There are few trade-offs in the design of blockchains but a big one exists around consensus. Essentially, aspects such as cost, security, decentralization, capital efficiency, and throughput of the chain are all tied in different ways. I think we're still far from the efficient frontier, but at some point it becomes a matter of preference and not mere engineering.

I think the strength of these networks is in being censorship resistant, decentralized platforms. There's no point in trying to compete on AWS's turf for decentralized computing for instance. So overall, I'd favor prioritizing security and decentralization over throughput, if and when the dilemma arises.

Layer 2 solutions are a fine way of dealing with throughput hungry applications.

I don't know of any plans of the sort, nor is it clear how they would work. I do know some people have been successful in recovering their passwords using tools like "John the Ripper".

Proposals are not just ideas, they must be pieces of code that patch the existing protocol. Once if they are adopted, the protocol gets recompiled on the fly and the chain carries on with the new code base.

I love the Starkware team and I think STARKs are going to be a key building block for scalability and privacy. There are many entities involved around Tezos but, to my knowledge, there aren't any concrete plans yet for collaboration.

One of the beautiful part of Tezos is that there needs not be an explicit plan since anyone can submit improvements to the protocol.

I think one of the largest barrier to entry for anyone in this space is the complexity of securing private keys. Getting the right UX around that seems fundamental.

Please ask only one question per question.

I don't know about a platform like this, I know some people in the community were discussing using Kialo which seems cool.

The governance model is designed to be a simple bootstrap procedure, there are many ways it can be refined.

You need interoperability in a world where you have a lot of heterogeneous chains that need to talk to each other. But why do you have so many chains to begin with? Why isn't one absorbing the user base of the other ones?

The cyclical viewpoint is that pushing for interoperability is a bid for dominance disguised as a blue ocean strategy.

I like the Polkadot project and the Cosmos project a great deal, but I'll note that Polkadot isn't developing its project as a Cosmos zone, and that the Cosmos project isn't putting it's atoms on a para-chain.

In order to build this, Coda has to keep the state transition function as lightweight as possible. The overhead would be prohibitive with today's techniques if your state transition were to include executing smart contracts.

However, this is useful tech for making sidechains. In fact, the property of being able to carry the proof for the weight of the chain in a single SNARK is primarily useful for sidechains, less so for a primary chain.

So I can absolutely see a Coda-like sidechain to Tezos.

No, I know the database would clunk under the load the way it's being used. It's not worth it until it's replaced.

I also think if such throughputs are being pushed, you should add some sort of safety under partial synchrony. Polkadot's hybrid model is very interesting in that respect.

Mu.

What is Mu?

I did, I think it's awesome research. It's something to keep an eye on, but too early to start work on right away.

The size of the anonymity set is an important differentiator and Zcash is well positioned to build the largest one with the Sapling release.

That said, at the end of the day, I do tend to be a maximalist. By that I mean that, over the next decades, I believe the industry will coalesce around one or just a couple coins.

One example I would like to see is a large open source project rewarding its contributors worldwide and organizing its decision making around development.

Sorry, as a policy I don't comment on litigation.

Lack of interest in censorship resistance in combination with new, particularly burdensome, regulations or outright bans.

I like inventing things, so most likely coming up with cool stuff for the protocol and helping talented folks develop their own ideas.

I'm excited to see what's in store, thank you.

Great question! I think the most likely scenario is developers reaching out to miners with a patch, orphaning the branch where the inflation happened, replaying all transactions from the orphaned branch and blocking all double spends.

I'm skeptical of the dApp model. A few make sense, most don't.

As for The, it is a blockchain, it doesn't do anything to attract anyone or anything.

Assuming dApps are, in this context, end-user apps or services built on top of a blockchain, the market and common business dynamics will decide which ones make sense or die.

I get it that Tezos is a pure blockchain, but are you aware of organisations that are trying to promote the adoption of Tezos? Taking the parallel of an OS, if there is no effort to attract developers to build their apps on it, playing with the built-in calculator and notepad can only get you so far, and the OS dies. Or maybe "build it and they'll come" will work for a blockchain?

Tezos itself! There are so many cool ideas floating around to improve the protocol, I am very excited to see the network level up.

In most cases, at best tokens don't make sense, at worst they compete with the base layer coin. I don't think the idea of "money but for X" is sustainable, money is driven by network effect and strong winner-take-all dynamics.

That's highly dependent on the use case. It's not so much about the number of users but whether they trust each other, have access to trusted third parties, etc.

IMO, the strongest force shaping this for Bitcoin is the sense of inevitability. It's hard to replicate, but I think the self-amending aspects are a strong argument in that direction.

It is then critical that our first on-chain vote is executed flawlessly, it provides features that are longed by non and Tezos asset holders and that the success of the amendment is broadcast far and wide. Exciting times are coming!

I don't know.