Last Notes
the reason i ideally prefer musig2 for this type of stuff, is that the ''attestation'' immeadiatly goes both ways from a single event.
Is this is "certified human" badge? Would trusted attestations be better?
Don't know why your kind comment only came through now, but thank you!
know that you have a home on wss://basspistol.org Feel free to reach out if you are unsure what that means :lovemega:
I am taking about something like Celestia, basically the Blockchain (in this case Rootstock) doesn't verify anything, all transactions are pure data carrying, the only difference between OP_RETURN or Eth Blobs and what Celestia does, is that in Celestia you can add something equivalent to Nostr "kind"... This way people can query only transactions they are interested in.
A simpler way to do this on Rootstock is just contracts and associated Events they emit.
So let's say you want to make a Monero on Rootstock, you create a new contract, every time you make a transaction to that contract, it is only data carrying, thus miners don't validate anything except transaction fees.
On the client side, you can see all these data, and you can run them as transactions against the smart contract state, deriving the new state, at the client side.
But then when you want to take money outside of that contract to move it to another contract that says mimics ZCash instead, or if you have multiple Monero contracts each contain a shard, to keep things manageable on client side validation, then when you want to exit from one shard to the other, you need to provide a ZK proof to Rootstock that you did all the computation over that data carrying committed to that contract, and that the state after that computation contains a withdrawal request, not from one sidechain to another but from one contract to another...
Does that make sense?
This basically allows you to do 2/3 of what Drivechains does;
1. Freedom of innovation.
2. Sharding to limit the cost of validation
As for #3; DA scaling, we keep it on Rootstock with Blobs and data availability sampling, not only because we can, but because the synchronicity between all these shards is super valuable for interop and atomic swaps, because you remove a major risk in cross chain transactions which is that some chains may reorg independently from others... But if you do DA on the same chain, then reorg is atomic, every shard is reorged at the same time. Also you don't have to keep bootstrapping merge mining (a new BMM has higher risk of reorgs, but in DAS, there is no reorg independently from Rootstock).
#nevent1q…9teg
https://npub1qnykqjt67cv2ux84z3anuhpsnmea3f39za52rsyzpcpvjdmgesasvkcxvz.blossom.band/df09138128f02f57b7f1ba26a71665a80fd5110d115e0962a5acbcaae8ca0dcb.jpg
https://24242.io/1bd7daf8d9ffa7905cbaea211f480fc0892014ccf2d32444a0a763502086c58f.mp4
#FestivalDosCanais
Gm home slice. Talked (finally) to my fren in the state above yours. May be taking another road trip soon.
I too have been rugged on a domain, ugh. 🫂 There's always room for more integration between the protocols, so it's exciting to hear your ideas! Looking forward to more trial and error implementation to find better solutions. 💜
✨
https://npub1qnykqjt67cv2ux84z3anuhpsnmea3f39za52rsyzpcpvjdmgesasvkcxvz.blossom.band/08779d4b362c0b835838d219dfdf3c3ec94027daca6b93556e39e37a88602861.mp4
#FoodForThought
The flaw is in the way it is suggested in Drivechains... Merge mined Sidechains can also be hashrate escrow (and indeed Rootstock will be one with bitvm) if you use OPCAT to verify an SPV client, which means whatever the sidechain miners vote on goes.
The reason Drivechains hashrate escrow is worse is because it forces miners to interact with even starting a sidechain.
That being said, I think people shouldn't talk against eCash until they commit to using Rootstock, otherwise they are not being serious
I guess you can call that hashrate escrow... But a merge mined sidechain with BitVM bridge is very much a hashrate escrow already.
The difference here is that if you don't want faster blocks than Rootstock, you don't create Sidechains and worry about the consequences of that, instead you just accept transactions as they come without any computations, and update the state later... Separating DA from Compute.
The obvious upside is synchronicity which makes the entire system safer and easier to reason about. Things all happen at the same time including their side effects in parallel contexts, and as long as majority of miners are honest (or ZK verifier is valid) you reach the same conclusion globally as you calculated locally.
Note also; it doesn't Have to be ZK proofs, you can still demand that miners do the computing and finalize the state, but you can demand that with latency, so they get to do that in the background and take their time, not while accepting txn to put in the block... Then they can vote on the state commitment of previous epoch.
The downside of that is that you don't get to invent custom vms and don't save miners the effort. The upside is that you trust miners majority, instead of math and possibly buggy code.
I don't know which is better, but I wanted to say this is possible
I mean it depends on what are you trying to achieve, humans seem to be ok with few seconds latency for anything except very hectic metro lines, in which case you are better off with prepaid cards. But for everything else, if Rootstock has 15s blocks, I believe that is enough, and requires no centralized block producers, just publish your transaction, and IF you want to move from one context to another then you have to generate the ZK proof, but that is just the cost of business, you can obviously atomic swap with someone who generates these proofs and provide the liquidity... But note all of that is no different from paying a miner to include a transaction, that is to say it is so open and so competitive you can hardly do any better.
Now when you need instant payments, as in subsecond confirmations, then your options are;
1. Proof of stake sidechains (Stakechain) on top of Rootstock, which is not actually a single company. But while one confirmation is super fast, the more decentralised these get the longer it takes for finality ... But if you want such fast txns, you might be more happy to risk losing some with reorgs. But you still get more confidence than zeroconf.
