hikaru pfp

hikaru

@hikaru

16 Following
17 Followers
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
Interesting, isn’t this obvious to L2 teams? Maybe due to the current weak security, low requirements could be useful?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
A mature and simple L2 that is almost immutable is equivalent to a secure and sophisticated L1. Minimal enshrinement is the better approach.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
I never found the energy expenditure argument to be a strong one against public blockchains, as they are well worth the cost. The better arguments for PoS are recoverability from attacks, and higher economic security per unit.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
Assume that almost all eth is staked, this would effectively result in a fixed cap monetary model, similar to bitcoin currently. This means that security would be dependent on protocol revenue, which introduces many risks.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
I don’t think that’s quite right; technical decentralization and scalability can be easily achieved. The only important measure is credible neutrality (which necessitates censorship-resistance). Scaling is also not necessary; but useful.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
It is primarily that.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
I'm glad, but please see my second reply so you don't take it too seriously haha.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
If security was primarily derived from money, then it would be separate and far larger than the value of the ecosystem. Of course, this is based on a long time frame, so you could say it's speculative.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
Yes, the current technical landscape suggests that scaling could effectively reduce L1 fees to negligible levels or, at best, result in weak security. Moreover, there's another problem with revenue-based security, which is systemic complexity, as the app layer might be able to intervene in the consensus layer.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
I do think the use cases on top of ethereum will be very valuable, but this is different from revenue and value capture. Revenue can be fees and mev capture, both of which tend to zero assuming a sufficiently long time frame — even with a valuable ecosystem.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
The problem with this view is that it would become unsustainable if L1 revenue tends to zero, which would be the case unless scaling is limited.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
More “eth is money” narrative. Less “eth is ultrasound money / deflationary” narrative.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
I completely agree with this. Lack of privacy could undermine major protocols, and it should be prioritized at least in theory.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
I would say with no self custody.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
I believe it's beyond amplification. The applications you mentioned significantly benefit from having a cult (more upgrades, better ecosystem), but it's not strictly necessary to function. Blockchains derive their entire value from this property.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
Blockchains are cults. Nevertheless, I agree that one should not provide invalid decentralization or tech critiques.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
Only a handful of chains will be successful L1s. The others would/should pivot to L2s.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
Yes, more of a definition than an analogy.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
I prefer "state machine" over "infrastructure for computation": - trust-minimized state machine. - neutral state machine. Do you find this less/more accurate?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
hikaru pfp
hikaru
@hikaru
Hey. No, it isn’t related to anything.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction