The one issue is that everyone on the beta says their phone is slower now. Which is probably not because of the liquid glass effect, since I think that should be doable with just a couple of texture lookups. (One of those funny things about computer graphics is that often the most visually impressive effects are the simplest computationally - compare this to a "proper" gaussian blur, which is quite expensive.)

Output:

    Count between 0 and 1:    1065353215
    Count between 1 and +inf: 1073741824
    Ratio: 1.0

But more broadly, there is really nothing else with the same security properties as a smart-contract-enabled cryptocurrency. Paypal will delete your account any time they want, Visa and Mastercard will blacklist whatever industries they feel like blacklisting, etc. If you want a system that's decentralized and where these attacks aren't possible, you have no alternative. The problem is that current blockchain-based systems can only handle a certain number of operations/second while remaining decentralized. The appeal of scaling solutions like ZK-rollups is that they give us the same security properties as the main chain without any security compromises (relative to the main chain). That's all conditional on their code being correct, but given that there's such a large payout to hacking e.g. bitcoin or ethereum or zksync and it still hasn't happened, we can guess that the coders have done their jobs well and such problems are at least very difficult to find.

ZK-rollups are awesome because they don't introduce any trust assumptions (except for the master key issue, which is just an implementation detail). The only risk is current zk-rollup designs is that they could censor certain transactions by never including them in a "batch" (the rollup equivalent of a block), but with unpermissioned rollups like the one I think Polygon has even this issue is mitigated

On:

> What I couldn’t find was a sober, dispassionate explanation of what crypto actually is — how it works, who it’s for, what’s at stake, where the battle lines are drawn — along with answers to some of the most common questions it raises.

They left this comment:

> No technology is "sober" or "dispassionate" in its creation, nor is it neutral or apolitical, and thus anyone who is claiming to view it from that perspective is DEFINITELY selling you something.

First of all, no one said anything was sober or dispassionate in its creation. And it's trivial to come up with a sober and dispassionate explanation of many technologies, even political ones. I'm certain I can find a sober and dispassionate explanation of how Israel's Iron Dome functions if I really wanted to. And second, if you have a definition of "political" that's so broad that it includes literally every technology, it's not really a very interesting statement to say that some technology is political, right?

Given the amount of money someone with a patent on a cancer treatment or cure would make, it's hard for me to imagine that

Well, it's not completely centralized, but it's more centralized than using IPFS for the backend and ENS for the namespace. I think that's hard to debate right? If I take down my server right now chadnauseam.com will go down for everyone. But if anyone has my IPFS page pinned, it will stay up for everyone no matter what I do (barring exploits in IPFS I don't know about). So in that sense it really is more decentralized.

> Nazi sympathy under the guise of tolerance.

I don't understand why you see a quiz that gives you the option to pick either way as promoting one option over the other

Not in Haskell! I recommend reading the rest of the post.