Blockchains seem to model The Arrow of Time and provide a way to a unified field theory, resolving the paradoxes and apparent incompatibilities of general relativity and quantum mechanics. It seems to have been intentionally designed to be a quantum computer. This may seem shocking or surprising or just nonsense to most people. However, it is incredible discovered a possible physical reason for the unidirectionality of time. Physics today doesn't know why time flows in one direction ... all our models tell us that it should be able to flow both ways.

Blockchains provide the solution to this question ... how can history be immutable if time flows forward and backwards in time, and why don't we travel randomly back and forth through time? I published this idea to steemit a while ago and have embedded the link below and provided my earliest notes at the time I was inspired. I have provided some links to old usenet posts where you will find people such as Hal Finney discussing ideas that I believe influenced the design of Bitcoin.

Behind the paywall, is my cell phone number and personal email address. I put a price there if you want to call or email me to discuss things. I put the price at $1000 USD, to stop people from wasting my time needlessly. You of course do not have to pay, the content is all free below. I will answer any questions as time permits, and at the best of my knowledge and ability.

I have additional notes and have been working on a paper and will publish "when it's ready". However, it appears that there is a group of people that I finally found that are fully aware of all this information so I might just be wasting my time if they have already figured this all out ... if you are out there ... ping me.

What does this mean for the Earth?

Original notes:

Apologies for the poor formatting. Publication of these notes is necessary at this time in ...

Record of my notes ....

Saturday, January 3, 2015

8:32 PM

Richard Anthony Hein

January 2015

I am operating on an assumption that the mathematics behind Bitcoin is perhaps the missing piece of the puzzle of how quantum mechanics really works, and how it relates to general relativity. I cannot believe that such beauty in mathematics is not a feature of nature; and at least as pervasive as the Fibonacci Sequence. Therefore I predict massive breakthroughs in science due to the Bitcoin protocol and the mathematical structures which describe it. To that end, I describe a model of spacetime, based on the concepts of Bitcoin, and offer at least the suggestion that a blockchain model could be used to model the arrow of time, and symmetry breaking.

The arrow of time can be modeled by the blockchain. Just as blocks are added to the blockchain by a winning Bitcoin miner, and the distributed ledger is updated, quantum entanglement can be explained using the blockchain as a model. This implies a computational universe. Increasing entropy is like mining with more and more computational power mapping to the size and energy output of stars. Time and space communication paradoxes are resolved using the blockchain model as a rule for communication, as a distributed shared state - the universe, the stars, black holes, etc..., effectively mine the transactions of the universe. Quantum state, such as charge is now known not to actually be bound to a point particle, but can be separated, like an interface abstraction in code. The blockchain model shows that an omniscient universe, like Leibniz' monad, possessing non-locality, can co-exist with a local model where there appears only to be one reality, one truth, and everything is local. Just like the blockchain, everyone gets a copy - or is a copy of the monad, in the same sense an address is one class, but many instances. Every quantum number can be represented as numbers, and interactions in spacetime like a Bitcoin transaction, and position and time when those quantum numbers change is recorded by each observer, just like each miner gets copies of all transactions (aka particle interactions). The rules of the Bitcoin network fit wonderfully for a new model of particle physics that may bridge quantum mechanics and general relativity. In fact, I am almost certain this is true. I can't write fast enough. But this is enough to at least say I have an idea that may be pretty important.

I found these posts about the subject, from which I believe the central features of Bitcoin are being developed.

(edit: formatting)

Groups

1 of 13

My groups

Home

Starred

Favorites

Click on a group’s star icon to add it to your favorites

Recently viewed

Recent searches

hal finney arrow of time (in Everything List)

arrow of time (in Everything List)

Recently posted to

Privacy - Terms of Service

Everything List ›

Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time

21 posts by 7 authors

"Hal Finney" 12/31/08

1/2/09

Bruno Marchal And On 02 Jan 2009, at 04:01, Kim Jones wrote: Edge Question 2009: "What Will Change Everything?" http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_9.html#smolin By some token which would be premature to explain, Smolin's 2001 papers is very near the "correct" phys

1/1/09

Brent Are you assuming time as fundamental here? If time is merely inferred then it seems that states of Bbs could fit into the inferred time sequence as well as states that arose in some other way.

