pull down to refresh
I take screen shots of option chains and let the LLM do the math for me. Annualized return vs delta (risk) etc, etc.
Ultimately, I still make the choice, I don't think an LLM can factor in an inclusion to the Russell 2000, or the 8k filing to dilute shares etc, but it strips out all of the noise that I don't want, and allows me to make more informed decisions.
It's a form if engagement that pushes more sats into the rewards pool.
If you have a day that you know you're going to be highly active, your best financial reward comes from getting as many sats pushed into the pool as possible, while simultaneously doing things that will give you rewards.
Oddly enough, the down zap mechanics are a really good incentive to make a post that will get heavily down zapped.
Hmm I meant to respond to the main body of the post, not randomly in the middle of the thread, either way, im sure optimism doesn't mind being tagged in.
I honestly do like hearing the opinion that a soft fork isn't even necessary from somone I consider to be extremely knowledgeable on the subject. I'll keep diving into different solutions, but are there any BIPs that you currently like, or do you just think these issues are overstated/solvable with the current state of things.
I definitely like your stance that a fork will happen if it NEEDs to happen, and that that preempting possible issues isn't completely necessary.
@k00b thanks for giving your opinion on SN live. I was bummed that I didn't see you in here and wanted your opinion.
Unless I'm missing something, don't those trade offs bring us right back to square one? I don't know if OP_CAT is the actual solution, but I don't see a whole lot of other options floating around for long term PQ.
This is actually a really good take.
My field of knowledge is actually pretty narrow regarding quantum solutions, are there any BIPs you're in favor of?
In that case, i'm one hundred percent willing to admit that I may have been wrong, and I will give you the complete benefit of the doubt. My apologies for misunderstanding. Sorry.
The theory is that you need the demand for the block space first. There's no shortage of shit coins that try to "solve" bitcoin by putting the cart before the horse. I'm not familiar with starkware, but I know if simular coins who's claim to fame is infinite block space. Infinite block space + not Infinite demand = dead coin.
I don't know if anyone has claimed that this can fix all 3 concurrently. If you were to roll this out today, for instance, you would solve the quantum threat, and the scaling issue. You'd then have to hope that adoption catches up fast enough to pay miners. That's not a position anyone wants to be in.
I also know originally this would have allowed for a DDOS attack against the network. That has been fixed, but I don't actually know if this opens up any new attack vectors, or concerns about them.
PS: In the case of OP_CAT, you must mean Starkware and I thought I saw the hand of them / their affiliations in some of the things you write. Did you check how their network is going? Their lil token?
Maybe i'm completely off base, but I can't see any other translation to that paragraph
Oh, and i forgot to mention. The very first version of OP_CAT was authored by well known shit coiner Satoshi Nakamoto, who disabled it due to an attack vector that it created that has longe since been fixed.
First if all, I'm not pounding a war drum for OP_CAT. I came here with multiple solutions to discuss. I specifically stated that I want to talk to someone who is more technically minded than me about it.
- Scalability solved.
- The reason this is suggested solution by the BITCOIN community, (people like Andrew Poelstra of blockstream, and authored by Ethan Heilman who is heavily involved in BIP 360, as well as being responsible for mathematically destroying shitcoins), is because it allows payments to miners to scale.
The sequences aren't a middle man between L2 and L1, they are the ones that collect and aggregate all of the small fees in order to pay the massive transaction costs to the miners.
Yes, scaling would initially hurt miners, look up Jevons Paradox. But the whole basis is that you could on board the entire planet, and L1 would be sustained by the massive economic weight of all of those transactions.
- Because OP_CAT allows you to combine pieces of data directly in Bitcoin Script, it allows developers to build complex new signature schemes that rely only on hashes, rather than elliptic curves. Specifically Lamport signatures or Witernitz signatures so NO you're not required to switch to another network.
A true ZK-rollup on Bitcoin wouldn't be a federated, custodial sidechain. A covenant mathematically guarantees your unilateral right to force-exit your UTXO back to L1 at any time, without the sequencer's permission. It inherits Bitcoin's base-layer security.
If you don't like this solution, fine. If there's problems with this solution, fine. But this IS a solution and it IS supported by prominent people within the BITCOIN community.
Thanks for the conversation.
Paid