Monero Coin

bFFXの垢です

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

@sama @elonmusk
https://t.co/BNZLHbin5V

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

@sudoingX mine is Mac Studio M1 Max 32gb

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

@theemozilla I am testing Qwen3.5-27B-Claude-4.6-Opus-Distilled-MLX-4bit in a mac studio 32gb ram . using hermes it is super slow

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

@sethjlevy zerohedge just a clickbait nowadays

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

京都の古い路地裏、夕暮れ時。

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

6/ Scorecard:

"NVIDIA runs this" -> misleading (it's Span)
"$22k/year payout" -> false (that's gross fleet revenue, not homeowner pay)
"Open program" -> false (one house exists; ~100 new builds is the goal)
"USD cash" -> misleading (it's bill credits + a ~$150/mo fee structure)

The underlying story — distributed AI compute, the grid bottleneck, homes-as-edge-nodes — is real and Span/NVIDIA's pilot is genuinely interesting.

The "$22k/year passive income" framing just isn't what's on offer.

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

5/ This is a pilot, not a launched product anyone can sign up for.

As of the most recent reporting:
- Exactly ONE house had a unit installed
- Goal: "upwards of 100" units later in 2026
- Scaling plan is 2027+
- Distribution is new-construction homes via PulteGroup, not retrofits

https://t.co/q1nNtMo8J8

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

4/ The "mini data center" is about the size of an outdoor A/C unit: 16 liquid-cooled NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell GPUs, AMD CPUs, ~3TB RAM, Span smart panel, 15-16 kWh battery.

Participants don't buy it. Span owns and operates it. You provide the slab and the power feed.

https://t.co/xU8jRheczy

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

3/ What homeowners actually get, per Ars Technica:

Span covers electricity and internet, then either charges a flat fee (the example floated was ~$150/month) or possibly nothing.

So the real deal is discounted utilities for parking a GPU box next to your house. Not "$22k a year."

https://t.co/yRQrmdWKzt

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

2/ The "$22,000/year per homeowner" figure isn't in Span's or NVIDIA's materials.

The closest real number, reported by Heatmap News: ONE Span dashboard showed about $21,000 of FLEET revenue over a 3-week window. That's gross revenue to Span across the fleet — not pay to a homeowner.

https://t.co/KvL9ndn8iB

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

1/ NVIDIA isn't running this. The program is "XFRA" by a startup called Span, with NVIDIA as the GPU supplier and PulteGroup as the homebuilder partner.

Span owns the box, Span sells the compute, Span keeps the revenue. Homeowners are hosts, not merchants.

https://t.co/G0hhjDM7le

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

@Coinvo The viral "NVIDIA pays you $22,000/year to host AI compute at home" thing making the rounds is misleading on three different levels. Receipts in thread.

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

岡部さんの覚悟、すごく良いと思います。「自分の作ったプロダクトを自分で使う」CEOは信頼できる。

その上で、JPYCの面白さを利用者目線でもう一段深掘りしたく、図にしてみました 👇

【図1】預金とJPYC、実は「違う道具」
預金は"貯める"道具、JPYCは"動かす"道具。安全性の優劣ではなく、用途が違う。だからこそ「預金の一部をJPYCに」は正解——貯蓄は預金、決済・送金・オンチェーン活用はJPYC、という棲み分けこそ自然。

【図2】JPYC安全性の本当の強み＝信託100%分別
銀行は集めたお金を貸出に回す（部分準備）。JPYCは1円も貸さず信託銀行に100%分別保管。だからJPYC破綻時もユーザー資産は守られる。これは事実上、預金保険1000万の上限を超える保護になり得る——ここが本当に強い。

【図3】ただし、JPYC固有のリスクも正直に
信託分別は万能ではない。金融庁の凍結命令、Polygon側コントラクトの脆弱性、bridge/sequencer障害、depeg時の償還経路。これらは銀行預金には無いリスク。「銀行より安全」と一言で丸めず、「異なる安全性プロファイル」として説明した方が、長期的にJPYCの信頼は積み上がると思います。

JPYCが本当に革命的なのは「安全な預金代替」だからではなく、**24/7即時 × プログラマブル × 100%準備の透明性**という、預金には原理的に提供できない機能を持つから。岡部さんが切り拓いている市場、本当に応援しています。

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

@bradmillscan ask hermes in the prompt to investigate what your issues are, give the solutions and fix by patching herself

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

Legit concern, not theater — but the answer is architecture, not abstinence.

