RT: The blue check VB scam is out of control. Can @TwitterSafety do something?

RT：蓝支票 VB 骗局已经失控。 @TwitterSafety 可以做点什么吗？

@primalpoly Is this good or bad?
(imo it's irrelevant, as we're gonna replace evolutionary pressures with intentional gene selection within a century anyway unless brain uploading gets there first)

@primalpoly 这是好还是坏？
（imo这无关紧要，因为无论如何我们将在一个世纪内用有意的基因选择取代进化压力，除非大脑上传首先到达那里）

A quick note on upgrading from KZG to STARKs in danksharding. Probably the right thing to do in ~3-6 years when the tech becomes more mature!
https://ethresear.ch/t/arithme... https://t.co/qkUFPMTN5I

关于在 danksharding 中从 KZG 升级到 STARKs 的快速说明。当技术变得更加成熟时，可能在 3-6 年内做正确的事情！
发表时间：1年前 作者：Vitalik Non-giver of Ether @VitalikButerin详情

Convex-natalism: the ideology that regardless of your opinions on how many children people should have on average, more people should have either 0 or 5+ children and fewer people should have 2. https://t.co/jGfsqKtPbO

凸出生论：不管你对人们平均应该有多少孩子的看法，更多的人应该有 0 个或 5 个孩子，而更少的人应该有 2 个孩子。 https://t.co/jGfsqKtPbO

@terencechain @vdWijden It would be cool to spec this out and at least try it, to see how reliable this kind of mempool scanning is, and how often such inclusion failures happen "accidentally"

@terencechain @vdWijden 明确这一点并至少尝试一下会很酷，看看这种内存池扫描有多可靠，以及这种包含失败“意外”发生的频率

@terencechain @vdWijden Next step: proposer locally scans the mempool and checks if there are any txs that pay a sufficient prio fee but have not been included in >= 3 non-full blocks. If so, proposer always favors local block if the builder block does not include all those txs.

@terencechain @vdWijden 下一步：提议者在本地扫描内存池并检查是否有任何支付了足够的优先费用但尚未包含在其中的 tx

RT: The talk I did @EFDevcon and @schellingpoint_ in Bogotá focuses on how to build DVPs today and their importance to prevent context collapse.
Watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is joint work with @glenweyl @yorkerhodes @backaes @divyasiddarth. https://twitter.com/VitalikBut...

RT：我在波哥大的@EFDevcon 和@schellingpoint_ 的演讲重点是如何构建当今的 DVP 以及它们对防止上下文崩溃的重要性。
在此处观看：发表时间：1年前 作者：Vitalik Non-giver of Ether @VitalikButerin详情

ok what have I done https://twitter.com/VitalikBut... https://t.co/EkEjNROr9X

好的，我做了什么 https://twitter.com/VitalikBut... https:// t.co/EkEjNROr9X

@phildaian @koeppelmann @latetot @TrustlessState If it decreases revenue by 5%, that's only ~0.5% per year, which would take ~139 years to halve the offender's stake

@phildaian @koeppelmann @latetot @TrustlessState 如果它将收入减少 5%，那每年只有约 0.5%，这需要约 139 年才能将违规者的股份减半

@jon_day2 https://vitalik.ca/general/202...

@jon_day2 https://vitalik.ca/general/202...

@koeppelmann @latetot @TrustlessState Sorry, meant to add a comma between "No" and "validators", hope people understood it that way (don't have the edit thing yet)

@koeppelmann @latetot @TrustlessState 抱歉，意思是在“否”和“验证者”之间添加一个逗号，希望人们这样理解（还没有编辑的东西）

@koeppelmann @latetot @TrustlessState No validators doing active curation is not the goal at all. It's more a question of what level of response is appropriate to what level of transgression.

@koeppelmann @latetot @TrustlessState 没有验证者进行主动管理根本不是目标。更多的是一个问题，即何种程度的反应适合于何种程度的违法行为。

Designated verifier proofs are a fascinating building block.
Alice sends Bob a ZK-SNARK proof "either X is true about me and data I hold, or I am Bob"
Bob knows he did not make the proof, so he knows X is true. But if Bob sends Alice's proof to Charlie, Charlie is not convinced

指定的验证者证明是一个迷人的构建块。
Alice 向 Bob 发送一个 ZK-SNARK 证明“要么 X 对我和我持有的数据是真实的，要么我是 Bob”
Bob 知道他没有证明，所以他知道 X 是真的。但如果 Bob 将 Alice 的证明发给 Charlie，Charlie 并不相信

Information is copiable and wants to be free. But *credible* information, not necessarily!

信息是可复制的，并且希望是免费的。但*可靠*信息，不一定！

@latetot @koeppelmann @TrustlessState I would say "be tolerated". Slashing or leaking or socially coordinated anything should only be considered for massive reorging of other people's blocks, not making wrong choices about what to put in your own.
Any other answer risks turning ETH community into morality police

@latetot @koeppelmann @TrustlessState 我会说“被容忍”。削减或泄漏或社会协调任何东西都应该只考虑用于大规模重组其他人的块，而不是对放入自己的块做出错误的选择。
任何其他答案都有可能将 ETH 社区变成道德警察

RT: 🆕 Updates to Blockscan Chat
1. End-to-end encryption (E2EE) 🔒
2. Contract address sign-in 📃
3. Browser notification 🔔
... and more coming soon 🤖 https://t.co/pV1JEfhfZu

RT：🆕 Blockscan 聊天更新
1.端到端加密（E2EE）🔒
2.合约地址签到📃
3.浏览器通知🔔
......还有更多即将推出🤖 https://t.co/pV1JEfhfZu

@zengjiajun_eth @ESYudkowsky 恒心是好事还是坏事? 还是适合某些情况，不适合其他的? 🤔

@zengjiajun_eth @ESYudkowsky 恒心是好事还是坏事？还是适合其他的情况，不适合其他的？ 🤔

RT: Did I do this math proof correctly can my more math inclined mutuals help? https://t.co/YSERN94BZ0

RT：我是否正确地完成了这个数学证明，我的更多数学倾向互助会有所帮助吗？ https://t.co/YSERN94BZ0

The idea (from @ESYudkowsky I believe?) of a country or zone where it's illegal to build most permanent structures, so mobile homes only, to prevent excessive lock-in effects tied to physical space fascinates me.
(Not saying I think it's a good idea, it's just fascinating!)

一个国家或地区的想法（我相信来自@ESYudkowsky？）在该国家或地区建造大多数永久性结构（仅限移动房屋）以防止与物理空间相关的过度锁定效应是非法的，这让我着迷。
（不是说我认为这是一个好主意，它只是令人着迷！）

@biogerontology I don't get putting "deep state" in the worst bucket. Deep states clearly exist, the question is exactly what level of hidden coordinatiin and agency they have, and there are lots of specific individual claims that are crazy or exaggerated.

@biogerontology 我没有把“深度状态”放在最糟糕的位置。深层状态显然存在，问题是它们究竟有什么程度的隐藏协调和代理，并且有许多疯狂或夸大的具体个人主张。