Ethereum wouldn't exist without validated cryptographic primitives. Now, EIP-7212 introduces a P-256 (secp256r1 EC) precompile. But, for P256, the seed is c49d360886e704936a6678e1139d26b7819f7e90 and we still don't know how it has been exactly calculated! We want to change that! Very proud to announce the seeds-bounty.eth. An initiative collecting donations to further incentivise the existing NIST Elliptic Curve Seeds Bounty (https://words.filippo.io/dispatches/seeds-bounty/). Let's show the world that Ethereum is a collective power of folks who truly care about what essentially powers the foundation of Ethereum: cryptography.
This is the first time in this space that a compiler is conducting a competitive audit contest! I strongly recommend reading my article as a preparation for the upcoming Vyper compiler audit contest: https://hackmd.io/@pcaversaccio/how-vyper-compiles-into-byte.... It will give you insights deep down the rabbit hole.
What is interesting is that instead of TCP, HTTP/3 uses a new protocol, QUIC, developed by Google in 2012. QUIC runs over UDP, the User Datagram Protocol.
I'm convinced this entire UBI idea is a fucking scam. It completely contradicts the survival of the fittest notion (here in the context of work). I'm a person who always embraces new ideas but this one that combines the cryptocurrency hype with UBI is really more a marketing gig rather a value-adding product/service. This idea won't fix any problems out there.
Survive !== having a lot of money. UBI assures that all people are "survivable" w/o any effort. Therefore, there is no competition to survive in any case. Hence the contradiction.
Are you advocating that a good economic system is one that kills people who aren’t working? I just don’t clearly understand what you mean by “survive.”
For those who believe that a good economic system is one that kills the "least fit"...I wonder what their idea of an optimal ratio of fit-to-killed is. Should the policy levers be set so that each year 0.1% of the population starves/freezes/overheats to death, or 1%?
For a system which targets killing off "unfit" people, what would be signs of killing off too many people? Killing off too few?
Instead of a stack-ranking system, is there some minimum bar that they imagine people should have to exceed? I wonder how many people would have exceeded that bar 500 years ago, or 500 years from now.
“Survival of the fittest” is a overused phrase that does not do true justice to evolution.
While not explicitly untrue it invokes associations with purely competitive dynamics which does not do justice to the intricacies of evolutionary dynamics, nor to the intricacies of co-creating things in the modern world.
A pre-note was released here: https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/news/berliner-hacker-knacken...