X

this is actually insane > be tech guy in australia > adopt cancer riddled rescue dog, months to live > not_going_to_give_you_up.mp4 > pay $3,000 to sequence her tumor DNA > feed it to ChatGPT and AlphaFold > zero background in biology > identify mutated proteins, match them to drug targets > design a custom mRNA cancer vaccine from scratch > genomics professor is “gobsmacked” that some puppy lover did this on his own > need ethics approval to administer it > red tape takes longer than designing the vaccine > 3 months, finally approved > drive 10 hours to get rosie her first injection > tumor halves > coat gets glossy again > dog is alive and happy > professor: “if we can do this for a dog, why aren’t we rolling this out to humans?” one man with a chatbot, and $3,000 just outperformed the entire pharmaceutical discovery pipeline. we are going to cure so many diseases. I dont think people realize how good things are going to get

BITCOIN HOLDERS WILL GO TO JAIL

My opinion here is a bit more nuanced as I see DLT's primarily as "tools" for humans to be able to coordinate their interactions without putting trust in a single entity. They are meant to serve their users and not the other way round. If there is a protocol violation that clearly breaks the "social consensus" around how the protocol should function then humans should and will always coordinate to avoid harm as much as possible. It has happened before (in Bitcoin, ETH and other protocols) and it will happen again and I think that this is actually a good thing. People who claim that "a single bug could make Bitcoin worthless" do not understand this additional layer of security that ultimately exists around any protocol and that safe-guards it against catastrophic failure. It will also never be possible to get rid of this additional layer of agreement that exists "outside of the protocol between humans" as it is exactly this layer that determines what node software people download and run and which entry nodes they use to connect to the network. You could very well argue that Bitcoin shouldn't have rolled back their state after the early inflation bug and decide to run this old protocol version instead of the new one - but if you are the only person on the planet that believes this then your opinion is pretty much worthless. Crypto tokens derive their value from the fact that other humans "believe" in the same ledger state as you and are willing to interact with you based on this belief. The task of the DLT is to allow humans to agree on this "shared belief" and I do think that the decision was justified in this context. What is concerning is how "easy" it was to perform this action as you can absolutely picture a situation where we are not talking about a hack (where unanimous agreement exists about the situation anyway) but e.g. a government forcing validators to comply with some newly introduced regulations. These kind of decisions shouldn't be easy and fast - they should be incredibly hard and painful and I think that the crypto space should totally strive to build protocols that make censorship orders of magnitude harder if we really want to create a settlement layer that "feels secure" for all of humanity.