Bruno Marchal 1/1/09

1/7/09

Guenther Hi Bruno, thanks for your comments, I interleave my response.

1/9/09

Guenther Hi Bruno,

1/10/09

Bruno Marchal I don't understand what you mean by computations being infinitely far away. In the UD deployment, which I will wrote UD*, all computations begins soon or later (like all dominoes falls soon or later in the infinite discrete dominoe-sequences). All co

1/10/09

Guenther Hi Bruno,

Sometimes we consider here the nature of consciousness, whether observer

moments need to be linked to one another, the role of causality in

consciousness, etc. I thought of an interesting puzzle about Boltzmann

Brains which offers a new twist to these questions.

As most readers are aware, Boltzmann Brains relate to an idea of Boltzmann

on how to explain the arrow of time. The laws of physics seem to be time

symmetric, yet the universe is grossly asymmetric in time. Boltzmann

proposed that if you had a universe in a maximum entropy state, say a

uniform gas, then given enough time, the gas would undergo fluctuations

to regions of lower entropy. Sometimes, purely at random, clumps of

molecules would happen to form. Even more rarely, these clumps might be

large and ordered. Given infinite time, one could even have an entire

visible-universe worth of matter clump together in an ordered fashion,

from which state it would then decay into higher entropy conditions. Life

could evolve during this decay, observe the universe around it, and find

itself in conditions much like our own.

The Boltzmann Brain is a counter-argument, suggesting that the universe

and everything else is redundant; all you need is a brain to form via

a spontaneous random fluctuation, and to hold together long enough to

engage in a few moments of conscious thought. Such a Boltzmann Brain is

far more likely to form than an entire universe, hence the vast majority

of conscious thoughts in such a model will be in Boltzmann Brains and not

in brains in large universes. If we were tempted to explain the arrow of

time in this way, we must accept that the universe is an illusion and

that we are actually Boltzmann Brains, a conclusion which most people

don't like.

Now this scenario can be criticized in many ways, but I want to emphasize

a couple of points which aren't always appreciated. The first is that the

Boltzmann scenario, whether a whole universe or just a Brain is forming,

is basically time symmetric. That means that if you saw a movie of a

Boltzmann universe forming and then decaying back to random entropy,

you would not be able to tell which way the movie was running, if it

were to be reversed. (This is an unavoidable consequence of the time

symmetry of the underlying physics.) It follows that while the universe

is moving into the low-entropy state, it must be evolving backwards. That

is, an observer from outside would see time appearing to run backwards.

Eggs would un-scramble themselves, objects would fall upwards from the

ground, ripples would converge on spots in lakes from which rocks would

then leap from the water, and so on.

At some point this time reversal effect would stop, and the universe

would then proceed to evolve back into a high entropy state, now with time

going "forwards". Now, the forward phase will not in general be an exact

mirror image of the reverse, because of slight random fluctuations and

the like, but it will be an alternate path that essentially starts with

the same initial conditions. So we will see one path backwards into the

minimum-entropy state, and another path forwards from that state. Both

paths are fully plausible histories and neither is distinguishable from

the other as far as which was reversed and which was forward, if you

ran a recording of the whole process backwards.

One might ask, what causes time to run backwards during the first half of

the Boltzmann scenario? The answer is, nothing but very, very odd luck.

Time is no more likely to continue to run backwards, or to run backwards

the same everywhere in the local fluctuation-area, than it is to start

running backwards right now in the universe around you. Nothing stops

eggs from unscrambling themselves except the unlikelihood, and the same

principle is at work during the Boltzmann time-reversal phase. It is

merely that we select, out of the infinity of time, those rare occasions

where time does in fact "happen to happen" like this, that allows us to

discuss it.

I want to emphasize that this picture of how Boltzmann fluctuations would

work is a consquence of the laws of thermodynamics, and time symmetry.

