Bam, there it is, the smoking gun

Solana did not proactively make the brilliant choice to force essentially all tokens on their platform to be verifiably safe against a wide range of attacks

This forced trustworthiness came from somewhere else

= byproduct of a technical limitation, which arose from their persuit of extreme TPS scalability

Basically, their high-scalability architecture required specifying the code of all programs involved in transactions up front,

Which makes it a pain for every token to use their own token contract code,

Which effectively forces all tokens into reusing just 1 or 2 smart contracts,

Which then enabled instant verification of safety for arbitrarily many memecoins - because they’re all using the exact same small set of code, and the data-defined per-token settings are trivial to inspect.

Bam.

Solana’s biggest design win was pure accident, purely arising from persuing a totally unrelated goal.

Zero evidence AFAIK of them ever making automated safety verifiability a primary goal, or goal at all in their design.

Knew those SBF funded-retards hadn’t intentionally done something so smart, and then proceed to never even talk about it.

Pure accident confirmed.

Solana retard strength.

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶

Solana really is the tard-strength chain

Both Solana and Bitcoin having some kind of automated safety-verification, able to automatically verify whether coins will get inflated to zero, or frozen.

Solana getting it right through pure accident, not even meaning to do it, accidental byproduct of something else.

Ethereum horribly failing on automated safety verification, with their auditor commie committee BS. Absolute security nightmare.

Neither Solana nor Ethereum the right long-term solution… but at least Solana allowing some kind of automated safety verifiability, even if severely crippling flexibility, for now.

Sorry Ethereum everyone hates you now. Deserved. Solidity is pure hell.

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶

Oh, ok there was a Solana whitepaper,

though unclear exactly when it was written.

But let’s double check if there was any mention of this kind of extreme-lockdown, for automated safety verifiability, all coins on the whole platform using the exact same 1 or 2 smart contracts.

Let’s see if that was really an explicit design goal from the start.

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶

Yeah, their whitepaper, their early press,

No matter what I look at, seems no hint that extreme lockdown for security / enabling automated safety verifiability was an ever explicit design goal of Solana at all.

Can’t find that written by the Solana team anywhere.

And they HAD written a ton about their scalability design goals

Yeah, feeling good about my theory that their accidental coin-safety-verifiability killer feature was practically entirely an accidental byproduct of their extreme scalability pursuits.

At least as of 2019/2020.

Happy to be proven wrong, and see any of core Solana ever laying this out as an explicit goal.

Still finding nothing along those lines.

Accidental success.

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶

Is it impossible for a program to automatically restrict the behaviors that other programs are allowed to have, if those other programs wish to interact with the first program?

Could a dex preemptively block interaction with tokens whose code would behave in a way the dex would not like, just by passive inspection, before they two even interact?

Vitalik types would quickly say no way, that’s impossible, in fact impossible to even determine what is the behavior of arbitrary other programs, let alone to restrict it.

But is that really what the classic math proofs say?

Some say it’s impossible, but future of crypto depends on it.

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶

🚨 Phantom wallet is down

Status Page

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶

GM

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