Contradiction between my desire to see Ethereum become a more Bitcoin-like system emphasizing long-term stability and stability, including culturally, and my realization that getting there requires quite a lot of active coordinated short-term change.
我希望以太坊成为一个更像比特币的系统，强调长期稳定和稳定，包括文化稳定，但我意识到实现这一目标需要大量积极协调的短期变化，这两者之间存在矛盾。
@sassal0x @NeerajKA "Well maybe Vitalik should first solve the hunger problem in HIMSELF. The kid looks like he literally came out of a prisoner of war camp. No wonder he hates PoW!"
@sassal0x@NeerajKA“也许Vitalik应该首先解决自己的饥饿问题。这孩子看起来就像是从战俘营出来的。难怪他讨厌战俘！”
@sassal0x @NeerajKA "Hey Vitalik, I know you've been helping poor people get food, so look, I just lost 42% on my AVAX, I'm poor too. Won't you please show some compassion and send me 5 eth so my lil bro and I can get some sushi?"
- approximate paraphrase of stuff people have actually tweeted at me
@sassal0x@NeerajKA“嘿，维塔利克，我知道你一直在帮助穷人获得食物，所以你看，我的AVAX刚损失了42%，我也很穷。你能不能表现出一些同情心，给我寄5个eth，这样我和我的小兄弟就可以吃寿司了？”
-人们在推特上对我说的话的大致解释
@philmohun @elidourado @ATabarrok @tylercowen 2. Vote threshold should be higher than 50%. Ideally, the threshold should be as high as the threshold needed to overturn any minority rights protections in Denmark or Greenland through other means.
@philmohun@elidourado@ATabarrok@tylercowen 2。投票门槛应高于50%。理想情况下，门槛应该与通过其他方式推翻丹麦或格陵兰的任何少数民族权利保护所需的门槛一样高。
@philmohun @elidourado @ATabarrok @tylercowen Two caveats:
1. If instead of buying Greenland, US wanted to buy some land in the middle of Denmark, *and* the US was a hostile power looking to put a mil base there, then security interests of all of Denmark should be considered
@philmohun@elidourado@ATabarrok@tylercowen两个警告：
如果美国不购买格陵兰岛，而是想在丹麦中部购买一些土地，*并且*美国是一个敌对国家，希望在那里建立军事基地，那么应该考虑丹麦所有国家的安全利益
@philmohun @elidourado @ATabarrok @tylercowen I'd say the deal would be reasonable!
Bribery is typically bad because it creates misalignment between the decisionmaker and those affected by their decisions. Here, Greenlanders would be both the decisionmakers and the main people affected for good and for ill.
@philmohun@elidourado@ATabarrok@tylercowen我认为这笔交易是合理的！
贿赂通常是不好的，因为它在决策者和受其决策影响的人之间造成了不一致。在这里，无论好坏，格林兰人都将是决策者和主要受影响的人。
@SimonTao13 我更喜欢tau
https://tauday.com/
@SimonTao13 我更喜欢tau
https://tauday.com/
@robertwiblin See also:
https://slatestarcodex.com/201...
@罗伯特维布林另见：
https://slatestarcodex.com/201...
@robertwiblin Mainstream folk deontology seems to say that doing the work is legitimate if and only if you're operating in the context of an institution that has mainstream public legitimacy to do the work. The hope being that if the work is net-bad, the institution would lose its legitimacy.
@罗伯特维布林主流民间义务论似乎认为，当且仅当你在一个具有主流公共合法性的机构中运作时，做这项工作才是合法的。人们希望，如果这项工作真的很糟糕，该机构将失去其合法性。
RT: Secured #4 is out with major Bug Bounty Program updates!
One highlight: a *substantial* reward increase of up to $250,000, and doubled to $500,000(!) for mainnet-targeted upgrades that are live on public testnets. Happy bug hunting! 🐛
https://blog.ethereum.org/2022...
