Listen to folks like you can be detrimental ti those wanting to learn some actual information.

Cardano just surpassed a milestone for number of wallets holding ADA. Additionally, the amount of ADA staked hasn't dropped which is a huge indicator to those paying attention.

Those two variables coupled with dApps launching over the next several weeks, and the Plutus backend being completed, equal a surge in price soon.

I think it's healthy for folks to hear the other side of a sales pitch. The best case is they do their own research and buy with more conviction than they other wise would have. The worst case is more unicorn farts for you.

Quote:

---

Cardano just surpassed a milestone for number of wallets holding ADA. Additionally, the amount of ADA staked hasn't dropped which is a huge indicator to those paying attention.

---

Fools multiply when wise men are silent.

LatinAggie1997 said:

---

Listen to folks like you can be detrimental ti those wanting to learn some actual information.

Cardano just surpassed a milestone for number of wallets holding ADA. Additionally, the amount of ADA staked hasn't dropped which is a huge indicator to those paying attention.

Those two variables coupled with dApps launching over the next several weeks, and the Plutus backend being completed, equal a surge in price soon.

---

I'm curious why you think developers would choose Haskell vs Solidity or Rust? Or ignoring the coding platform entirely, why developers would work in Charles' ecosystem, versus ETH/AVX/SOL?

Atleast they were to get Sundeaswap released this past weekend. But i still think ADA is way over valued. I may buy under a $1.

Unicorn farts and such phasing are probably NOT the preferred language desired to those you wish to edify with the flip side sales pitch.

capital markets said:

---

LatinAggie1997 said:

---

Listen to folks like you can be detrimental ti those wanting to learn some actual information.

Cardano just surpassed a milestone for number of wallets holding ADA. Additionally, the amount of ADA staked hasn't dropped which is a huge indicator to those paying attention.

Those two variables coupled with dApps launching over the next several weeks, and the Plutus backend being completed, equal a surge in price soon.

---

I'm curious why you think developers would choose Haskell vs Solidity or Rust? Or ignoring the coding platform entirely, why developers would work in Charles' ecosystem, versus ETH/AVX/SOL?

---

The language and tools of the language provide the means to create more secure code. There has been over 10 billion dollars lost or stolen this year alone. Better coding to ensure functionality and security are paramount if you want corporations, governments, and people to actually use it. The defi space isn't truly being used. For a paradigm shift away from legacy banking you want and need better security and adaptability.

Formal methods + peer reviewed research used to create one language while others piece it together in a rush.

That's a good non answer to a good question. Keep the platitudes flowing.

Who says the Dapps on ADA using Haskell cant be hacked? Also, can Dapps be hacked if they don't exist?

I learned a valuable lesson today.
Some altcoiners are only alt coiners because they don’t understand the legacy system is completely on life support. #bitcoin maxis before you go popping off on folks, make sure your 🍊 💊 target has the base problem understood first.

— Marshall Long (@OGBTC) December 6, 2021

NTXAg10 said:

---

That's a good non answer to a good question. Keep the platitudes flowing.

---

How's this for a more esoteric response?

https://serokell.io/blog/10-reasons-to-use-haskell



**More below

Another person's perspective -

"
Haskell is "safe" in the same way C is "fast": writing in Haskell won't magically prevent bugs in your code, but Haskell does provide you a rich set of tools for writing correct code, coupled with defaults that encourage safer patterns.

Ultimately, it comes down to two aspects of the language: functional programming and the type system. Or is that actually one aspect? Haskell's type system and functional nature are so intertwined I hesitate to separate them out. The real benefits of Haskell come out from the interaction of the twoyes, it's that cursed business word: synergy.

So what does this mean in practice?

The biggest effect is in how Haskell handles non-local effects. Haskell encourages you to carefully consider any effects your code uses, backed by tools and libraries that let you express your effect management explicitly.

