@TBSocialist Yeah I agree, I remember reading Morozov's book many years ago and disagreeing with a lot but it's definitely a much more profound book than "hey let's make tech consulting 10% more efficient" 🤣

@是的，我同意，我记得很多年前读过莫罗佐夫的书，有很多不同意见，但这绝对是一本比“嘿，让我们让技术咨询效率提高10%”深刻得多的书🤣

@TBSocialist I'd say the specific pattern I mentioned is more often political.
Though even in dull project management cases, it's not clear to me that causes earlier in the causality graph are generally better to intervene on than points later in the causality graph.

@我要说的是，我提到的具体模式更经常是政治性的。
尽管即使在枯燥的项目管理案例中，我也不清楚因果图中较早的原因通常比因果图中较晚的点更好地进行干预。

@TBSocialist I've become somewhat more suspicious of "root causes" discourse over time honestly.
It seems like it so easily gets corrupted into "I care about X, so I'll hijack discussions about Y by arguing that X is the real cause behind Y and we can't 'truly' solve X until we solve Y".

@老实说，随着时间的推移，我越来越怀疑“根本原因”的说法。
它似乎很容易被破坏成“我关心X，所以我会通过争论X是Y背后的真正原因来劫持关于Y的讨论，除非我们解决Y，否则我们不能‘真正’解决X”。

@NiftyBlinders @pourteaux PoW breaks down more quickly under more restrictive government conditions imo. It's easy to hide staking, but mining especially at scale is quite easy to detect.

@NiftyBlinders@pourteaux PoW在更严格的政府条件下分解得更快。很容易隐藏立桩，但特别是大规模开采很容易被发现。

@NiftyBlinders @pourteaux I think my answer to "you need to trade someone for an entry" is "who cares?"
It's an open market. You just need to find one person among millions who doesn't have a grudge against you and you can get in.

@NiftyBlinders@pourteaux我想我对“你需要用人交换一个条目”的回答是“谁在乎？”
这是一个开放的市场。你只需要在数百万人中找到一个对你没有怨恨的人，你就可以进去了。

@pourteaux (But relying on this is pretty fragile imo, it's not clear to be that the number of these opportunities is large enough especially as crypto grows bigger, and also they could disappear once non-crypto industry and politics catches up)

@pourteaux（但在我看来，依靠这一点是相当脆弱的，不清楚这些机会的数量是否足够大，尤其是随着加密技术的发展，而且一旦非加密技术产业和政治赶上，它们可能会消失）

@pourteaux The best pro-PoW-decentralization argument is probably that there exist opportunities to get exceptionally cheap electricity that are hard to find, limited in scale and require local knowledge, so large orgs don't have an advantage in finding them.

@pourteaux支持PoW权力下放的最佳论据可能是，存在获得异常廉价电力的机会，这些机会很难找到，规模有限，需要当地知识，因此大型组织在找到这些机会方面没有优势。

@odtorson @koeppelmann Years of purchase matter too, because hardware keeps improving and older ASICs become uneconomical.

@odtorson@koeppelmann多年的购买也很重要，因为硬件不断改进，旧的ASIC变得不经济。

@edmundedgar @koeppelmann And you news the ingenuity to not advance on the electricity generation side.
What if in 2050 we have fusion power but ASICs only improved a little bit, so mining becomes 90% capex?

@edmundedgar@koeppelmann和您新闻了不要在发电方面取得进展的独创性。
如果到2050年，我们有了核聚变能力，但ASIC只改进了一点点，那么采矿就变成了90%的资本支出呢？

RT: 🎉The Academic Grants Round grantees!🎉
This round was a *huge* success, far exceeding our expectations in quality and quantity of submission.
The grantee list has a killer line-up, and I can't wait to see all of the exciting output to come.
https://blog.ethereum.org/2022...

转发：🎉学术资助轮受赠人！🎉
这一轮是一个巨大的成功，在提交的质量和数量上远远超过了我们的预期。
被授予者名单上有一个杀手阵容，我迫不及待地想看到所有令人兴奋的产出。
https://blog.ethereum.org/2022...

@koeppelmann I never understood how this concept of switching miners on and off frequently makes any sense at all. Hardware costs are like 1/3 of total mining costs. If you're paying for hardware but only using it half the time, in a competitive market you'll be running at a loss.

