pull down to refresh
@optimism
238,956 sats stacked
stacking since: #879734longest cowboy streak: 54npub13wvyk...hhes6rk47y
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 9m \ parent \ on: Thou mayest privatize Bitcoin Core bitcoin
Fair questions! Assumed you knew, apologies.
Cases of past forks, because we've been here:
- BIP-50 which was bitcoin/bitcoin with itself, a perfect demonstration of how fragile consensus is, and why I think that "even the bugs of the ref client are leading".
- Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited, each as an alt client that ran its own softforks (and later turned into BCH)
This is exactly because of very well defined, agreed upon and executed soft fork implementations allowing for full forward compatibility for old clients. (Though arguably the introduction of OP_NOP itself was a hard fork.)
Don't underestimate the engineering that this has required, especially for segwit. It is because of developer consensus, and an open repository and mailing list, and not settling for inferior solutions, that Bitcoin is as reliable as it is.
But this is also why I said " if you're willing to support that chaos", because I'm just advising against it. Mostly due to historical precedent of what happens when polarisation is driven to the point of people building forking clients out of frustration. And because I think that if you're burned out, you shouldn't make decisions.
I don't agree with the match Core bug-for-bug approach.
Okay, then hardfork galore is okay and all the energy spent on pow for inferior chaintips is okay? Sounds like a great way for centralized mining to become the standard. With soft forks at least hashpower doesn't get lost.
Do I go so far as to say the chain is the reference implementation?
Hey bro, nice that you accept bitcoin. Before i transfer some sats over LN, Which blockhash are you on? Ugh.
Do you think having a single dominant implementation is the main reason there haven't been more forks (soft or hard) of Bitcoin?
I think that having a reference implementation for the consensus protocol is super important, and for the p2p protocol in lieu of formal spec too.
For the peripheral functionality, from mempool policy (
knots) to block template logic (custom pool nodes) to how all this is stored on disk (libbitcoin) it is good to have a reference client, to show other devs how it's done, but since these things aren't touching consensus, it's not something that should be literally copied. Every implementation has leeway in this.It being the reference client doesn't have to mean it is the dominant implementation in the wild, but it is, so because of this, my answer to your question would be yes, it prevents forks and creates stability.
However, if a majority of maintainers of alternative implementations of the peripheral functions would simply agree that bitcoin/bitcoin is the absolute truth (= reference client) in case of a consensus bug in another implementation, then it doesn't have to be the dominant implementation in the wild. I think the absolute truth part is the case nowadays, iirc Niklas Goegge has done important work on this for both
btcd and libbitcoin, and the solution has always been that Bitcoin Core, even when behavior is a bug, is the truth.What I think we're seeing now is that the peripheral functionality and specifically the choices made by the maintainers of the staging tree are becoming a barrier to the - imho - essential function it serves for graceful integration of consensus (and baseline p2p) functionality. I don't agree that it should be like that, but all sides in this chose escalation. And now we see an even worse, and more escalating, proposal.
I cannot comment on spin-offs, that's just nonsense anyway.
Also read Michael Folkson's reply:
The recent statement by Core stating what its current contributors prioritize when designing transaction relay policy [3] and the communication around the recent transaction relay policy pull request (#32404) merge decision [4] I thought was excellent. However to take that precedent on Core transaction relay policy (a signed statement by a set of Core contributors and signposting around the merge decision) and assume it can be applied to a consensus rule change (CTV and CSFS or whatever the current set of opcodes is currently in vogue) requesting Core contributors prioritize review within 6 months is short sighted to put it mildly. Core can make unilateral decisions on transaction policy because consensus compatible forks can have different transaction policy without splitting the chain or the network. It can't make unilateral decisions on a consensus rule change. If there is significant disagreement on a consensus rule change an attempted consensus rule change can split the network and create two currencies.Hence if Core wants to make merge decisions on transaction relay policy pull requests based on its recent statement I think that is fine. If it wants to hide comments on such a pull request that don't accept that statement I think that is fine. But if it wants to create a set of contributors who think they can effectively decide on consensus rule changes without the input of the broader community that is clearly not fine.