There is a Ruby talk up on HN today talking about designing applications with a clear separation between the domain logic and the actual effects of the program: "Functional Core, Imperative Shell". The question of how to manage your logic as well as your effects while keeping things modular, organized and testable comes up with programs in any language. I've seen projects that answer this question in different ways, but all serious architectures address it somehow. In my experience, the approach outlined in the talkpure domain code wrapped in an imperative layer handling input and outputleads to code that is consistently less buggy, better-tested and more maintainable than architectures which have less separation between logic and effects.

This principle is not a matter of language. I've worked on non-trivial projects in JavaScript and Python and, consistently, the most successful projects carefully separated internal logic from the external world. The trick is that in JavaScript and Python (and, presumably, Ruby), this requires real discipline. If everyone understands how to organize around effectsor at least you have an experienced developer or two guiding the effort in this directionyou can get an incredibly clean and maintainable architecture by developing the right organizational principles and code conventions. But the languages don't support this directly so if you are not careful, it's easy to end up with a big ball of mud, smearing application state, UI code and API calls all over your domain logic. I've been there and reaped the consequences, including some scary bugs involving user data.

In Haskell, cleanly factored logic is the path of least resistance. Making the right thing the easy thing matters. "Functional core, imperative shell" isn't an aspirational idea in Haskell, it's the way you write software by default. On top of that, the language provides facilities through its type system to talk about effects and organization in the language, which means that the out-of-band organizational principles and conventions you needed in JavaScript can become libraries and abstractions in your codebase. Making these ideas more concrete is a significant step towards improving code quality and, transitively, safety.

So if I had to choose a single aspect of Haskell that made it safe, I wouldn't choose "functional programming" or "static types" but rather the intersection of the two in the form of Haskell's effect system. Haskell's effect management isn't perfectI certainly envy extensible effects systems I see in research languagesbut it is quite good and a massive step up from having no effect system whatsoever.
That said, there are a few other aspects of Haskell that go a long way towards making code safer in practice.

The type system goes well beyond just managing effects. It is certainly sophisticated and flexibleyou can statically check some decidedly non-trivial invariantsbut that doesn't come up in real projects that often. The upside for real projects is not that Haskell's type system makes hard things possible but that it makes easy things easy. Without needing to reach for exotic features and extensions, Haskell's base type system is flexible and expressive. Couple this with global type inference and you get a language where using more types has little to no overhead. When creating new types has little syntactic noise or conceptual complexity, people will actually do it. In Haskell projects I've worked on, far more bugs have been prevented by wrapping strings and ints into domain typesStoreId vs ItemId, different dimensions… etcthan by fancy proof exercises like data structure invariants. In principle you could do this in most statically typed languages, but in practice Haskell makes richer types so much easier to work with that people simply use them more.

The best part is that this does not come at a real cost. Other statically typed languages can offer some of the same advantages, but at the expense of flexibility and succinctness. (I'm looking at you, Java!) Haskell manages to offer practical advantages for safety without meaningfully sacrificing expressiveness. If anything, Haskell does all this while being one of the most expressive languages in common use! You get safety benefits while still being able to write readable, succinct code that naturally fits your domain, backed up by powerful and extremely general abstractions in libraries.

Couple these distinct advantages with the run-of-the-mill benefits you get from any high-level languagememory safety, coherent error managementand it's no surprise that people consider Haskell "safe".
"

As reviewed by Chia-Chi Chang, Alejandro Pinto, Chi-Chen Liang, Marvin Janssen, and Sean Sie.

Solidity cons -

1. As a new language, some security pitfalls are yet to be discovered. (Referenced from the Solidity official documentation)
2. Hard to perform static analysis to avoid bugs in the program since the Turing complete property introduces endless possibilities of how a program might behave.
3. Developers need to write tests that achieve over 95% of coverage to ensure the soundness of the program.
4. Significant syntax differences between different versions of Solidity, making codes written in earlier versions harder to be reused.
5. Developers have less experience with this new language, which leads to a higher probability of bugs.
6. Lack of built-in overflow and underflow checks for arithmetic operations


Haskell cons -


1. Few blockchains adopt it as their smart contract language.
Not a lot of developers are experienced with functional programming.
Very few applications are being built on Cardano, meaning that there are few references for developing Haskell smart contracts.

