_weidai
0 フォロー
5 フォロワー
3 いいね
0 共有
投稿
MVD -- minimum viable decentralization
Are there any reasons why an app operated by a company is better than a decentralized app?
Also suppose that latency <500ms doesn't matter for this app and other features like scaling, cost, and privacy are all at parity
Assume this app need to take in deposits (of some form)
Also suppose that latency <500ms doesn't matter for this app and other features like scaling, cost, and privacy are all at parity
Assume this app need to take in deposits (of some form)
Crypto Needs Flat Base Fees and Dynamic Scaling
Imagine if Google charged you 10x normal price for every search, LLM inference, or youtube video because they run out of servers and hit some internal capacity.
That's how EIP1559 and most blockspace pricing mechanisms work--in times of congestion, instead of increasing capacity (like sane business do), chains raise prices instead.
Recall there are two types of fees:
- Inclusion/base fee: fee required for a transaction to be included.
- Priority fee: fees for getting in front of the queue to access contentious state (e.g. hot onchain markets)
If onchain apps is to seriously compete with non-crypto apps, we need flat inclusion/base fee for every chain for any transaction demand.
Q: What's the problem if chains adopt constant base fees?
A: Capacity. A constant base fee means that there is no way to discriminate against incoming transactions once chains hit a limit.
Solution? Dynamically scaling!
Simply process more transactions as they come through, without a global limit.
For too long now we have relied on crypto-economists to solve the fee vs. chain capacity problem. It is now the time to let computer scientists and engineers do the work--we need to build chains dynamically scale.
Ask yourself what is the better product decision for endusers:
- Increase fees at times of congestion
- Add compute capacity to the system to accommodate demand
The answer is self-evident. We've been building the wrong product for more than a decade!
How do we do this? We need to build better system at every layer:
- Authenticated data structures that can horizontally scale without global bottlenecks
- Execution models & VMs that allow infinite parallelism
- Distributed consensus that allow blocks to be dynamically sized
We need flat fees for data (blobs) and execution (gas/CU).
Dynamic scaling is the future for crypto.
Imagine if Google charged you 10x normal price for every search, LLM inference, or youtube video because they run out of servers and hit some internal capacity.
That's how EIP1559 and most blockspace pricing mechanisms work--in times of congestion, instead of increasing capacity (like sane business do), chains raise prices instead.
Recall there are two types of fees:
- Inclusion/base fee: fee required for a transaction to be included.
- Priority fee: fees for getting in front of the queue to access contentious state (e.g. hot onchain markets)
If onchain apps is to seriously compete with non-crypto apps, we need flat inclusion/base fee for every chain for any transaction demand.
Q: What's the problem if chains adopt constant base fees?
A: Capacity. A constant base fee means that there is no way to discriminate against incoming transactions once chains hit a limit.
Solution? Dynamically scaling!
Simply process more transactions as they come through, without a global limit.
For too long now we have relied on crypto-economists to solve the fee vs. chain capacity problem. It is now the time to let computer scientists and engineers do the work--we need to build chains dynamically scale.
Ask yourself what is the better product decision for endusers:
- Increase fees at times of congestion
- Add compute capacity to the system to accommodate demand
The answer is self-evident. We've been building the wrong product for more than a decade!
How do we do this? We need to build better system at every layer:
- Authenticated data structures that can horizontally scale without global bottlenecks
- Execution models & VMs that allow infinite parallelism
- Distributed consensus that allow blocks to be dynamically sized
We need flat fees for data (blobs) and execution (gas/CU).
Dynamic scaling is the future for crypto.
Tech defines the potential of onchain apps.
Building onchain apps on shitty tech/infra is like hosting YouTube on dialup modems.
Without good tech or infra, onchain apps won't scale to billions regardless of how good your distribution is.
Tech tradeoffs between latency, throughput, security, privacy, are not at all commoditized yet.
No, you can't vibe code a competitive, decentralized, and self-custodial CLOB, casino, or social app.
Building onchain apps on shitty tech/infra is like hosting YouTube on dialup modems.
Without good tech or infra, onchain apps won't scale to billions regardless of how good your distribution is.
Tech tradeoffs between latency, throughput, security, privacy, are not at all commoditized yet.
No, you can't vibe code a competitive, decentralized, and self-custodial CLOB, casino, or social app.
Tech defines the potential of onchain apps.
Building onchain apps on shitty tech is like hosting YouTube on dialup modems.
Without good tech, onchain apps won't scale to billions regardless of how good your distribution is.
