Naughtycharlie (@tituscool) • Hey
Record the dailies of my cutie pie
3 yro boy named Charlie
Trouble maker but an angel at the same time
Publications
- Built on @memester-xyz.lens
- Not handsome but exciting.
#Mocha
- Interesting topic related to attack vectors that restaking introduces https://ethresear.ch/t/dynamic-attacks-on-eigenlayer/15178
mainly shows that whenver security is assessed, need to figure how secure the shared security model is cryptoeconomically. I find restaking kind of having similar effect as with bridges, the security is as safe as the least secure network, similarly least secure networks re-staked power could cause some assumptions on the security side. Worth reading.
- A tribute to my Olivia, partner of my life ♥️🔥
Street Art 🌿
- ✨ 🏅 ✨ 🏅 ✨ 🏅 ✨ 🏅 ✨
Introducing the Buttrfly Loyalty Badge
Loyalty is based on recent interactions from Buttrfly. Increase your loyalty to gain early access to features, a cool badge on your profile, and more perks and rewards in the future. You can track your progress towards getting the badge from the Profile Stats screen.
- spyder?
- Dear Lens fam, what is the Future of Social for you?
At t2, we believe the future social networks should revolve around our values, not just what grabs our attention. We want to foster meaningful connections with others, share what helps us achieve our goals, and enjoy articles that empower us.
We have witnessed how the Lens community celebrates genuine creativity and friendship. We believe our values and mission align closely with those of the Lens community. So, we are excited to bring a new type of writing and reading platform to @lensprotocol, starting with our manifesto. manifesto.t2.world
⏳ If you are on board with this vision, **sign the Manifesto** with your value propositions and complete all steps. You will receive a personalised card to showcase your values and **early access to the t2 alpha product**.
**If you are a writer, follow us and comment below with your favourite piece of writing by you. We will follow back!**
- Web1 - Web2 - Web3
Web1: Read 📖
Web2: Read & Write 📖✍️
Web3: Read, Write & Own 📖✍️🔐