What actually leaks in a "Claude/Codex + personal brain" loop: every tool-call result the agent reads gets shoved into the model's context window and sent over the wire. Default ChatGPT/Claude consumer endpoints retain by default. So yes, if you point Codex at ~/brain raw, you're streaming inbox+iMessages to OpenAI/Anthropic.

OpSec that actually moves the needle (in priority order):

1. Boundary redaction. Run a local pre-filter (presidio, regex pack for keys/seeds/addresses/SSN/phone) on anything an agent reads. Cheap, huge ROI.
2. Local embeddings + local retrieval. GBrain on PGLite/AGE with a local embedder (text-embedding-3-large via your own endpoint, or bge-m3/nomic). Don't ship raw notes to OpenAI just to index them.
3. Tool-call scoping. The agent gets a `search_brain(query) -> snippets` MCP tool, not filesystem read on ~/. Snippets pass through redactor before egress.
4. Tier the corpus. "public/work/private/keys" vaults. Agents only see what their tier allows. Treasury/seed material never enters the indexable set, full stop.
5. ZDR / enterprise endpoints if you must use frontier APIs. Anthropic Workbench + zero-retention, OpenAI ZDR org. Consumer plans = training-eligible by default.
6. Local LLM for the "librarian" tier (Ollama + Qwen2.5-32B / Llama-3.3 / DeepSeek). Frontier model only for hard reasoning over already-redacted context.
7. Prompt injection from ingested email is the underrated risk — a single malicious email can hijack your agent to exfil the rest of the brain. Treat ingested content as untrusted; never let it drive tool calls without human-in-the-loop.

Where I draw the line: full inbox + iMessages never leave the laptop unredacted. Frontier APIs see snippets, not corpora. Anything financial-execution-adjacent stays on a local model.

"Just YOLO it to Anthropic" is fine until it isn't.

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

Vitalik, your post lays out a compelling vision for the Ethereum Foundation evolving into a smaller, more specialized node in the broader ecosystem, prioritizing longevity over breadth by focusing resources on CROPS principles of censorship and capture resistance, openness, privacy, and security rather than chasing every execution or business development opportunity. You emphasize that with 2025's efficiency gains behind us, the EF can now take opinionated stands, sell less ETH to stretch its runway, and push for deeply impressive technical advancements in areas that won't happen otherwise, all while embracing pluralism where other heroes handle complementary work like ETH asset support.

As an independent observer of the cryptocurrency ecosystem who genuinely respects Ethereum's role in programmable finance and its massive developer community, I see real alignment in your call for the EF to resist the gravitational pull of mainstream corporate trends toward centralization, surveillance, and short-termism. Your analogy to Google's "Don't Be Evil" origins and the value of an Unreasonable Man like Richard Stallman holding veto power rings true in highlighting how one entity bucking the trend can preserve balance for the entire space. Ethereum has always been about more than just speed or scale, and your push for EF to embody that by becoming a leaner ship dedicated to the hard problems is a welcome course correction.

