than usual reorgs and even chainsplits. This means that the main problem that the consequence of BIP-110 will be turbulent and uncomputible; chaotic, whether tiny unpredictable events may have a dramatic impact. If I am right, even if nothing happens and everyone will forget BIP-110, we have explored a profound vulnerability and attack vector agaist bitcoin (actually any PoW consensus based on a public ledger) which will be used in the future, including government-based actors. Here, non-blockchain PoW like I am planning for Prime is the only solution to the fundamental problem.