Only @JJ can create the perfect analogy between the history of how the speed of light was ultimately measured and…subnet incentive mechanisms:
Picture the journey that humanity had to take in pinpointing the speed of light .. fumbling along with a foggy, scratched-up lens—starting with Ole Rømer’s 1676 astronomical observations, a clever but indirect peek at Jupiter’s moons that got us within 25% of the truth, like squinting through a storm. It was “lossy,” full of cosmic noise and guesswork.
Then came the 1800s ground-game upgrades: Armand Fizeau’s spinning toothed wheel in 1849, chopping light over kilometers for a 5% error margin, still hazy from mechanical jitters and air interference.
Léon Foucaul’s 1850 rotating mirror smoothed it to under 1%, like wiping away smudges in a lab.
Albert Michelson’s mountain-spanning refinements by the early 1900s dialed it up to 0.001% accuracy, vacuum-sealing paths to cut distortion.
Centuries of iterative tweaks—better tools, controlled environments, wave theories—finally led to today’s mathematical perfection:
A defined constant at 299,792,458 m/s, so airtight it’s the yardstick for reality itself.
This evolution from rough estimates to lossless precision took over 300 years, showing how much of a slow (you could say fast, depending on your perspective) grind human ingenuity has experienced against nature’s poorly understood fundamental reality.
Now… consider Bittensor’s subnet incentive mechanisms (IM)—from the same lens:
Today, in 2025, Bittensor is akin ….. [READ THE REST HERE]
Be the first to comment