Here's where I'm at:
If you want to retain any reasonable expectation of consensus protocol stability, then having the staging/integration repo is a good worth preserving, no matter the cost. Having the discussions, no matter how hard or abusive, is a necessary part of the process.
If however you don't care what kind of softforks go on the p2p network and you don't care what utterly insane activation parameters (like developer-said-so flag-day activation) people will code into their BIP8/9 deployments, and are willing to actively support and sustain that kind of chaos, then by all means, remove the integration repo.
But realize, that genie will not voluntarily return to the bottle. Once this is done, there is no return to softfork orchestration, and the divides will ultimately widen.
Your keys are home-printed right on the bill
This is unclear. Replace it to say what you actually mean.
We eliminated KYC and built tools to help your recipient learn Bitcoin, and you can create one in minutes.3
What's the subscript 3 doing there? I can't click it.
When you click to change the theme, scroll resets to top. I think this is annoying because i have to scroll all the way down again.
Overall, I'd reduce the slogans and distractions. This will make it more to-the-point.
I'd say everything is not a sign, because you cannot generalize intelligence and probably not truly measure it either. But I think that this doesn't even matter because:
Past performance offers no guarantees for future returns.
If you get a stroke (or long covid) and you can't finish that IQ test that you previously scored 150 on, are you now less intelligent? Even simpler: are you likely to be measured as intelligent as before while you're going through a nasty divorce or mourning the loss of a relative?
This is why, from where I'm sitting, while of course having developed cognitive skills like problem solving ability make a huge difference, attitude is much more important in life, and often a much more critical success factor than (perceived) intelligence.
By contrast, the most active financial market on Polymarket (“What price will bitcoin hit in June?”) has welcomed wagers worth just $22m.
Perhaps this is because "the market" is of the opinion that prediction markets aren't an optimal tool for hedging if you also have leveraged futures that are much more straight forward? (and potentially cheaper?)
Compare the volume of prediction markets re: BTC price, versus open interest on futures - first aggregate I could find: https://coinalyze.net/bitcoin/open-interest/
22M vs 37B at peak.
Say you would convert $5000 of your hard earned fiat wage into sats earlier this week when it dumped under 100k. There's always a chance that it will dump further. So, to hedge, you convert only $4900 and put $100 with 50x leverage on BitMex' short perp BTC/USD. Now you're hedged at the max cost of 2% of your trade - like insurance against it dumping further to $70k. If that happens, you at some point simply cover or close your position and buy sats with your "insurance payout".
How would a prediction market that tracks sentiment be more efficient than a direct hedge?
I wonder if anyone has found a middle ground between those two extremes...
There are way more small businesses in any place that don't get billion dollar valuations or grant money than there are unicorns. So I think the answer already exists. They're just not newsworthy because they are plenty. Most of them are ran by hardworking smart people. People that don't measure themselves against billionaires but get satisfaction from the impact they have, even if its just in their local community.
I think that it's good that MIT wants there to be more and better incubators though; incubators may help people get on the right track and stay on it. Also, the idea to actively develop otherwise idle patents is great. Then if it's actually good, there is progress, and if not then it can provably fail and either be improved or written off; also progress. So all together: do itttt. How it'll be funded... yeah. Hopefully with some common sense.
The Europe point is mostly made because startups there aren't huge unicorns. Unicorns are purely a money printer, not like the USD, no... like shitcoins: I give you 11m, you give me 1% of shares. Congratulations you're now a unicorn because
11m / 0.01 = 1.1b. Pure printing of hypothetical value because someone needed to put money in anything because that's better than sucking the inflation.Yes, European permissioning is shitty. But how can there be millions upon millions of entrepreneurs that aren't bankrupt? Why are there still companies in the EU at all? Because they deal with it. Against what apparently are "the odds".
