This specific person is totally irrelevant and guaranteed to lose and keep losing, and you are wasting your time caring. He is a gatekeeper of absolutely nothing.

Just checked... Literally just a central server https://letterboxd.com/?register=true

So what actually works is crowd sourcing of info, but that is fine, not what I am talking about... It is still a server with API though... You can't do this without a central server, at best you can do the AtProto thing of multiple aggregators and Indexers

I don't know it's architecture but I am willing to bet there is a fat ass server somewhere that does most of the work ... Listen if all you need is the vibe I can do that, but if we are going to discuss architecture it is not going to be any different than a big server with API, just multiple servers with the same API, basically AppViews or whatever you want to call it, but it is just big things that need to make money somehow because it can't be made cheap.. yes. You can donate to it... But it is a big server somewhere and it needs to be compliant and at least sustainable financially.

Except that is worthless... Next time you notice something and you need to see reviews for it, ask yourself if ANYONE in your social graph ever encountered that shit and possibly gave it a review... I won't even talk about the privacy aspect of it and will assume there is a magical ZK solution.

Sure all people leaving reviews might be 3-4 degrees from you, but that is worthless, because you are still going to do a breadth first search, and still end up querying millions of other people's public data repositories.

At some point people need to understand these are problems that can't be solved without centralization, the scalability limits are baked in.

https://testnet.mns.mlkut.org get rate limited names by Blockchain, someone can register in bulk and transfer to users later, every update (other than ownership transfer) is offchain, and you get two extra goodies; 1) shorter IDs 2) key rotation with arbitrary smart contract, so instead of a bunker you can use any logic for someone to help you with custody, and you can change to any level of self custody as you feel more comfortable... Any innovation on key management on any Blockchain can be back ported to MNS.

Now that I mentioned this, Rootstock addresses are derived from secp256k1 so theoretically you can search for the names owned by an npub.

I am taking about something like Celestia, basically the Blockchain (in this case Rootstock) doesn't verify anything, all transactions are pure data carrying, the only difference between OP_RETURN or Eth Blobs and what Celestia does, is that in Celestia you can add something equivalent to Nostr "kind"... This way people can query only transactions they are interested in.

A simpler way to do this on Rootstock is just contracts and associated Events they emit.

So let's say you want to make a Monero on Rootstock, you create a new contract, every time you make a transaction to that contract, it is only data carrying, thus miners don't validate anything except transaction fees.

On the client side, you can see all these data, and you can run them as transactions against the smart contract state, deriving the new state, at the client side.

But then when you want to take money outside of that contract to move it to another contract that says mimics ZCash instead, or if you have multiple Monero contracts each contain a shard, to keep things manageable on client side validation, then when you want to exit from one shard to the other, you need to provide a ZK proof to Rootstock that you did all the computation over that data carrying committed to that contract, and that the state after that computation contains a withdrawal request, not from one sidechain to another but from one contract to another...

Does that make sense?

This basically allows you to do 2/3 of what Drivechains does;
1. Freedom of innovation.
2. Sharding to limit the cost of validation

As for #3; DA scaling, we keep it on Rootstock with Blobs and data availability sampling, not only because we can, but because the synchronicity between all these shards is super valuable for interop and atomic swaps, because you remove a major risk in cross chain transactions which is that some chains may reorg independently from others... But if you do DA on the same chain, then reorg is atomic, every shard is reorged at the same time. Also you don't have to keep bootstrapping merge mining (a new BMM has higher risk of reorgs, but in DAS, there is no reorg independently from Rootstock).

The flaw is in the way it is suggested in Drivechains... Merge mined Sidechains can also be hashrate escrow (and indeed Rootstock will be one with bitvm) if you use OPCAT to verify an SPV client, which means whatever the sidechain miners vote on goes.

The reason Drivechains hashrate escrow is worse is because it forces miners to interact with even starting a sidechain.

That being said, I think people shouldn't talk against eCash until they commit to using Rootstock, otherwise they are not being serious

I guess you can call that hashrate escrow... But a merge mined sidechain with BitVM bridge is very much a hashrate escrow already.
The difference here is that if you don't want faster blocks than Rootstock, you don't create Sidechains and worry about the consequences of that, instead you just accept transactions as they come without any computations, and update the state later... Separating DA from Compute.

The obvious upside is synchronicity which makes the entire system safer and easier to reason about. Things all happen at the same time including their side effects in parallel contexts, and as long as majority of miners are honest (or ZK verifier is valid) you reach the same conclusion globally as you calculated locally.

Note also; it doesn't Have to be ZK proofs, you can still demand that miners do the computing and finalize the state, but you can demand that with latency, so they get to do that in the background and take their time, not while accepting txn to put in the block... Then they can vote on the state commitment of previous epoch.

The downside of that is that you don't get to invent custom vms and don't save miners the effort. The upside is that you trust miners majority, instead of math and possibly buggy code.

I don't know which is better, but I wanted to say this is possible