I am not a leaker. I am a professional Educated Guesser and Willer. I will things into existence. So with that said, I present to you the biggest announcement of the year, happening in the upcoming Nintendo Direct on Feb 20th ( a Friday) Nintendo Switch 2 Add-On Screen Accessory. Video Credit @PAABLOO64
@binance,
Thanks for including me in the top 100 blockchain people list, appreciate the signal!
I must decline the Dubai invite though. I do not wish to disrespect, but many of the award voters are avid kaspians who rooted for my kaspa status at least as much as for my research. Let them win or count me out.
Crypto has turned from a euphoric cypherpunk project to a house-friendly casino. You may not be the culprit, but as a top player you hold the lion’s share of the responsibility to correct this, and the October crash your USDe oracle glitch helped trigger adds to what needs to be addressed.
There are three classes of crypto, as @mert put it recently: commercial crypto, casino crypto, cypherpunk crypto. <<Binance should hold a privilege policy for the latter.>> A TBTF CEX should know better and play a different game with hardcore crypto projects.
When binance lists a green frog three weeks post its “launch” but skips a fair-launched-Nakamoto-Consensus-100ms-upgrade-ATH-top-20-the-only-nonbitcoin-marathon-mined project, this is not merely binance rationally calculating; it is also binance molding the market in a way that is alas misaligned with the roots of the movement.
You may feel that kaspa’s sovereign money thesis is boring – that bitcoin is already money and that implementing an internet-speed bitcoin is useless - fine. Wrong but fine. But what’s the thesis for the green frog?
Money is a classic chicken-and-egg product. It is a scam up until one moment before tipping point, “most of the value comes from the value that others place in it.” Considering your resources and influence, I think it's safe to say you can serve as both the egg and the chicken and make it worth your while to push sound attempts towards tipping point.
@cz_binance tweeted recently that “strong projects will be listed.” But binance is part of what defines "strong", it bears responsibility for the market’s compass and impulse and definition of strong. It is not a read-only entity.
Binance listing fees are legit, they are just unfit for category cypherpunk. Kaspa devs and early supporters fairly mined less than half what satoshi and hals mined. We don’t have a 20% ZEC-style founders’ reward or protocol-enforced dev fund; this is not a jab at ZEC and the wonderful @Zooko, who was crashing in my car on a late Thursday back in the low ZEC MC days – if somebody deserves to win it is zooko – but assuming binance is not taking a maxi bet, it should revisit its relationship with hardcore crypto.
We are here through bull and bear, ICOs NFTs XYZs; and we are the source of confidence that restores faith and capital inflow post meme-induced or CEX-induced crashes.
Please fix this.
Thanks again,
hashdag
cc @michaelsuttonil
Exhibit A: Binance Innovation Zone
Exhibit B: 10 bps Nakamoto Consensus
@rajatsoni My man is thinking like RIM executives. thinking the iPhone won’t sell because it doesn’t have a keyboard. I’m sure you did a case study on this in your undergrad.
@MKBHD I remember back in the iPhone 6 days I asked you if you thought 128GB was too much for a phone on a live stream. You said it was way too much 🥴🥹
@realvijayk This assumes the only source of revenue are the block rewards and the current transaction fee. From the lens of traditional PoW, yes it’s concerning.
However, we do expect more fees as the utility of the blockDAG increases. Block rewards only an supposed to be an early crutch
@realvijayk It may come down to a function of Kaspa’s utility.
1 early example to incentivize self custody (SC), holding 100 KAS and using Kasia can let you send > 10^5 of instant messages on the blockDAG itself
BTC’s main problem: primarily a SoV -> main incentive for SC is security.
There are two ways for a 51% attacker to steal funds in PoW-engined transactional systems - to double spend large amounts or to issue invalid txns for large amounts. Any PoW system is susceptible to the more realistic method, whereas only pruned PoW systems are susceptible to the unrealistic one.
The realistic one is double spending, which requires, in addition to temp 51% hashrate, engaging in large trades thence double spending them. The unrealistic one involves issuing invalid txn method and requires, in addition to temp 51% hashrate, a large-scale social coordination attack to sway exchanges and nodes to accept the invalid block, to effectively and successfully silence any non-colluding full node operators that serve as town criers, and to shut down any archive node / block explorer that happened not to have deleted the culprit txn. This renders the latter attack method unrealistic for PoW systems with hundreds of anonymous nodes.
Admittedly, having your system resilient to the unrealistic method of stealing funds through 51% attacks (but still susceptible to the realistic method of stealing funds through 51% attacks) is aesthetically more pleasing, especially to veteran cryptographers who require that no invalid txn was ever recorded in the ledger -- even though this does not prove the actual real-world economic integrity of the ledger, since it may still contain huge fund-stealing double spending txns, which is more realistic at that. Still, historical cryptographic integrity is aesthetically pleasing to cryptographers even if it does not provide economic integrity which is the ledger's main purpose, and I can identify with that sentiment. Kaspa's DAG protocols trade the aesthetic demands of cryptographers for those of distributed systemers.
https://t.co/SDyUv7wo6l
@realvijayk Another topic that might be interesting is how Yonatan will further increase the security of KAS with the DAGKnight protocol (which builds on PHANTOM/GHOSTDAG) all without changing PoW assumptions.