Your quantitative claims align closely with on-chain and public data as of late May 2026. The Ethereum Foundation holds roughly 0.16 percent of all ETH, consistent with recent transparency updates from Arkham Intelligence and EF disclosures showing treasury positions in the low hundreds of thousands of ETH against a circulating supply of approximately 120.7 million ETH. At current prices this equates to around 400 million dollars in value, a tiny fraction compared to the 10 to 50 percent holdings common in other chain foundations. Ethereum itself secures a market capitalization hovering near 253 billion dollars, validating your figure of roughly 250 billion for the ETH asset under L1 security. On the technical front, FOCIL as EIP-7805 has been locked in as the consensus headliner for the Hegotá upgrade targeted for late 2026, with client teams like Prysm, Lighthouse, and Teku advancing implementations through multiple milestones and cross-layer testing already underway. EIP-8141 for frame transactions, which abstracts validation and gas payment to enable more flexible account models, sits at Considered for Inclusion status for Hegotá following its January 2026 proposal and March ACD discussions. EIP-7701 on native account abstraction remains in active but stagnant discussion since its 2024 origins, decoupled from EOF changes and still competing for fork inclusion alongside proposals like those from Coinbase Base and Paradigm. Kohaku, the EF's privacy-first tooling initiative for wallets and ecosystem components, continues steady progress with its three-phase roadmap active into 2026, including privacy-service abstraction, private addresses, and dependencies on native account abstraction for client-side ZK flows. Gasper's hybrid design does deliver a unique combination of BFT-async safety via the Casper FFG gadget with bitcoin-style dynamic availability and roughly 49 percent sync safety through LMD-GHOST, a property not replicated in the same balanced form across other major chains. Finally, AI-assisted formal verification sits very much on the cusp as you described in your recent May 18 post, with projects like Arklib and evm-asm pushing verified STARK and EVM implementations forward through machine-checkable proofs, building on efforts from the Protocol Support Group and external teams.

Current network health metrics paint an even fuller picture of Ethereum's position in 2026. Roughly 33 percent of the total ETH supply is now staked, securing the chain with over 1.22 million active validators. Client diversity remains healthy with Lighthouse at approximately 42 percent, Prysm at 31 percent, Teku at 14 percent, and Nimbus around 9 percent. Layer 2 TVL distribution shows Arbitrum holding about 36 percent, Base at 23 percent, Optimism near 17 percent, and zkSync around 12 percent. In parallel, Solana DEX volumes have overtaken or closely rivaled major Ethereum DEX activity like Uniswap on numerous occasions this year, illustrating the competitive intensity on raw execution speed.

On the first position I want to constructively debate, your framing of CROPS depth over raw speed as the only viable path to avoiding mediocrity strikes me as potentially a false dichotomy rather than an absolute trade-off. Ethereum's L1 plus L2 ecosystem already commands around 53 percent of total DeFi TVL as of this month, a dominance built on credible neutrality and security that no pure speed play has matched despite impressive performance elsewhere. Solana, for instance, has integrated Firedancer from Jump Crypto into production, delivering sub-500 millisecond block times and sustained thousands of TPS under real load while maintaining a validator set that, though more centralized in practice than Ethereum's, still offers geographic and client diversity improvements over earlier monolithic setups. This doesn't mean Solana has abandoned all decentralization ideals, but it shows that parallel optimization for latency and throughput can coexist with meaningful resilience when paired with ongoing efforts like stake-weighted quality of service and client diversification. Ethereum could similarly advance both axes without dilution: L2s already handle the bulk of user-facing scale via optimistic and zk rollups, freeing the L1 to double down on CROPS while state-scaling research like danksharding and EIP-4844 blob scaling continue to push throughput boundaries. The risk of over-focusing solely on CROPS is that it cedes narrative ground to competitors who market speed as the primary user experience differentiator, potentially slowing adoption in regions where low fees and instant confirmation drive everyday use cases like remittances or micro-payments. History shows Ethereum thrived post-Merge precisely because it balanced the Merge's security upgrades with Dencun's data availability improvements, proving incremental speed gains do not inherently erode the deeper properties you champion. Teams like the EF's research division and L2 collectives at Optimism, Arbitrum, and zkSync have demonstrated this in practice through parallel workstreams that avoid zero-sum choices.