Tech tradeoffs between latency, throughput, security, privacy, are not at all commoditized yet.
No, you can't vibe code a competitive, decentralized, and self-custodial CLOB, casino, or social app.
Building onchain apps on shitty tech is like hosting YouTube on dialup modems.
Without good tech, onchain apps won't scale to billions regardless of how good your distribution is.
Tech tradeoffs between latency, throughput, security, privacy, are not at all commoditized yet.
No, you can't vibe code a competitive, decentralized, and self-custodial CLOB, casino, or social app.
Not going to Berlin blockchain week.
But will be at Edge Esmeralda next week (15-20th).
HMU if you are working on interesting problems.
But will be at Edge Esmeralda next week (15-20th).
HMU if you are working on interesting problems.
Recent improvements in crypto infra are getting incremental: we have steady improvements on latency, throughput, faster zk proofs, etc.
What are some exciting open challenges that, if solved, enable net new apps?
(Privacy is one for sure but curious of others.)
What are some exciting open challenges that, if solved, enable net new apps?
(Privacy is one for sure but curious of others.)
1/ "ゼロトラスト"は、人気が急速に高まっている用語であり、心の中でのシェアは、暗号の二つの主要な柱である「分散型」と「自己保管」よりも速く（Googleトレンドによる）成長しています。
ゼロトラストとは何ですか？! 🧵
ゼロトラストとは何ですか？! 🧵
なぜ暗号通貨は盲目的な分散化や検証可能性に対する強調よりも能力に再焦点を当てる必要があるのか。
すべての技術的進歩は、解放された能力によって定義される。
暗号通貨について:
- 検閲耐性のあるお金（および価値の保存）は最初の能力の解放だった。
- 許可のない資産の創造と金融は第二の能力の解放だった。
テーマに注目してください：検閲耐性と許可なし性、これは分散化によって可能になったセキュリティ機能であり、これらの最初の2つの解放にとって重要だった--
- ビットコインは、その自己保管特性と検閲耐性がなければ、今のようなものにはならなかった。
- イーサリアムは、許可のないスマートコントラクトによって可能になったICOとDeFiサマーがなければ、今のようなものにはならなかった。
過去数年間、暗号通貨は脇道に逸れて、特定の能力の解放なしに分散化、セキュリティ、検証可能性を重視するようになった。例: 分散化の演出（初期のオンチェーンAIの形態）、特定の目的なしに検証可能性を追加する（「zk-すべて」）。
私は業界がようやくこの脇道を抜け出しつつあると信じている。
例: アプリがリアルタイムの検閲耐性を必要とするなら、分散化する必要がある。リアルタイムの検閲耐性が必要ない場合？ 中央集権的なシーケンサーを使用し、妥当性証明を通じて自己保管保証を提供しよう。
能力に再焦点を当てる; 暗号通貨を再び素晴らしいものにしよう。
（画像クレジット：ChatGPT 4o）
すべての技術的進歩は、解放された能力によって定義される。
暗号通貨について:
- 検閲耐性のあるお金（および価値の保存）は最初の能力の解放だった。
- 許可のない資産の創造と金融は第二の能力の解放だった。
テーマに注目してください：検閲耐性と許可なし性、これは分散化によって可能になったセキュリティ機能であり、これらの最初の2つの解放にとって重要だった--
- ビットコインは、その自己保管特性と検閲耐性がなければ、今のようなものにはならなかった。
- イーサリアムは、許可のないスマートコントラクトによって可能になったICOとDeFiサマーがなければ、今のようなものにはならなかった。
過去数年間、暗号通貨は脇道に逸れて、特定の能力の解放なしに分散化、セキュリティ、検証可能性を重視するようになった。例: 分散化の演出（初期のオンチェーンAIの形態）、特定の目的なしに検証可能性を追加する（「zk-すべて」）。
私は業界がようやくこの脇道を抜け出しつつあると信じている。
例: アプリがリアルタイムの検閲耐性を必要とするなら、分散化する必要がある。リアルタイムの検閲耐性が必要ない場合？ 中央集権的なシーケンサーを使用し、妥当性証明を通じて自己保管保証を提供しよう。
能力に再焦点を当てる; 暗号通貨を再び素晴らしいものにしよう。
（画像クレジット：ChatGPT 4o）
ディー・ホックによる、彼の著作「カオルディック・オーガニゼーション」におけるビザの設立について。
ビザは、おそらく分散型のガバナンスと所有権を持つ許可のないプラットフォームの最初の成功例でした。
暗号ネットワークのために、半世紀後に学ぶべき多くの教訓があります。
ビザは、おそらく分散型のガバナンスと所有権を持つ許可のないプラットフォームの最初の成功例でした。
暗号ネットワークのために、半世紀後に学ぶべき多くの教訓があります。
prediction: the word "dapp" will die
just apps or onchain apps
just apps or onchain apps
プライバシーの最大主義を拒否し、プライバシーの実用主義を受け入れよう。
1/ オンチェーンプライバシートライレマ 🧵👇
プライバシーは、オンチェーンファイナンスの大規模採用に向けた最後の障害です。今日のオンチェーンファイナンスに自己主権的なプライバシーを追加すれば、すべてがうまく機能すると思いますか？
答えはノーです。以下の3つの望ましい特性間のトレードオフに関して、厳しい決断を下さなければなりません。
