Patrizio Stavola

@antpalkin because at some point you will wake up

You could literally: > Spend one weekend with Claude > Backtest 75 markets in 12 minutes > Hit 85.1% win rate, Sharpe 4.21 > Deploy on Polymarket Monday morning > Cash out $45,000 by lunch Why is nobody doing this?!

@sell9000 trade on the uncertainity

I have resumed blocking/unfollowing excess Ameri-Israeli centric geopolitical takes on my timeline If you are trading on the narrative of a possible WW3, those odds are extremely slim to non-existent as absolutely terrible RR and I would consider you a horrible trader/investor

@metaversehodl commented on your other post already. i have quite a bit of experience because of a similar issue I had. dm me Im happy to help a fellow wallet deleter

I tried a few things to try to recover the keys from my computer. I’m worried if I do too much it could erase old data I need to preserve to find them. Are there any computer analytics experts I could reach out to?

@metaversehodl data recovery tools to recover your extension dir from chrome profile. also sometimes extensions stores encrypted privkey/mnemonics in local leveldb of chrome profile and there are tools to extract deleted keys. dm me if you need help I went through something similar recently.

Just lost a wallet with $1.6 million in it. Don't do what I did. Follow me for more tips.

You distorted facts and omitted flaws and unfavorable fundamentals of the Bitcoin network. Let’s set the record straight: 1. Pre-mine: ETH was pre-mined, but only a small percentage of that is still retained by founders. BTC was not pre-mined, but its monetary policy was designed to distribute the most coins at a time when information asymmetry was at its highest, which heavily benefited Satoshi and provided him with the equivalent of seigniorage. Result: Vitalik holds less than 0.3% of ETH's supply while Satoshi holds almost 5% of BTC's. 2. Breaking Immutability ETH’s protocol was never hacked. DAO was a smart contract that got compromised. That hack was resolved by an irregular state change that overrode the compromised smart contract to prevent the attacker from stealing deposits. BTC has rolled back the chain twice, but you conveniently did not mention it. Both times the rollback was needed because of protocol level bugs. BTC rollback #1 (2010): youtube.com/watch?v=ZI5XzS… BTC rollback #2 (2013): freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/ana… Result: not only has BTC compromised immutability more times than ETH, rolling back the chain caused mining rewards to be redistributed. 3. Changing Monetary Policy ETH has changed monetary policy three times. Each time the issuance has been reduced, and these changes were only possible via client consensus. EIP-1559 introduced a mechanism that automatically adjusts issuance based on network fee revenue. More info here: medium.com/coinmonks/ever… BTC has never changed its issuance schedule, but the network is still heavily reliant on the issuance subsidy for financing miners. 94% of miners' rewards were financed by issuance over the past 24 hours, and within the past couple of years there were times when issuance accounted for more than 99% of rewards. Result: ETH has reduced issuance at a much faster rate than BTC. ETH is the only major network that has achieved economic and security sustainability, turning $ETH into a yield-bearing deflationary asset. BTC needs new market entrants to sustain its current economic security. 4. Regulatory clarity CFTC and SEC officials have referred to $ETH as a commodity. ETH has futures ETFs and many pending filings for spot ETFs (including from Blackrock). Spot ETFs are expected to be approved and Ethereum will achieve regulatory parity to Bitcoin. 5. Extras ETH has 100% historical network uptime. BTC does not. ETH has a viable scaling solution via rollups. BTC's Lightning Network is a failed experiment.

@DeanEigenmann @bigmagicdao cost of living in ch is at least 3x dubai

Roman Storm was arrested today 🫡

Yes, you heard that right. @SAP, the largest enterprise software provider in the world that literally every single business is a customer of, is testing cross-border payments settled in USDC for their customers.

1/6) I support Ethereum's latest proposal to increase the max validator balance to 2048 instead of 32 ETH What matters for decentralization is the distribution of power, not the number of nodes Forcing organizations to run more nodes is inefficient & obscures centralization!

Someone just took a $14,500 loan on two Rolexes at 12% APR from a complete stranger all on-chain The Rolexes were sent to an escrow company who then sent back NFTs representing ownership of the watches The borrower can then use those NFTs to tap into global liquidity rather than taking a predatory loan at their local pawn shop If they default? The lender can use the NFTs to redeem the watches One of the most obvious and easy to understand use cases of NFTs

Swift has launched a set of experiments in partnership with Chainlink to examine more closely how major financial institutions might integrate with blockchains. trib.al/ZY2ijpY

@dabit3 100% agree with this. candidates should be evaluated by letting them use all the tools available in their daily job otherwise the whole hiring process is pointless and broken and will be exploited by this kind of stuff

if I was doing coding interviews I would let the candidate do literally whatever the fck they wanted to do to get the answer, as long as the code runs and they have somewhat of a grasp of how it works google, stack overflow, chatgpt, github, name it if someone is fast, correct, and efficient with these tools they they should be considered at even a higher level than someone sitting around trying to answer and solve every answer on their own

