CHU🪽
348 posts
There were 2 things to farm over the past year and it was $XPL and $CHIP
Congratulations to those who did
CBB@Cbb0fe
once plasma goes live, i'm planning to rotate some usdt to USDai on @USDai_Official i'm definitely not an AI expert but it's quite obvious there is a huge demand of capital to scale AI infra i feel like the project is still highly under looked with $55m TVL but pretty sure once apy goes to 2 digits as they provide more loans and integrate USDai on lending platforms, it can scale to billions within a few months been shitcoining with co-founder @0xZergs for 8 years, i'm very comfy about what he's building and his work ethics
English
@VitalikButerin i'm glad that blockchain still have you. you make me feel like i'm living in the beautiful place.
English
I no longer agree with this previous tweet of mine - since 2017, I have become a much more willing connoisseur of mountains. It's worth explaining why.
x.com/VitalikButerin…
First, the original context. That tweet was in a debate with Ian Grigg, who argued that blockchains should track the order of transactions, but not the state (eg. user balances, smart contract code and storage):
> The messages are logged, but the state (e.g., UTXO) is implied, which means it is constructed by the computer internally, and then (can be) thrown away.
I was heavily against this philosophy, because it would imply that users have no way to get the state other than either (i) running a node that processed every transaction in all of history, or (ii) trusting someone else.
In blockchains that commit to the state in the block header (like Ethereum), you can simply prove any value in the state with a Merkle branch. This is conditional on the honest majority assumption: if >= 50% of the consensus participants are honest, then the chain with the most PoW (or PoS) support will be valid, and so the state root will be correct.
Trusting an honest majority is far better than trusting a single RPC provider. Not trusting at all (by personally verifying every transaction in the chain) is theoretically ideal, but it's a computation load infeasible for regular users, unless we take the (even worse) tradeoff of keeping blockchain capacity so low that most people cannot even use the chain.
Now, what has changed since then?
The biggest thing is of course ZK-SNARKs. We now have a technology that lets you verify the correctness of the chain, without literally re-executing every transaction. WE INVENTED THE THING THAT GETS YOU THE BENEFITS WITHOUT THE COSTS! This is like if someone from the future teleported back into US healthcare debates in 2008, and demonstrated a clearly working pill that anyone could make for $15 that cured all diseases. Like, yes, if we have that pill, we should get the government fully out of healthcare, let people make the pill and sell it at Walgreens, and healthcare becomes super affordable so everyone is happy. ZK-SNARKs are literally like that but for the block size war. (With two asterisks for block building centralization and data bandwidth, but that's a separate topic)
With better technology, we should raise our expectations, and revisit tradeoffs that we made grudgingly in a previous era.
But also, I have actually changed my mind on some of the underlying issues. In 2017, I was thinking about blockchains in terms of academic assumptions - what is okay to rely on honest majority for, when we are ok with 1-of-N trust assumption, etc. If a construction gave better properties under known-acceptable assumptions, I would eagerly embrace it.
On a raw subconscious level, I don't think I was sufficiently appreciative of the fact that _in the real world, lots of things break_. Sometimes the p2p network goes down. Sometimes the p2p network has 20x the latency you expected - anyone who has played WoW can attest to long spans of time when the latency spiked up from its usual ~200ms to 1000-5000ms. Sometimes a third party service you've been relying on for years shuts down, and there isn't a good alternative. If the alternative is that you personally go through a github repo and figure out how to PERSONALLY RUN A SERVER, lots of people will give up and never figure it out and end up permanently losing access to their money. Sometimes mining or staking gets concentrated to the point where 51% attacks are very easy to imagine, and you almost have to game-theoretically analyze consensus security as though 75% of miners or stakers are controlled by one single agent. Sometimes, as we saw with tornado cash, intermediaries all start censoring some application, and your *only* option becomes to directly use the chain.
If we are making a self-sovereign blockchain to last through the ages, THE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE CONUNDRUMS CANNOT ALWAYS BE "CALL THE DEVS". If it is, the devs themselves become the point of centralization - they become DEVS in the ancient Roman sense, where the letter V was used to represent the U sound.
The Mountain Man's cabin is not meant as the replacement lifestyle for everyone. It is meant as the safe place to retreat to when things go wrong. It is also meant as the universal BATNA ("Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement") - the alternative option that improves your well-being not just in the case when you end up needing it, but also because knowledge of it existing motivates third parties to give you better terms. This is like how Bittorrent existing is an important check on the power of music and video streaming platforms, driving them to offer customers better terms.
We do not need to start living every day in the Mountain Man's cabin. But part of maintaining the infinite garden of Ethereum is certainly keeping the cabin well-maintained.
vitalik.eth@VitalikButerin
@iang_fc The idea of average users personally validating the entire history of the system is a weird mountain man fantasy. There, I said it.
English
next wave of crypto is probably violent repricing of the Top 100 crypto coins
too much bloat and ticking clock
for this reason, i think there will be more volatility in crypto markets
which will introduce new liquidity wanting to take advantage of these higher liquid 2-10x's
which will flow downstream to onchain and inspire a focus on utility/fundamentals
if you think about it, even NFT's had a mini utility meta in the bear
probably similar with onchain coins but hopefully much bigger
the best sailors are forged in choppy waters
good luck
English
Yeah i capiluated 1.2 mill loss on $pump in 10 days thank you @a1lon9. Their vision is too long term to the point where its basically a slow rug.
Hearing from the stream I think he is just a regular guy who got lucky who's launchpad hits. Sucks but we move on
English
@danielesesta absolutly no, fool me one, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. It's alway andre style.
English
At what point do we acknowledge the sneaky-growth of Worldchain?
No on talks about it, but it recently flipped the usage of:
• Arbitrum
• OP
• Sony
• Blast
English
The real economy is not money, it is goods & services.
Money is simply an abstract representation of real things.
DogeDesigner@cb_doge
ELON MUSK: "Money is just a database for exchange of goods & services. Money doesn't have power in & of itself. The actual economy is goods & services."
English
@shawmakesmagic lmfao, who use other company name crying when someone else do the same thing.
English
I have a strong conviction that $SIGMA is the next $GIGA
While analyzing onchain it became clear, that @SigmaOnSol69 is EXTREMELY undervalued
It even surpasses some $1B+ memecoins (now it's just $75mn)
Here's why im gigabullish:
English
my 2c on the ai16z/eliza drama
Eliza was Shaw dream project. When he announced that he would support the creation of a third-party token, he was contacted by a team he considered highly skilled, and he began working with them. In the meantime, he was front-run by another token launched anonymously.
At this point, he had two choices: abandon the partnership that was already underway after days of work with a team he believed capable of carrying forward Eliza's vision, or proceed with the release in the following days and let the market decide which token to support.
Unfortunately, the situation had become a lose-lose, where someone would lose out either way.
I believe Shaw had every right to proceed with the choice he deemed most appropriate. The project is his, the years of work are his, the vision is his, and it would have been wrong to abandon everything just because an anonymous party front-ran him.
None of us would have acted differently.
In the end, Eliza is a mascot, the mascot of AI16Z. Thinking that AI16Z has become a bad project because of this drama is a mistake that, unfortunately, will cost you dearly.
At the end of the day, if you can’t handle a -50% in crypto after a 1600% growth in a week, then maybe this isn’t the right space for you.
@shawmakesmagic @ai16zdao
English