Sometimes people imagine that the fluctuation into the Boltzmann

low-entropy state is fundamentally different from the fluctuation out

of it. They accept that the fluctuation out will be similar to our own

existence, with complex events happening. But they imagine that the

fluctuation into low entropy might be much simpler, molecules simply

aggregating together into some convenient state from which the complex

fluctuation out and back to chaos can begin. While this is not impossible

and hence will happen occasionally among the infinity of fluctuations in

the Boltzmann universe, it will be rare. It will be no more common for a

"simple" fluctation-in process to occur than for a simple fluctuation-out

process. In our universe, knowing it will evolve to a chaotic heat

death, we might imagine that molecules would just fly apart into chaos,

but we know that is highly unlikely. Instead, by far the most likely

path is a complex one, full of turbulence and reactions and similar

activity. By time symmetry, exactly the same arguments apply during

the fluctation-in phase. The vast majority of Boltzmann fluctuations

that achieve a particular degree of low entropy will do so via complex,

turbulent paths which if viewed in reverse will appear to be perfectly

plausible sequences of events for a universe which is decaying from

order to disorder, like our own.

Following on to this, let us consider the nature of consciousness during

these Boltzmann excursions. Again let us focus on larger scale ones than

just Boltzmann Brains, although the same principles apply there. During

the time reversal phase, if conscious entities are present, their brains

are running backwards. They are talking backwards, walking backwards,

doing everything in reverse. They remember things that are coming in

the future, and forget everything as soon as it has happened.

The question is, is there any difference in consciousness during the

reverse and forward phases? Consider that during the forward phase, we

started with a low entropy state, and now the laws of physics are playing

out just as they do in our own universe. Everything is happening for a

reason, depending on what has happened before. Events cause memories to

appear in brains by virtue of the same causal effects which give rise

to our own memories. Hence I imagine that most would agree that brains

during the forward phase are conscious.

However, during the reverse phase, things are quite different. Brains

have memories of things that haven't happened yet. Again, one might

ask how this can be. The reason is because we stop paying attention

to fluctuations where this doesn't happen. We only focus on Boltzmann

fluctuations which take the universe into a plausible and consistent

low-entropy state, one from which things can evolve in a way that is

similar to what we see. When a brain remembers something, if that doesn't

happen, the fluctuation is inconsistent. We skip over that one and look

for one that is consistent.

In the consistent fluctuations, brain memories turn out to be correct,

purely by luck. Similarly, every internal function of the brain which

we might attribute to macroscopic-type causality, like neuron A firing

because neuron B fired, will happen instead by luck, with neuron A firing

as though neuron B is going to fire, and then neuron B just happening

to fire in precisely the anticipated way.

The point is that during the time-reversal phase, causality as we

normally think of it is absent. Subjectively-past events do not cause

subjectively-future ones; rather, subjectively-future events take place

before subjectively-past events, and it is merely through luck that things

happen in a consistent pattern. Again, if we hadn't gotten lucky so that

things work out, we wouldn't have called this a Boltzmann fluctuation of

the kind we are interested in (Boltzmann Brain or Boltzmann Universe).

By paying selective attention to only those fluctuations where things

work, we will only observe cases where luck, rather than causality,

makes things happen.

But things do happen, in the same pattern they would if causality were

active. So the question is, are brains conscious during this time? Do

the thoughts that occur during the time reversal (which recall is not

exactly the same as what happens during the forward-time phase) have

the same level of subjective reality as thoughts which occur when time

runs forward?

We can argue it either way. In favor of consciousness, the main

argument is that time is fundamentally symmetric (we assume). Hence

there is no fundamental or inherent difference between the forward and

reverse phases. The only differences are relative, with the arrow of

time pointing in opposite directions in the two phases. But within each

phase, we see events which can both be equally well described as leading

to consciousness, and therefore conscious experiences will occur in

both phases.

On the other side, many people see a role for causality in the creation

or manifestation of consciousness. And arguably, causality is different

in the two phases. In the forward phase (the part where we are returning

from a low-entropy excursion to the high-entropy static state), events

follow one another for the usual reasons, and it is correct to attribute

a role for causality just as we do in our own experience. But in the

reverse phase, it is purely by luck that things happen in a consistent

way, and only because we have an infinity of time to work with that we

are able to find sequences of events that look consistent even they arose

by simple happenstance. There is no true causality in this phase, just a

random sequence of events where we have selected a sequence that mimics

causality. And to the extent that consciousness depends on causality,

we should not say that brains during this reverse phase are conscious.

I lean towards the first interpretation, for the following reason. If

consciousness really was able to somehow distinguish the forward from

reverse phases in a Boltzmann fluctuation, it would be quite remarkable.

Given that the fundamental laws of physics are time symmetric, nothing

should be able to do that, to deduce a true "implicit" arrow of time that

goes beyond the superficial arrow of time caused by entropy differences.

