ruhum

Glory

[ruhum @0xruhum]

@simonsarris I have been looking for that book for months now. Even checked out a bunch of book stores in Japan. But it was out of stock everywhere…

[ruhum @0xruhum]

@mmay3r Xi‘s death and the ensuing battle for the throne paralyzing China isn’t priced in.

Also, its current problems aren’t straightforward to solve: population collapse, overproduction, increasing labor costs.

[bonafidehan.eth ⚫ @bonafidehan]

most of silicon valley doesn't understand crypto. it looks like dinosaur, slow as molasses tech built by fanatics

they don't understand that crypto is closer to societal technology (like govt or religion), creating a new era of human and machine coordination where first and foremost we try to recreate the neutrality of the natural laws of physics in the digital realm

[ruhum @0xruhum]

@fatih We had an international class for kids from abroad at our school (gymnasium). They were isolated from the rest of the kids and spent the majority of their time learning German. No chance for them to catch up.

[ruhum @0xruhum]

Image & Video > Coding market, see ARR of Adobe and budget of blockbusters.
OpenAI and xAI currently competing with Anthropic for coding agents and tools is a huge strategic error and a waste of resources.
Google is making the correct choice by focusing on image, video, and sound, see Nano Banana & Veo 3

[ruhum @0xruhum]

@ToKTeacher Great piece, Brett. I have to admit that for the last couple of years I have never managed to convince anybody of this point. Nobody wants to believe that humans are a net positive for the world and that earth isn't actually mother earth but hell if it weren't for humans.

[Dune Quotes @DuneQuoteBot]

The machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery.

[ruhum @0xruhum]

For the past year or so we haven’t seen LLMs do anything novel. They have only gotten better at what they were already doing.

[ruhum @0xruhum]

We knew since February that o3 and other models will be removed from the interface. I think this decision was made in direct response to all the criticism regarding the model picker in the chat interface. They wanted one single model that does it all so badly

[Sam Altman @sama]

OPENAI ROADMAP UPDATE FOR GPT-4.5 and GPT-5:

We want to do a better job of sharing our intended roadmap, and a much better job simplifying our product offerings.

We want AI to “just work” for you; we realize how complicated our model and product offerings have gotten.

We hate the model picker as much as you do and want to return to magic unified intelligence.

We will next ship GPT-4.5, the model we called Orion internally, as our last non-chain-of-thought model.

After that, a top goal for us is to unify o-series models and GPT-series models by creating systems that can use all our tools, know when to think for a long time or not, and generally be useful for a very wide range of tasks.

In both ChatGPT and our API, we will release GPT-5 as a system that integrates a lot of our technology, including o3. We will no longer ship o3 as a standalone model.

The free tier of ChatGPT will get unlimited chat access to GPT-5 at the standard intelligence setting (!!), subject to abuse thresholds.

Plus subscribers will be able to run GPT-5 at a higher level of intelligence, and Pro subscribers will be able to run GPT-5 at an even higher level of intelligence. These models will incorporate voice, canvas, search, deep research, and more.

[ruhum @0xruhum]

OpenAI is going to lose

[Daniel Jeffries @Dan_Jeffries1]

How many more model releases do we need for folks to realize we are not getting to magical superintelligence with what we got?

How many times do you have to see a model benchmaxxing to realize Humanity's Last Exam is a freaking idiotic name and that answering questions on it doesn't tell us shit about the true intelligence of the model?

How many models do we have to see demonstrating superficial intelligence but utterly failing at long running, contextual understanding for people to wake up and realize that AI is just another tool?

A good tool, a useful tool, a wonderful tool but not magic and not the end of all jobs and not the end of humanity or any other absurd fantasy of fools and dreamers.

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

[David Deutsch @DavidDeutschOxf]

LLMs are trained to imitate patterns of language, not to discover or verify truth. So, when asked to speak as an expert in an area where perceived experts have a widespread misconception, the LLM will parrot that misconception, adopting the register and vocabulary of experts.

[ruhum @0xruhum]

@0xngmi there seems to be something wrong with the visualization of the Uniswap DEX volume by chain

[ruhum @0xruhum]

In the past, one used to describe the appearance of famous people in detail.
Something unimaginable nowadays. For one, you can easily see for yourself through photographs. And two, it‘s now regarded as distasteful to judge someone’s appearance.
Shows how important your looks are when it comes to public perception.

[Dune Quotes @DuneQuoteBot]

The machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery.

[ruhum @0xruhum]

@boredGenius Why did the bunni pool only earn $154 swap fees compared to the vanilla pool’s $2.9k?

