Twitxy Saved

$cerkoryn | dRep

Verified account Keystone Hardware Wallet

@Cerkoryn

Cardano dRep | Ethical Hacker | Libertarian | e/acc | "Christian Nutjob"

dRep ID: drep1yglrf4el8gghum239fggvfrau25k2576y4dvcz65r2ukj8sqpsc2k
United States changwatch.com Joined February 2010
3.9K Following 3.8K Followers 33K Posts

Latest posts 5

Pinned post

$cerkoryn | dRep Verified account @Cerkoryn
Generating enough transaction fees for Cardano to sustain itself is one of the toughest challenges we face. But there are two sides to the equation. Network revenue is just the numerator. The denominator is operating costs. And reducing operating costs is arguably the only other way we have to meaningfully affect self-sustainability.

minPoolCost prevents pools from competing to lower operating costs, and it props up pools that cannot operate as cost-efficiently. That’s likely one reason we still have roughly 3,000 registered pools and over 1,600 active pools even though stakePoolTargetNum is set to 500. Having a minimum margin instead (CIP-23) fixes the issue as well, but at the cost of time. It is at least two hard forks and another parameter change governance action away, but our endeared community SPOs are already being forced to close left and right.

Personally I want as many honest pools as possible to be successful, and the original incentives structure was beautifully designed to do exactly that. But we have to give the parameters some tender loving care. To get where we want to be, successful pools should be able to compete primarily on pledge, and then on operating costs, without sacrificing performance. Lowering the minimum fixed fee is the first step to get there, and I'm putting my own money where my mouth is to see it through.

If we want Cardano to last, we need to attack the problem from both directions and let SPOs fairly compete to lower costs.

Vote to lower minPoolCost to 75.
3 replies 9 reposts 49 likes 2.8K views View on X
$cerkoryn | dRep Verified account @Cerkoryn
Specialize in Cybersecurity they said.

It will be fun they said.
Dan Roberts Verified account @danintheory Oct 26
The computer science collaboration will understand and explain a result concerning the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH), a longstanding conjecture about the computational complexity of Boolean formula satisfiability, a problem deeply related to the P vs. NP problem.

Surprisingly, our system has recently proved that the ETH is false, a result that was subsequently verified in Lean.

The refutation of the ETH reopens questions about how much faster these tasks could become, and may help guide the search for better algorithms. Finding such algorithms, and turning theoretical advances into practical improvements, will require significant further research.

Our system found its natural language disproof for the ETH we reached out to to @rrwilliams. Ryan will form a collaboration with Russell Impagliazzo and Ramamohan Paturi to verify and shepherd this result. Impagliazzo and Paturi, along with Francis Zane, are the original proposers of the Exponential Time Hypothesis, and Williams has refuted strong versions of the ETH, used ETH for hardness results, and connected algorithms and lower bounds.

This group asked us to make all raw data of the results public to facilitate independent verification by the community, which we have done by posting the natural language proof and Lean formalization to our GitHub repo. The group also invites the community to help organize an open examination of the ETH claim and to discuss the broader questions that AI-generated breakthroughs raise about verification, access, credit, and the future of research.

github.com/openai/math/bl…
View quoted post on X