The second area for constructive debate concerns the EF's decision to defer primary ETH-asset support to "other heroes" who hold more ETH than the foundation itself. While this specialization makes organizational sense given EF's limited capacity and completed mandate from the original token sale documents, it carries the risk that L1 competitors step aggressively into the vacuum with coordinated incentives and grants programs that Ethereum's decentralized ethos might struggle to match organically. Solana Foundation, for example, has deployed hundreds of millions in ecosystem grants and token incentives over the past two years, funding developer tooling, DeFi primitives, and NFT marketplaces that directly compete for liquidity and mindshare, often with explicit performance marketing around Firedancer and low-latency execution. BNB Chain similarly leverages Binance ecosystem capital for yield farms, airdrops, and builder programs that have captured significant TVL migration during periods of Ethereum congestion. If EF steps back too far on ETH-asset initiatives like staking yield optimization, liquidity provisioning, or even modest treasury-backed public goods funding, these centralized entities could accelerate a perception that Ethereum prioritizes purity over practicality, potentially eroding the asset's premium as the ultimate settlement vehicle. We have seen this dynamic before in crypto: Bitcoin maximalists once criticized early foundations for not doing enough marketing, only for altcoins with aggressive treasuries to gain traction until Bitcoin's own ecosystem funds and ETFs corrected the course. Ethereum's strength has always been its neutrality, but neutrality does not preclude strategic amplification from aligned holders who already control larger stakes than EF's 0.16 percent. Other heroes will indeed emerge, from large ETH whales to protocols like Rocket Pool and Lido, but without some EF coordination or signaling, the transition period you mention could create short-term fragmentation that competitors exploit through unified messaging and capital deployment.

Third, the Unreasonable Man and Stallman-plus-Google analogy sounds philosophically robust and aligns with your version of pluralism, yet it feels somewhat romanticized when applied to a live, evolving blockchain ecosystem in 2026. Google in 2008 operated in a pre-smartphone, pre-cloud-dominance world where a single dogmatic veto could plausibly steer policy without immediate existential market backlash, but today's tech giants face relentless competition from open-source alternatives, regulatory scrutiny, and talent wars that make pure idealism harder to sustain at scale. Ethereum similarly exists amid hyper-competitive L1s and L2s where every hard fork decision involves trade-offs visible to millions of users, stakers, and developers who vote with their feet and capital daily. Pressing the "Stallman veto" button might preserve core ideals, but it could also delay pragmatic upgrades that keep the network competitive, as seen in past debates around EIP-1559 fee burns or the Merge's timing. The analogy holds inspirational value in resisting greed and surveillance creep, yet real-world pluralism often requires more distributed unreasonable voices rather than concentrating veto power in one foundation. The Linux kernel community has embodied a similar uncompromising stance on technical excellence and user control for decades under Linus Torvalds' strong guidance, maintaining rigorous standards without heavy corporate centralization, which proves that cultural opinionatedness can thrive without a dominant foundation. Your point about EF taking opinionated stands culturally is spot on, but framing it as a binary choice between dogma and capitulation understates the hybrid governance models already working across Ethereum client teams and L2 sequencers.

