Danny

@mad-scientist

14 Following

87 Followers

Danny pfp

1. Top researchers and maybe EF outlining, in a single consensus document, standards for best-practices for bridges. Pushing for stage-2 equivalent for bridges on L2beat (currently it doesn't look good there). Maybe even publicly endorsing bridges that did a good job. 2. If/when large institutions ask, let the EF advise them on best practices (in a neutral way, equal access to all).

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Danny pfp

Saying L2s are parasitic to ETH is like saying ETFs are parasitic to BTC. Sure, money flowing to ETFs doesn't contribute to the security budget of bitcoin to the same extent as self-custody. But ETFs more than make up for it by giving broader access to BTC.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Danny pfp

so it begins https://x.com/WatcherGuru/status/1869400680773165332

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Danny pfp

What about interoperability? Will other L2s be able to interact with it without touching the L1? If async (I assume), any time estimates? As a user I don't want to bridge for the 2-5 times a year I do something with ENS, but if I can use ETH/USDC on base/arbitrum/... to pay a fee and register a name, that will be great.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Danny pfp

Ask them how much to list your token on binance...

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Danny pfp

and replace it with what? what is your constructive solution to move pass it?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Danny pfp

perfection. when ens?

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Danny pfp

If you think L2s are parasitic to Ethereum, why aren't you building one? If you could leach value from the second largest cryptocurrency and the largest cryptoeconomy, why wouldn't you? This is what will make all the companies with big consumer-bases build on Ethereum.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Danny pfp

I love bitcoin, but it's not the most decentralized. 1. Realistically I can't solo mine at home. I'm not an equal participant. 2. Not scalable as p2p cash. It's not a solution of everyone, even just to hodl. 3. Only supports one asset, no atomic swaps, no DEXs, no easy permissionless export of BTC. 4. Long term security budget unsustainable.

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Danny pfp

Unpopular opinion: Saylor may be positioning himself to be a "main character". He may not be doing dumb and illegal things like his predecessors, but in the future he may be legally forced to sell bitcoin to pay MSTR bonds, which goes against his entire ethos, and may tank his stock (and briefly bitcoin). This is particularly true as he isn't that much up on his bitcoin (he's not a OG, not even close), he keeps buying tops on leverage (bonds/convertible bonds), and his company is trading at a 2-3X premium on its bitcoin. We know what a pullback looks like, and we know how the market prices BTC holdings with no re-peg mechanism (he will not sell willingly). I'm not saying this will happen, I'm saying it can happen. (I'll be buying the dip, but probably not in MSTR form).

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Danny pfp

Hard disagree. Increasing the gas limit won't solve our scaling problems, as we may have only another 10X (before SNARKification), but it sure does help a lot of things. Some operations must happen on L1, like validator management. It's also a (far from reached) bottleneck for rollups, that must submit proofs (ZK). The cost of reasonably increasing it, today, is near zero. It's going up, not down. Moreover, at some point the gas limit may be gone completely. Do as much operations as you want, as long as: (1) (reasonably small) proof of validity (2) state-diff not too big. (this specific design has a bonus in the form of unexpected privacy)

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Danny pfp

Or we give users the option to migrate soon, years ahead of any potential problem. It's already been discussed in relation to upgrades (like not using Verkle).

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Danny pfp

There is a mismatch between the idea and the audience. People criticising it are the ones who care about UX now. They need to hear about all the great improvements coming out now: more blobs, more gas(?), unified UX, seamless cross-chain tx, phantom adding base support, in addition to the sub-cent fees and 250ms block times we already have on L2s. Justin's talk is a whole different game, that has less to do with the day-to-day UX, and more about a future-proof, resilient chain that's credibly neutral and censorship resistant with all players playing on an equal playing field.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Danny pfp

Nice, haven't heard of it. But still, I would need the other side to install it on their side. Not default in all major wallets.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Danny pfp

We still don't have the peer-to-peer messaging part. A way to send encrypted messages directly from my wallet, and not be dependent on the other party sharing using the same niche dApp I do.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Danny pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Danny pfp

(for those who weren't here at the time, xrp flipped eth for a short time, I think ~2018is. it's meaningless. funny but meaningless).

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Danny pfp

xrp flipping solana will be hysterical.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Danny pfp

1. You can do this with a wrapped ETH token, or even better, wrapped staked-ETH token, today, no EIP required. rETH for example can migrate to a contract that supports this. 2. Adding this to ETH will mean a huge amount of trust in the code and math. Bugs may mean someone can mint free ETH, and we will have no way of knowing it. Unlike regular exploits, we may not know we've been hacked. Something similar happened with zcash (probably only by the good guys). I'm not saying this is a bad idea, I am saying I would like to see it implemented on a token first, and probably formal verification in addition to bug-bounty and multiple audits.

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Danny pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction