pull down to refresh
I never brought up security budget, you argued it to win as if I had.
Gutmann articulates a fundamental truth, truth is what matters. I don't care how many people agree or disagree, the facts remain.
Covenants don't change affordability, at best they defer costs. Suggesting otherwise is the roach motel fallacy. See fake L2 post.
These are not opinions subject to disagreement, these are facts. You don't have to like these facts, but they are facts never the less. I'm not debating opinions.
I didn't bring them up to win as if you had, I brought them up because that's part of the entire reason I made this post. Im sorry that I didn't get pre approval from you to discuss anything other than what you specifically stated.
I'm honestly done discussing this with you. I'm not sure why you feel so attacked by everything I say, but this is far from productive.
I hereby declare @justin_shocknet to be the supreme winner of this conversation. Everything he has said, I now agree is immutable fact.
You keep bringing up attacks, projection
Your idea of truth is popularity of narrative not fact
Sorry to burst your bubble
I 100% agree.
As far as moving goal posts go, I'm not doing that. For whatever reason, you think I'm trying to "win" an argument. I'm absolutely open to the idea that we currently have a very high security budget, and that a lower one wouldn't pose a risk.
There are some things we just fundamentally have to agree to disagree on. I know that bothers you, but Gutman is not the only authority on the subject. The timeline is uncertain, but gutman is an extreme outlier in the cryptographic community.
As far as your batching model goes. It still keeps fees incredibly high if you want to move from L2 to L1 in order to defend your self custody, whereas covenants would keep it affordable. If your base case is that only 1% of people should have access to the base layer, then I just fundamentally disagree with you.
By the way, disagreeing isn't saying your wrong it's saying we view this differently.