- Just a regular day on Polygon 🌿
- Look at his face when I kiss my boy!
- Look at his face when I kiss my boy!
- U look like an emoji
- Follow+Mirror+over 100 followers =Wmatic!
长文2/迷局：比特币究竟是不是“黄金”？
写在开始
当有人质疑比特币的价值时，黄金就是最好用的那把枪。这几年来，大家也已经习惯了把比特币与黄金对标，甚至很多人都会以黄金的市值去估算比特币最终的价值。而这一切都来自于比特币本身与黄金相似甚至更加优越的属性。
更高的稀缺性、更强的易分割性、更安全、更易于使用。黄金有的属性，比特币都有，而且每一样都做的更好，它甚至自带支付和记账系统。将这种对比拿出来，几乎没人可以否认比特币最终会成为数字时代的黄金，甚至取代黄金。
在鼓吹着元宇宙的投机者口中，曾经的盛世珠宝，乱世黄金，很快就会变成盛世NFT，乱世比特币。
然而这种简单粗暴的对比，真的足以说明比特币与黄金的关系吗？或者说，仅仅只是在一个孤立且静止的对比之中比特币胜出了，它就一定能成为乃至于取代黄金吗？
一切抛开历史运动的结论都是虚伪的。想要通过黄金来判断比特币的未来，就必须要考虑到两者所面对的历史语境之间的不同。而一旦我们将视角置入历史之中，就会发现，黄金如果是起手天听，摸牌地胡，那么比特币则更像是起手九张幺九牌，看似能追梦国士无双，但实则路险且长。
不过如今看来，似乎最后一垛牌正酝酿着一股汹涌的牌浪，这副国士无双，还真就有可能胡了。
黄金如何成为了黄金
历史是由必然和随机交织而成的。黄金的出现有其必然性，也有其随机性。随机的事情我们把握不好，所以只能单独拎出来它的必然性来探讨一下。黄金的必然性，来自于一般等价形式的必然性。马老师资本论第一卷第一篇用了四个小章节，确定了一般等价物在人类交易活动中所必然占据的位置。在复杂的市场环境中，或早或晚，一定会出现一般价值形式来取代相对价值形式。因为人是懒惰的，或者说，人类的活动是趋向于将复杂的事物简单化的。当我二爷挑着三筐萝卜去集市售卖的时候，相比起记住一颗萝卜能换一颗半苹果，或者三颗橘子，或者二两白糖，记住一颗萝卜与市场上所有存在的商品之间的相对价格，他一定更乐意记住这一堆货品相对于一个单位的价值。因此对我二爷和市场上每个卖东西的大爷大妈们而言，必须得有一个具有普遍性的东西，大家要换，就拿它当单位进行换算。
这个一般等价形式在人类的交易活动中是自发出现的，没有人可以阻止它的诞生。在最初的时候，占据这个形式的物多种多样，多数都是因地制宜，有的原始部落选择使用石头，也有的选择使用贝壳。而随着农耕文明的到来，人类的族群规模开始扩大，城邦乃至于国家出现，各地区的往来也日渐频繁。原本局限于一片森林，一块平原的人类，开始拥有了跨越山海的能力。在这一过程中，对于一般等价物的要求有了一些变化。第一是便携性，第二是易分割性，第三是稀缺性，第四是其传播性，或则说文化性。
前三种性质是互相关联的。稀缺性在一定程度上增加了便携性，因为整体的稀少，抬高了单位的价值，也就意味着可以在承运更少的重量的同时输送更高的价值。而易分割性让价值的计算变得简单，应用的场景变得广泛。不仅仅是大宗商品的交易，日常中一些琐碎的交易，也可以使用。且易分割性当中，实际上还包含了易复原性。一块石头砸碎了，要将其碎屑重新凝聚成一块等重的石头是非常困难的。这导致了在使用石头的时候不可避免的要因为碎屑问题面对大量的损耗。易分割/复原的性质维护了该“物”的稀缺性的同时，也变相的提高了便携性。因为在运输过程中，整体的运输要比起零零碎碎的运输更简单一些。一来是大重量的整体要比大重量的零碎更难盗取，二来是更方便储存。
所以当我们考虑到以上的三种性质时，金与银的优越性就在一众竞争一般等价形式这个位置的物当中脱颖而出了。它们同时满足了以上的三种条件。作为熔点较低的软金属，它们易分割且易复原。作为对比，黄金的熔点为1000摄氏度左右，而铁则高达1500度。而以莫氏硬度作为标准，黄金和白银的硬度在2.5-3之间，铁则达到了4.5的级别。黄金的高密度也决定了在相同体积下，其重量往往要高于其他金属。而在稀缺性方面，金银的产量相较于其他的常见金属，都处在较低的位置。而黄金比白银更加稀少，也决定了黄金的价值高于白银。
最后就是其传播性和文化性。说实话，传播这个属性是一个很难以界定的性质。从黄金本身的固有属性上讲，它之所以能形成“金”文化，一方面与其易分割性（可塑性）、稀缺性、便携性等属性早就的价值有关，另一方面又不得不考虑它的外观。易反光、金黄色，等等在人类视觉中，或许也天然占有一定的位置。但这些考量太过于玄乎，也比较难以考证，因此就不做深究。但黄金文化的兴盛，却是不可否认的。
一般等价物的必然性和人类文明在发展的不同阶段中对它的不同需求，为黄金抢占这一位置提供了一些得天独厚的优势。因此黄金在历史中占据了价值锚点，成为了储存价值的最终单位。
