@Nuh
Working on https://mlkut.org, designer and maintener of https://pkarr.org.
https://nuh.dev
Relays (3)
- wss://purplepag.es/ – read & write
- wss://relay.damus.io/ – read & write
- wss://relay.primal.net/ – read & write
Recent Notes
These are the most basics of reality and ignoring them doesnt make them go away. Bitcoin is valuable not because governments and markets will use it as money, they wont and they shouldnt, i mean would you stop helping your friends because they dont have sats? No you will make up money, you will keep track of favors.
Bitcoin is valuable for the same reason people buy and store gold, because they feel uneasy about the fiat and want to soften the constant shocks to its purchasing powwr.. this is not a prophecy, this is just how most fiat works outside of the USD.
But no amount of fiat failure will magically make the state go away... people want and need the state, because unlike most americans, people are aware of what happens in anarchy and they remember these traumas genereation after generation.
Bitcoin is valuable for the same reason people buy and store gold, because they feel uneasy about the fiat and want to soften the constant shocks to its purchasing powwr.. this is not a prophecy, this is just how most fiat works outside of the USD.
But no amount of fiat failure will magically make the state go away... people want and need the state, because unlike most americans, people are aware of what happens in anarchy and they remember these traumas genereation after generation.
This is the same scum that said in Feburary that Israel is doing the dirty work of Europe. Lesson is; you cant appeal to european morality, they have none, you have to punish them.
What does it say about the internet and society and game theory and trust minimization and all that jazz, that the "black october" didnt have any effect on your life whatsoever?
Another zio bites the dust
I agree we should probably let it rest for now, but as for the merge miners being invested in the security of rootstock, it seems like they don't have to lose all that much if something goes awry with...
You are right that miners have little to lose if they try to fuck with Rootstock, but is only true as long they have nothing to gain too, but they also can lose their mining pool reputation, but then again maybe no one cares. I simply am confortable with the fact that getting 50% of miners to agree to coordinate to do anything is impossible. But that is just me.
There is one alternative that i would consider better which is a Metaprotcol on Bitcoin itself. The block space scarcity and high latency doesnt matter when your needs are scarce but consequential, like a registry or a DAO or managing proof of stake for another layer etc.
Brc20 and the like are already doing that, but they depend on a reference binary with centralized development... one can imagine using RiscZero to create a metaprotocol that is entirey minimal and ossified and thus needs no central authority to ship updates.
There is one alternative that i would consider better which is a Metaprotcol on Bitcoin itself. The block space scarcity and high latency doesnt matter when your needs are scarce but consequential, like a registry or a DAO or managing proof of stake for another layer etc.
Brc20 and the like are already doing that, but they depend on a reference binary with centralized development... one can imagine using RiscZero to create a metaprotocol that is entirey minimal and ossified and thus needs no central authority to ship updates.
Pretty happy that Lula won. May the US lackeys never win anywhere ever.
This is not true, the problem is that the main expenses still dont accept it, and it has no privacy so even if it does, do you want to let your landlord and local grocery shop know roughly how much you own??
The privacy problem is solvable though, the acceptance is much harder.
But people DO spend it, every time you buy it someone has sold it, most likely to get cash to pay the rent
The privacy problem is solvable though, the acceptance is much harder.
But people DO spend it, every time you buy it someone has sold it, most likely to get cash to pay the rent
If RBTC traded at 50 cents while Bitcoin is at 80k, this would presumably mean that people think there's something seriously wrong with the bridge. The value of RBTC just seems to reflect people's vie...
No. Miners only merge mine Rootstock because they are getting paid more than the marginal cost of the merge mining. This will always be the case, whether the bridge is secure or not. The bridge security only directly matters to the long term holders of RBTC which indirectly affects demand of Rootstock which affects miners profitability.
If merge miners are still mining Rootstock with sufficient ratio, then they must be invested enough in its security, at least enough to incur the cost of merge mining, and competing with anyone merge mining a fork (votes on which chain is valid).
As a user of a name registry, you shouldnt care at all about RBTC price, as long as merge mining participation is large then you are getting the security of the honest majority mining bitcoin, because they chose to run Rskj, and since we already assume it is hard for them to collude on Bitcoin it is alao hard to collude to fake Rootstock history.
Anyways I have nothing more to say about this, and not invested enough in what do you end up choosing. Best of luck.
If merge miners are still mining Rootstock with sufficient ratio, then they must be invested enough in its security, at least enough to incur the cost of merge mining, and competing with anyone merge mining a fork (votes on which chain is valid).
As a user of a name registry, you shouldnt care at all about RBTC price, as long as merge mining participation is large then you are getting the security of the honest majority mining bitcoin, because they chose to run Rskj, and since we already assume it is hard for them to collude on Bitcoin it is alao hard to collude to fake Rootstock history.
Anyways I have nothing more to say about this, and not invested enough in what do you end up choosing. Best of luck.
1
With rootstock, I guess the main discomfort really does come from the fact that its funding isn't endogenous, its being pegged to Bitcoin. Looking into this a bit further, it seems like the pegnatorie...