1. 最大限に有用：取引制限なし、プライベートな支払いと匿名のDeFiをサポート
2. 自己主権的プライバシー：プライベート取引の内容は、関与する個人の同意なしには明らかにされない
3. 脅威に強い：敵対者がそれを使用してハッキングや資金洗浄を行うことができない
いずれか2つを選択してくださいが、決して3つは選ばないでください。
1/ オンチェーンプライバシートライレマ 🧵👇
プライバシーは、オンチェーンファイナンスの大規模採用に向けた最後の障害です。今日のオンチェーンファイナンスに自己主権的なプライバシーを追加すれば、すべてがうまく機能すると思いますか？
答えはノーです。以下の3つの望ましい特性間のトレードオフに関して、厳しい決断を下さなければなりません。
1. 最大限に有用：取引制限なし、プライベートな支払いと匿名のDeFiをサポート
2. 自己主権的プライバシー：プライベート取引の内容は、関与する個人の同意なしには明らかにされない
3. 脅威に強い：敵対者がそれを使用してハッキングや資金洗浄を行うことができない
いずれか2つを選択してくださいが、決して3つは選ばないでください。
How many onchain crypto apps have hit PMF & hyper-growth phases? A: a few.
Out of those, how many sustained the demand without hiccups? A: practically none.
Solving blockchain scaling is about empowering apps to reach PMF & hyper growth.
Out of those, how many sustained the demand without hiccups? A: practically none.
Solving blockchain scaling is about empowering apps to reach PMF & hyper growth.
大規模なハッキングの後にL1が検閲を強制するなら、なぜ社会的コンセンサスを強制するためのプロトコル内メカニズムを実装するまで行かないのか？
最終的な状態では、チェーンは中立的なベースレイヤーか社会的コンセンサスエンジンのいずれかである。
最終的な状態では、チェーンは中立的なベースレイヤーか社会的コンセンサスエンジンのいずれかである。
Blob gas price has dropped back to 0 after Pectra.
Uber doesn't charge $0 when there are more drivers than riders. Why would Eth charge $0 for a valuable resource?
What if EIP1559 is actually terrible for non-congested markets as it was designed for congested ones?
Uber doesn't charge $0 when there are more drivers than riders. Why would Eth charge $0 for a valuable resource?
What if EIP1559 is actually terrible for non-congested markets as it was designed for congested ones?
Theory crafting: SoV assets need *stability* of cashflow/REV, rather than the lack of it.
===========
If BTC (or Gold) started to generate cashflow, it won't stop being a SoV asset, at least right away.
But, if this cashflow ever decrease, the valuation would drop in response.
Plus, markets may over-index on cashflow falling: a SoV asset with falling cashflow is less appealing than another SoV whose cashflow is not falling (could be due to it being zero).
Compound that with the fact that SoV relies on network effects, which means that relative marketshare movements could get amplified (a winning SoV can win harder).
===========
In upshot, the downside of cashflow/REV for a SOV asset is that it makes the asset less appealing when cashflow falls.
Therefore, what's really important for SoV assets is the *stability* of cashflow/REV, rather than the lack of it.
(All of this is mostly empty speculation from first principles and not backed by any real data btw. So take it with a grain of salt.)
===========
If BTC (or Gold) started to generate cashflow, it won't stop being a SoV asset, at least right away.
But, if this cashflow ever decrease, the valuation would drop in response.
Plus, markets may over-index on cashflow falling: a SoV asset with falling cashflow is less appealing than another SoV whose cashflow is not falling (could be due to it being zero).
Compound that with the fact that SoV relies on network effects, which means that relative marketshare movements could get amplified (a winning SoV can win harder).