The whole point of time symmetry, the very definition, is that there

should be no such implicit arrow of time. This suggestion would seem

to give consciousness a power that it should not have, allow it to do

something that is impossible.

And if the first interpretation is correct, it seems to call into question

the very nature of causality, and its posible role in consciousness. If

we are forced to attribute consciousness to sequences of events which

occur purely by luck, then causality can't play a significant role. This

is the rather surprising conclusion which I reached from these musings

on Boltzmann Brains.

Hal Finney

12/31/08

Brent Symmetry in the fundamental equations of physics doesn't imply that the solutions of those equations have the same symmetry. Lee Smolin has made some very cogent criticisms of the idea that we can dispense with time as a fundamental variable. See T

1/1/09

stathisp 2009/1/1 "Hal Finney" <h...@finney.org>:

1/1/09

Bruno Marchal It seems to me that your reasoning illustrates well the problems with physical supervenience and physicalism, and perhaps ASSA. In any case the Universal Dovetailer generates all such gaz universes generating the Boltzmann brains. Now the probabilit

On 01 Jan 2009, at 21:10, Brent Meeker wrote:

>

> Bruno Marchal wrote:

>>

>> It seems to me that your reasoning illustrates well the problems with

>> physical supervenience and physicalism, and perhaps ASSA.

>>

>> In any case the Universal Dovetailer generates all such gaz universes

>> generating the Boltzmann brains. Now the probability that you are

>> implemented by a particular Boltzmann brain is null, as it is null

>> for

>> any particular. With the comp supervenience you have to "attach"

>> consciousness on ALL the histories going through your computational

>> state. It is a sort of double cone of histories.

>

> Are you assuming time as fundamental here? If time is merely

> inferred then it

> seems that states of Bbs could fit into the inferred time sequence

> as well as

> states that arose in some other way.

I assume only the sequence 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... or the axioms of

Robinson arithmetic, or Peano.

This is enough to recognize the working of a universal dovetailer, and

the execution of all programs. It is not infered but postulate. You

can call it a digital time, or you can unravel such a dynamical

deploiment into a statical n n+1 dimensional cone (with n the

dimension of the space used by your starting universal machine (but

some have no concept of dimension, and the statical picture is more a

logical than a geometrical one). It is not "physical time", nor even

the subjective time builded by internal entities.

>

>

>>

>> We cannot belong to the aleph_zero Boltzmann brains state, because,

>> from our first person (plural) point of views we already belongs to

>> the 2^aleph_zero "winning" (infinite) histories. (or comp is wrong).

>

> I don't understand the counting measure. Why are histories order

> 2^apleph_0?

Well, in part this results from the unbounded dumbness of the

universal doevtailing procedure which dovetails on all programs but

also on all non interacting collection of programs (as all interacting

one). In particular each computation is "entangled" to dovetailing on

the reals, and infinite computations are multiplied into 2^aleph_zero

by this entanglement with the reals. Now this is a good thing because

it means that the stable histories will be those who manage that

background noise, who exploits it probably.

Our mind states are enumerable, but our histories are not.

Bruno

- show quoted text -

Guenther 1/1/09

Bruno,

I have also wanted to ask how you come to 2^aleph_zero

> Well, in part this results from the unbounded dumbness of the

> universal doevtailing procedure which dovetails on all programs but

> also on all non interacting collection of programs (as all interacting

> one).

How do you discern interacting/non-interacting programs? What do you

mean exactly with the term in regard to UD?

> In particular each computation is "entangled" to dovetailing on

> the reals,

What do you mean by this? How do the reals enter the picture?

Cheers,

Günther

Bruno Marchal 1/2/09

Hi Günther,

On 01 Jan 2009, at 23:58, Günther Greindl wrote:

>

> Bruno,

>

> I have also wanted to ask how you come to 2^aleph_zero

>

>> Well, in part this results from the unbounded dumbness of the

>> universal doevtailing procedure which dovetails on all programs but

>

>> also on all non interacting collection of programs (as all

>> interacting

>> one).

>

> How do you discern interacting/non-interacting programs? What do you

> mean exactly with the term in regard to UD?