基于这些，当我们考察比特币的属性时，就会惊人的发现，它具备了黄金所具备的一切属性，同时它还更加的优秀。在稀缺性上，比特币总量恒定，且由于密钥的丢失，总体是属于通缩状态的。在易分割和易复原性上，更是完爆黄金，作为数字化的产物，任何有实体的物理存在都无法在这个领域中与其竞争。便携性同理。比特币的本质是信息，它的储存也是信息，只要脑子好，都不用写下来，把私钥记住，走到哪里都带着。正因如此，人们会说，比特币就是数字时代的黄金。
然而这种观点的缺陷性在文章开端就已经点明。黄金之所以能够成为黄金，是它得天独厚的优势恰逢了一个需要这些优势的历史时期，而现如今的历史阶段，就连黄金都已经退出了交易的舞台中央。它依旧保有如此高的价值，是由于历史的惯性和它所塑造的穿越数千年的文化。
因此如果要将比特币和黄金放到一起去，就必须回答比特币所面对的历史语境究竟是什么样子？
比特币的历史困境
如果把黄金和比特币在诞生之时的历史做个比较，就会轻易的发现，黄金所面对的是人类文明的萌芽期，历史的轨迹尚不清晰，文明的去向还比较模糊。而比特币则诞生于文明的壮年期，许多历史的规律已经确定，文明的形状已经得到了大致的勾勒。自从1971年理查德·尼克松宣布美元与黄金脱钩之后，全球进入了一个全新的信用货币阶段。
这个阶段在人类历史上也曾出现过。
事实上，信用货币的使用是早于金属货币的。早在公元前3500年，美索不达米亚的神庙中就有了关于信贷的记录。但当时的信用货币是原始的，其一切价值都来自于权力，无论这种权力的实质是暴力还是在通过暴力夺取后披上的宗教外衣。因此在不同权力架构中，信用的传递必然会遇到层层阻碍。一个信仰伊什塔尔和马尔督克的巴比伦人要如何说服一个信仰欧西里斯和拉的埃及人，他们神殿所记录的借贷信息是有价值的？并不是说完全不可能，而是说这种信用的流通成本是很高的。而黄金这样的金属，则极大的降低了这种成本。不需要在意信用来自于哪里，只需要交易具体的黄金就可以。换而言之，黄金要击败的，或者说要挤入的，是一个原始的信用货币体系。它天然带有严重缺陷。信用与金属，也就是货币史当中的票证主义和金属主义，在人类贸易的历史中是互相纠缠的，货币也一向具有信用和金属的二重属性。
如今的信用货币系统相较于古老的两河文明而言，实在是成熟和完善了太多。不可否认当今的货币依旧具有“金属”性。注意，此处的“金属性”是一个泛指，它的内涵实际上是生产资料，比如美元的根本价值中有很大的部分源自于它对石油的结算能力。虽然与过去挂钩金属的金本位货币系统已经有了巨大的不同，但其介入人类活动的形式却是相似的。这种“金属性”，相较于过去而言，已经削弱了太多，货币的信用属性则被极大的拔高了，乃至于可以说，如今世界上不存在钱，只存在信用。钱的流动，就是信用的流动。
这种货币体系的最大优势在于：它摆脱了金属这个最后的枷锁，彻底将资本这头有着无底洞的欲望的猛兽从牢笼中解放了出来。它能带来更繁荣的区域性盛世和更困苦的区域性贫瘠，也会给人类整体带来前所未有的危险和机遇。
人类的文明想要更快速的发展，更快速的迭代科技，创造出前所未有的财富和繁荣，都需要这个全新的信用货币系统来推动。基于优质主义的自由市场，正是有了对未来信用的提前使用，才催生出了一系列改变人类生活的科技。
对于资本而言，它自身的欲望就是无止境的复制，借人类之手，完成自我的壮大。“金属性”之于资本，如鲠在喉，如刺在骨。摆脱它，是资本历史运动的必要环节。
在这个极其完整的信用货币体系当中，狭义上的“金属”已经彻底退出了历史舞台，而广义上的“金属”，即包括石油、贸易路线的控制权、工业化能力、劳动力等等的生产资料，在信用体系中扮演的角色，也不如往日的黄金那般重要。
比特币比黄金优秀，这点无可否认，然而一个再优秀的黄金也只是黄金，黄金既然已经被资本对于繁殖自身的无限追求所淘汰，比特币又如何走马上任，接替黄金来到鹅城跟黄老爷斗法？
黄老爷对于新上任的县长，从来都是拉拢为主，总是要先以两大家族的刀乐诱之。比特币诞生至今，它非但没有成为黄金，成为新的价值锚点，给信用货币体系套上新的枷锁，反而在这个系统中成为了资本的新乐土。它的叙事与曾经的黄金无关，却成为了金融衍生品。可以说从比特币介入现今的信用货币系统开始，它与过去历史中的黄金，就完全是两副面孔了。
然而历史是在运动的，转机或许并不遥远了。
比特币的历史机遇
我们在本系列的第一篇文章中已经阐述了信任的历史运动与区块链之间的关系。区块链作为信任的去人类化补丁，一方面拿掉了人类作为“信任传递枢纽”的权限。另一方面，也可以视作为信任在资本主义运动中的加速器。因为信任的成本更低廉了，也就可以发行更多的信用了。
我们现在这里稍微解释一下，信任和信用的区别。信任是一个更广义的概念，它所具有的内涵涵盖了人类在相互交往当中的一切行为。而信用则是信任的一种量化表现，可以用来计算个体与个体，个体与群体，群体与群体，现在和未来之间的信任程度。