===========
In upshot, the downside of cashflow/REV for a SOV asset is that it makes the asset less appealing when cashflow falls.
Therefore, what's really important for SoV assets is the *stability* of cashflow/REV, rather than the lack of it.
(All of this is mostly empty speculation from first principles and not backed by any real data btw. So take it with a grain of salt.)
Theory crafting: SoV assets require *stability* of their cashflow/REV, rather than the lack of it.
===========
If BTC (or Gold) started to generate cashflow, it won't stop being a SoV asset, at least right away.
But, if this cashflow ever decrease, the valuation would drop in response.
Plus, markets may over-index on cashflow falling: a SoV asset with falling cashflow is less appealing than another SoV whose cashflow is not falling (could be due to it being zero).
Compounds that with the fact that SoV relies on network effects, which means that relative marketshare movements could get amplified (a winning SoV can win harder).
===========
In upshot, the downside of cashflow/REV for a SOV asset is that it makes the asset less appealing when cashflow falls.
Therefore, what's really important for SoV assets is the *stability* of cashflow/REV, rather than the lack of it.
(All of this is mostly empty speculation from first principles and not backed by any real data btw. So take it with a grain of salt.)
===========
If BTC (or Gold) started to generate cashflow, it won't stop being a SoV asset, at least right away.
But, if this cashflow ever decrease, the valuation would drop in response.
Plus, markets may over-index on cashflow falling: a SoV asset with falling cashflow is less appealing than another SoV whose cashflow is not falling (could be due to it being zero).
Compounds that with the fact that SoV relies on network effects, which means that relative marketshare movements could get amplified (a winning SoV can win harder).
===========
In upshot, the downside of cashflow/REV for a SOV asset is that it makes the asset less appealing when cashflow falls.
Therefore, what's really important for SoV assets is the *stability* of cashflow/REV, rather than the lack of it.
(All of this is mostly empty speculation from first principles and not backed by any real data btw. So take it with a grain of salt.)
Theory crafting: SoV assets requires *stability* of their cashflow/REV, rather than the lack of it.
===========
If BTC (or Gold) started to generate cashflow, it won't stop being a SoV asset, at least right away.
But, if this cashflow ever decrease, the valuation would drop in response.
Plus, markets may over-index on cashflow falling: a SoV asset with falling cashflow is less appealing than another SoV whose cashflow is not falling (could be due to it being zero).
Compounds that with the fact that SoV relies on network effects, which means that relative marketshare movements could get amplified (a winning SoV can win harder).
===========
In upshot, the downside of cashflow/REV for a SOV asset is that it makes the asset less appealing when cashflow falls.
Therefore, what's really important for SoV assets is the *stability* of cashflow/REV, rather than the lack of it.
(All of this is mostly empty speculation from first principles and not backed by any real data btw. So take it with a grain of salt.)
===========
If BTC (or Gold) started to generate cashflow, it won't stop being a SoV asset, at least right away.
But, if this cashflow ever decrease, the valuation would drop in response.
Plus, markets may over-index on cashflow falling: a SoV asset with falling cashflow is less appealing than another SoV whose cashflow is not falling (could be due to it being zero).
Compounds that with the fact that SoV relies on network effects, which means that relative marketshare movements could get amplified (a winning SoV can win harder).
===========
In upshot, the downside of cashflow/REV for a SOV asset is that it makes the asset less appealing when cashflow falls.
Therefore, what's really important for SoV assets is the *stability* of cashflow/REV, rather than the lack of it.
(All of this is mostly empty speculation from first principles and not backed by any real data btw. So take it with a grain of salt.)
It's wild that merchants are still paying ~2-3% from each sale to banks & credit card companies. How come crypto has not won yet in C2B payments?
Here're the necessary components:
For consumers: token incentives, payment app, tradfi-grade account statements, on-ramp from banks, stablecoin savings with yield
For businesses: point-of-sale apps on phones/ipads, stablecoin account with yield, off-ramp to banks, (+ token incentives)
Banks & credit card companies bootstrapped this in the 60s/70s, why can't crypto companies do this today?
Here're the necessary components:
For consumers: token incentives, payment app, tradfi-grade account statements, on-ramp from banks, stablecoin savings with yield
For businesses: point-of-sale apps on phones/ipads, stablecoin account with yield, off-ramp to banks, (+ token incentives)
Banks & credit card companies bootstrapped this in the 60s/70s, why can't crypto companies do this today?
さらにコンテンツを探すには、ログインしてください