Is it optimal for valuation? No. Optimal for expansion? No. Are there many EU entrepreneurs that live a good life, on the average better than most wage slaves? Yes. Success isn't really measured in billions of fiat moneys; that's just what they tell you to make you dream of something all your life, to keep you in line.
EU spends a ton of collective money on grants, and having worked on projects (partially) funded by these, I think they're a waste of money, and time. For example I once ran a huge commercial project in Germany and a tiny grant-funded project in Belgium at the same time, both with similar requirements. Where the former was making real change, the latter was just copying things that were figured out already commercially and keeping the donor happy. So I think the European people are better off if their money isn't wasted like that. Maybe they too can get a tax break if the bs stops.
Justice doesn't exist, just karma. And this is fine because injustice cannot be reversed but karma can be effectuated in lieu of that.
Awesome post, keep doing it!
Silvergate and Signature had just lost it's primary customer (FTX)
Is there any conclusive evidence re: Signature that FTX killed them and not Sen. Warren as revenge for them banking the scammer that funded her party? Because last I read on this - but arguably I haven't kept track for at least 6 months - I remember Mr. Franks, co-author of the actual Dodd-Franks act, sticking to his point that the NYDFS decision wasn't actually based on a real issue because they were good?
It's always felt like a cover-up to me: SBF would have been most likely to bribe Dems from Signature.
Locally tested because whisper is one of the few open source-ish things from
openAI.Test subject: 00:01:00 to 00:01:30 from #1014758, at 1x, 2x, 3x and 4x.
Because the default python library doesn't support Apple Silicon out of the box and I'm too lazy to spend time figuring out converting to CoreML right now, i just used
WhisperKit instead, which basically provides pre-converted models and downloads them for ya (first run takes forever because you'll be leeching a few GB off HF without being informed about that)% whisperkit-cli transcribe --audio-path ./small.mp3
So how's everything going at the hackerspace? Are you all still pushing out code over
there in Italy? Yeah, yeah, still going strong, I would say. So it goes a bit up and down
because I'm obviously super busy with the company. So there are times when I have
more free time and I try to dedicate that to the hackerspace. So sometimes we
organize events, stuff like that. Sometimes we're less active when we're particularly
busy with the company, we tend to be less
% whisperkit-cli transcribe --audio-path ./small-2x.mp3
So how's everything going at the hackerspace? Are you all still pushing out code over
there? Anybody? Yeah, yeah, still going strong, I would say. So it goes a bit up and
down because I'm obviously super busy with the company. So there are times when I
have more free time. I try to dedicate that to the hackerspace. So sometimes we
organize events, stuff like that. Sometimes we're less active when we're particularly
busy with the company. We tend to be less active.
% whisperkit-cli transcribe --audio-path ./small-3x.mp3
So how's everything going into the hacker space? Are you still pushing up code over
there? Yeah, it's going strong, I would say. So we have to get up and down, because
we do the components at the other times when I have more free time, I have to get up
and down, so we have to get up and down.
% whisperkit-cli transcribe --audio-path ./small-4x.mp3
So how's it going? Are you still? Yeah, that's going strong. Okay. So we're going to
have a couple of a couple of the comments that we've got to go to the first one. I'm
going to have a couple of the comments. I'm going to have a couple of the
comments.
Yes! I like goose as a client, because it's extremely versatile for prompt-only things. I also tried using it as a vibe coding thing but I don't really like vibe coding (probably because mainly
c++ on the daily, and code spat out is awful squared) so I generally don't touch it in favor of fast-agent because that's programmable.Unfortunately for all the LLM peoples the most exposure I get to prompt-only is when Brave Search interprets my query and shows me an LLM result on top. Which is by the way a genius move to try to stay relevant - by all the search engine corps as they all do it - because it gives better answers than top 10 search results, also on a no-ads engine.
Goose is Block Inc's open source AI client: https://github.com/block/goose