Thorchain is evil for being trustworthy and fulfilling the service it promises to its users?
No, it’s Ethereum that is evil, for doing almost nothing to prevent the hacks and financial attacks in the first place.
Zero attempt by Ethereum to force dApps to make explicit promises about what the dApps will do before you interact with them, let alone force dapps to supply proof up-front that those promises will be fulfilled.
100% technically possible already, since years ago, for a wide range of dapps and a wide range of common attacks, especially simple defi apps, but they’ll never do it.
Why?
It’s just Windows & the antivirus companies in the 90s.
“We just leave everything, including security, to the market to solve”
= Suddenly billions to be made by NOT fixing the security problem at its root.
Suddenly a huge industry of multi-billion dollar antivirus companies.
Same has happened today with Ethereum.
Little money to be made by fixing the problem at its root, compared to the huge money to be made by selling bandaids and actively exploiting.
“Leave it to the market” doesn’t work for things that belong as part of the core of the platform, but the platform has a stronghold on the market, blocking competitors who would put what’s missing in the core platform, opposite of open market.
Thorswap good, catching the rap for the real culprit, Ethereum (and all the Ethereum clone chains.)
🐻🐻🐻
No, it’s Ethereum that is evil, for doing almost nothing to prevent the hacks and financial attacks in the first place.
Zero attempt by Ethereum to force dApps to make explicit promises about what the dApps will do before you interact with them, let alone force dapps to supply proof up-front that those promises will be fulfilled.
100% technically possible already, since years ago, for a wide range of dapps and a wide range of common attacks, especially simple defi apps, but they’ll never do it.
Why?
It’s just Windows & the antivirus companies in the 90s.
“We just leave everything, including security, to the market to solve”
= Suddenly billions to be made by NOT fixing the security problem at its root.
Suddenly a huge industry of multi-billion dollar antivirus companies.
Same has happened today with Ethereum.
Little money to be made by fixing the problem at its root, compared to the huge money to be made by selling bandaids and actively exploiting.
“Leave it to the market” doesn’t work for things that belong as part of the core of the platform, but the platform has a stronghold on the market, blocking competitors who would put what’s missing in the core platform, opposite of open market.
Thorswap good, catching the rap for the real culprit, Ethereum (and all the Ethereum clone chains.)
🐻🐻🐻
👍3🤔1
Dreaming of a replacement for the Nobel Prize that totally eliminated the unverifiable, highly-corruptible human judging element,
instead replacing the human judges with a verifiably-objective AI judge.
While we’re at it, replace all human-judged tests and contests, everywhere.
Got a feeling wordcels and other corrupting influences would get absolutely rekt, at last.
Imagine.
instead replacing the human judges with a verifiably-objective AI judge.
While we’re at it, replace all human-judged tests and contests, everywhere.
Got a feeling wordcels and other corrupting influences would get absolutely rekt, at last.
Imagine.
🌚2
BTW — What’s one of the most effective forms of censorship, that’s gone almost entirely unrecognized for what it is?
Censorship by forcing target words to be much longer, eventually forcing them into rediculously long phrases.
Parsimony censorship, let’s call it.
How does it work?
Well, humans, naturally, in any given domain of discourse SHORTEN the length of words that are used more FREQUENTLY, while leaving the length of LESS-FREQUENTLY-mentioned concepts much LONGER.
E.g. as observed by Zipf's law, and btw there are basic information theory principles why this is just what any effective communication system needs.
So far so good. Nothing too surprising yet.
But what happens if you do the reverse — Forcing people to use much longer phrases for certain concepts, e.g. through political correctness?
Surprisingly, the causation works in reverse too!
Force people to lengthen words, and suddenly people talk about those things much worse.
Censorship achived.
Linguistic determinism weaponized.
Most effective censorship weapon no one’s ever explicitly pointed out (AFAIK?) No, it’s not just forced speach, but literal censorship too.
Linguistic parsimony censorship.
Censorship by forcing target words to be much longer, eventually forcing them into rediculously long phrases.
Parsimony censorship, let’s call it.
How does it work?
Well, humans, naturally, in any given domain of discourse SHORTEN the length of words that are used more FREQUENTLY, while leaving the length of LESS-FREQUENTLY-mentioned concepts much LONGER.
E.g. as observed by Zipf's law, and btw there are basic information theory principles why this is just what any effective communication system needs.
So far so good. Nothing too surprising yet.
But what happens if you do the reverse — Forcing people to use much longer phrases for certain concepts, e.g. through political correctness?
Surprisingly, the causation works in reverse too!
Force people to lengthen words, and suddenly people talk about those things much worse.
Censorship achived.
Linguistic determinism weaponized.
Most effective censorship weapon no one’s ever explicitly pointed out (AFAIK?) No, it’s not just forced speach, but literal censorship too.
Linguistic parsimony censorship.
🤮1💯1🫡1