从这个角度去看，区块链与比特币的诞生，非但不是对如今信用货币系统的制衡，反而是助推它进一步走向疯狂的工具。然而这仅仅只是在一段狭小的历史中，被讲述的故事。如果讲历史的尺度放的更大一些，或许会看到另一个故事。信用并非无穷无尽的，这源自于人类寿命的有限性。要透支距离现在越遥远的信用就越困难。我能签下三十年的房贷，却签不下两百年的房贷，因为两百年后，我早就死了。这道理再朴素不过。区块链的出现，在某种程度上，加速了信用的透支，而当能被透支的未来都已经被透支干净，再遥远的未来已经难以触碰时，一个巨大的周期性危机自然而然就会到来。这段现在与未来之间的“信用”缺口，往往就是历史完成巨大转向的时机。秩序会被战争重塑，人类的文明会陷入大火之中，在焚烧殆尽后，留下重新建构的机会。
而比特币的历史机遇，就存在于这场大火之后。
当黄老爷，无论是自己还是在武举人的帮助下，完成了体面，鹅城终归是需要重塑秩序的。但新的鹅城，往往与旧的鹅城没什么区别。两大家族还是两大家族。那碉楼里坐着的是黄老爷还是武老爷，又有什么分别？终归是得有个老爷吧？
而区块链，或许就是这次循环中唯一的不同。它为大火之后，重塑秩序的那一代人提供了一个全新的选项：
老爷还是需要的，但老爷不一定非得是一个人了。
那时，比特币或许也将就此完成它的转身，从被当代信用货币系统裹挟，成为金融衍生品，到完成它的历史使命，成为全新货币体系的基石。
当然，这里说的比特币是指广义上的具备比特币属性的加密货币，而不是单纯的指中本聪那九页白皮书里的代币。毕竟未来充满了随机性，或许现在的比特币会彻底死去，却又有另一个应用着加密货币技术的新币种出现，成为未来世界的基点也说不定。
但如果比特币不死，未来真的如此写就。又有谁能估计它的价值呢？
69000美金？可能只是个微不足道的山谷罢了。
这把麻将打到了最后一个半庄，比特币这把国士无双能不能胡，拭目以待吧。
本文不构成任何投资建议，只是作者对未来的一些不着调的遐想，权当乐子看就好。
- Don't mess up with the crab honey😂
- what u curious at babe
- Hide and Seek🧐
- Street Art 🍃🫧💫
- Mirror this For WMATIC!!!
Long Article (1): Blockchain - The Dehumanization of Movement of Trust
All things are really only words
in a tongue of endless gobbledegook
that someone or something is writing in a book
that is the history of the world.
Excerpt from Borges' "The Compass"
On January 3, 2009, I was a young person in China and didn't feel the impact of the economic crisis. Life went on as usual, riding the school bus to and from school every day and eating fried chicken strips sold on the street for 3.5 yuan per pack. At most, the word "crisis" was mentioned more often in conversations about national affairs among my elders. I had no idea that on the periphery of this historical event, the world's first Bitcoin block, Block #0, was born. More than a decade has passed, and the effects of that economic crisis seem to have been smoothed over by the soaring US national debt and the decade-long prosperity of the US stock market. Meanwhile, that once-insignificant block has now become the cornerstone and pillar of an entire industry. Perhaps when future generations truly enter the de-naturalized Metaverse era, this block, born quietly amidst the financial tsunami, will be regarded as the "singularity of the Metaverse Big Bang."
