Is this your cat ? <| sep |> If you ' re a crazy person . <| sep |> I was just pulling your leg . Maybe it was in bad taste . <| sep |> Junkrat bomb gives him faster movement , I don ' t know about the others <| sep |> No I really disagree . The yellow paper is masturbatory , unhelpful , and actually fails to deliver the content accurately . The paper is flawed in style and also in various technical respects . I do not know the motivation for writing a systems description the product of engineering as if it were some fundamental mathematical truth . This is compounded by the fact that notation use is more like a symbolic interpretative dance than actual mathematics . Using nonstandard notation for example P 256 for the ring of integers modulo 256 rather than the more standard Z 256 , and many others , the space on which various operators are meant to be acting is overloaded and ambiguous . More than that some of the mathematics is plain wrong , for example in Appendix B . Recursive Length Prefix , RLP is clearly intended to be a recursive definition by closure , which would be simple to state , but instead is translated into an attempted set definition that breaks the rules of selfreference for any standard axiomatic set theory would makes it not a valid set it omits a base case and builds the wrong way up . This typifies the failings of the paper it a fails to be clear and unambiguous , b fails to be as understandable as possible , and c fails to make the author look smart . Many of the abstractions you are asked to pay for at the beginning of the paper aren ' t put to any use , those that are tend to awkwardly fit the concepts they are describing , and most compound symbolic terms could be much more satisfactorily replaced by a succinct single variable . Regularly we are asked to parse the same 5 symbols in an identical compound on the left and right hand side of an identity . There are no syntactic relationships or manipulations that are used on symbols they seem to be there just because they look cool . It ' s mathematical graffiti . And they ' re not even rigorously defined . If this seems a little harsh it is because I spent some time trying to read this with the benefit of doubt before I realised it was mostly notational abuse and that I needed to translate back from this pidgin mathematics to the underlying system description that is actually being obscured by it . This is a shame because that system description is fundamentally good work . It could and should be rewritten more parsimoniously , more accurately , and more understandably .