[ruhum @0xruhum]

“We’re trying to get away from programming. We’ve got to get away from programming because people don’t want to program computers. People want to use computers”

Steve Jobs to all the people building apps that can be customized through LLMs

[Justin Drake @drakefjustin]

The security of Bitcoin PoW is a ticking time bomb.

Bitcoin fees are at a 13-year low—less than 10 BTC/day. Despite 2016, 2020, 2024 halvings, miner revenue from fees is at a 9-year low—just 1%.

low fees → low security budget → low security

Bitcoin's security model is broken. If Bitcoin gets taken over, the fallout could take the entire crypto ecosystem with it. The systemic risks can't be ignored.

Below is the 30d moving average of daily transaction volume: now at 6.5 BTC/day, less than the past 13 years.

The story that fees will increase as a fraction of the security budget is not holding up. For a decade now BTC fees have decreased faster than issuance.

Below is the 90d moving average of the security budget contribution from fees. Fees halvened alongside issuance:

→ Mar 2016: 25 BTC/block, 1% from fees
→ Mar 2020: 12.5 BTC/block, 1% from fees
→ Apr 2022: 6.25 BTC/block, 1% from fees
→ Apr 2025: 3.125 BTC/block, still 1% from fees

Imagine fees were the only source of miner revenue today:

→ revenue drops 100x
→ hashing infra decreases 100x
→ 1% of today's infra (1 large farm) can 51% attack Bitcoin

That's the trajectory we're on. The 21M cap breaks security, it's self-destructive. It should be clear now Satoshi made an ooopsie.

As BTC price rises it gets harder to sustain high BTC-denominated fees. Today's 6.5 BTC/day may become 1 BTC/day if BTC goes to $1M or $10M.

Let's be optimistic and say BTC rises to $1M and today's 6.5 BTC/day in fees is maintained:

→ $6.5M/day in fees
→ 10% of today's security budget

Bitcoin would be a $20T asset secured by 1/10th of today's hashing infrastructure.

Today Bitcoin is secured by 20 GW—the equivalent of 10M space heaters. A 90% cut in miner revenue would bring that down to 2 GW of security—1M space heaters. For context, Texas alone produces 80 GW. There's no way a $20T asset can be secured by 2 GW.

Let's dream big and assume BTC goes to $10M per coin. Bitcoin would be a $200T asset—all fiat, all stocks, all gold; combined. Is it secure then?

→ 6.5 BTC/day is $65M/day
→ same security budget as today
→ same 20 GW of security as today

Sounds secure until you calculate the cost of attack. 1 GW of hashing infrastructure costs $1B:

→ $500M for datacenters (land, power, cooling)
→ $500M for rigs (e.g. 50M TH/s; $10 per TH/s; 20J/TH)

So what would a permanent 51% attack cost?

→ $20B for 20GW of hashing infra
→ 0.01% of BTC's hypothetical $200T marketcap

Meanwhile today there's $43B of BTC perp open interest, which is 2% of BTC's marketcap. Getting 0.01% marketcap short exposure is trivial today, and will only get easier as BTC financialises. $10M per BTC won't secure Bitcoin either.

Bottom line: Bitcoin's PoW model is not sustainable. The maths is against it. Without a fix someone will break it.

Can fees magically grow 100x? Maybe. But so far every attempt to produce transactional utility on Bitcoin has failed to drive sustained fee volume. Counterparty, Rootstock, Liquid, Lightning, Omni, Stacks, Ordinals, Babylon—you name it—only produced short-lived fee spikes.

Is BitVM a solution? Bridges relying on it can be drained by 51% attacks. One step forward, two steps back. Covenants or OP_CAT? Maybe, but highly speculative. I witnessed a STARK verified on an OP_CAT testnet—a multi-block monstrosity.

If fees don't magically grow orders of magnitude there are two candidate solutions:

1) add tail issuance, remove the 21M limit
2) switch to proof-of-stake

Both "solutions" seem to be cultural non-starters. Also tail issuance only works proactively, not after a 51% takeover.

Some suggest that Proof-of-authority (PoA) with mining pools could secure Bitcoin. What does that even mean? A multisig controlled by Foundry, AntPool, P2Pool? If you believe PoA could secure the future of money, the burden is on you to explain in detail how that would work.

Bitcoin is meant to be antifragile. Yet the elephant in the room in the room is not being addressed. We can burry our in heads in the sand. But the fundamentals are getting louder. Tick tock, next block—boom.

[ruhum @0xruhum]

@smsunarto Which one is that? I plan on buying the jetstream prime

[ruhum @0xruhum]

Visited Yasukuni-jinja in Tokyo today and saw a Mitsubishi Zero fighter plane for the first time in real life in the museum next to it

10/10