To write and implement a Universal Dovetailer, you have to fix a

universal programming language (or machine). Then the UD will generate

the list of programs P_1, P_2, P_3, ... and run them by little pieces,

let us say of one running step, and this for each program in such a

way that it dovetails on all the executions, including those who does

not stop, which we cannot avoid.

Let us assume tthat the sequence P_1, P_2, P_3, ... P_i ... is the

sequence of the zero variable programs (this changes nothing). Now a

computation, for example, the computation of P_0, will itself be a

sequence of computational steps, like

P_1^1, P_1^2, P_1^3, etc ...

To run the UD, we dovetail or zig zag on the programs and their

computational steps. Exercise: add some relevant zig zagging to the

following infinite diagram:

P_1^1, P_1^2, P_1^3, P_1^4, ...

P_2^1, P_2^2, P_2^3, P_2^4, ...

P_3^1, P_3^2, P_3^3, P_3^4, ...

P_4^1, P_4^2, P_4^3, P_4^4, ...

...

A solution: P_1^1, P_1^2, P_2^1, P_3^1, P_2^2, P_1^3, P_1^4, P_2^3,

P_3^2, P_4^1, ...

Each computational step P_i^j, of the ith program up to the jth step

is completely independent of any other computations P_k^h, when i is

different from k. Such computations do not interact. The DU, if

programmed correctly, will never let them share the memories or

interact in any way.

But for each couple (P_i, P_k) there is another program, P_h in the

(infinite but enumerable) list P_i which is a mini-dovetailer of the

pair of programs (P_i, P_k). This means P_h dovetails itself on the

execution of the two programs P_i and P_k. Indeed, trivially, the

universal dovetailer execute all the possible dovetailing, the

universal one and all the other one.

Again, the two new computations of P_i and P_k does not interact.

But that is not enough, for all couple of programs (P_i, P_k) there is

third program P_g, which you can seen as a bad or buggy dovetailer on

the pair (P_i, P_k), which will execute P_i and P_k again, but with

just one shared memory, so that progress in the running of one of them

will destroy the memory of the other. In that sense the buggy mini-

dovetailer makes P_i and P_k interact, in one way.

Given that any digital interaction process, it can be simulated by a

program, and the UD will soon or later simulate that interaction.

For another example, the UD will run all patterns of the game of life,

but also all couple of such patterns, all triples, all quadruples,

actually all finite pieces of possible "Eden garden" of possible

cellular automata.

You can actually imagine any ways of making two programs or machines

interact, soon or later the UD will generate ONE computation which

will run the interaction of those machines, yet such computation will

not interact with the proper other UD-computations. The UD will even

generate a universal buggy dovetailing computation which makes all

programs interact with each other, in all possible ways. All right?

Please ask if something is not clear. It is simpler to explain all

this with conical drawings, and the internal zig zagging.

>

>

>> In particular each computation is "entangled" to dovetailing on

>> the reals,

>

> What do you mean by this? How do the reals enter the picture?

Do you remember the iterated self-duplication experiment? Suppose I

invite you to make that experience. But your boss asked you to do some

computation P (and thus your computation looks like P^1, P^2, etc...

(the number = the steps of your computation).

So, you will do your computation and simultaneously do the iterated

self-duplication. To simplify I will assume that you do one step of

your computation at each duplication.

I duplicate you iteratively in two rooms, one with the number zero

written on the wall, the other with the number one on the wall. OK?

And during that time you make the computation (to please your boss).

So you compute P, get the first step of the computation: P^1, go to my

duplicator (where you are scanned---and this includes your "step

result" P^1----annihilated, and reconstituted in the zero-room and in

the one-room. The two of you come back, each one of you compute one

step of the computation to get P^2, and enter the duplicator again.

Both are scanned, including the P^2 step-result, and then annihilated

and reconstituted again in the two rooms. The four of you come back,

compute the third step of the computation, and enter again the

annihilator ...., the eight of you come back, compute the fourth step

of the computation, and enter the duplication again, ..... the 2^n of

you come back, compute the nth step of the computation, and enter

again in the duplicator, etc.

Now imagine your boss was a bad guy wanting to annoy you so that your

computation is infinite: he gives to you an infinite task. And, you

are not very lucky that day, because for my scientific research, I ask

you to iterate an infinite numbers of times the self-duplication

experiment.

In that case, I will say that I, with your kind help, have entangled

the infinite computation (the one that was asked by your boss) to the

reals.

