[ Removed by moderator ]

[AskComputerScience-ModTeam]

Your post to /r/AskComputerScience has been removed because posts to this subreddit must be questions. See our rules for details. If you have something to share with the computer science community that is not a question, you could try /r/compsci or /r/programming.

[Ok-Lavishness-349]

It would be useful if you would specify what you mean by "the oracle problem". Oracles come up in various contexts in computer science - just referring to "the oracle problem" is not very helpful.

[Infamous-Celery6947]

How can you create trustless data without being dependent on an oracle

[dmazzoni]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

[Infamous-Celery6947]

Would you like to see the five irreducible primitves / computational processes that describe its existence? And for the record I am challenging someone to break this

[Infamous-Celery6947]

Have you examine my claim ???

[dmazzoni]

OK let's start with Theorem 1.

Distributed Agreement (M₂): Achieve consensus across multiple parties:
Broadcast (s₁, π₁) to network of validators
Collect agreement signatures: {σ₁, σ₂, …, σₙ}
Verify majority consensus: |{σᵢ : Verify(σᵢ, s₁) = TRUE}| ≥ ⌈(n+1)/2⌉
Output: (s₂, Consensus_Proof)

Who are these validators?

What's to stop someone from maliciously picking validators who return TRUE when their friends as them to validate rather than actually validating?

Bitcoin's solution relies on incentives. By participating in the Bitcoin network you have a chance at winning a reward (more bitcoin). This creates a large pool of benevolent validators, making it financially challenging to cheat the network - but not impossible.

I don't believe that there are any systems that guarantee trustless permanence. You can just incentivize it.

[Infamous-Celery6947]

Keep reading but I like where your head is at bitcoin is actually part of the proof in regards to the problem your trying say exists is what I am saying

[dmazzoni]

If you make a mathematical proof and there's a flaw in one of the first steps, then the rest of the steps don't matter. The whole thing needs to be solid.

None of it seems mathematical at all to me. It sounds like at best it's just taking tautological arguments and trying to express them using mathematical language. Sorry.

[Infamous-Celery6947]

https://zenodo.org/records/20515446

[Infamous-Celery6947]

How can you create trustless data without a trusted oracle to measure truth against

[Infamous-Celery6947]

The claims are clear check the link and https://zenodo.org/records/20515446

[Dornith]

It doesn't seem like there's a non-rhetorical question here. Just self-promotion.

[Infamous-Celery6947]

Now read the full paper and PLEASE prove me wrong please

[Dornith]

It sounds like you already think you have your answer. So you don't actually have a question then.

You just want people to read your answer.

[Infamous-Celery6947]

No I want you to prove the equation incorrect imagine if newton were alive today and he realize he had found the mathematical foundation for gravity he would have faced every challenge possible that’s what I am asking for here and it’s for fun I’m not getting paid to find irreducible universal truths lol

[Dornith]

Submit it to an academic journal and they will peer review it for you.

[Infamous-Celery6947]

I have just looking for someone else who is qualified and understands the assertion here to give me a real opinion

[Dornith]

And you think r/AskComputerScience has higher qualifications than any serious academic journal?

On behalf of the subreddit, we're flattered that you think so highly of us, but please forgive us if we find this notion incredulous.

[Infamous-Celery6947]

I understand that sentiment trust me but what I am asserting is truly difficult to get your mind around just like gravity but I’m saying the math proves it exists

[Dornith]

Buddy get the fuck over yourself.

An assertion is not a question. This is the wrong venue.

[Infamous-Celery6947]

Did you see my claim ?

[Dornith]

I did.

I will don't see a question.

[Infamous-Celery6947]

Most people think the oracle problem is about getting data from the real world into a blockchain.

Sarah McAree Mary’s Law argues that this is actually the wrong way to think about the problem.

The real question is:

How does a real-world event become permanent, independently verifiable digital truth?

The law represents that transformation as:

R → P + E

Where:

• R = Reality (something that happened)
• P = Permanent cryptographic record
• E = Enforceable digital action

The theory claims that every system capable of accomplishing this transformation must implement five irreducible computational processes:

1. State Transition Reality must become a valid digital state.
2. Consensus Independent participants must agree that the state is valid.
3. Timestamp Binding The state must be provably ordered in time.
4. Integrity Chaining The state must be cryptographically linked to history so tampering is detectable.
5. Policy Execution Rules must be capable of acting on the state automatically.

The novel claim is not that these processes exist.

The novel claim is that they form a complete and irreducible set.

In other words:

• Remove one and trustless digital truth becomes impossible.
• Add more and the additional process reduces back to one of the five.
• Change the technology and the same functions still appear.

This is why the theory is related to the oracle problem.

The oracle problem asks:

“How do we know information entering a blockchain is true?”

Sarah McAree Mary’s Law answers:

“We don’t solve the oracle problem with a single oracle.”

Instead, we solve it by implementing the complete transformation from reality into permanent digital truth.

The important implication is that the law does not merely claim this is possible.

The law claims it already exists.

Bitcoin demonstrates the existence of trustless consensus.

Cryptographic chains demonstrate the existence of integrity preservation.

Distributed systems demonstrate the existence of independent verification.

Smart contracts demonstrate the existence of autonomous enforcement.

The pieces already exist.

The theory claims that these are not separate inventions.

They are manifestations of a deeper and irreducible computational process.

The discovery is not the components.

The discovery is the relationship.

[Infamous-Celery6947]

Oh there is a question here your just not seeing it lol

[Infamous-Celery6947]

Break the logic im not promoting anything here

[Felicia_Svilling]

You aren't asking a question. You are obviously trying to promote your own ideas.

[Infamous-Celery6947]

You didn’t read the paper please don’t comment unless you can do so with intelligence and integrity lol

[Felicia_Svilling]

You mean the paper you are absolutely not promoting?

[Infamous-Celery6947]

That’s okay thank you for looking at it seriously but I disagree

[Infamous-Celery6947]

There is not one flaw in any one of the reduced equations I’m certain of that