It is the scarcity that creates the 'value'. Unless everybody walks away from the idea that it is worth something (may happen), then its value is still driven by how difficult it is to create some.

Scarcity doesn't create value. A copy of my personal memoir is extremely scarce, yet the value is zero. Further, bitcoin only has the illusion of scarcity, and clearly that's enough, but as was demonstrated by BCH, the supply of coins can be trivially increased. Enthusiasts will argue "BCH is not BTC, they're two separate currencies", but this is missing the point that "crypo-tokens" are an unlimited resource that is artificially limited through a consensus that can change at any time.

The total volume of my excrement over the course of my lifetime is scarce. Yet it is worthless to investors. Scarcity alone does not make something valuable.

I understand that you consider bitcoin to be sht and do not want it. It seems enough people have confidence in its mechanisms though. So that would be scarcity+confidence that gives it its value. But the same thing happens with the next crypto currency (your neighbors' sht) so maybe it is worth nothing after all. Not taking a stance, just trying to understand.

I am always surprised how people care about the language of implementation so much. The data structure is interesting by itself. Why should we care what this is built with?

Because that may mean that it is not usable for you. Not everybody is interested in the theory of things, and once you implement you tie things down to a specific ecosystem.

Adding 'in clojure' does not detract from the info already in the title but makes it more informative. This particular implementation is also quite dependent (as far as I can see) on bits and pieces that clojure supplies natively but that may be hard to implement in other languages.

Also,the "hot water pipe freezes first" is a popular "myth" (turns out it may be true). This has happened to me and the plumber seemed to take that for a fact despite not having a reasonable explanation.

It may be worth noting that minor versions are not strictly compatible but generally require some dev work.

This last link is a gem. They refer to the TRIBES Networking Model in the talk, explained here also: http://gamedevs.org/uploads/tribes-networking-model.pdf

There is a beautiful implementation of this in the old OpenTNL that seems to be still alive in the newer Torque engine: https://github.com/GarageGames/Torque2D/tree/master/engine/s...

The original article does not discuss the aspect of scaling fast-paced games to handle large numbers of replicated objects and players under constrained network conditions but I found the approach proposed in the original TRIBES model to be the most (only?) credible so far. I don't see support for this in any of the popular, modern network libraries (RakNet, enet, lidgren, ...). They all seem to have taken the 'multiple reliable channels' direction but that just doesn't seem to scale to many connected players the way the TRIBES model does.

I would love to hear from anyone who has had experience with that!