This is the fascinating aspect of history: not only does it tell different stories at different heights but also conveys different information at different times. Individuals and groups, present and future, write different " gobbledegook". Therefore, when people truly attempt to grasp history, they must ultimately transcend individual and even collective limitations, place abstract concepts and symbols that drive history at the center stage, and treat humans as their tools, as intermediaries connecting their past and future, to restore the movements of these concepts in history and depict the shape of the future.
This series of articles will examine the roles that some blockchain projects may play in this historical movement based on this historical concept and attempt to describe their futures.
As the first one of the series, we will try to place blockchain within the entire human historical movement today and find its position, laying the foundation for future articles.
<The Movement of Trust>
The 2008 financial crisis not only left countless people with painful memories but also mercilessly exposed the financial industry's vulnerabilities. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, numerous shadow banks faced a run, and the fortress of trust built by the elites of the Land of the Free crumbled overnight. Although they have recklessly rebuilt a structure on the remaining foundation over the past decade or so, history tells us that it is bound to be another story of "seeing him build a high tower, seeing him feast guests, and seeing his tower collapse."
Blockchain was born in the ruins of the trust edifice. From a historical perspective, the birth of blockchain was inevitable, as it represents a crucial link in the broader movement of trust in human transactions.
As any transaction ultimately aims for profit, its bottom line is lower costs and risks. Therefore, the movement of trust in transactions naturally tends towards lower costs and risks. However, for movement of trust, the tool it initially chose, humans, created a seemingly unsolvable contradiction between lower costs and lower risks.
Let's first look at how the concept “trust” reduces costs.
In a natural environment with limited resources, people must cooperate with each other to survive. However, unlike the Trisolarans or Professor X, humans on Earth do not possess the ability to read each other's minds. The purposes of both parties' behavior are unknown under these conditions, making cooperation extremely difficult and more likely to result in life-and-death struggles. The emergence of trust mechanisms allows people who initially could not cooperate to work together to accomplish tasks like hunting and form organized and structured groups. But this primitive credit mechanism is extremely costly, often requiring extensive interaction and many rounds of game-playing.
In layman's terms, I need to spend time getting to know someone to determine if they are trustworthy.
To reduce costs, the concept of trust reveals its second mechanism: transferability. Trust can be established between people through the transmission of information. In this way, I don't need to start building trust and engage in games with a stranger from scratch; I can simply find a third party who has played games extensively with both of us to vouch for our trustworthiness.
This is the first stage of the trust movement. It successfully lowers its costs by using third parties.
However, we can easily discover that trust is necessarily a posteriori. Its emergence, whether indirect or direct, must go through game-playing. Its transferability merely significantly reduces the required number of games.
The drawback of a posteriori concepts lies in their uncertainty. What happened yesterday may not happen tomorrow. What was trustworthy in the past may not be trustworthy in the future. Concepts like trust, which require humans as transmission hubs to reduce their costs, must face the significant flaws of humans as a tool. In the context of globalization, third parties acting as trust transmission hubs must exist in some form. This necessity allows them to control and monopolize the power of transaction verification and record-keeping. In other words, they can use the power in their hands for evil to seek greater benefits for themselves whenever they want.
And if there's any truth that history has validated, it is that people will do evil. People can do evil without any gain, let alone when doing evil reaps the world and amasses immense wealth.
As trust transmission hubs will inevitably do evil and eventually perish, each instance of evil and demise means the trust movement needs to return to the previous stage, re-enter the game of cost reduction, and once again make people its transmission hub, thus falling into a vicious cycle. However, since fluctuations in trust costs cause cyclical depressions and bring disaster to human groups, humans, as subjective beings, naturally seek methods to break this cycle and address the fundamental contradiction between costs and risks for trust while correcting themselves and trying to avoid such disasters. In other words, with each cycle, some force accumulates among humans to break this cycle, until it is eventually overcome.
Before 2009, even if people were aware of the flaws and problems in the existing trust system and knew how disgusting the faces of those trust profiteers were, there was virtually nothing they could do about it. Human transactions simply could not do without them, and there were no other tools for trust beyond humans.
But after January 3, 2009, everything seemed to change.