Yeah, I remember when C sharp coding language being best for developers when Stratis was claiming that title in 2017...

Anyways the only thing that matters is bitcoin so here's a new thing that is happening.

Jack Dorsey is wasting no time. Spiral's new Lightning Development Kit! ⚡️⚡️⚡️#bitcoin pic.twitter.com/jx9oGBF2Lm

— Neil Jacobs (@NeilJacobs) December 6, 2021

For reinforcement:

I’ve said many times, most shitcoiners are thinking in fiat profits.

/A quick pump and dump return, and back into USD/

Maybe still don’t understand fiat is collapsing and #bitcoin purpose is to bypass central banks for a private money without back doors https://t.co/idQfcOkb03

— DETERMINISTIC OPTIMISM (@nvk) December 6, 2021

And for the grins:

💀 https://t.co/viEbHaIrjA

— Rijndael (@rot13maxi) December 7, 2021

1. Agreed on BTC and qhy I posted the Tucker C. and M. Saylor interview.

2. Imo, there will be demand for secondary platforms/ecosystem to accommodate a universal and varietal demand for projects.

Continuation from 2:
And they won't need their own tokens.

administrative errors said:

---

Anyways the only thing that matters is bitcoin so here's a new thing that is happening.

---

Question for you. Is there an event or benchmark that would lead you to change your mind that BTC is all that matters? For example if ETH flips BTC (and maintains for > a year) at that point would you reconsider the value of alt coins/ non BTC layer 1s vs BTC?

Jeez Matic is getting sent

administrative errors said:

---

Dollar value doesn't matter, the dollar is simply bitcoin's marketing arm.

Decentralization matters, that's why it exists.

Eth isn't a working protocol, it's a protocol that's full of future hopes and deus ex machina plans.

ETH's upgrade path does not excite me in the least. I think eth 2.0 is gonna fall flat if it ever happens.

If you know what bitcoin is and what bitcoin does and the methods of growth for bitcoin protocols, why would you ever seek out alternatives? For staking illegal securities because "you missed bitcoin" (which is a fkn lie people tell themselves", or because they are "so cheap imagine if they hit a dollar on I'd be a billionaire!" (If all it is is Number Go Up technology, you're not gonna make it)...

There are zero things eth does well that bitcoin doesn't already do or isn't able to do with the upgrades that happened in nov (Taproot).

The SEC is coming for these ****coins, and they're coming soon, let's see how all these vaporwares stand up.



All that to say, when SHA-256 is broken, and there are no better standards because quantum computing has made the idea of money completely useless and we all live in an AI dystopia/utopia, I'll stop thinking bitcoin is the native currency of the internet.

---

Thanks for responding. I respectfully disagree with some of these viewpoints, but i really enjoy hearing them and better understanding your perspective.

capital markets said:

---

administrative errors said:

---

Anyways the only thing that matters is bitcoin so here's a new thing that is happening.

---

Question for you. Is there an event or benchmark that would lead you to change your mind that BTC is all that matters? For example if ETH flips BTC (and maintains for > a year) at that point would you reconsider the value of alt coins/ non BTC layer 1s vs BTC?

---

Have you watched the Tucker Carlson interview with Michael Saylor? I posted it a page or two back. Fairly good perspective on BTC especially in comparison to other currencies, historically and currently, and as it relates to scarcity, security, and inflation.

LatinAggie1997 said:

---

capital markets said:

---

administrative errors said:

---

Anyways the only thing that matters is bitcoin so here's a new thing that is happening.

---

Question for you. Is there an event or benchmark that would lead you to change your mind that BTC is all that matters? For example if ETH flips BTC (and maintains for > a year) at that point would you reconsider the value of alt coins/ non BTC layer 1s vs BTC?

