BTC has the layer 2 lighting network that can process more transactions than Visa and MC combined with very cheap fees. I guess HN knowledge of Bitcoin does not go further than 2015
Also, everything on level 2 needs to be ultimately balanced on level 1; BTC doesn't have enough throughput to balance all the banks in the world, and lo Lightning appears to be consolidating into fewer nodes.
Also also, everything level 2 (including Lightning) necessarily takes away at least one of the selling points used for BTC, and replaces them with something functionally equivalent to 50% of a bank but worse.
> Current actual throughput is significantly lower, estimated at around 300 TPS, because the network is still growing. However, Lightning's architecture scales horizontally: as more nodes and channels are added, capacity increases without any protocol changes. The network's total value locked has grown past $500 million, with over 15,000 active nodes and 50,000+ payment channels.
The layer 2 has been predicted by one of the first adopter in 2010 so it was always the plan
SpaceX the company has done and is doing amazing feats of technology.
SpaceX the stock is only in a very small part about rockets and space. In their filing they talk about their total addressable market being $28.5 trillion, of which $26.5 trillion are AI.
That means that they believe the SpaceX stock is 93% about AI.
It's open to argument whether xAI or BTC is crazier - I just wanted to say that when talking about SpaceX stock, it's not really about rockets.
Few of those are ever running. Mostly we have just two brands of smooth-brains whose only policy aim is “preventing that other group of assholes from gaining any power, because they and their supporters are pure evil!”
Each side gets the smooth brains they crave because for ~50% of the population it's become a team sport / religion situation. A majority of people have not thought through 1/10th of the policy positions they automatically support/reject based on the team hat color.
There's a quote I will mangle and I forget the source of that's something like "If you agree with all the positions of your chosen political party, either you have thought through every option and came to the same conclusions on dozens of topics, or you haven't thought through anything".
> because for ~50% of the population it's become a team sport / religion situation
It's kinda even worse. We can only have two parties because of FPTP, and turnout is about 60% of voting-eligible population on average. We know from recent popular vote that that 60% is split roughly 50-50.
So 30% of the voting population is Team Blue Hat, and 30% is Team Red Hat.
If you can get 15.1% of the population to vote for an unserious clown, they'll win their respective party's nomination. And in most states, one of the parties is a pretty sure lock in the general.
15% is a pretty low bar. Compare: Up to 30% of people think "chemtrails" are at least a "somewhat" real thing, and 5% of people believe vaccines contain microchips. So the bar for getting a guaranteed win is somewhere between those two wacky and easily disproven beliefs.
How much creativity do you need to fix bugs in corporate code? Almost zero. It’s maintenance, not creative work. Nothing against it, it’s needed, but let’s be real, would anybody be really sad if this work is overtaken by LLMs? I certainly won’t be, let them do it.
> How much creativity do you need to fix bugs in corporate code? Almost zero.
Have you seen the state of current corp software? I'd say a lot of creativity is still very much needed. Let's see how long this is sustainable.
> would anybody be really sad if this work is overtaken by LLMs?
I'd not be sad about the job itself, but the dev which had a mortgage to pay but now is substituted by a machine churning crap code while their superiors get sore from patting themselves on the back.
IBM system/360 OS had more than 50,000 bugs which could not be fixed because fixing any single bug would introduce two new bugs. I fear that a lot of AI software systems will reach the same crapware state as IBM system/360 very very soon!
I know from personal experience that once you fix a bug introduced by Claude, Claude tries to recreate the bug every time he edits that code again!!
> "For the last 15 months or so my hobby has been shouting at Claude"
How can you shout at Claude when it’s
1) foobaring, bamblabooing and fghrtawing all the time without telling you what’s going on
2) when it finally interacts, it’s asking for a permission you told it 30 seconds ago "yes and do not ever ask me again until heat death of the Universe"
3) and after all of that, it just spits out: "you’re out of tokens, give up your liver or wait until next Trump’s war"
> foobaring, bamblabooing and fghrtawing all the time without telling you what’s going on
Oh man, now I have to plug my tool[0]... it doesn't hide anything, but by default tries to provide a pleasant interface (ctrl+o to toggle details similar to CC, but less janky?)
Disclaimer: It's way simpler than Claude Code or even pi (on purpose)
The proper way to work with Claude or Codex is, IMO, to load up the context with a discussion about what you're doing and why. You go back and forth, pushing back on its opinions and shaping the context until the tokens are ready to flow into the right shape. Every angle you miss is an opportunity for them to slop out all over the place, and, until Codex was mature, the longer you ran the task for, the more it'd spread out and lose shape.
Re-shaping the context sometimes involves severe pressures like "wtf is this ugly crap?" or "did I just spot you laying a turd in my codebase again?" and other strong forms of disapproval, mixed with "hmm not sure I like the sound of that"s, to "yea that's much better" to pull it back in the other direction.
The trick is to shape the flow before the tide comes in and you end up like King Canute
I think SpaceX is definitely overpriced but saying that BTC is more sane is completely delusional.
reply