André Silva

@sorpaas Yes I noticed that, still my question is very relevant to assess these results.

@andrebeat Grey is faster than PolkaVM.

Grey now beats PolkaVM on JIT/recompiler targets. Yesterday, it already beat PolkaVM on interpreter targets. PolkaVM is notoriously slow on hostcall ops. If we anticipate smart contract payloads, this will actually be the more likely bottleneck than compute / memory access. They'll have troubles fixing it -- either they'll need to make it insecure ("generic sandbox") or they'll need to abandon their zero-cost memory access translation and adopt a Grey-alike design. This is essentially a PVM design problem. In JAR spec we'll try out some alternative designs and see how things go.

I've had a lot of fun contributing to @commonwarexyz over the past few months, and it turns out if you keep sending PRs long enough, they eventually want to hire you 😅 Excited to be joining the team!

@vaxryy Should I stop my monthly donation on Ko-fi, or will this use that as well?

Registrations open. You can log into forums after creating an account. account.hypr.land :)

@vaxryy I'm gonna have to say it brother... nixos solves this.

downgraded and its still blurry pasta la vista

@tomoglava @toghrulmaharram @patcito @malik672_ Better based on what metric? If you do the delegation as part of the protocol you can enforce some rules wrt stake assignment (for example, what Polkadot does wiki.polkadot.network/learn/learn-ph…).

@toghrulmaharram @patcito @malik672_ Yeah, just wanted to say that PoS is better than DPoS.

The best thing that Ethereum can do is to throw the entire consensus into the trash bin and start from scratch. Preferably while also throwing the underlying PoS model into the trash bin too and finally embracing delegative PoS.

@bkchr Framing this as "picking winners" is disingenuous, it's more "rewarding winners". The same logic prevented us from shipping Polkadot with smart contracts (iirc Astar was very loudly against this), and yet four years later we came around to it.

Also we didn't pick winners for years, which wasn't a good idea in the retrospective. Picking someone who is here since 6 years is also much more reasonable then trying to diversify into other random projects who are maybe coming from the outside.

Being idealistic will not ensure that we survive on the long run. The industry in a whole is also not in a position in which it earns revenue. We are still in the phase of growing the user base, because without users we will not survive.

@HSVSphere What do you mean "that far back", they literally started time.

They literally used the PDP-7 to write the assembly. They weren't that far back, they actually had computers. Nobody was using magnets and needles to write programs at the creation date of UNIX.

$1.4B and counting.

@kianenigma I don't see the difference according to his own definition. He conveniently stopped replying. Many such cases. twitter.com/colludingnode/…

Factual statement: Parachains and rollups (with all their subcategories) are the same in *what* they do, and different in *how* they do it. What they do: Scale out an L1 to have more overall blockspace/bandwidth. How they do it: Differs as per all the comments in the below thread

@crowd_punk @wearetalisman @chris_mbh @MarkoBaricevic_ @CelestiaOrg @Polkadot @Jskybowen @NovaWalletApp @subwalletapp @AstarNetwork Have a look at wiki.polkadot.network/docs/wallets-a…. Personally my favorite polkadot wallet is Nova, but it is mobile only. I haven't tried most of the others wallets though.

You are right XCM is not supported by a lot of wallets. It is indicated in the image of the second post of the thread. x.com/crowd_punk/sta… I do liste and am impartial. Which wallets should be considered and shortlisted for Round 2 of the Interchain Wallet Smackdown? Anyone chime in! Here is the list: x.com/i/lists/185144… @MetaMask @TrustWallet @Ledger @CoinbaseWallet @phantom @rainbowdotme @argentHQ @exodus_io @TrustologyIO @TorusLabs @CoinomiWallet @AtomicWallet @MyceliumCom @enjin @keplrwallet @leap_wallet @FrontierDotXYZ @safe @PeraAlgoWallet @MathWallet @xdefi_wallet @coin98_wallet @zerion @safepal @Trezor @StargazerWallet @klever_io @HuobiWallet @ambirewallet @templewallet @NovaWalletApp @wearetalisman @subwalletapp @polkawallet @cryptocom @Ctrl_Wallet @IBCwallet @solflare_wallet @GlowWallet @slope_finance @solongwallet @DaedalusWallet @YoroiWallet @GeroWallet @TyphonWallet

Slowly the wider crypto space is converging on a few designs. @CelestiaOrg and @Polkadot seem to be the leaders in this convergence. “We are all building the same thing” - @Jskybowen

The Ethereum ecosystem is pretty much unusable on the browser unless you use Chrome (or its derivatives) and Metamask.