---

Have you watched the Tucker Carlson interview with Michael Saylor? I posted it a page or two back. Fairly good perspective on BTC especially in comparison to other currencies, historically and currently, and as it relates to scarcity, security, and inflation.

---

I haven't watched that particular interview, but I've seen several saylor interviews. I see lots of value in BTC and believe the store of value thesis is strong. I just think that other chains can add value in different ways - particularly through smart contracts, etc.

Agreed.

Parker Lewis did a great series on Bitcoin a few years back called "Gradually, Then Suddenly".

Here's a link to his papers:
https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/series/gradually-then-suddenly/

It's also easy to find YouTube videos/podcasts of him presenting the information. I'm currently listening to his four part podcast with Peter McCormick. He explains the inextricable link between Bitcoin and sound energy policy as well as anyone. Apparently his perspective was instrumental in Saylor's Bitcoin education.

Bitcoin is solving a much more critical subset of problems than the rest of the alt space. That doesn't mean that alts can't go up and to the right. There's some good traders on this thread who have made more money in alts than I have in BTC. It also doesn't mean some great tech won't be derived from alt-funded experiments.

But despite intense marketing efforts, there's alot more long term questions than answers in alts right now. Bitcoin's niche has already been carved out and it is a thousand miles further along than any alt in that endeavor. It can't and won't be replaced.

Alts are like investing in tech startups back in 1997. The dapp, dex, nft, meta, gaming, etc space is moving quick and will look very different in 2, 5, 10 years than it does today. Who else will enter the game? How much will it be choked by regulation? (hint: alot) Are they securities? Do dapps, dexs, nfts etc even need their own tokens? That's just the beginning.

At the end of the day, Bitcoin wins. Some people in alts might get rich in the meantime and that's great. Plenty of tech founders in the 90/00s got rich too. But alot more were left holding the bag.

I mean, this is a version of my beliefs.

In general, proof of work is best and everything since has been hopeium (hopeium: using future solutions that haven't been created to solve current[past] "problems") and hopeium drug dealing marketing groups paid to steal your attention from actually learning bitcoin in fine detail, robbing you of future value and conviction and earlier philosophical changes to how business/community and trade is performed globally.

That's why I always guide people to DCA, AND CHILL [HODL]. Then learn bitcoin in and out. Then learn bitcoin layers 2 and on. Then when you find voids, seek alternatives.

I still haven't found the ability to take my eyes off bitcoin. It keeps getting deeper the longer i look at it. My knowledge is skin deep and I've been learning it for 12 years. It's been heavily claimed I've got an incredibly short attention span for anything but which utterly fascinates me. And this is a book that keeps updating and cannot be put down, OR I WOULD I'd drop it so fkn fast like I do every other fascinating thing/topic/etc. But bitcoin just keeps getting more refined more depth more enigmas to be riddled....

I'm amazed that so many new people jump right into ****coinery, immediately. But I get it. But I wish they'd just listen instead and put the work in, the rest of the market is noise and bitcoin is solving global problems NOW.

Someone define smart contracts, and why bitcoin doesn't have smart contracts?

Loaded said:

---

I just watched the entire Tucker Carlson interview with Michael Saylor. That was powerful.

He's definitely perfected the use of metaphor and historical perspective to convey the purpose of Bitcoin to those who don't want/need to know the technical underpinnings.

---

Agreed. I actually think he articulated his points better in his recent interview with Peter McCormick...

administrative errors said:

---

Continuation from 2:
And they won't need their own tokens.

---

Possibly but I think that will be the evolution of already existing ecosystems as the tech improves and the space expands. The best and brightest brain power will be scooped up by the surviving ecosystems.

I have a question:
We can argue the merits of different coins etc but what's interesting to me is that many still hang their hat on the blockchain technology. If bitcoin is the most readily adopted standard (can make an argument for Eth), if something goes south (regulation), how else can the world use blockchain other than alt coins. In essence, isn't the blockchain, Bitcoin? I'm not looking a literal definition of blockchain as a technology, I'm talking about the practical application.

