![neetcoiner [100k Powellcoins]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/936406013921685504/eJ_zDG-Z_normal.jpg)
That's actually a problem in lots of project. Managers thinking more dev = can get more done. Which is true up to a point... It also mean more maintenance, more communication, more buggy code, regression and user workflow broken. "The mythical man month" is a timeless book.
-
-
-
tMMM was among my earliest lessons in the limits of social scalability (in this case of engineering teams)pic.twitter.com/KI81KqvIeb
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I’ve longed argued that Ethereum could be made into a proper Bitcoin competitor if it adopted an extremely strict monetary policy, increased block times, replaced Solidity with a Forth-like stack language…
-
Hey Michael, what do you think of bitcoin simplicity?
-
It’s a very awesome research project, and I can’t wait to see how it develops.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Gall's Law states that all complex systems that work evolved from simpler systems that worked.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
also O(2^N) >>> O(N^2)
-
true innovation comes from the fauxtoshi school of combinatorics
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Skycoin's CX language takes this approach with affordances to restrict functionality (N).https://medium.com/@Skycoinproject/developing-cx-f8b54b58c1cc …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The computer you're using now contains around 1 billion transistors. So there's a billion of things which could go wrong. And yet it works. So what you say is like approaching people who try to build a general-purpose computer and telling them they should build a calculator
-
instead. Simpler, sure. But not the same thing at all. I'm sure Vitalik already reduced the number of features N to the bare minimum needed to accomplish what he has in mind, and further reduction will remove functionality the system is supposed to have.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Sure, cut off all the buzzword "features", radically reduce all the unnecessary complexity, minimize the attack surface and you end up with... Bitcoin?!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well then you get a blockchain that doesn't do interesting stuff like DeFi and project funding and stablecoins and derivatives and DEXes and tokens.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nah, need as much mumbo jumbo as possible to sell it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The fundamental issue is that an attacker can have arbitrary code interact with your contract. That’s by design. Imagine if Bitcoin script was still concatenated instead if evaluated sequencially. And nobody wanted to fix it because it was a core feature.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is one reason I'm optimistic for Grin and the removal of scripting. Our MPC future awaits.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
While I agree, it’d be nice to be able to create smart contracts on Bitcoin as easily as is possible on Ethereum, but...
- End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.