The infinite self-duplication generates the reals (all the reals, and

this without naming them nor enumerating them: no contradiction with

Cantor theorem). The *you* can remember their path in the rooms. A

typical one will be, after 26 self-duplications:

11011101000011010011000101

and the "you" here will have computed 26 steps of the boss

computation, ready to compute the 27th steps and enter the duplicator

again.

You see that on each real number (well, between 0 and 1 like

0,11011101000011010011000101 ...), the construction duplicates your

boss computation on each decimal. There are 2^aleph_zero reals, so in

the limit, your infinite computation get multiplied by 2^aleph_zero.

Now all this was a computable process. The boss gave you a

computation, and the self-duplication procedure and unlimited

iteration is programmable. So such process is executed, soon or later

(well, really later!) by the UD, and this is true whatever computation

your boss decided to give to you, of course. So you see that the UD

entangles all computation with the real as possible oracles (like if

you decide to use the room data (0 or 1) in your computation. It is

again a case of interaction/non interaction. The UD realizes all

options.

Those real generations never appears in the execution of the UD, as

seen in a third person point of view where everything is countable,

but they could and actually have to play a role from the point of view

of the self-referential betting entities relatively generated by the

UD computations. This come from the fact that the first person is not

aware of the delays of reconstitution, so that the measure, which bear

on the computations, is somehow defined in the limit (cf the steps 2

and 4 of UDA).

This is our fatal destiny of universal machine: our consciousness

lives in the terrestrial neighborhood of zero (the realm of the

finite), but the measure which differentiates our stable and solid

histories is defined in the celestial neighborhood of the infinite!

Tell me if this helps,

Bruno

1/3/09

Guenther Hi Bruno, first of all thanks for the long answer, and yes, it was very helpful. You described the production of all reals with a very vivid imagery; it showed a glimpse of the vastness of the UD. And, I agree, _in the limit_ there will be an infinit

1/3/09

Stephen Paul King Hi Günther, Nice post! Coments soon. Speaking of Svozil's work, please see: Cristian S. Calude, Peter H. Hertling and Karl Svozil, ``Embedding Quantum Universes in Classical Ones'', Foundations of Physics 29(3), 349-390 (1999) [abstract], [CrossRef D

1/4/09

Bruno Marchal Nice work. It is in the line of the beautiful theorem of Kochen and Specker.

1/5/09

Guenther Hi Stephen, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Nice post! Coments soon. Thanks :-) Looking forward to the comments.

1/5/09

Bruno Marchal Hi Günther, I agree with your main point. My comments below concerns only details.

1/7/09

Monterey What is the quantum "prepare" sense? Could someone please clarify the foregoing quote? m.a.

1/8/09

Bruno Marchal Hi Günther,

Guenther 1/1/09

Hal,

I have entertained quite similar musings some time ago, and this led me

to a position I called "naive materialism" NMAT some time ago on this

list - that causality does not matter, and consciousness would supervene

on the material states directly - and both backward and forward versions

would actually be "the same" from an endophysical perspective.

But the problem of these considerations is that indeed we get the BB

issue and causality loses it's role, leaving us with a quite strange

tangle of states. Considering that in a fundamental theory, time

shouldn't be a parameter chugging along, and we are still considering an

"external time" (where the cosmic perturbations are actually happening)

as opposed to the endophysical time registered by the brains in the

fluctuations, the thinking along these lines reveals itself to be even

more disappointing.

In the meantime I have come to agree with Bruno:

"It seems to me that your reasoning illustrates well the problems with

physical supervenience and physicalism, and perhaps ASSA."

The solution Bruno has worked out is much more satisfying -

supervenience on computations, and the "physical" emerging from the most

probable histories. It is a form of objective idealism, avoiding the

problems of subjective idealisms which are inimical to scientific inquiry.

In sum, BBs and perturbing universes are, I think, more evidence that

there is something wrong with materialism (and I say this having arrived

on this list being a materialist ;-).

Cheers,

Günther

- show quoted text -

--

Günther Greindl

Department of Philosophy of Science

University of Vienna

guenther...@univie.ac.at

From <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/everything-list/hal$20finney$20arrow$20of$20time/everything-list/RaXtikIfBjs/VARnXMOYMsQJ>

No one has reviewed this piece of content yet