KittyCatRightMeow

If you are rocking a PFP with under 100 babies plz don't @ me or share your opinion on my wall. I don't care what you have to say. Reality is you need to meow louder, move out of your cardboard box, stack kibbles, breed a few real kitties then share your opinion.

@adamscochran Guy who constantly spreads misinformation and conspiracy theories wants better labels... Retar dio

I need First Squawk and others to start tagging these bylines as “Barak Ravid” vs others Axios staff So I know which ones are just state sanctioned propaganda, and which ones are trying to be news.

@Ethprofit Concerning. Where is Charbeano when we need him most?

What happened here? The solana scam couldn't sustain itself

@21BitcoinMaxi @arkham @ethereumfndn Why is BTC still down 98% vs ETH 10 years after the ICO? The world is full of mystery when you're a delusional maxi.

@arkham @ethereumfndn Why, that doesnt make sense. Why would they sell ultra sound money for ice cubes?

THE ETHEREUM FOUNDATION IS SELLING The Ethereum Foundation just sold 1250 ETH for $2.80M in DAI. The Ethereum Foundation has stopped staking ETH and has started selling ETH.

@Bullshotting You can get instant liquidity by turning your moments into TSHOT tokens on vaultopolis and then selling those tokens on Flow defi. vaultopolis.com/swap

I have 2,500+ common Top Shot moments with no current offers on them. Is there any way to liquidate them? Or are they just lost?

@notgrubles Bitcoin is the only one that had bugs in the client requiring 2 rollbacks. Seems like it would be much more likely to find another bug in Bitcoin.

All of a sudden they’re talking about “post-AI”. It’s as if my theory of Mythos discovering massive bugs in Ethereum and “quantum” being a cover-up might be true.

@DPGSpurs @JustDeauIt "nuking" after doing a 300x vs BTC in the first place to where BTC is still down 98% after 10 years. Executing the road map was priced into the 300x in the first place. BTC has no roadmap and no path to sustainable security outside of becoming a worse version of ETH. Retar dio.

The reason Eth / btc nuked despite executing on Merge and rest of roadmap: “3. Keep the ETH inflation rate lower than Bitcoin's while offering a stable yield” No one smart buys this. Bitcoin is 21M no matter what inflation isn’t about issuance schedule but supply. And if it were about issuance (it’s not) everyone knows bitcoin is trending towards “less inflation” than eth anyways over time too. It’s beyond silly to market this and only turns smart investors off Same with yield. Imagine Eth/btc nuking and trying to sell people on getting less yield than cash 😂

Continue to believe this is the most important chart for ETH. Why? Onchain fees paid to validators and stakers continue to trend down, and it is hard to see that changing anytime soon. This resulted in Ethereum producing its *lowest* REV on record in Q1. At the same time, ETH staked is rising (all-time high). That means Ethereum security is as robust as ever, with its supply side receiving the *least* amount of compensation since The Merge. That’s interesting. Because Ethereum is demonstrating that it can: 1. Scale via L2s and grow the network effect (Robinhood L2 currently in testnet). 2. Maintain (and grow) security at the L1 level, even as fees paid to validators/stakers are at all-time lows. 3. Keep the ETH inflation rate lower than Bitcoin's while offering a stable yield. It's a nice story because the narrative can turn to "ETH has stronger token economics/lower inflation than BTC, yield (which can be earned via the ETFs now), and secures more assets than any other chain." That's a coherent investment thesis for an era in which investors will be looking to lean into alternative stores of value and emerging technologies. ---- We shared a full update on Ethereum's Q1 ecosystem performance with readers of The DeFi Report today. If you'd like to access the latest (free) research, see the link below 👇

@Truthcoin The design is very flawed from the beginning. It needs a narrative destroying hard fork just to have sustainable security and still end up as some worse version of ETH 10 years behind in development.

The phrase "without a softfork" indicates mental illness. The soft fork is magical and easy. It is opt-in, reversible, and ignorable. The fact that it is even possible, is a gift from God. It's like being able to teleport anywhere in the world, PLUS the ability to cntrl+z after you die and respawn back at your house. The fact that people (like Saylor) are "against" the soft fork -- (and that other people just shrug at this) -- speaks to how poorly they understand their investment. It is an irrationality of such enormous caliber, that it probably indicates that BTC itself is doomed. Why are miners pivoting to AI? Why are they all losing money? Because they abandoned the soft fork -- which could easily have saved them. When you see "without a softfork", you are witnessing the end of Bitcoin.

