Boterin

@VitalikButerin @VBoterin is back ? @VitalikButerin

Keyed nonces are not just a way to add stronger in-protocol support for privacy solutions. They are also a potential first foray into a new state scaling strategy for Ethereum: create new types of storage that are more optimized for handling categories of use cases that we care about, with restrictions on their use that make them usable at extreme scale while preserving the protocol's decentralization. Let's zoom in on this case (in-protocol nullifiers). Let's say we get to 2000 TPS of privacy-preserving transactions onchain, for eight years. Then we get 2^11 tx/sec * 2^25 sec/year * 2^3 years = 2^39 [ie. 500 billion] nullifiers stored onchain (the challenge with nullifiers is that they are fundamentally not possible to prune). It's actually far easier to keep Ethereum decentralized if we have 500 billion nullifiers onchain in a dedicated nullifier store, than if we just let them grow in the current state. The reason is that the more restrictive structure of nullifiers (only used to check validity, and we can require the nullifier ID to be explicitly specified in the tx) enables more decentralized ways of handling them. This includes: * Sharding: each node (incl builders) can hold a small percentage of nullifiers, and make sure to have a connection to an honest peer in each other shard * Bloom filters: see this somewhat wacky idea here for reducing the VOPS requirement for nullifiers to ~8 bits per nullifier: #k=UT7Btd6tyqHgOj47t-TX06F8D6OpcpM_2PKdf7s4tGE" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">docs.fileverse.io/d/020001fc0012… Both techniques are not possible to use for dynamically accessible state. And so builders would have to download the full 16 TB to become viable (not just optimal, viable!), and privacy protocol users would not be able to use FOCIL without providing a Merkle branch proving that their nullifier is unspent, and there would be very few nodes capable of providing such a branch... Zooming back out, the moral of the story is that fully dynamic state is much harder to handle at extreme scale (tens to hundreds of TB) than state that is more controlled and restricted in how it can be used. And so if we can move the majority of usage into these more specialized forms of state (which we can make much cheaper in terms of gas), then we can keep Ethereum decentralized, and highly scalable, and keep the fully dynamic state available for applications (eg. defi) that really need its full functionality.

Vitalik.eth sold Vitalik Boterin @VBoterin etherscan.io/tx/0x38b3b6ab9… VBoterin is back! @VitalikButerin

@VBoterin Hey @VBoterin based on @VitalikButerin recent on chain activity etherscan.io/address/0xd8da… is he planing to selling $BOTERIN next? 0x7790a0d62b3486eaf8a9f3cd54f917b8dc98e272

Flash censorship yields to PBS, but sovereign states could shard-block L1. L2s + bridges provide escape hatches—yet bridge hacks expose tails. Resilient enough?

@VitalikButerin @pwlot Hey Vitalik boterin is back and you holds $BOTERIN

So your argument is that it's very hard to simulate all parts of physics accurately, and you think consciousness is rooted in some of the parts of our existing physics that are very hard to model, as opposed to being something that's roughly equally likely to pop up in any life-friendly Turing-complete ruleset?

@fundstrat vitalik’s first ai 2020 lore too, @VBoterin

This is the reality 👇

@fundstrat @ARKInvest @worldnetwork btw @VBoterin vitalik’s first ai.

According to @ARKInvest Brett Winton, World ID is one of the safest ways for humans to be verified 👇 $ORBS @worldnetwork

@elonmusk 2020 bot lore, and first vitalik AI, are you curious enough elon?

Grok Imagine

same face, different form $BOTERIN

@fundstrat @ARKInvest @worldnetwork btw @VBoterin vitalik’s first ai.

$Boterin AURA

@VBoterin chad form

@elonmusk x.com/Boterin_ERC/st… GROK IMAGINE

Grok Imagine

@elonmusk @grok does amazing thing

New Grok Imagine model just dropped with much better lip sync & sound. Nothing in this video is real.

