Verification-Centric Chains, Common Knowledge Machines, and Intents Verification-centric blockchains outsource the computation/generation of transactions to off-chain agents ("solvers"). But a verification-centric chain is only as good as its verifier (the VM). You can judge a verification-centric chain's programming model by asking these questions: 1. What verification conditions can be expressed? 2. How easily can a solver understand the verification conditions, so they can treat those as a goal/problem to solve? 3. Are solvers afforded with some level of interoperability, or must we forsake trustless interop at the compute layer just because it lives off-chain (in contrast to compute-centric chains like Ethereum, where any smart contract can at least attempt to interact with any other)? UTXO-based chains are the OG verification-centric chain. eUTXO / generalized utxo chains improve on the first of the three properties above: expressiveness. In generalized UTXO chains, the kinds of verification conditions that can be expressed are comparable to the kinds of computations that can be expressed in a compute-centric chain. But two challenges remain: 1. Semantic opacity: those verification conditions are not expressed in a format that a solver can easily understand: a developer has to manually implement a new solver that can understand and compute over the various verification programs it wishes to integrate with. 2. Reduced interoperability: Computation happens off-chain. So "integrating" with a protocol means generating transactions that fulfill that protocol's verification conditions within the context of a larger transaction. But that means that every protocol & app dev has to re-implement the business logic of every protocol & app with which they wish to integrate. @khalani_network addresses these remaining challenges. 1. Semantic transparency: We create a new programming model that is semantically transparent. This means that the semantics of protocols & applications are discoverable and understandable by solvers. The most obvious way to do this is use a declarative model. The problem with a declarative model is that it is too rigid: it adds transparency at the expense of expressiveness, limiting the kinds of systems that it can support. Adding imperative features would address this, but it would do so at the expense of trustlessness and semantic transparency. 2. Intent-based interoperability: With a sufficiently expressive, semantically transparent model, intents become the most natural primitive for trustless coordination between off-chain agents because they can establish a shared & agreed upon set of expectations and understanding of how to interact! I.e., they can establish common knowledge, which is critical to facilitating coordination of any kind. Khalani's VM, the Common Knowledge Machine, provides the means for solvers to coordinate around shared goals on-the-fly. Sort of like machine-to-machine MOU's, lol. This has many consequences, but I'll describe just one for now (this is an X post, not a whitepaper, after all): the wild world of off-chain software becomes far less brittle, because APIs get replaced with ALIs (Application Logical Interfaces) and conformance to these "specs" is guaranteed.

I wonder how many people had to watch and sign off on this video. Every character is loathsome, depicting rather accurately an archetype that is increasingly common in our society. Was the goal to repulse? Or have the makers fallen so far they were unaware that the family portrayed here is weak; is void of mutual respect; is starved for values. The father is the ultimate antagonist, but so pitiful that it takes a moment to recognize that. The dog is, ultimately, the protagonist.

Ah, APA continues to go downhill. No surprise

Insane story. Well done

RT’d by *the* Nervos account. My life is complete.

And thus we observe the return to verification-centric architectures (realized and idealized by UTXO chains like @NervosNetwork and Bitcoin). Whether by means of cryptography or other forms of succinct verification, the concept is the same: don’t replicate globally what need not be replicated globally.

Oh wait, I just realized you're arguing *against* targeting Hegel due to the fact that Hegel "led to" Marx. That's different. If Marx's encounter with Hegel's works was material in the development of Marxist Dialectics, then in that direction, there is a critical link. Marx isn't a good representation of Hegel, though. Marx is but a footnote to Hegel, one could say. And an embarrassing one, at that.

The teachings of Christ led to the inquisition by the Roman Catholic Church. The violence involved in carrying out that mission probably violates the spirit of Christ's teachings. A person's actions can be inspired by the words or actions of another. It is not the latter's fault if the former lacks the intelligence to understand those so-called "inspiring" words or actions. The problem is Marx. Marx is accountable to his own ideas. That he looked at the words written by Hegel and then applied his (inadequate) understanding is not Hegel's fault, lol.

Shut up and read it

ah man. came here to say this

You can’t stop the world spirit sir

It is remarks like these that demonstrate how misunderstood and poorly taught Hegel is in today’s classrooms

If only spell checkers would make dumb philosophy jokes instead of red lines…

I would love to be a plane ticket. What it’s like to be a plane ticket is an even more intriguing question than what it’s like to be a bat. How much $$ to be a plane ticket?

Serafim is doing really cool work at the intersection of LLMs and various forms of formal and semi formal reasoning.

“GPT-6 Sol is doing very well, somewhat behind Opus 5.5 but at 1/2 the price.” This makes me wonder: is there a metric you’re thinking of that could adequately represent inductive-power-per-dollar? And how would the fact that they have different ceilings affect that metric? If. model A is half the price of model B per inductive “unit”, it’s more cost effective. But if model B’s ceiling is higher, then I suppose model A, past its ceiling, would discretely change…

Confidentiality is better than publicity for those who need informational discretion. Privacy is better than confidentiality for those who need informational isolation that doesn’t depend on the discretion of another.