Return to Answer

The question was deleted by the post author, is thus generally not viewable, and I believe will fully vanish. My feedback in comment reads (with disputed assertion bolded):

Sorry, but "How important is the DAG data structure to the future of our world, given that it seems to be central to technologies which are revolutionizing it?" is opinion-based, and only distantly related to cryptography. Mind you, a concept being used in cryptocurrencies does not make it related to cryptography; which is our only subject. Please make this a factual cryptographic question, or remove it. See this meta on cryptocurrency-related questions.

Argument towards the disputed assertion: the concept of currency is obviously used in and related to cryptocurrencies; yet it's far from as obviously related to cryptography, per Merriam-Webster definitions of cryptography and related.

Admittedly using mathematical terms out of their charted territory: "related to" is a symmetric but non-transitive relation.

I stand by my assertion, and it's relevance to help improve the question; which was the primary objective of my comment. I later realized I once used DAGs in a cryptanalytic attack (that's far from typical), and spontaneously rescinded my hasty closing, thinking it was possible to improve the question (closing does not prevent improving a question, which can then be reopened). A similar viewpoint is supported in a comment by another contributor justifying closing the question as it stood: "because it is a general and non-specific question about an elementary data structure used in countless applications throughout computer science, not just cryptography".

The question was closed and deleted by the post author, is thus generally not viewable, and thus scheduled to vanish. My feedback in comment reads (with disputed assertion bolded):

Sorry, but "How important is the DAG data structure to the future of our world, given that it seems to be central to technologies which are revolutionizing it?" is opinion-based, and only distantly related to cryptography. Mind you, a concept being used in cryptocurrencies does not make it related to cryptography; which is our only subject. Please make this a factual cryptographic question, or remove it. See this meta on cryptocurrency-related questions.

Argument towards the disputed assertion: the concept of currency is obviously used in and related to cryptocurrencies; yet it's far from as obviously related to cryptography, per Merriam-Webster definitions of cryptography and related.

Admittedly using mathematical terms out of their charted territory: "related to" is a symmetric but non-transitive relation.

My comment and assertion were intended to help improve the question. I later realized I once used DAGs in a cryptanalytic attack (that's far from typical), and IIRC then rescinded my first and perhaps hasty closing, thinking it was possible to improve the question. 

A comment by another contributor justifies closing the question with: "because it is a general and non-specific question about an elementary data structure used in countless applications throughout computer science, not just cryptography".

The question was deleted by the post author, is thus generally not viewable, and I believe will fully vanish. My feedback in comment reads (with disputed assertion bolded):

Sorry, but "How important is the DAG data structure to the future of our world, given that it seems to be central to technologies which are revolutionizing it?" is opinion-based, and only distantly related to cryptography. Mind you, a concept being used in cryptocurrencies does not make it related to cryptography; which is our only subject. Please make this a factual cryptographic question, or remove it. See this meta on cryptocurrency-related questions.

Argument towards the disputed assertion: the concept of currency is obviously used in and related to cryptocurrencies; yet it's far from as obviously related to cryptography, per Merriam-Webster definitions of cryptography and related.

Admittedly using mathematical terms out of their charted territory: "used in" implies "related to", which is a symmetric but non-transitive relation.

I stand by my assertion, and it's relevance to help improve the question; which was the objective of my comment (it came to me that the question could be salvageable, and I rescinded my hasty closing, having realized I once used DAGs in a cryptanalytic attack; though that's far from typical). A similar viewpoint is supported in a comment by another contributor justifying closing: "because it is a general and non-specific question about an elementary data structure used in countless applications throughout computer science, not just cryptography".

The question was deleted by the post author, is thus generally not viewable, and I believe will fully vanish. My feedback in comment reads (with disputed assertion bolded):

Sorry, but "How important is the DAG data structure to the future of our world, given that it seems to be central to technologies which are revolutionizing it?" is opinion-based, and only distantly related to cryptography. Mind you, a concept being used in cryptocurrencies does not make it related to cryptography; which is our only subject. Please make this a factual cryptographic question, or remove it. See this meta on cryptocurrency-related questions.

Argument towards the disputed assertion: the concept of currency is obviously used in and related to cryptocurrencies; yet it's far from as obviously related to cryptography, per Merriam-Webster definitions of cryptography and related.

Admittedly using mathematical terms out of their charted territory: "related to" is a symmetric but non-transitive relation.

I stand by my assertion, and it's relevance to help improve the question; which was the primary objective of my comment. I later realized I once used DAGs in a cryptanalytic attack (that's far from typical), and spontaneously rescinded my hasty closing, thinking it was possible to improve the question (closing does not prevent improving a question, which can then be reopened). A similar viewpoint is supported in a comment by another contributor justifying closing the question as it stood: "because it is a general and non-specific question about an elementary data structure used in countless applications throughout computer science, not just cryptography".

The question was deleted by the post author, is thus generally not viewable, and I believe will fully vanish. My feedback in comment reads (with disputed assertion bolded):

Sorry, but "How important is the DAG data structure to the future of our world, given that it seems to be central to technologies which are revolutionizing it?" is opinion-based, and only distantly related to cryptography. Mind you, a concept being used in cryptocurrencies does not make it related to cryptography; which is our only subject. Please make this a factual cryptographic question, or remove it. See this meta on cryptocurrency-related questions.

Argument towards the disputed assertion: the concept of currency is obviously used in and related to cryptocurrencies; yet it's far from as obviously related to cryptography, per Merriam-Webster definitions of cryptography and related.

Admittedly using mathematical terms out of their charted territory: "used in" implies "related to", which is a symmetric but non-transitive relation.

My disputed assertion stopped short of claiming Direct Acyclic Graphs are not used in cryptography. I know that's false, for I used them in a cryptanalytic attack. Yes I stand by my assertion, and it's relevance to closing the question, with the justification (as in a comment by another contributor): "because it is a general and non-specific question about an elementary data structure used in countless applications throughout computer science, not just cryptography".

The question was deleted by the post author, is thus generally not viewable, and I believe will fully vanish. My feedback in comment reads (with disputed assertion bolded):

Sorry, but "How important is the DAG data structure to the future of our world, given that it seems to be central to technologies which are revolutionizing it?" is opinion-based, and only distantly related to cryptography. Mind you, a concept being used in cryptocurrencies does not make it related to cryptography; which is our only subject. Please make this a factual cryptographic question, or remove it. See this meta on cryptocurrency-related questions.

Argument towards the disputed assertion: the concept of currency is obviously used in and related to cryptocurrencies; yet it's far from as obviously related to cryptography, per Merriam-Webster definitions of cryptography and related.

Admittedly using mathematical terms out of their charted territory: "used in" implies "related to", which is a symmetric but non-transitive relation.

I stand by my assertion, and it's relevance to help improve the question; which was the objective of my comment (it came to me that the question could be salvageable, and I rescinded my hasty closing, having realized I once used DAGs in a cryptanalytic attack; though that's far from typical). A similar viewpoint is supported in a comment by another contributor justifying closing: "because it is a general and non-specific question about an elementary data structure used in countless applications throughout computer science, not just cryptography".