@MeherRoy And then there is of course the separate @drakefjustin @ultrasoundmoney line of argument.

@MeherRoy，当然还有另一个@drakefjustin@ultrasoundmoney的论点。

@MeherRoy Right now I'm pretty sure rollups are paying more for eth blockspace than they are capturing with their own token. Though of course the balance could change in a post-4844 and later post-danksharding world.

@MeherRoy现在我很确定，与他们自己的令牌捕获相比，rollups为eth blockspace支付的费用更高。当然，这种平衡可能会在4844年后和后来的戴克沙丁时代发生变化。

@MeherRoy "Checkpointing" undersells it a bit imo. It's a fair description for validiums and sidechains, but for rollups they're paying for data space, and so outsourcing their own internal need to worry about decentralization.

@MeherRoy“Checkpointing”在我看来有点低估了它。这是对Validium和侧链的公平描述，但对于汇总，他们为数据空间付费，因此外包他们自己的内部需要担心分散化。

RT: @owocki How games are way harder (and often impossible) to stabilize once you take away the individual choice assumption. https://t.co/dguggT0S01

转发：@owocki How一旦你去掉了个人选择假设，游戏就很难（通常是不可能）稳定下来。https://t.co/dguggT0S01

@owocki How games are way harder (and often impossible) to stabilize once you take away the individual choice assumption. https://t.co/dguggT0S01

@owocki How游戏一旦去掉了个人选择假设，就很难（通常不可能）稳定下来。https://t.co/dguggT0S01

@fuckyourputs Because zk privacy is still too expensive. I suspect this will change once fees go down and we can afford more privacy-by-default.

@该死的，因为zk的隐私还是太贵了。我怀疑一旦费用下降，这种情况就会改变，默认情况下我们可以负担更多的隐私。

The "stubbornly and ideologically insist on trustlessness and decentralization" viewpoint actually did quite well these last few months. https://twitter.com/haydenzada...

“顽固和意识形态上坚持不信任和分权”的观点在过去几个月里实际上做得很好。https://twitter.com/haydenzada...

@paulg Sometimes it does pay off to be braver; if you play it really well, bad faith tweeters raging against your statement can help propel it to greater prominence and make themselves look ridiculous in the process.
It is a risky art though.

@paulg有时候勇敢是值得的；如果你玩得真的很好，那些对你的声明大发雷霆的恶意推特可以帮助你把它推到更突出的位置，并在这个过程中让自己看起来很可笑。
不过，这是一门冒险的艺术。

@dystopiabreaker > allows the same hardware to execute more transactions
That already assumes the computer is running a node and nothing else. And there's already parallelization between signature checking, EVM execution and some disk stuff.

@反乌托邦破坏者>；允许同一硬件执行更多事务
这已经假设计算机运行的是一个节点，而不是其他节点。签名检查、EVM执行和一些磁盘内容之间已经有了并行化。

@dystopiabreaker That's time, I agree there. But space (and space*time interactions) is a bigger issue than time

@是时候了，我同意。但是空间（以及空间与时间的相互作用）是一个比时间更大的问题

@dystopiabreaker But other L1 focused EIPs like verkle trees, EVM containers, etc are seeing a lot of attention

@反乌托邦破坏者，但其他以L1为中心的EIP，如verkle树、EVM容器等，受到了大量关注

@dystopiabreaker But for the L1, there's a reason why the various EVM parallelizability proto-EIPs are sitting there collecting dust.

@但是对于L1，各种EVM并行性原型EIP坐在那里收集灰尘是有原因的。

@dystopiabreaker For L2s I suppose the calculus changes because L2s can be more ok with more specialized hardware and a lower node count, because their security piggybacks on the base chain.

@L2的反乌托邦破坏者我认为演算会发生变化，因为L2可以使用更专业的硬件和更少的节点数，因为它们的安全性依赖于基链。

@dystopiabreaker I actually completely disagree, at least in an L1 context. Primary bottleneck is state storage (and associated externalities like stability of the sync process), not execution time.

@我实际上完全不同意反乌托邦，至少在母语语境中是这样。主要瓶颈是状态存储（以及相关的外部性，如同步过程的稳定性），而不是执行时间。

RT: the EF research team will host a Reddit AMA on Jul 7 at 1pm UTC
https://www.reddit.com/r/ether...

转发：EF研究团队将于7月7日UTC下午1点举办Reddit AMA
https://www.reddit.com/r/ether...

@WilsonCusack As for "why do utilitarianism at all instead of just following a list of rules?", well we have to judge which rules are worth keeping or strengthening or even inventing, and which rules belong in the same dumpster fire as, say, "sodomy is bad"

@威尔森·库萨克（WilsonCusack）谈到“为什么功利主义根本不遵循一系列规则？”，我们必须判断哪些规则值得保留、加强甚至发明，哪些规则与“鸡奸是坏事”属于同一堆垃圾

@WilsonCusack Mill would say this does not contradict utilitarianism, because the really bright "no nukes" rule is a social mechanism that as a whole prevents lots of suffering, and there's huge value in presrerving the sanctity of the rule.

@威尔森·库萨克·密尔（WilsonCusack Mill）会说，这与功利主义并不矛盾，因为真正光明的“无核武器”规则是一种社会机制，从整体上来说，它可以防止许多痛苦，而这一规则的神圣性具有巨大的价值。

@WilsonCusack One big place where absolutism seems to have value is adversarial social situations. There's good reasons to get more upset at 10k dying from a tiny nuke than 100k dying from conventional bombing, for example.

@威尔逊·库萨克（WilsonCusack）专制主义似乎有价值的一个大地方是敌对的社会环境。例如，10万人死于小型核武器，而不是10万人死于常规炸弹，这是有充分理由感到不安的。

@WilsonCusack Right but putting your foot down and saying X always supersedes Y also easily has big unkown consequences.
Mill's approach feels to me like "of course you don't calculate the good every time, you follow good rules, but be mindful of exceptions"

@威尔森·库萨克（WilsonCusack）说得对，但如果你说X总是取代Y，也很容易产生很大的未知后果。
米尔的方法让我觉得“当然，你不是每次都计算好的，你遵循好的规则，但要注意例外情况。”

@WilsonCusack I definitely believe that viewpoints that say "X is bad no matter the circumstance" are almost always wrong, and are an excellent example of why we need formal moral philosophy instead of just trusting reflexes that appeal to us emotionally.

@威尔森·库萨克（WilsonCusack）我坚信，那些说“X在任何情况下都是坏的”的观点几乎总是错误的，这是一个很好的例子，说明了为什么我们需要正式的道德哲学，而不仅仅是信任在情感上吸引我们的反应。