You should support and celebrate killing zionists

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.

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.

The man has attention span of a toddler

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).

Nor spent... If you never ever spend then yes it is easy.

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

Evidently key rotation and smart contracts to create vaults are really important for valuables... You hate to see it but you can't ignore reality.

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.

This is heartbreaking... But a reminder to everyone who told people to do self custody because it is safer; you lied to people, it is only safer if you know what you are doing, and the people who know what they are doing are much fewer than what everyone thinks. Let's end this bullshit and give people the tools to trust whoever they prefer to trust, because they can't verify, and evidently the entire industry can't verify. At this point this is a clown show.

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

If we had trustless bridge to Rootstock we could use Vaults right now with all the infrastructure and code and audits etc. already done. But I bet people who use these vaults are going to be safer than self custody with compromised hardware wallet. At least the Rootstock bridge hasn't been compromised so far.. let's hope they survive until a BitVM bridge ... And who knows maybe we end up having OPCAT one day.

I mean it depends on what are you trying to achieve, humans seem to be ok with few seconds latency for anything except very hectic metro lines, in which case you are better off with prepaid cards. But for everything else, if Rootstock has 15s blocks, I believe that is enough, and requires no centralized block producers, just publish your transaction, and IF you want to move from one context to another then you have to generate the ZK proof, but that is just the cost of business, you can obviously atomic swap with someone who generates these proofs and provide the liquidity... But note all of that is no different from paying a miner to include a transaction, that is to say it is so open and so competitive you can hardly do any better. Now when you need instant payments, as in subsecond confirmations, then your options are; 1. Proof of stake sidechains (Stakechain) on top of Rootstock, which is not actually a single company. But while one confirmation is super fast, the more decentralised these get the longer it takes for finality ... But if you want such fast txns, you might be more happy to risk losing some with reorgs. But you still get more confidence than zeroconf. 2. Centralized payment pools, this one gives you the fastest finality possible, but you have the risk of withholding proofs that are necessary to withdraw or the business going down.. here I believe the absolute best you can do is just use small amounts that you are willing to lose, just like your pocket money, and maybe use many providers at once... That basically boils down to something like Ark, but with more programmability of the contract with the server. So in conclusion, I think we can scale and indeed solve DA, AND have synchronicity which makes interop between contexts much safer than sidechains that go out of sync, but as soon as you require faster confirmations and faster finality, you must start accepting tradeoffs for different amounts ... But worst case scenario (waiting until Rootstock can't be reorged practically) is still orders of magnitudes faster than finality in any fiat system that merchants are used to, hell even cash notes are only finalised when you take them to a bank and see if they are counterfeit or not. You don't think that is insanely good outcome? I personally played enough with Rootstock and I think their latency is acceptable, and I don't think that LN or Ark give me much better latency for payments I need to be careful about anyways, and for payments that I don't need to be careful about, I am ok just risking it with a temporary cosigner just like I am ok losing the money in my pocket once or twice in my lifetime

It depends on the definition of scaling, computational scaling is limited and favours sharding of contexts then maybe use zk proofs to settle between contexts. But data availability isn't doomed, it is actually possible to scale it with users, as long as the number of users is actually objective, which is the real challenge. If you KNOW that there are 10X more users now than last year, then you can tolerate 10X more data in a data availability sampling paradigm. Which is why Celestia needs to hardcode the number of clients the community believes there are around the world. But I wonder if someone can use Proof Of Work as a proxy of how many users there are watching the chain and sampling chunks of the data. I don't mean necessarily decentralised mining, but just using the hashrate as a proxy for demand, and demand as a proxy for the light clients taking data availability samples... This is not something you can do in celestia without oracles of the token price, but we have hashrate and they don't.

Random word generator