My new account on X (formerly Twitter): @marcodecunha1. My old account, suspended for no apparent reason: @marcodecunha. Just saying.

Consensus requires third parties to enter into consensus, and trusted third parties are security holes. For example, the security of the network's value integrity is left to the consensus among developers when we talk about BIP, or specifically regarding the Knots vs. Core issue. There is no true immutability. That's why I talk about security holes derived even from fiat regulatory issues that can lead to a legal ban on the very actors involved in "consensus." And ultimately, science itself is not based on consensus, despite what fiat academic bureaucrats would like.

Are consensuses security holes?

Again, banned on X.. and this time it's a permanent suspension. X (Tweeter) censors if you denounce or criticize Israel or Zionism. I opened a new account (@marcodecuna1) for the sole purpose of publishing the Self-Contained Framework (to be published in OSF, Open Science Framework) that Unifies geometry, mathematics, all of physics, thermodynamics, information theory, logic, and the foundations of biology), and thus confront it with its AI and other AIs for public confirmation, as an attractor for the academic world. Stay Tuned: I will first share the links on NOSTR.

Consensus is a security hole. prove me wrong.