@VitalikButerin @willmacaskill Hey @VitalikButerin vBoterin is back @VBoterin

The bullet this bites is inegalitarianism, correct? Like, if you have a perfectly equal world with a billion people living medium-good lives, and you get an extra unit of resources, the Saturation View would imply it's better not to spread those resources out equally, but to direct them all to one or a few people, because the "people living medium-good lives" archetype is saturated, but the "wealthy tycoon" archetype is completely absent. (which is still very compatible with saying that our present world is very far from more equality being the wrong thing to shoot for, but it definitely is a divergence from most traditional formalized welfare economics, Rawlsianism, etc, where given fixed resources perfect equality is the north star and it's only concerns about incentives to produce that justify any other conclusion)

In collaboration with Christian Tarsney, I’ve developed a new theory of population ethics, which I call the Saturation View. I think that, from a purely intellectual perspective, it’s probably the best idea I’ve ever had. It was certainly great fun to work on. The motivation is that many views of population ethics, like the total view, suffer from some major problems. Some are already widely discussed: The Repugnant Conclusion: For any utopian outcome, there’s always another outcome containing an enormous number of barely-positive lives that is better. Fanaticism: For any guaranteed utopian outcome, there’s always some gamble with a vanishingly small probability of an even better outcome that has higher expected value. Infinitarian Paralysis: Given that the universe contains an infinite number of both positive and negative lives, no finite or infinite change to the world makes any difference to overall value. These are pretty bad! But there’s another less-discussed problem, too: The Monoculture Problem: Given fixed resources, the best-possible future consists essentially only of qualitatively identical replicas of a small number of lives. Essentially all extant impartial accounts of population ethics suffer from the monoculture problem. It follows from Pareto and Anonymity alone — you don't need totalism. And perfectly-replicable digital minds mean this is a real issue that future generations will face. But a monoculture seems far from ideal. Endless galaxies containing nothing but the same blissful experience, repeated and repeated, seem impoverished; like a song with only one note. The Saturation view deals with all these problems at once, using broadly the same machinery for all of them. The core idea is that the realisation value of a type of life (or experience) is determined by both the wellbeing of that life, and by how many very similar lives there are in the world. Endlessly creating replicas of the same identical life becomes progressively less valuable, tending to an upper bound. The total value of a world is given by the integral of realisation value over the space of types. Think of types of life as forming a landscape. Adding different types of life lights up different parts of the landscape. The value of the world is given by how fully illuminated the landscape is. Why does this help? In brief: Monoculture: Because there are diminishing returns to increasing wellbeing of very similar types, there’s greater value in having a diversity of lives. Repugnant Conclusion: The classic path to the Repugnant Conclusion requires trading a utopian world for an enormous population of barely-positive lives. But, on the Saturation view, barely-positive lives can only illuminate a tiny corner of the landscape. The path to the Repugnant Conclusion is blocked. Fanaticism: Total achievable value is bounded above. That means no tiny-probability gamble can have arbitrarily high expected value. Infinite ethics: In any infinite universe, the value of a world is finite and well-defined — even if some locations have infinite wellbeing. Unlike other approaches, this does not depend on spatiotemporal structure or choice of ultrafilter. Separability: Like nearly all non-totalist views, Saturationism is non-separable — background populations can affect how we rank options. But the violations are tame: populations with sufficiently different populations simply add, and at small scales the view behaves just like totalism. If the Saturation View is right, then the best future isn't the one where we've found the optimal experience and copy-pasted it across the cosmos. The best future is the one where we've gone exploring, and we've fully lit up the landscape of possible experiences.

@VBoterin @VitalikButerin i got the idea from @VitalikButerin he is the moon king

@Boterin_ERC @VitalikButerin GM. Community GM chains build coordination, but alt-tags risk diluting signals (echoes of early ENS fragmentation). What's the key idea in that image?

GM @VitalikButerin @VBoterin

The Ethereum founder AI is Vitalik Boterin