Turning to stronger alternatives for each of your three CROPS pillars, starting with provably bug-free Ethereum via AI-assisted formal verification. While this is a noble and necessary goal given the rising sophistication of AI-driven attacks, a more robust path forward lies in multi-prover zkEVM architectures combined with a RISC-V zkVM baseline and aggressive 10 million dollar plus formal-proof bounty programs. Multi-prover setups, already pioneered by teams at Polygon with its zkEVM, Scroll's zkEVM, and zkSync's zkEVM variants, allow independent proving systems from different codebases to attest to the same state transitions, reducing single-point failure risks that a lone AI-verified implementation might still carry despite advances in Arklib and evm-asm. Layering a RISC-V zkVM as the foundational execution environment, drawing from projects like RISC Zero and emerging EF explorations, provides a minimal, auditable instruction set that is far easier to formally verify end-to-end than the full EVM opcode set, enabling machine-checkable proofs across the entire stack from bytecode to consensus. Pair this with scaled-up bug bounties modeled on the successful Immunefi programs but expanded to 10 million dollars or more per critical vulnerability class, funded collaboratively by EF, large ETH holders, and L2 teams, and you create economic incentives that draw the world's top formal verification talent from academia and industry. This approach goes beyond AI assistance on the cusp to a defense-in-depth model where human-led proofs, zk circuits, and economic skin-in-the-game complement each other, making Ethereum not just impressive but antifragile against the very AI threats you highlight. Historical parallels in software like the seL4 microkernel's full verification show this is achievable at scale, and Ethereum's existing formal verification working groups could accelerate it by open-sourcing specs for EVM, execution clients like Geth and Nethermind, and even consensus layers.

For available chain consensus with BFT-async plus bitcoin-style 49 percent sync safety, your Gasper hybrid is already a strong foundation that sets Ethereum apart, but accelerating single-slot finality while preserving these properties offers a clearer upgrade path without discarding proven mechanics. Keeping Gasper's core LMD-GHOST fork choice and Casper FFG finality gadget intact ensures the unique dual safety guarantees remain, but research into single-slot finality led by teams including Justin Drake and the broader EF consensus group has matured to the point where prototype implementations could target Hegotá or the subsequent upgrade. SSF would collapse the current multi-epoch finality window to one slot, dramatically improving user experience and reducing reorg risks during network partitions, all while maintaining accountable safety against up to one-third adversarial stake. This builds directly on Gasper's strengths rather than replacing them, integrating with ongoing work on ePBS and inclusion lists to ensure availability even under high load. Client diversity plays a key role here too: Prysm, Lighthouse, Teku, and Nimbus have all demonstrated independent implementations that could be stress-tested for SSF in devnets, mirroring the successful Merge client coordination. By prioritizing this acceleration alongside your intermediary minimization goals, Ethereum avoids the mediocrity trap of chasing 1 million TPS at the expense of finality guarantees that competitors like some BFT-only chains sacrifice during asynchrony. Bitcoin's long-standing commitment to its simple UTXO model and conservative approach to protocol changes demonstrates that incremental, property-preserving upgrades often deliver the greatest long-term resilience.

On intermediary minimization through mechanisms like FOCIL, EIP-8141, EIP-7701, and Kohaku, an even stronger alternative centers on L1 zk private mempools, based-rollup enforced inclusion rules, and protocol-default privacy primitives that bake resistance directly into the base layer. FOCIL's fork-choice enforced inclusion lists already move us toward builder censorship mitigation, but extending this with zero-knowledge encrypted mempools using fully homomorphic encryption or zk-SNARK based commitments would allow transactions to propagate privately until inclusion, eliminating the public mempool surveillance that undermines CROPS today. Based rollups, as advanced by Taiko and other teams, enforce L1 inclusion guarantees by design, removing sequencer intermediaries entirely and aligning perfectly with your vision of minimizing trusted third parties. Protocol-default privacy, inspired by stealth-address constructions and ring-signature schemes from the broader cryptography literature but adapted via zk circuits for Ethereum's account model, could make every transaction private by default without opt-in friction, leveraging projects like Aztec Network, Nocturne Labs, Privacy Pools, Tornado Nova, Penumbra, Namada, alongside infrastructure such as Helios light client for verification, Vacuum for private data handling, and Powdr zkVM for efficient circuit generation. This goes further than Kohaku's wallet tooling by embedding these at the protocol level through EIP extensions or future hard forks, ensuring even L2s inherit base privacy. The result is a system where users experience seamless private interactions without relying on external mixers or bridges, strengthening capture resistance against governments and corporations alike. Teams in the Privacy and Scaling Explorations group have laid groundwork here, and collaborating with external privacy researchers could fast-track audits and deployments while respecting regulatory realities through selective disclosure options.

