For the first time, Bitcoin enabled its users to be self-sovereign, meaning they didn’t have to rely on a government or central party to store wealth. Until Bitcoin came around, there was no option for an individual to have full custody of their funds. Wealth was either stored digitally, represented by an entry in a database, or through a physical bearer instrument like paper money. With Bitcoin, users could take full custody of their assets by running a full node. Doing so gave the user the ability to validate transactions without a third party. Bitcoin was also the first technology that allowed users to send value, peer-to-peer, without the need of a central party. Through Nakamoto consensus, a network of decentralized miners are able to agree on whether or not a transaction was accurate.
The Ethereum development ecosystem is lacking many tools which we take for granted in other programming environments. That’s why we’ve been working on our cryptofin-solidity library.
The purpose of this series of articles is to deconstruct a simple Solidity contract, look at its bytecode, and break it apart into identifiable structures down to the lowest level. We’ll pop the hood on Solidity. By the end of the series, you should feel comfortable when looking at or debugging EVM bytecode. The whole point of the series is to demystify the EVM bytecode produced by the Solidity compiler. And it’s really much simpler than it seems.
In this article, I’m going to make the case that the economic world view of people like Kyle are fundamentally what drives his criticism and not the technical or social reality.
One of the applications of cryptocurrency we continue to be excited about is distributed computing.
Before crypto, my laptop couldn’t pay a stranger’s idle server as a thank you for running a machine learning program. Cryptocurrencies finally give us the ability to make machine-to-machine payments to compensate participating nodes for running tasks.
Joel Monegro of PlaceholderVC wrote Fat Protocols in 2016. Based on the data at the time – specifically that Union Square Ventures would have generated higher returns by simply buying and holding Bitcoin rather than investing in each of Coinbase’s funding rounds – the fat protocols theory made sense.
Using the thought experiment presented below, I’m not going to make a general argument against the fat protocol thesis. I believe with extremely high conviction that a global digital reserve asset will be worth tens of trillions of dollars. That asset is going to be the native token of some adversarial cryptographically bound network.