转发：Secured#4发布了重大漏洞赏金计划更新！
一个亮点是：奖金大幅增加，最高可达25万美元，翻了一番，达到50万美元（！）用于在公共测试网上实时进行针对mainnet的升级。猎虫快乐！🐛
https://blog.ethereum.org/2022...
@MTabarrok The difference between #2 and #4 is subtle and philosophically fascinating.
Though it gets weird in today's real world where a large fraction of the cost of boxes comes from risk aversion and regulation.
@MTabarrok#2和#4之间的区别是微妙的，在哲学上是迷人的。
尽管在今天的现实世界中，盒子的成本很大一部分来自风险规避和监管，这变得很奇怪。
@adietrichs Yeah I agree. My earlier hypothesis that the main problem was low priority fees now seems likely wrong (CC @MicahZoltu for helping me see this). Every time I get an unexpected >2 min inclusion delay, when I look carefully it's always a basefee issue.
@再见我同意。我之前关于主要问题是低优先级费用的假设现在看来可能是错误的（CC@MicahZoltu帮助我看到了这一点）。每次我收到意想不到的>；2分钟的加入延迟，当我仔细观察时，这总是一个基本费用问题。
@ATabarrok @tylercowen This seems like the most persuasive answer so far. Also I would perhaps add, a general fear in modern political culture of making big indivisible changes and preference for salami-slicing. https://t.co/V6vj9KlsX5
@ATabarrok@tylercowen这似乎是迄今为止最有说服力的答案。我还想补充一点，在现代政治文化中，人们普遍害怕做出不可分割的巨大改变，并偏爱意大利香肠切片。https://t.co/V6vj9KlsX5
The current practice of many wallets setting max basefee *right above* the current basefee is horrible imo; it leads to frequent long delays when the basefee spikes up right at the time you're making a transaction.
At least set max to >1.3x current, though I would prefer >2x.
许多钱包目前的做法是将最高基本费设置在当前基本费之上，这在我看来是可怕的；当基本费用在您进行交易时飙升时，它会导致频繁的长时间延迟。
至少将“最大值”设置为>；1.3倍电流，但我更喜欢>；2倍。
PR in the Brave wallet doing this:
https://github.com/brave/brave...
勇敢钱包里的公关在做这件事：
https://github.com/brave/brave...
The usual excuse for why wallets use the current approach is that it looks bad in the UI to show a higher fee. I feel like there must be better ways to deal with this issue, eg. present fee not as "$4.25" but as "$3-6" .
为什么钱包使用当前的方法，通常的借口是，在用户界面上显示更高的费用看起来很糟糕。我觉得必须有更好的方法来处理这个问题，例如目前的费用不是“4.25美元”，而是“3-6美元”。
RT: How I attempted to break @fuellabs_ v1, a short story about the importance of running validators for optimistic rollups.
Let's start from the beginning: 🧵👇 https://t.co/ESpMak7Ydb
RT：我是如何尝试打破@fuelabs_v1的，这是一个关于运行乐观汇总的验证器的重要性的短篇故事。
让我们从头开始：🧵👇 https://t.co/ESpMak7Ydb
@glenweyl I heard you recently wrote a paper with Puja and some techbro about a potential longer-term solution for detecting and compensating for these kinds of things better? 😊
@glenweyl我听说你最近与Puja和techbro写了一篇论文，讨论了一个潜在的长期解决方案，可以更好地检测和补偿这类问题？😊
@zengjiajun_eth The attacker would have to buy a *really huge amount* of call options for the gains from price change to be as large as the losses from the attack, no?
Probably a large fraction of all the ETH out there.
@曾家俊认为，攻击者必须购买“数额巨大”的看涨期权，才能使价格变化带来的收益与攻击带来的损失一样大，不是吗？
可能是所有ETH中的一大部分。
@krscmax I like how I can't tell if this is "ha ha ha", "wu wu wu" or "ng ng ng"... gaaaah why must there be multiple languages 😂😭
@我喜欢我不知道这是“哈哈哈”、“呜呜呜”还是“呜呜呜”的感觉。。。为什么一定要有多种语言😂😭