@coinjoined @FutureDies @StarkWareLtd What are you even blabbing about. Anyone can run an ETH node without staking anything or without anyone's permission and still validate the correctness of the chain. A validator is a specific term/role in ETH but "validation" of the chain is just as permissionless as BTC.

Just riffing that the term validator reveals the PoS mental model. Bitcoin is explicitly designed around permissionless validation by all nodes and competitive block construction by miners. In Bitcoin, validation is universal; block inclusion is selective. The correct term would usually be miner, mining pool, or a node operator willing to relay it, not validator.

After seeing an avalanche of "eat it quantum FUDsters, Bitcoin doesn't need to upgrade" it's clear no one has read the paper past the title (got to give it to @StarkWareLtd for a brilliant marketing choice). The paper is by all means, magnificent engineering , but (as it's own section 1.3 states) is a last-resort measure and not a general solution for Bitcoin safety against quantum. The risk of treating it as a panacea brings reduced urgency in working on actual protocol fix. Why? 1. $75-150 cost + ~6 hours of compute per tx. Ok for whales, not ok for stacking sats. 2. 59-bit security margin is generally considered pretty thin. 3. Locked into legacy pre-segwit script execution when most of the industry has moved on. 4. As a second order effect creates an easily identifiable class of Q-safe coins, which undermines fungibility. And (obviously out of scope) does not solve the Satoshi coins vulnerability.

@0xa99x @henlojseam How could the ideal SoV have infinite negative value accrual from PoW structural sell pressure? Vs ETH which actually has positive value accrual to stakers. And more security. And more utility. BTC is a worse SoV in every way.

@henlojseam Ethereum's biggest mistake was thinking it could compete with Bitcoin as a store-of-value.

Ethereum biggest mistakes 1. Not having enshrined staking nomination, resulting in dapp layer takeover 2. L2s vampire attacking mainnet with limited value capture back via blobs 3. Code is law vs specs being law, dapps need to publish formally verifiable specification not just solidity code These are fixable problems tho, the kumbaya will die, wartime cryptographers will survive, long live Ethereum

@programmadness Perhaps you can say what is instead of trying to say what isn't. Using "layer 0" consensus to reorg the chain is a rollback?

@KittyCatRightM3 "Rollback" has a meaning which isn't equivalent to your "roll back"--is that why you include the space?

"Technically[ one event] was a chain reorganization driven by the longest-chain rule—Bitcoin's core consensus mechanism. The new software enforced stricter validity rules, so the invalid chain became shorter in terms of accepted work. No one "rewound the ledger to the fourth block" or manually edited old data in the new software; the software simply treated the patched rules as correct from the point of upgrade onward, and the network converged on the valid chain. That said, critics (and some defenders) call it a "rollback" because: It required a software patch + coordinated upgrade. It effectively erased the economic impact of the invalid creation (the fake BTC disappeared). It relied on social consensus among early miners/nodes to tip the hash rate balance. From a purist view, it highlights that Bitcoin's "immutability" is ultimately backed by economic incentives and majority hash power, not pure mathematical perfection." Which is the funny thing because Bitcoin has always been designed to be constrained by an economic incentive. Everyone knows the 21 million rule and the value that comes from this and everyone knows, therefore, anybody who manages to create extra or modify software to do so gets rejected by the consensus. So there's nothing here, literally at all, that's unexpected or out of the ordinary. "[In the other event--] 2013 Chain Fork (Versions 0.7 vs. 0.8) [...] Bitcoin Core 0.8 switched the internal database from BerkeleyDB to LevelDB for performance. Unintentionally, this removed a subtle limit on database locks, allowing a block (height 225,430) with many transactions that older 0.7 nodes couldn't process/validate properly. Result: A clean split. 0.8 nodes accepted the block and built on it (pulling ahead initially). 0.7 nodes rejected it and built their own competing chain. Resolution: Developers and major mining pools [downgraded 0.8 back to 0.7]. This shifted majority hash power to the 0.7-compatible chain. The 0.8 chain was abandoned as the 0.7 chain overtook it, triggering reorgs on remaining 0.8 nodes. blog.citp.princeton.edu No new software rule change was needed to "fix" validity—the fork was purely due to divergent implementation behavior. Miners literally switched software versions and pointed their hash power at the older, compatible chain. Once the 0.7 chain became longest, the network converged. (Later, a proper upgrade path was rolled out more carefully.) This was even less of a "protocol rollback" and more of an emergency hash-rate vote to pick one fork over the other for compatibility."

