bidandanswer

That's in the specific context of staking and promising returns, not crypto in general.

They've been reprimanded by a federal judge for blatant extrajudicial power grabs like this one. None of their huge cases claiming various cryptocurrencies are securities have succeeded, except in the super cut-and-dry cases like ICOs and centralized schemes that clearly pass the Howey test.

On that note, legacy computer vision models have exceeded humans at identifying pathologies from images of retinas, etc., for probably decades now.

> I don't need an LLM for that, just the right google queries do the trick.

LLMs are clearly superior at presenting the information and have tangible room for improvement, whereas Google has regressed over the last decade and is getting more brittle by the day.

Open technology (LLMs) are going to offer much more robust and reproducible solutions to such questions as "here are my symptoms, what's wrong with me?" than Google.

You can nitpick my statements all you want and I will probably agree with you, but the overarching takeaway should be that LLMs are a much better solution, especially for laypeople who cannot use Google effectively.

> ebpf isn’t really novel beyond the interfaces it provides. They are just kernel modules that have been vetted and are sandboxed. Inserting executable code has been part of the kernel since forever in module form and kprobes.

This should be sung from the mountaintops. This concisely summarizes nearly everything that uninformed reader should take away from the comment section.

A Turing Award for avoiding a context switch?

I mean, I love eBPF more than most, but this is a practical engineering solution to a logistical problem that didn't really need to exist in the first place.

This is not genius and not an order-of-magnitude improvement to an important computer science problem; it's an improvement to a costly artifact of the Linux kernel.

That's a cool conjecture but it kind of misses the point of eBPF.

The point of it is that you can run user-defined programs while avoiding the costly context switch between user space and kernel space.

The kernel already is the kernel. Compiling kernel code to eBPF programs would offer seemingly no performance gains, since you're already in kernel space; there is no costly context switch to avoid.

eBPF allows user-defined programs to run in the kernel.

This is huge for performance-sensitive code that executes against network packets: you don't have to context switch between kernel space and user space.

It's worth pointing out Solana's extreme competitive advantage over other chains is almost entirely due to it running on a variant of eBPF. †

This is an order-of-magnitude leap over other implementations and essentially the way you should do it, if you were to write it from scratch, aside from special purpose hardware fabrication.

† The second reason Solana is so fast is extreme parallelism: all accounts that are used in a transaction must be marked as either "read-only" or "writeable" before sending the transaction, allowing the runtime to parallelize all reads and only solve write contention when necessary.

Not true. It's sad that you all quantify and gamify relationships.

> Have a vacation house, which enables building social capital through hosting friends

Psychopath

> The 3% fee is a much smaller problem to have than what the world of crypto brings.

That's not an argument. Name the problems specifically.

> Oh and while we are at it, remind me how to get majority of customers to pay in crypto who are used to just credit cards or wires

There are tons of off-the-shelf checkout flows that allow customers to pay in cash and companies to receive the funds on chain.

Standard Stripe fees on $250k revenue:

- 2.9% + 30¢ per charge

- Assume net-30 invoices

- Total fees: 2.9% * $250k + 30¢ * 12 = $7,253.60

- Stripe can freeze your money arbitrarily and indefinitely

Standard USDC fees on Solana:

- Less than 1 cent per transaction

- Total fees: < 12¢

What's your argument?

And the number of companies that made use of computers was low when they first came out, despite the fact that the fledgling technology was genuinely valuable to them.

What's your point?

Okay. I have personally saved tens of thousands of dollars and hours of headache by just doing my business on chain.

How valuable is 2.9% of $1m+ to you?

All of the facts contradict you.

Two years ago I had to fend off contracts that paid in USDC.

It's easier to find someone to pay in USDC today than it was then.

Market share and volume will continue to grow.

What do you have against a genuinely useful technology with tangible benefits?

- Cheaper

- Faster

- No arbiter risk

- Built-in escape hatch for political dissidents and enemies of the state

If you want a trusted arbiter for all your financial transactions, you can continue to use the legacy financial system and pay the costs for doing so. I'm not arguing crypto will replace it. Both have their use case.