@NovaWalletApp @AntonTheDay7 I'd pay to be able to have alerts on more than 3 accounts. Maybe more users would be willing to pay for some premium features 🤔

@davesnx Also you pay the heavy price of slow compilation and don't get the benefit of performance compared to other native alternatives (again maybe this has improved).

@davesnx Type system is very powerful and by extension too complex. A lot of the ecosystem libraries are over engineered (related to previous point). Haven't looked at Scala in the past 6 years ago though, but used it professionally for 7 years before that, maybe it has improved.

real talk, why scala isn't the most used programming language? looks super good to me, integrates nicely, has good power. Why isnt in par with... others?

@gadikian @itsbirdo_ @niftesty What do you mean by full finality? Finality and block production are separated, unlike in Cosmos. This favors liveness, at the cost of finality lagging by a couple of blocks from head (usually 2).

@itsbirdo_ @niftesty Out of curiosity, do these changes happen to bring full finality? I have worked on polka dots some, and when I do full finality is something I really miss. I also miss it when I work on Solana, and I imagine that if I were to go and work on Sui, I would miss it there as well.

As someone deeply involved in the Cosmos ecosystem for years, I've come to a difficult conclusion: I can no longer recommend Cosmos to early-stage, pre-launch teams. While the Cosmos software itself is decent and sometimes the only readily available framework for certain applications, the ecosystem is incredibly rough and antagonistic. A pivotal moment for me was when Jack Zampolin invited me to harm Composable, a customer of my company and StrangeLove Labs, by shipping their code to other chains without consent. This proposal was not only unethical but potentially illegal, posing a serious reputational risk. It appears that individuals affiliated with the Interchain Foundation (ICF) have systematically dismantled new engineering teams in Cosmos. We've seen this pattern repeat with Composable, my own team, Regen, and Allinbits. Unless the ICF is disbanded or completely restructured, I don't see things improving due to ethical problems at the top. I've made numerous security reports, including one detailing issues that occurred during Luna Classic's collapse. My belief is that someone attacked Luna Classic to reduce block production, making its stablecoin less responsive to market moves. Alarmingly, I had reported this issue in 2021 after observing it on Sentinel. Technical rigor is lacking, and security reports are not acted upon. In September 2023, I sent the ICF security code, documentation, and video showing how to execute an attack that disables IBC and significantly reduces block production. Both Informal Systems and the ICF dismissed it as a non-issue. The foundation's lack of transparency and the blurred lines between the ICF and Informal Systems, both run by Ethan Buchman, are deeply problematic. The ICF's transparency reports, when published, often contain inaccuracies. Total losses in Cosmos due to P2P storms were astronomical - around $70 billion for Luna Classic and $1.4 million for Osmosis. The lack of proper field validation in IBC transactions and similar issues in CosmWasm expose the ecosystem to significant vulnerabilities. The lack of concern for users' money and security is astounding. There was never a proper investigation into Comet's issues after Luna Classic's collapse. As an investor and engineer, I must say: things aren't right in Cosmos. While there are decent independent projects in Cosmos, they're at risk due to choosing the wrong software framework and ecosystem. Independent teams are disassembled with foundation support, jeopardizing product evolution and financial success. I can't recommend that product teams attend Cosmos conferences anymore, despite the impressive work of organizers like Cito. The behind-the-scenes activities pose too great a risk. No other ecosystem has a design architecture as good as Cosmos, and there's no other framework for building "whatever the hell I want" as an L1. However, the abundance of shady activities behind the scenes negates these technical accomplishments. If you want to improve Cosmos, put pressure on the ICF leadership. They need to go. However, given that the foundation council chooses itself, I'm unsure if Cosmos is salvageable. There are still some teams relatively untouched by these issues, such as Osmo, Omniflix, Pstake, Quicksilver, Akt, Dvpn, Composable, White Whale, and Kujira. But they receive little support from the foundation and have been hurt by "cartel" actions. If we truly want decentralization and expansion of engineering firms in the ecosystem, current ICF practices render these goals impossible. The state of Cosmos is dire, and those running it seem indifferent to these issues. My painful recommendation? Run. If you're building a chain, don't use the Cosmos brand. It's broken, which is why projects like dYdX and Bera distance themselves from it. The people in charge of Cosmos don't seem to care about your money or the ecosystem's integrity. It's time for a serious reevaluation of Cosmos's leadership and practices.

