@captgouda24 Hence revealing with a delay, long enough that the algorithm has to be refreshed because it gets goodharted even without publicly revealing it.

It's an important test of whether or not the recent "open-sourcing of the X algorithm" is effective that you should be able to [hire someone to | ask a bot to] scan through the published code and verify whether or not unfair deboosting of disfavored views is happening. In my ideal world, the code would be fully open and published with a delay, and you would have zk-snarks so you can actually prove that the timeline you see is the direct result of running the published algorithm.

I no longer agree with this previous tweet of mine - since 2017, I have become a much more willing connoisseur of mountains. It's worth explaining why. https://t.co/LerCobzgvo First, the original context. That tweet was in a debate with Ian Grigg, who argued that blockchains should track the order of transactions, but not the state (eg. user balances, smart contract code and storage): > The messages are logged, but the state (e.g., UTXO) is implied, which means it is constructed by the computer internally, and then (can be) thrown away. I was heavily against this philosophy, because it would imply that users have no way to get the state other than either (i) running a node that processed every transaction in all of history, or (ii) trusting someone else. In blockchains that commit to the state in the block header (like Ethereum), you can simply prove any value in the state with a Merkle branch. This is conditional on the honest majority assumption: if >= 50% of the consensus parti

RT @MichaelAArouet: That’s probably the funniest post you’ll see today. The EU really believes that an EU Parliament resolution can replace trillions in investment and vibrant US innovation? What’s next? A vote to end world hunger or cure cancer? In which parallel universe do they live?

@BitPaine Correct.

RT @BitPaine: 🧵 prediction: ethereum will rush ahead with a hastily designed and implemented “quantum-resistant” hard fork because they are desperate for a new narrative that will stop the bleeding against bitcoin. this will be hyped by Coinbase.eth and every VC bag holder, accompanied by a narrative that bitcoin governance is too slow and flawed to upgrade against this imminent and existential threat. how imminent this threat is will be left as an exercise to the reader, but it need not matter. (you can see the basic outline of this coordinated attack forming in real time.) the specifics never matter. bitcoin wasn’t “full” - we just needed bigger blocks because it would be full, imminently (still isn’t). bitcoin wasn’t using all of the energy on planet earth, but we defined needed proof of stake because it would, imminently (still doesn’t). crypto grift is a flat circle, my poor exhausted maximalist friends: there is always a narrative. there need

Engineering: We have a heat dissipation problem with the Starlink terminal. Marketing: It’s a feature for melting snow.

@DavidSacks Savage.

Starlink melts snow to work in the coldest weather

@pmddomingos Same lol

@ArthurMacwaters Wow

@beffjezos Yeah

@dampedspring You should activate subscriptions on X

@ZeroHedge_ So few people understand this

Patiently waiting for the Saylor tweet that market bought at $91k

The most bullish things for #Bitcoin happened in the last year: two popular myths were shattered. 1️⃣ The 4-year cycle. The illusion is over. An Omegacycle is in the cards. 2️⃣ Bitcoin is too big to see a 10x. Gold saw almost 2x. Silver 3.4x. Now we just wait patiently. 🚀