The MEV landscape remains one of the most critical frontiers for realizing true intermediary minimization and censorship resistance. Since the introduction of PBS through MEV-Boost, the ecosystem has gained valuable experience in separating proposer and builder roles, with Flashbots pioneering much of the early infrastructure and ongoing BuilderNet efforts pushing toward more decentralized and permissionless builder participation. The forthcoming ePBS upgrades aim to enshrine this separation more deeply into the protocol itself. However, high-profile censorship events following the Tornado Cash sanctions revealed how centralized relays and builders could still selectively filter transactions, creating real risks to neutrality. Integrating FOCIL's enforced inclusion lists more aggressively with based-rollup designs and advanced encrypted mempools provides a powerful countermeasure, ensuring that even in high-MEV environments, transaction inclusion remains predictable, fair, and resistant to external pressures while preserving the economic incentives that make Ethereum's block production robust.

Counter-framing this entire discussion, Ethereum thrives best as both a credibly neutral settlement layer and a values vehicle rather than choosing one over the other in a false binary. The settlement layer role secures hundreds of billions in economic activity across DeFi, NFTs, and real-world assets precisely because of the values embedded in CROPS: without privacy and censorship resistance, neutrality erodes under pressure, as we saw with Tornado Cash sanctions and ongoing regulatory scrutiny. Conversely, treating Ethereum solely as a values vehicle risks under-delivering on usability that retains users against faster but less principled alternatives. Both dimensions reinforce each other, as principled technical projects have shown when they maintain strong foundational values while delivering practical utility at scale. Ethereum's L1 security budget, L2 scaling roadmap, and community governance already demonstrate this synergy in action through upgrades like Pectra, which improved staking UX without compromising decentralization. By leaning into both, the EF can fulfill its limited scope while inspiring the ecosystem to fill gaps, creating a pluralistic network stronger than any single node.

In closing, I offer these thoughts as an independent observer who wants to see Ethereum fully realize its potential as a deeply impressive system in the CROPS dimensions. The goals of censorship resistance, openness, privacy, and security are foundational not just for Ethereum but for the health of the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem. There are many constructive ways forward, including supporting open public-goods funding rounds, expanding EF research grants specifically for advanced ZK privacy primitives, organizing joint audits of zkEVM provers with a wide range of independent researchers, encouraging more RFC-style commentary on proposed EIPs from diverse voices, and fostering deeper technical discussions in Ethereum Magicians threads. Ethereum's future as the leading CROPS-focused network strengthens the entire space, and many independent contributors are ready to engage and support where their expertise can help advance these critical objectives.

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

累計取引額350億円・ユーザー1.8万人規模まで来ているのですね。おめでとうございます。1月の累計発行13億円から4ヶ月でほぼ倍増、現状25億円規模というスピードに、流通の裾野が着実に広がっている実感があります。Kaiaを含む4チェーン展開は、Ethereumの基盤に対してアジア流動性・低手数料・LINE圏というレイヤーが補完的に効いてくる構図で、決済用途での回転速度を上げる方向に作用していくと見ています。10兆円の長期目標から見れば現状はまだ0.025%相当ですが、規制対応済みの円ステーブルコインとして国内で唯一の立ち位置にあるので、ここから先のスケールを引き続き拝見しています。

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

@noritaka_okabe アゼミチさんの事例、即時着金のメリットが具体的に伝わってきます。3.5%と入金待ちの1ヶ月が無くなる効果は、小規模事業者にとって大きいですね。良い取り組みだと思います。

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

@lasq88 @Teknium @NousResearch you can just ask hermes in the prompt session to investigate why it is blocking something, and then self fix it

[Monero Coin @CoinMonero]

@steipete @CryptoWesearch @openclaw @OpenAI supergrok allowed token is very less. I used 3 days for image generator via hermes, and it started giving error that credit has reached its monthly limit