[daleneseale7Participant January 23, 2024 at 7:18 AM Post count: 0]

#130901 |

<br> The thing that’s most appealing to me about bitcoin script as it stands (beyond “it works”) is that it’s really pretty simple in an engineering sense: it’s just a “forth” like system, where you put byte strings on a stack and have a few operators to manipulate them. To level-up from that, instead of putting byte strings on a stack, you could have some other data structure than a stack — eg one that allows nesting. Granted, I’ve only really been looking at chia lisp for a bit over a week, but it really seems to me like a case where it might be worth putting that philosophy into practice. While you can buy over two dozen cryptocurrencies with over 65 different fiat currencies through the Binance Fiat Gateway, the fees you pay are going to vary based on the payment method used, and on the floating exchange rate charged by whichever payment processor is used. So it’s sort of a fantastic read recurring payment for liquidity as a service, at least that is how I’m thinking about it currentl<br>p><br>p> Seems worth looking into, at least. After signing up, it worth mentioning that the Binance trading platform can be also accessed via Apple iOS, Google Android and Windows dedicated apps. ExpressVPN has apps for Windows, macOS, Linux, Android, and iOS. I don’t think they’ve solved the broader problem, and thus I think it still makes more sense to stick with bitcoin’s current model here. FOLD and in exactly the same context, I was wondering what the simplest possible language that had some sort of map construction was — I mean simplest in a “practical engineering” sense; I think Simplicity already has the Euclidean/Peano “least axioms” sense covered. And while I’ve never really coded in lisp at all, my understanding is that its biggest problems are all about doing things efficiently at large scales — but script’s problem space is for very small scale things, so there’s at least reason to hope that any problems lisp might have won’t actually show up for this use case. For example, rather than the streaming-sha256 approach in Elements, where you could write: “a” SHA256INITIALIZE “b” SHA256UPDATE “c” SHA256UPDATE “d” SHA256FINALIZE to get the sha256 of “abcd” without having to CAT them first (important if they’d potentially overflow the 520B stack item limit), in chia lisp you write: (sha256 “a” “b” “c” “d”) which still has the benefit of streaming the inputs into the function, but only adds a single opcode, doesn’t involve representing the internal sha256 midstate on the stack, and generally seems easier to understand, at least to m<br>p><br>p> Investors still look forward to a slew of corporate results from companies such as Paypal, Thomson Reuters Corp., Ferrari, Robinhood and others on Wednesday. A decentralized version would still need to think about all of that. The other is to use the “softfork” opcode — chia defines it as: (softfork cost code) though I think it would probably be better if it were (softfork cost version code) where the idea is that “code” will use the “x” opcode if there’s a problem, and anyone supporting the “version” softfork can verify that there aren’t any problems at a cost of “cost”. Think about content monetization, for example. A smart contract is a computer code that can be built into the blockchain to facilitate a contract agreement. 100kB of serialized clvm code from a random block gzips to 60kB; optimising the serialization for small lists, and perhaps also for small literal numbers might be a feasible improvement; though it’s not clear to me how frequently serialization size would be the limiting factor for cost versus execution time or memory usage. Mark Erhardt: Right, because of course, we’re also going to get to that in the next block. Every 2,016 blocks (approximately 14 days given roughly 10 minutes per block), nodes deterministically adjust the difficulty target based on the recent rate of block generation, with the aim of keeping the average time between new blocks at ten minutes. Needless to say those who have been in Bitcoin industry for some time know it fairly well that Bitcoin is precious than even gold. Of course, “defun” and “if” aren’t listed as opcodes above; instead you have a compiler that gives you nice macros like defun and translates them into correct uses of the “a” opcode, etc. As I understand it, those sort of macros and translations are pretty well understood across lisp-like languages, and, of course, they’re already implemented for chia lisp. By contrast, chia lisp has fewer opcodes than Simplicity’s jets, has feasible approaches to low-impact soft forks to increase functionality, can be used with only two levels of abstraction (lisp with macros and the opcodes-only vm level) that seem not too bad to understand, and (in my opinion) doesn’t seem too hard to implement/maintain reasonably. The last two are extensions that are more food for thought than a real proposal. That way they can put their liquidity to use somewhere else that is more productive for the rest of the network. If you are offering liquidity as a service this is bad. This is bad for the company as their liquidity is tied up in unproductive channe<br>/p>