Kiwi News: handpicked crypto news for builders

Submit
TUESDAY, 10 NOV · HOT

Good links, no hype.

The best of crypto, tech and the open web. Curated by humans.

RANKED BY UPVOTES AND AGE
iPhone betaKiwi News for iPhoneOpen TestFlight
01ethereumtransitauthority.com

Ethereum Transit Authority

How To Tell If Your Girlfriend Is A Spy
02securityimagedelivery.net

How To Tell If Your Girlfriend Is A Spy

Chinese models
03imagedelivery.net

Chinese models

tacit chain: exploring the edge of fast, private, future-proof cryptox.com
04x.com

tacit chain: exploring the edge of fast, private, future-proof crypto

@VitalikButerin
@VitalikButerin

Expanding on why I believe "ETH as store of value (SoV)" makes much more sense to focus on than "ETH as fee-burning token". Three primary reasons: 1. ETH as fee-burning token never was as strong as it seemed 2. Optimizing for ETH as fee-burning token would demand Ethereum and ETH function in ways that are very hard to make compatible with decentralization and capture resistance. 3. Meanwhile, optimizing for ETH as SoV is aligned with Ethereum focusing on its unique strengths (decentralization and CROPS) EIP-1559 (including its burn) is fine and good, we should keep them. But we should not feel sad if fee burn is < 10% of breakeven indefinitely; the value of ETH comes from elsewhere. The core idea: the big thing that people appreciate about Ethereum is decentralization and CROPS. The main pragmatic benefit that these things translate into is stability. SoV is the category where that is not an unneeded extra we merely put effort into for ideological reasons, but rather a pragmatic strength from the perspective of people putting in their assets. And in the era of AI disruption, stability will be highly valued.

05x.com

@VitalikButerin: ETH as store of value makes more sense than fee-burning token

@VitalikButerin
@VitalikButerin

I know this is a predictable opinion from me but I don't agree with the strong emotional reaction against the anti-data-center movements that I've seen this week. As I see it, algorithmic progress means that whatever you would be able to do with more and bigger data centers in 2 years, you will be able to do with the data centers we have today in 4 years - probably sooner. So nothing remotely apocalyptically bad will happen from even extreme levels of success by anti-data-center people. Meanwhile we need all the time we can get to better harden the world against both already-visible cybersecurity issues and any bio and other risks soon to come. Science applications are bottlenecked by many things other than AI, so slowing AI down by one year will slow those down by much less than one year. Given this, a slowdown in compute hyper-scaling seems quite net good? Notice this is without any controversial "doomer arguments", RSI etc. Even if net-bad, it's certainly not worse than like 10+ other political things.

06x.com

@VitalikButerin: Slowing AI compute hyper-scaling would be net good, he argues