Merge mined sidechains are not L2s, L2s are not enforced by hashrate... L2s don't have the data availability guarantees of having to send data around the globe to collect hash rate.
Any criticism to L2s do NOT apply to merge mined sidechains. Other tradeoffs exist, but don't bundle them with L2s.
"I formally proven that carbon based life is impossible, argue with me cowards, where is your math? Grok, tell them why they are wrong."
Again, don't argue with people, just do shit.
View quoted note →If you think AI coding is bad for software, watch an amateur philosopher go insane on real time getting high on his own AI generated supply.
Good morning, if we are serious people we would be having a full blown all hands on deck year where we don't do anything but build proof of concepts that we can transact with Bitcoin safely, quickly, cheaply and at any scale.
We would be building Rootstock-backed mints, we would be building client side validation wallets we would be building every variant of high throughput data availability solution for Rootstock with variant levels of security for variant amounts of money.. we would be building volatility hedges and markets ...
And we would be demanding OP_CAT.
We would be throwing everything against the wall instead of escaping into reinventing every open source project under the sun and adding Nostr to its name or description.
Can I pay someone to go backtest my assumption that a stablecoin backed by Bitcoin and pegged to a moving average of mining difficulty would actually be good hedge against volatility? I seriously don't want a new side project on my plate but many of us want to buy Bitcoin on our own terms when we don't think it is overpriced, and I don't think barking value in Fiat is good for Bitcoin, but a volatility hedge might be great.
I believe this uses Rootstock (and binance, which doesn't pay fees to our miners)... Make more stuff like this and pay more fees to Bitcoin miners please.
View quoted note →Free Rootstock and Bitcoin from apathy.
Remember kids, Death to zionists.
Engineerguy published new video on YouTube 🎉
If you don't like Bitcoin Core your message should be demanding;
1. Great Script Restoration (or at least OP_CAT).
2. Consensus cleanup.
3. Bip360 for post quantum safety.
4. Block size reduction to pre-segwit.
5. Libkernel total and utter ossification for the rest of time, literally hash its code and never change it and distribute it as a torrent file going forward.
Then we can all stop talking about Bitcoin core for the rest of our lives.
The problem with a community that doesn't care about effectiveness and actually advancing a mission, is that it devolves into larpers and basically a competition of who knows the lingo better. Cheap phrases uttered left and right, memes and insults and nothing more. I dislike this childishness a lot, especially when people do it while pretending to be the last uncompromising knights protecting all good and holy, when they are absolutely useless.
5 years... Heroic shit
View quoted note →I can think of three main usecases for public decentralised PoW Blockchains with expressive smart contracts and largi-ish adaptive block sizes;
1. Savings especially in vaults, without the brutal (but necessary) congestion in L1
2. Lending protocols and especially long term ones and ones needed for volatility hedging.
3. Global name registries.
These are basically the things that you want to be as safe as possible and don't need to access as often or necessarily as cheaply.
Everything else probably is better off with client side validation and/or an L3 sidechain... Like Drivechains suggest.
I am not sure what would remain the purpose of L1 other than a the backbone with a perfect clock and very very scarce archival storage.
It must be at least 100x easier to develop stateful smart contracts onchain than to use the chain as a pure proof of publication.
You get P2P broadcast, you get state storage, you get general purpose customizable custody system, and the even the main bottleneck (state bloat) is something that you have to deal with as well on your "sovereign rollup" so you can also throw it on the chain to handle in the future!
This is a bad idea for payments, but it is hard to argue against for things that are meant to be global and not necessarily cheap or fast.
At least until you hit scaling limits the extra complexity is almost impossible to justify.
Rootstock already has plans for storage rent so the state bloat is a problem they have to solve, and it is most likely cheaper to pay that rent than maintain the complexity of offchain solutions.
Let's keep the client validation hell to things like private scalable payments instead. But even then I wouldn't store my savings in that.
My absolute favourite feature in Nostr is users telling developers to fix their apps, in the apps. A dream beta testing environment.
"Reform candidate who said Holocaust was a whizz wins a sear in local elections"
Again, antisemitism is absolutely powerless allegation, if holocaust deniers are not afraid, why are you afraid to say death to supremacist genocidal child killers?