<Blockchain: The Dehumanization of Trust>
In previous paragraphs, we mentioned that the core contradiction faced by trust is the flaw of humans as tools. Once humans monopolize the verification power of the trust system, it forces trust into a vicious cycle. People in this cycle are also victims and will naturally seek ways to break free from it. Therefore, if we believe that trust can ultimately complete its own movement, then a dehumanized tool must appear in the process of this movement, for trust to realize itself.
What this tool is, no one knows before history tells its own story. But from the knowledge we have today, it is, and seemingly can only be, blockchain.
There is a wealth of high-quality popular science on the basic operation mechanism of blockchain on the Internet, which we will not elaborate on here. At the end of the article, we will attach a link to popular science content that we think is well-explained, for everyone to understand on their own. Next, let's mainly talk about how blockchain accomplishes dehumanization.
What we mean by dehumanization here is not that humans no longer participate in blockchain activities. Instead, humans used to be the only means for the concept of trust to complete its movement. However, the emergence of blockchain allows trust to continue its movement in the form of this technology. Humans on this path, then, have changed from being tools of trust to being tools of blockchain. Blockchain, as a patch for the trust movement, has thus begun its own movement, which is also the new path of the trust movement.
In the movement of blockchain, the third party originally used to reduce costs in the trust movement has been transformed from a small human group into mining machines and computing power. Of course, these mining machines and computing power are still held by a small number of people, but blockchain takes the power of transaction verification away from these people and distributes it to every participant through locked code. In this way, the space and possibility for humans to do evil are greatly reduced.
It's not that humans no longer participate, but that humans no longer monopolize power.
When it comes to blockchain, decentralization is always mentioned. However, the essence of decentralization seems to have always been up for exploration. The center removed by blockchain is the third party, but at a deeper level, it is the centralized power in human hands, that is, the degree of human participation in the trust movement.
Therefore, the essence of decentralization is dehumanization.
This value is precisely the significant role that blockchain technology will play in human trading activities. The many projects based on blockchain that truly have the intrinsic value of serving this movement are attempting to complete the "dehumanization" of the financial industry based on today's credit system and even all trade.
In other words, in this market filled with countless scams and bubbles, projects that can truly provide value in the future must be in line with the historical mission of the blockchain movement, helping trust to complete its movement. They must adhere to the dehumanizing nature of the blockchain movement.
In the following time, we will examine existing projects in the market and predict the necessary projects that may appear in the future according to the direction of the dehumanizing movement of blockchain.
This article only examines trust in the context of human trading activities. In fact, trust, a core mechanism of human civilization, not only occupies an important position in trading activities but is also linked to almost all human behaviors. In later articles, we will also touch upon the movement of trust in other fields and explain the roles that blockchain will play in those areas.
How January 3, 2009, will be remembered in history is unknown for now, but we are certain that it must be a harbinger of the advent of a new era.
Thank you for reading this far.
💗If you Like this!
Mirror If you want More!
Comment If you want to make a point!
- Nice meal in London, definitely worth second visit
- ✨ **Introducing Glass Protocol ✨**
gm lens fam ☀️ For those of you that don’t know us, we’re building a protocol for decentralized video on Ethereum.
We’re passionate about video. We believe in having true ownership over the videos you make, how they’re seen, and how they’re monetized. That’s why we’re building an open, permissionless protocol for owning, distributing, and building communities around video.
And that’s why we’re constantly experimenting and building with new Web3 communities to help us further our mission… which brings us to Lens. We’re excited to build more ways for the video creators in the Lens community to create amazing videos with Glass.
Oh—and one more thing. We just announced The Glass Pass, an NFT that represents your creator identity, and your key to owning and creating videos on Glass. You can read more about it here: https://blog.glass.xyz
And to show our love to the Lens community...
🏆 **Anyone who collects this post will be recorded on The Glass Pass claim allowlist** 🏆
And if you vibe with our mission, check out our Manifesto: https://glass.xyz/manifesto
People who **sign it and** **share it to Lens** will also get early access to claim The Glass Pass.
We’re excited to be here and can’t wait to share what we have in store! We're just getting started✌️
#genesispost
- perfect side face🌚
- wanna hang out together?👀