Thanks coz a large majority of them don't even understand the actual tech behind blockchain architecture. If they actually worked in the industry for even 12 months they'd all shut up real quickly. Use the tokens, buy the crypto, ignore the rabid communities.

Respectfully, even if this wasn't wrong it at least skips lots of very relevant nuances. Which is a shame, you are a very talented developer and we need people like you to relax their definitions and extend the same grace everyone extends to L2s, but for sidechains and what can be done with expressive contracts. One of the most ignored nuances is grouping hash rate escrow and signers in the same bucket... Even though we know for a fact that they create very different dynamics and tradeoffs. If we just start from the UX and KYC and analysis paralysis of choosing your own mints like choosing your own Mastodon server... And think how can we do better, it is clear that PoW and possibly PoS backed by PoW can offer much better UX, with no KYC, without fragmentation etc... and it wouldn't be equivalent to trusting anyone, but trusting a vague but so far very fair assumption that sufficient Work + fraud proofs, is not a terrible proxy for validity. Who benefits from the "gotcha you don't validate everything so you might as well trust a rando custodial that doesn't even give you good UX"?

yeah. utxo nailed the iq test here 🙄 View quoted note →