@科佩尔曼（koeppelmann）我从来都不明白这种频繁开关矿工的概念有什么意义。硬件成本约为采矿总成本的1/3。如果你为硬件买单，但只使用了一半的时间，在一个竞争激烈的市场上，你将处于亏损状态。

Present-day rollups are still far from optimal! Great thread by @sanjaypshah
Still a lot of room to improve both fixed costs and per-transaction costs. Very much early days in terms of how many optimizations that are easy to find theoretically haven't yet actually been deployed. https://twitter.com/sanjaypsha...

目前的汇总结果仍然远未达到最佳状态！sanjaypshah的《大线程》
固定成本和每笔交易成本仍有很大改进空间。从理论上很容易找到的优化的数量来看，很多时候还没有实际部署。https://twitter.com/sanjaypsha...

@Kdenkss Are they interested in cost savings or just adventure?

@Kdenkss对节约成本感兴趣还是仅仅是冒险？

@Kdenkss Europeans too? I feel like the cost differential is much more compelling for Americans, even to the point where Europe itself is an ideal destination for many Americans.
Post-2021 inflation and EUR/USD parity, Europe seems waaay cheaper than USA.
(I just spent a month in each)

@Kdenkss也是欧洲人？我觉得成本差异对美国人来说更具吸引力，甚至欧洲本身也是许多美国人的理想目的地。
在2021通货膨胀和欧元/美元平价之后，欧洲似乎比美国便宜。
（我每次只花了一个月）

RT: Do you know what happens when you send 1 DAI ?
I don’t think you really do.
I spent weeks seeking for the truth in Ethereum’s depths. Leaving all previous assumptions behind.
And I'm sharing this incredible learning journey with you👇
https://notonlyowner.com/learn... https://t.co/B5UswhixNN

RT：你知道当你发送1个DAI时会发生什么吗？
我认为你真的不知道。
我花了几个星期在以太坊的深处寻找真相。抛开之前的所有假设。
我将与你们分享这段难以置信的学习之旅👇
https://notonlyowner.com/learn... https://t.co/B5UswhixNN

@Tree_Binance "治理" 和 "统治" 是两件事。我觉得防止统治是区块链的基本原则，但是防止所有治理是不可能的。
治理是需要更开放的，梗透明的，更去中心话的，即使因此效率会更低的，但是一点基本的治理还是必要的。要不然底层的技术不会发展，很多应用会不可实现的。

@Tree_Binance "治理" 和 "统治" 是两件事。我觉得防止统治是区块链的基本原则，但是防止所有治理是不可能的。
治理是需要更开放的，梗透明的，更去中心话的，即使因此效率会更低的，但是一点基本的治理还是必要的。要不然底层的技术不会发展，很多应用会不可实现的。

@zndtoshi Did you really tweet that without stopping to realize the obvious fact that if staking is broken in this way then mining is too?
(Neither are. Consensus is not governance)

@zndtoshi你真的在推特上发过这样一条消息吗？你没有停下来意识到一个明显的事实，即如果以这种方式破坏了立桩，那么采矿也是如此？
（两者都不是。共识不是治理）

@AnthonyLeeZhang I do think shareholder voting is very suboptimal. It's just easy to administer, especially when we have many layers of intermediaries.
Implementing quadratic shareholder votes with proper anti-collusion safeguards, esp without modern tech, would be bureaucratically impractical.

@AnthonyLeeShang我确实认为股东投票非常不理想。它很容易管理，尤其是当我们有多层中介时。
通过适当的反共谋保护措施实施二次股东投票（尤其是在没有现代技术的情况下）在官僚体制上是不切实际的。

@Tim_Roughgarden @PGarimidi @cdixon @skominers eg. sentences like
> The solutions we have sketched here fall on a spectrum between fully decentralized governance and partially sacrificing some ideals of decentralization for the overall health of the protocol.

@Tim_Roughgarden@PGarimidi@cdixon@skominers例如
&燃气轮机；我们在这里概述的解决方案介于完全去中心化治理和为了协议的整体健康而部分牺牲一些去中心化理想之间。

@Tim_Roughgarden @PGarimidi @cdixon @skominers I think my beef was just the lack of mentioning of any possibility of a more ambitious program, and what felt like an insinuation that centralization and token holder control are the only two options.

@Tim_Roughgarden@PGarimidi@cdixon@skominers我认为我的不满只是没有提及任何更具雄心的项目的可能性，以及暗示集中化和令牌持有人控制是仅有的两种选择。