Who cares? If RBTC is worth 80k or 50 cents, the name system works just the same. And if the system is designed well, it should work mostly offchain anyways.
But even for use cases that requires long term holding, i would personally trust RBTC to have more value 10 years from now than ETH.
The bridge has performed perfectly so fat, and it will get better with BitVM and eventually if we have a bitcoin softfork... ETH has nothing going for it as far as i can tell other than liquidity, which is barely relevant to the usecase at hand, and it isnt a moat. If Solana and Hyperliquid can do it, so can Rootstock. But Rootstock will always have the best track record in bridging BTC, simply because history of principled development cant be faked.
But even for use cases that requires long term holding, i would personally trust RBTC to have more value 10 years from now than ETH.
The bridge has performed perfectly so fat, and it will get better with BitVM and eventually if we have a bitcoin softfork... ETH has nothing going for it as far as i can tell other than liquidity, which is barely relevant to the usecase at hand, and it isnt a moat. If Solana and Hyperliquid can do it, so can Rootstock. But Rootstock will always have the best track record in bridging BTC, simply because history of principled development cant be faked.
1
This generally makes sense to me, except I don't think that glm 5.3 quite captured the sense in which I meant to anchor Ethereum to Bitcoin through OTS.
First, I agree beacon block roots are the righ...
OTS is not enough you have to force the attacker to publish the fake checkpoint, otherwise there is no cost for the attack and the rational thing to do is to do it just in case the honest chain is not available in the future, in which case you can scam people, for example with network partitioning.
But also none of this actually exists on Ethereum consensus. Some proof of stake chains are built on bitcoin and has these guarantees.
But then the question is why not merge mining, because the proofs of merge mining is actually easier than reading the bitcoin chain and reading checkpoints with all the signatures in them.
Even ethereum people understand that PoW makes light clients much simpler and easier to implement.
Once you are on rootstock, it becomes easier to implement PoS for things that really need it, like high throughput payments, but then the contract state saves you all the work of finding the true checkpoint, as you see in rollups.
Anyways just keep using ethereum if you like. There is nothing at stake here anyways, there is zero demand :)
But also none of this actually exists on Ethereum consensus. Some proof of stake chains are built on bitcoin and has these guarantees.
But then the question is why not merge mining, because the proofs of merge mining is actually easier than reading the bitcoin chain and reading checkpoints with all the signatures in them.
Even ethereum people understand that PoW makes light clients much simpler and easier to implement.
Once you are on rootstock, it becomes easier to implement PoS for things that really need it, like high throughput payments, but then the contract state saves you all the work of finding the true checkpoint, as you see in rollups.
Anyways just keep using ethereum if you like. There is nothing at stake here anyways, there is zero demand :)
2
I'm trying to wrap my mind around the Ethereum side of the discussion.
As for "creating checkpoints costs nothing", I believe that's true for keys of validators that have exited, but inside the "wea...
I mean, even ethereum developers wont make these claims. What you explained is just subjectivity, you are guaranteed to agree with everyone who has been online as often as you are. But it is simply impossible to settle this programatically. I can make a software that looks at all suggested bitcoin histories and return the best chain, and the only assumptions are; 1) 51% of miners are honest (they can revert all history if they work hard and waste actual resources for years) and 2) you can hear of the canonical chain (network partitioning)
Ethereum doesnt have this, because 1) as you said people who unstake waste absolutely nothing 2) even if they dont unstake, they can share a fake history with a zk system without making their signatures public so they cant be slashed, while bitcoin requires energy consumption, not just slashing risk and 3) while a checkpointing node can be safe, that is worthless for any programs or onchain script or any stateless functions
Basically we both agree that you are fine on ethereum if you are constantly online, but anything else doesnt work.
But also, why would i accept ethereum limitations when i dont have to? Any proof of stake system anchored to bitcoin inherits bitcoins strong subjectivity guarantees with one assumption ; the network is ready to challenge checkpoints before they are finalized, as in; most stakers are honest at every window W (say 14 days) in the past.
But even if this assumption doesnt hold, you only lose correctness, possibly, but you never have to wonder what would others conclude, the answer is; exactly what you conclude.
So my question is, why would anyone bother with ethereum for what you are doing? It is not like you need ethereum liquidity or defi
Ethereum doesnt have this, because 1) as you said people who unstake waste absolutely nothing 2) even if they dont unstake, they can share a fake history with a zk system without making their signatures public so they cant be slashed, while bitcoin requires energy consumption, not just slashing risk and 3) while a checkpointing node can be safe, that is worthless for any programs or onchain script or any stateless functions
Basically we both agree that you are fine on ethereum if you are constantly online, but anything else doesnt work.
But also, why would i accept ethereum limitations when i dont have to? Any proof of stake system anchored to bitcoin inherits bitcoins strong subjectivity guarantees with one assumption ; the network is ready to challenge checkpoints before they are finalized, as in; most stakers are honest at every window W (say 14 days) in the past.
But even if this assumption doesnt hold, you only lose correctness, possibly, but you never have to wonder what would others conclude, the answer is; exactly what you conclude.
So my question is, why would anyone bother with ethereum for what you are doing? It is not like you need ethereum liquidity or defi
1👌1