It isn't so much that a single specific current narrative is strange/self-contradicting, even though there certainly are some inadequate narratives out there. Let me start by listing some: - Bitcoin is perfect, doesn't need to change. But also everyone should self-custody! (ignores the obvious fact that in order to accommodate everyone onchain, at some point, some change will be needed) - Everything that altcoins do will be done on Bitcoin (but then we get really mad when it happens on Bitcoin even to the slightest degree) - Bitcoin has chosen to not do "everything", because doing "everything" is dangerous, but we should antagonize anyone/anything that tries to pursue "the rest", even though "the rest" was deemed legitimate in the past - Everything that isn't Bitcoin is a scam (by this definition, any attempt at decent non-custodial privacy is a scam) I could go on, however, a bunch of these are going to be only partially held by some maxis, and not held at all by others, so we're heading into a completely useless discussion of "but that doesn't apply to MEEEEE!" if we continue on this path. So let me frame it more correctly: Around 2019 or so, 2 years after the blocksize wars ended, the Bitcoin inner-circle had spent most of the last years building itself up, spinning narratives and stories (mostly on the back of "The Bitcoin Standard"), elevating gospel-like leaders, adopting strange food diets and other bizarrities, and basically turned into a cult-in-formation. It was around this time that S2F started spreading. Surely, a narrative so ridiculous that the price of bitcoin was pre-programmed into the source code itself irrespective of demand would not be adopted by the once illustrious, skeptical, Austrian-schooled Bitcoin community? Well, it was! A list of popular names who shilled S2F: - Saifedean Ammous, author of The Bitcoin Standard - Vijay Boyapati, author of The Bullish Case for Bitcoin - Pierre Rochard, co-founder of the Nakamoto Institute - Bitstein - Caitlin Long - Preston Pysh - A significant number of Swan advisors, Stephan Livera, Robert Breedlove - Even Adam Back defended PlanB multiple times (ended up losing a tungsten cube to me in Nov 2021 while betting that one of PlanB's price models would stay intact) Bitcoiners today will tell you that S2F was only taken seriously by a tiny subset of bitcoiners, but to everyone who was there, this was not the case. There were only a few voices who spoke up. Nic Carter, Paul Sztorc, Hasu, myself. The few of us who did speak up know how few we were, because most of us started talking more with eachother. We had to seek out Telegram chats to be able to have sensible conversations about Bitcoin at this point. The problem wasn't just that the Bitcoin community accidentally got roped into a bogus Parabolic Trav-like narrative, it was the complete and utter lack of intellectual rigor that made it completely apparent that brain had officially left the Bitcoin building. This lack of intellectual rigor wasn't isolated to S2F. It began to permeate everything. Altcoins are going to get outcompeted by... not drivechains... not zkrollups... but Liquid! (one of the most useless blockchains in existence). By the end of 2019, I took the chance at trying to explain zkrollups (new invention) to the Bitcoin community. Peter Todd took to Twitter and called me out as having become "potentially dangerous" for reading Vitalik's blog. John Carvalho, once famous from the blocksize wars, wrote blogs about how zkrollups were made up hocuspocus. A few days later, a very upset Bitcoin community discovered a forum post by Gregoxy Maxwell where he discussed a related idea (but still very different) and the stance by the Bitcoin community then became to take credit for the zkrollup invention, but made no steps to implement or experiment with it to any degree. Talking about the inadequacies of Lightning became hard. Rusty Russell would sometimes be pretty frank about some of the discrepancies between Lightning narrative and Lightning reality, but these realizations rarely penetrated the broader Bitcoin community, and its ability to navigate and intellectually orient itself around controversial topics dissipated. Rusty himself had to create a Twitter account called "Shit Bitcoiners Say" just to vent (@SayBitcoiners). I don't think it makes sense to point to a specific, current narrative and say "this is why maximalists are stupid" because there will always be disagreements on whether that is a belief universally held by every single maximalist, it's more about studying the continuous, repeated failings of the Bitcoin community to treat an unacceptable number of topics competently and with intellectual honesty.

@dengdengspams GMOs are banned in europe

Can someone explain food quality to me Like why do I feel like shit after eating food in America But I feel great after eating food in Europe/Asia

Visa is not going to let itself become "Blockbustered" by the financial digital revolution. They are investing heavily on figuring out how to integrate their services and operations with #Ethereum. TradFi players who ignore $ETH will have a major competitive disadvantage.

My understanding from the #Ledger case: it has always been possible to make updates to the secure element, hence even updating it in such a manner that it gives you the raw private key. @Ledger

@lebed2045 so “as secure as yesterday” means that it has never been secured in the first place. past FW updates could have had the same concerns but we just didn’t know

Examined Ledger FUD as promised to my lobster and magician friends. TLDR: Concern over company direction is valid, yet no immediate danger unless the firmware is updated. #Ledger remains as secure as yesterday. More details in the thread.👇 1/x

The UAE 🇦🇪 deserves a lot of credit for being forward thinking on crypto. First dedicated crypto regulator in the world, a clear rule book published (!), business friendly plus strong customer protections. Really enjoying my visit so far.

go DEI — get no DAI it's sad to see gitcoin going against the grain of what makes this industry great (the misfit cartoon animal hackers). at yearn we've supported the infrastructure matching rounds with big money, but have stopped after seeing some sketchy behavior. legit projects got rejected from rounds they belonged to. at the same time fake projects started popping up with outsized matching. now that the org got captured by people who want to replace hard work and merit with hollow identitarianism, i don't see it's possible to support gitcoin going forward. support your favorite projects directly, luckily it's easy to ask for a donation address and tell the devs you love them.

The inflow of validators greatly exceeds the "mass exodus" of validators that some people claimed would immediately follow the Capella/Shanghai upgrade. The activation queue is over two weeks long while the exit queue is less than 4 days.