hem777

That’s some proper leadership right there

”I've confirmed Binance use Claude Code with this extension.”

1) it wasn’t millions (plural) 2) absolutely everyone would be better off if Leningrad was part of Finland

The alternative is not have that one choke point that can be hammered. Decentralize.

It wasn’t really that we wanted to have a CRDT per se, but as it was implemented on top of an op-based append-only log CRDT, it turned out to hold those properties, which makes it a CRDT. We wanted to have the edits to be able to arrive in any order or after delays due to network partitions (this was for a p2p network).

Agreed, the undoing and replying isn’t exactly non-fancy. Peristent B+Tree is also not very non-fancy.

Cool to see a write up on this! Discovered the same method years ago and also wondered why it doesn’t show up in academic literature.

I implemented this in a decentralized context and as a CRDT though, so that the properties hold (commutative, idempotent and associative).

Not if 1 million people install and monitor them instead of 100 people.

Number two is calling for nukes, anywhere by anybody. Nobody else brings that to the conversation.

My non-techie brother has been staking his 1 ETH he bought couple of years ago and has earned today, in his words, “slightly more than from my insurance savings account in the past 10 years”. I think that’s a really nice use case.

One way to do authorization is to sign each operation/message and then verify the signature to match a public key in an access control list. This also enables CRDTs to work in a peer to peer context.

But as aboodman says in a sibling comment, if there’s a server as an authority, it can simply reject messages from unauthorized clients.

Great analogy! Well done.