2. Centralized payment pools, this one gives you the fastest finality possible, but you have the risk of withholding proofs that are necessary to withdraw or the business going down.. here I believe the absolute best you can do is just use small amounts that you are willing to lose, just like your pocket money, and maybe use many providers at once... That basically boils down to something like Ark, but with more programmability of the contract with the server.
So in conclusion, I think we can scale and indeed solve DA, AND have synchronicity which makes interop between contexts much safer than sidechains that go out of sync, but as soon as you require faster confirmations and faster finality, you must start accepting tradeoffs for different amounts ... But worst case scenario (waiting until Rootstock can't be reorged practically) is still orders of magnitudes faster than finality in any fiat system that merchants are used to, hell even cash notes are only finalised when you take them to a bank and see if they are counterfeit or not.
You don't think that is insanely good outcome? I personally played enough with Rootstock and I think their latency is acceptable, and I don't think that LN or Ark give me much better latency for payments I need to be careful about anyways, and for payments that I don't need to be careful about, I am ok just risking it with a temporary cosigner just like I am ok losing the money in my pocket once or twice in my lifetime
Yeeeeeeees! Love it ! Reminds of the 60's
https://blossom.yakihonne.com/5e43bc8b118a7fdfa9d4e282e9fa5ecd5adf842ef1fcffc2e5d2df476b4c8e5d.jpeg
To be specific, i am peanut butter jelly, with a baseball bat!
https://tortellino.basspistol.org/82609f6cd5255b609df3cc9fe1e61cda13c21f247c7833c81c761689442c09b1.mp4
So you are not a jelly donut after all ?
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39053/did-jfk-call-himself-a-jelly-donut-in-his-famous-berlin-speech
I'm skeptical about Spark as well but will give them the benefit of the doubt and see the nascent ecosystem built out before coming to conclusions
Unilateral exits are possible on paper and have been done but are being developed to be used in a user-friendly manner by Breez's team right now for their SDK
Ahh, I got it, this specific page works okay:
`https://account.protonmailrmez3lotccipshtkleegetolb73fuirgj7r4o4vfu7ozyd.onion/start`
This one attempts to send clearnet requests:
`https://account.protonmailrmez3lotccipshtkleegetolb73fuirgj7r4o4vfu7ozyd.onion/mail/signup`
I've just rechecked once again—it appears they no longer make clearnet requests. Probably they fixed something.
It's good if it will keep working with the `OnionTrafficOnly` and `NoDNSRequest` isolation flags. Anyway I don't recommend anyone use Proton without these flags enabled.
It depends on the definition of scaling, computational scaling is limited and favours sharding of contexts then maybe use zk proofs to settle between contexts. But data availability isn't doomed, it is actually possible to scale it with users, as long as the number of users is actually objective, which is the real challenge. If you KNOW that there are 10X more users now than last year, then you can tolerate 10X more data in a data availability sampling paradigm. Which is why Celestia needs to hardcode the number of clients the community believes there are around the world.
But I wonder if someone can use Proof Of Work as a proxy of how many users there are watching the chain and sampling chunks of the data.
I don't mean necessarily decentralised mining, but just using the hashrate as a proxy for demand, and demand as a proxy for the light clients taking data availability samples...
This is not something you can do in celestia without oracles of the token price, but we have hashrate and they don't.
LIOTIA - LIVE ON THE INDIE BEAT TV 19:00 UTC
live.theindiebeat.fm and mirrored across the Nostr protocol on supporting clients.
nice! Just been able to ditch that garbage Garmin data hoarding sinkhole
@nprofile…9rt4 fresh jamz 🥫
The new (None Monero) Ring mod🙌🏻.
I think we should have stuck to kicking the ball. It was working much better for us
https://blossom.primal.net/382f383a8d863d20702ef78251b2918bd917bcfb4d55f4c88eb89f88bd2e2259.jpg
'tain..ça envoie du pâté.
Yeah, haven't heard from @nprofile…eqct in a few months, or @nprofile…nj27 in over a month, for that matter... 🤔
Can't believe Green Tea Peng have been overlooked☹️.
https://youtu.be/pf6JiRKKeqI
Final warm up song, just to gee everyone up before the kick off😬😂.
#KickTheBall
@nprofile…d2w5
I thought Maradonna was part of the half time show in The Final🤔.
@nprofile…h25z (Wrong npub, above🙄).
She has your spirit ✨️🫶 that art she did that i saw made me realise she is far more mature and very crafty for her age ...
Yeah. Unanchored only to you. Was solid. Anyway. Good job. I'll try to tune in more often.
Lot's of prog and post metal for me! I find the fun stuff really happens in those moments in the noodling around and you can stretch outside of practicing or deliberate recording for something. Capturing it is a completely different story, so you heard one of those unanchored moments when I'm also probably surprising even myself 😄
Can you imagine she is 13?
Sounded pretty unique to me. I've heard you do ambient stuff. Always good. But you started ripping on this particular livestream.
Thank you sir! Only from the musicians I model off of 😊