Can I answer with a question?

Do you know the differences between:
1. Bitcoin the network [users, miners, nodes, layer 2, etc]
2. Bitcoin the token.
3. Bitcoin's proof of work blockchain.

I think it is disingenuous when people say "the blockchain" as if everything that has blockchain in it shares any characteristic with bitcoins blockchain or that the term blockchain is narrowly defined into anything useful in the mainstream vernacular.

Regulation has been part of bitcoin since day one, regukstion could get heavier handed and thats what bitcoin is designed to resist.

The reason I'm so passionately explaining my position on this board is that bitcoin's protocol is in zero danger of regulatory effects. Bitcoins NETWORK might be if we (the users) are not properly hardened [conviction] and OPSEC'd to resist and affect appropriate change.

The ****coinery is as bad as tribalism and segregation, divided we fall.

administrative errors said:

---

I mean, this is a version of my beliefs.

In general, proof of work is best and everything since has been hopeium (hopeium: using future solutions that haven't been created to solve current[past] "problems") and hopeium drug dealing marketing groups paid to steal your attention from actually learning bitcoin in fine detail, robbing you of future value and conviction and earlier philosophical changes to how business/community and trade is performed globally.

That's why I always guide people to DCA, AND CHILL [HODL]. Then learn bitcoin in and out. Then learn bitcoin layers 2 and on. Then when you find voids, seek alternatives.

I still haven't found the ability to take my eyes off bitcoin. It keeps getting deeper the longer i look at it. My knowledge is skin deep and I've been learning it for 12 years. It's been heavily claimed I've got an incredibly short attention span for anything but which utterly fascinates me. And this is a book that keeps updating and cannot be put down, OR I WOULD I'd drop it so fkn fast like I do every other fascinating thing/topic/etc. But bitcoin just keeps getting more refined more depth more enigmas to be riddled....

I'm amazed that so many new people jump right into ****coinery, immediately. But I get it. But I wish they'd just listen instead and put the work in, the rest of the market is noise and bitcoin is solving global problems NOW.

Someone define smart contracts, and why bitcoin doesn't have smart contracts?

---

Interesting conversation! My unscientific definition for her purposes of discussion: Smart contract is code that executes on the blockchain at arbitrary pre-determined set points based on agreed upon parameters. Verifiability (public code) and composability are useful features.

In terms of your question about why not smart contracts for BTC… For BTC, there are obviously ppl trying to build smart contracts on top (IE STX). And clearly taproot also helps. I'd say that BTCs prioritization of security makes it an outstanding store of value, but less outstanding at smart contracts. IE not Turing complete code, 10 minute block times etc

Anyone staking these days? If so, who do you use and which coin?

"Turing complete," It's what smart contracts crave, amirite?

Is "smart contract" a simplification of a more technical term?

Yes I do. We are teeing up a large mining operation. I intentionally lumped in 'the blockchain' as a way to oversimplify it. I have spoken to principals, executives and investors of major large scale mining operations. The main focus is on recovering their capital as quickly as possible 'because we don't know what'll happen in 18-24 months'. Now these are investors, not fanboys or HODL'ers. Risk plays a major part in their decision making. Ive personally met billion dollar Chinese mining executives who are 100% shut down I'm China looking for a place in the US to install 100-300k miners. I personally believe there will be some shift changes in the demographic of the mining community as well as the current holders of Bitcoin proper in the coming years.

So outside the gold standard that is Bitcoin (from a network supporting infrastructure perspective) what other major universal defi system of ledger/blockchain exists? Aside from Etherium or Cardano. Is there another secure defi network of blockchain technology that's not as controversial in the finance and regulatory world that can serve as Bitcoin's network currently does?

administrative errors said:

---

"Turing complete," It's what smart contracts crave, amirite?

Is "smart contract" a simplification of a more technical term?

---

Yes, because you can do whatever you want on them.

And not really, vitalik basically coined the term.

But I'm pretty sure you knew those answers already.