_xrp0

I don't understand your response. I wasn't debating the intricacies of self-sovereignty. I was pointing out that your understanding of hardware wallets is wrong.

> good luck building a good UX for a financial system where a small OpsSec error can wipe out your family's fortune

Define "small" lol

Your concerns are valid. And you're free to commit to projects that align with your values.

To me, the immutability of an actual blockchain is non-negotiable. I've given up on Ethereum after the DAO fork out of principle.

But that's the beauty. Unlike our current financial system, you're not bound to use Ethereum. You have sovereignty and can make your own choices (and drive change).

-- (I only discuss part of your comment, don't have time for the rest)

Just FYI, the biggest problem for crypto fraud is phishing, not theft. A thief can't get your private keys from a hardware wallet. And there are many, many, MANY strategies you can use against phishing.

Good luck getting a private key out of a HSM.

Well, that's an insane background, so that can't be the issue.

One question though: how many of those years 10 years have you worked in a full-time position?

> nobody believes what you write on your resume

That's nonsense.

It's quite straightforward actually: go through the CVs of engineers working at top companies and look how their resume looks different from yours.

Chances are that they're actually selling themselves properly, using lots of jargon, using strong action verbs, and following the advice that has shown to work for the last decade.

Layoffs hit overvalued, bloated companies, and the majority of laid of people are non-technical staff, or junior employees.

None of this has ANY effect on competent software engineers. Most of my peers keep getting massive offers left and right. Nothing has changed for them.

If you can't find a job with a "proven track record" in this market, you're doing something horribly wrong. I'm willing to bet $100 that your resume is not stellar.

Many people are bad at evaluating themselves. I've seen countless posts by juniors apparently "grinding hard" to get a job, and you just take 1 look at their resume and everything makes sense. Zero research on how to write resumes, zero prep, projects are garbage, shotgunning on indeed without some creativity etc.

Disagree. I was lonely in my teens, but ever since I met my wife I haven't been lonely. Ever.

Married for 10 years now.

Hey, can you speak a bit about how nanos compares to something Like unikraft?

IIRC nanos doesn't eliminate syscalls in it's entirety like other unikernels.

That's unsustainable and short-sighted. Good point though, that can very well be the reason for lots of devs.

Algorand can process 40k TPS, with transaction finality below 4 seconds - all without forking under the consensus assumptions.

This capacity is more than enough to power the entire world's financial infrastructure. They are also working on state proofs and side chains, making it suitable for CBDCs.

> If you solved this problem, adoption would not be your concern

I disagree. Because for decentralized projects, adoption and success go hand in hand. It's a chicken and egg problem.

And even if the tech is superior, it doesn't influence decision making of normal people. They are influenced by tons of misinformation from grifters, scammers and even mainstream media.

In this space, solving the problem is not enough. We need to educate people as well, which is arguably the biggest challenge of modern society.

That's a good argument if you're a short-sighted business looking for short term profits.

As a dev however, that sounds foolish to me.

Also, chains like Algorand or Cosmos don't have "nobody else on the network".

Algorand is promising and can scale.

And also, decentralization is not achieved by technology. It's achieved by adoption.

You're never gonna find a new chain with strong decentralization. You have the wrong premise. Strong decentralization is the goal of DLTs, and we should select DLTs that have the best conditions to get us to that point.

It helps if the backing organization has integrity, which the Algorand foundation has shown many times.

> L2s are the PayPals etc that make "the internet" (cryptocurrency) useful for "the normies" (later adopters).

That's a lie people tell themselves to justify Ethereum's platform.

The reality is that I can build scalable L1 dapps on Algorand that "normal" users can use at extremely low cost.

Who cares about the liquidity if most users in the world can't even afford it? And it's unsuitable for a large array of applications?

L2s are like a last-ditch effort. If they are the main scaling mechanism, the chain is done.

ETH has the same problem as the current financial industry: too much momentum. It's crazy that even in the world of crypto, history just repeats itself.

Ethereum is a flawed chain, and just not suitable for global scale DeFi. But people continue building on it.

Even many Solidity devs refuse to move on to other chains. Maybe it's the sunk cost fallacy.

This is so funny. I watched your stream yesterday for the first time randomly.

Never heard about eBPF before. Since then I've read up on eBPF and its use in low-latency engineering, which I found fascinating. And now I see your post here.

Such a small world!!