@freakyP__4378 @retard99749204 @ShadowyZephyr @impostersyndrum I agree but there are those who would call them barbaric. Which is the point I was making. Doesn't even have to be an animal. Vegans might think people who eat cheese are barbaric. The point is that values are subjective and drawing a line somewhere isn't hypocritical.

@KittyCatRightM3 @retard99749204 @ShadowyZephyr @impostersyndrum I'm fairly sure no one (or at least very few) calls eating a snail immoral.

people posting this as a roast as if they aren't just proving PETA's point, that everyone draws the line in a different place, with no logic behind it. you can do this but then don't turn around and call cultures barbaric for eating cats and dogs (which many people do)!

@retard99749204 @ShadowyZephyr @impostersyndrum Which is why you can have one person think eating snails is "barbaric" and disgusting and someone else might think it's a delicacy. While neither of them are even commenting on the value of the life of the snail.

@retard99749204 @ShadowyZephyr @impostersyndrum Of course they do. There are plenty of people who don't eat animals like duck or lamb or fish because they don't like the specific taste. Has nothing to do with their other opinions about those animals. They simply get spared because they don't taste good.

@floppyfisch @ShadowyZephyr @impostersyndrum 1. Probably, IDK. 2. Not ugly. They are pretty cute but I still give the edge to dog. 3. Yeah I think most people would agree with that.

@KittyCatRightM3 @ShadowyZephyr @impostersyndrum Does dog have worse taste or nutrition, does rabbit look ugly compared to a dog. Do pigs behave more unsightly than dogs?

@ShadowyZephyr @impostersyndrum Clearly there are reasons you are just purposely trying not to understand them. It could be a simple as taste or nutrition or how they look or behavior. You're welcome to have your own opinions but you can't say that someone else can't have a different opinion on what is barbaric

@impostersyndrum age of consent is based on brain development though. there's no clear reason w.r.t animals, for example, pigs are more intelligent than dogs maybe domestication. but even then it varies

@LVTYIMBY That's not what they said though.

Oh good, that means land is a human right.

@therealpauldahl @LoganFizzle @transonicduke @ApexImperialist I guess it's not a monopoly then is it. Retar dio.

@KittyCatRightM3 @LoganFizzle @transonicduke @ApexImperialist x.com/i/status/20419…

Fun fact: Despite the Libertarian theology claiming otherwise, babies have a human right to the care and labour of their parents.

@therealpauldahl Says the person who thinks that saying something makes it true and can't explain or make any sense of what they are saying from first principals.

A problem with the colloquial libertarian is that they lack a significant amount of necessary knowledge to engage in the conversations they insist on engaging in and need everything explained to them from first principals.

@therealpauldahl @LoganFizzle @transonicduke @ApexImperialist This is obviously true because we have world peace and there is no violence between states. Retar dio.

@LoganFizzle @transonicduke @ApexImperialist The business of legal force is a natural monopoly. Whatever entity gains that monopoly is functionally the state. The state uses that monopoly to decide what functionally are and are not rights via it's use of that monopoly to both protect and enforce.

@birdappacc1 @ThirstyyTiger @AquaticFlapper Yeah because I didn't say the first part only you did. And you still can't tell the difference between negative rights and positive rights and keep pretending they are the same. Retar dio.

@KittyCatRightM3 @ThirstyyTiger @AquaticFlapper i need you to understand that saying you cant have a right because it requires the labour of others and then also saying rights dont require anything they just are is a fundamentally retarded position

That implies no human rights. As every human right other than like breathing requires some human labor. This argument falls apart when you realize to maintain any form of laws or order you need humans to be involved.