EVALUATING HISTORICITY I'll be talking about a subject of which most people are (innately) interested in but probably not too sure on how to formulate it, or never thought of it even. And it's completely understandable since crypto industry is relatively new, a few study might have come up with a great thesis on how to view things regarding this subject, but the main point here is we're so early that most don't have a good, unshakeable thesis. To start, in the real-world, to evaluate objects or events that are 'considered' as historic requires a deep understanding (expertise) in either the history itself (which mostly derived from the victors) and the forensic archaeology. Without these knowledge, one can only dream of understanding or fully grasping historicity of anything, thus the historicity of the real-world objects and events are heavily permissioned (requires an expert or authority). To simplify, I'd categorize historicity in two parts, its old-ness (age) and social metrics (story, popularity, provenance, etc), since whatever that are considered as historic today most likely that it'd be old of age, or have some highly regarded social metrics. > Now, what does it mean for real-world objects or events to be old? That's a great question, old-ness is undoubtedly a subjective metric since being old is somewhat relative; it can be relative to the spectator's life-span (us humans) or relative to the world creation itself (big-bang or whatever theory, which is unknown-years ago). So for us humans, a century is considered as old (relative to our life-span, about 60 years), despite it probably only accounting for only 0.0000000000001% of the entire history of the universe. So we can't never truly objectify the historicity of real-world objects when it comes to its old-ness metric and we can only appreciate or benchmark old-ness of things that came with naturally programmed bias(es) of a living organism. > And, what about objects or events that are considered historic by its social metrics? These are a very subjective matter so I'll keep this one short and simple since there's no point in talking about things that are super subjective. My opinion on this is that, since human are naturally a social creature themselves, they tend to flock as groups, whether physically, or ideologically. Ideologically, things can be considered as historic if; 1. They're known or popular amongst larger group of human flocks, widely or globally popular -- 'culturally' significant. [ie. Religions, Cultures, Familiarity, etc] 2. Novelty, craftmanship, 'firsts' of things -- ground-breaking. [ie. Gravity theory, titanic, etc] 3. Being old, ancient, mysterious -- unexplainable events [ie. Pyramids, Old structures, myths, etc] And in my opinion, in the real-world, these presented metrics are mostly narrative-driven, meaning anyone with enough power can influence the historicity of things and that has happened before throughout the human history. Now that we have identified briefly on how historicity of things work in real-world, let's talk about the interesting part that is on the blockchain. > Historicity according to blockchain Blockchain is code-consensus, since it's made of lines of code in a shape of a protocol -- protocol that are sovereign, permissionless and decentralized. And since the blockchain protocol is made out of lines of codes, anything onchain or inside of the blockchain is fundamentally deterministic (quantifiable, measurable, etc). Once and for all, humanity can finally agree on something objectively (the blockchain, the code-consensus) compared to the science-consensus that everyone is bound to and that is still being explored and argued upon. To further simplify, the blockchain is an alt-reality based on code-consensus the same way that humanity govern themselves with the constructions of alt-reality based on consensus-science. Human can perceive and conceptualize truth but never to grasp the actual Truth (with capital T). Now here's come the exciting part; > What can be considered as historic in the blockchain? Let's use one of the example that I used earlier, the old-ness metric. Unlike the unknown origin of the world and the natural bias that are programmed within every living organism which makes old-ness of things relative, with the blockchain we precisely know the origin of this alt-reality based on this code-consensus. Blockchain big-bang event objectively and undisputedly started at January 3rd, 2009 with Bitcoin. Anyone can absolutely verify the fact permissionless-ly onchain without the need of 3rd party (an expert, authority, etc). Now, with the blockchain we can finally and deterministically determine the old-ness of onchain things or things that are contained within the blockchain alt-reality itself. Simply, the historicity of blockchain objects (Blobs, Objects, NFTs, etc) based on the old-ness metric is gradual to the inception and the origin of the blockchain itself. The closer the onchain objects or events to January 3rd, 2009 the more 'historic' it becomes. As simple as that. > Does onchain old-ness metric alone makes everything historic in nature? The answer to the question is yes and no. In my opinion, onchain old-ness is just one metric among other metrics that can be coupled to ultimately evaluate the historicity of blockchain objects. Let's use the second example as I explained earlier, the social metric. Onchain old-ness coupled with strong social metric can undoubtedly reform how we evaluate historicity on the blockchain. For example: 1. On the blockchain we can truly verify the 'firsts of things' permissionless-ly and without the need of authority. Since the blockchain itself works in an orderly manner and that everything is timestamped onchain. There's no reliance of vague witnesses, evidences, or vague old stories that would support the claim (just like in real-world). Everything. Is. Verifiable. Onchain. 2. Since everything on the blockchain is code, the novelty of things can be measured, verified and quantified comparatively with other onchain objects. This is the beauty of the blockchain. Everything is deterministic and that we can base our evaluations and perceptions based on that. So far, what we have learned is that: 1. How history is written by the victors and for thousands of years nothing can be done. 2. Social metrics are narrative-driven influenced by those with enough power. And finally, both of these things that has been plaguing the human society can be eliminated with the presence of the blockchain technology. Now let us ask ourselves the following questions: 1. Are we supposed to be excited now that we can further evaluate historicity of things objectively based on code-consensus alt-reality? 2. Do we not value the 'firsts' ownable, addressable crypto objects verifiable on the blockchain? 3. Do you not want to know where to start learning about these things? The answer to all that is @historics_xyz that I am currently building.

Updated explorer.namecoin.co today to v0.1.6 - Fixed Name Browser ordering - Improved Google SERP SEO Enjoy the update!

Almost 1 week in a blockchain where most people think its *dead*. It's ~550 EH/s strong, the second most mined blockchain after Bitcoin. The stats came from Namecoin explorer, closing to 1k unique visitor in less than 7 days. Lets continue the wave, to make Namecoin fun!

Since we're announcing the new Namecoin explorer at explorer.namecoin.co (Namecoin Community) just 3 days ago seems like there's still some traction from the community. If you think that's all there is to it to this initiatives, you are hugely mistaken. Stay tuned :) #HNFT

It's time!