@bkchr @Polkadot 💦

cooking 500ms parachain blocks nocap 👀 @Polkadot

@Justin_Bons @Tur1ngM4ch1n3 @0xgoku_ Here's a recent talk on this subject: youtube.com/watch?v=MTzeE0…

@Justin_Bons @Tur1ngM4ch1n3 @0xgoku_ The main implementation of the relay chain is using the same framework as the parachains do (i.e. Substrate). So these limits apply to either.

The top 50 blockchains by market cap rated on scalability (1), governance (2), decentralization (3) & token distribution (4): 1. 2. 3. 4. BTC: ❌❌✅✅ ETH: ❌❌✅✅ BNB: ❌❌❌✅ SOL: ✅❌✅✅ XRP: ✅❌❌❌ TON: ✅❌✅❌ DOGE: ❌❌✅✅ ADA: ❌❌✅✅ AVAX: ✅❌✅✅ TRX: ✅❌✅❌ DOT: ❌✅✅✅ BCH: ✅❌✅✅ LTC: ❌❌✅✅ ICP: ✅✅✅❌ ETC: ❌❌✅✅ HBAR: ✅❌❌✅ APTOS:✅✅✅❌ ATOM: ❌✅✅✅ FIL: ❌❌✅✅ XLM: ✅❌❌❌ KAS: ✅❌✅✅ VET: ✅❌❌✅ XMR: ❌❌✅✅ SUI: ✅✅✅❌ Before unfollowing me out of sheer rage! Let me explain these metrics first: Scalability: Any chain that can exceed 1k TPS of "theoretical max capacity" gets a check mark. This is calculated by taking the smallest basic TX type & dividing that by the current capacity (block size/gas limit). I also accounted for "fake" TXs, such as consensus messaging in the case of SOL. I did not count parachains/subchains or L2s. As I am strictly measuring the capacity of the L1 here, as I remain skeptical of modular designs. Governance: Any chain that has fully implemented on-chain governance gets a check mark; plans & half-implemented systems do not count! For the sake of fairness, out of the chains that failed this check, three are still seriously pursuing on-chain governance right now, these are: SOL, ADA & AVAX Decentralization: This is far too complex to measure so simply, so in this case, I went with the lowest possible bar; permissionlessness. This gives us a binary for every blockchain. Though this is definitely a gross under simplification, which I can at least acknowledge here, it does mean that some of the chains we define as "decentralized" are often far from that in practice. Though this is sufficient for a simplistic analysis, a more granular approach would take multiple decentralization metrics into account instead. Token Distribution: Went with another simple metric here; any chain that has less than 50% of the supply owned/controlled by the founders gets a pass! There is some grey area here, as distributions can start out bad but become more distributed over time. Determining exactly when it crosses that 50% mark can be hard through chain analysis, especially if it sits right on that border. Conclusion: Nothing is perfect or unique; as you can see from this list, not a single chain passed all of the checks or stood on its own in a single category. This definitely makes some of the quasi-religious tribalism in this space all the more insane. That is why I take a pluralist approach by never exclusively aligning myself to a single blockchain ecosystem. That way, we are better able to maintain our objectivity & steer away from biases. As you will undoubtedly see in the comments, this will upset a lot of people. But as I hope some of the more reasonable people can also see; I am setting up objective measures & comparing these blockchains fairly according to those objective measures. If your favorite chain does not get a checkmark, it is not my fault; blame the chain, not the science or the person behind it! For the rest of you, I hope this was informative & I also hope your favorite chain will eventually pass all of these checks; for your sake, freedom's sake & humanity's sake!