You didn’t ask from me, but I took a peek of that too, and it seemed just like a stuff he might be interested in. Far above my head, though.
Seems it’s looking to solve a problem I don’t believe exists in reality and that is global consensus in a decentralised network. What we are doing is have no global consensus but continually evolving consensus.
I will try and summarise.
We recognise data is disparate, unconnected and mostly out of sync. So we do a few things like sync what we must when we must, but the underlying model is ensure data progression is correct, i.e. data and updates are cryptographically valid. Then let folk/nodes see updates as they go along.
Like nature we don’t all know something at the same “time” and by the time we all know of some thing some of us will have evolved that thing and the rest catch up. This is our model, do not go for global consensus as an Event, but go for globally correct data that evolves securely and disseminates to all who want to know, eventually. Eventually being the crux for us, but realising some data will have evolved by the time we all eventually see it.
IMO Intelligence is continuous learning and nature does this beautifully by simple rules and not enforcing any global Event/Data as being correct, but realise intelligence (higher level functions that take known info in and emit new info or mistakes to test).
Eventually sounds like a very long time to me.
May give the wrong impression of very slow.
I agree, but everything is actually eventual (which makes this worse). In the industry Eventual Consistency is a term, perhaps better it had been called Correct Consistency or something. Some devs even think total order is actual consistency and eventual consistency is weak. Those same devs will then say look at bitcoin, it’s total order and works. They have the belief that as btc does not call it eventual consistency then it is total order with immediate consistency? i.e. block the 7 by 10 minute confirmation time out of their minds.
Then and eventually consistent thing comes along and it’s blazing fast (sub second) and it’s sees as eventual == potentially infinity (which mathematical is correct, but in reality is false). BTW our DBC though would fall into total order perhaps, but there is no order actually as each Dbc is disjoint in terms of what you can see. So it’s all infant like terminology we use right now, but we are learning I hope.
Maybe Guaranteed Consistency would be better, since we can’t say anything definitive about time without knowing the details?
He has a good point, which could be an interesting marketing hook for Safe Network…
https://twitter.com/jeremiahg/status/1400572388278824966?s=20
JD discusses how big tech is blocking knowledge of the plight of Palestinians as well as aid/donations.
Anonymous getting on the anti Musk train.
I wonder does this mean they will actively target him?
Kinda sounds like it. 
And or doge…
6 posts were split to a new topic: Bitcoin in El Salvador
3 posts were split to a new topic: Anarchism
IMO, twitter is a mercenary speech control outfit. I wonder if suing them is really of any use in the end - they will pay a fine and promise not to do it again (with their fingers crossed). Longer term humanity will abandon using it to share information and that will be that.
In a somewhat related note, I found this today:
Be careful where your news comes from.
So not just mercenary social media corps controlling/limiting the narrative, but literal mercenary reporters trained in a literal spy-school … you can’t make this sh!t up.
Seems centralised cryptocurrency business/mining in China wasn’t a good idea. Who’d have thought 
Bank of England getting twitchy about stablecoins:
Setting out a scenario where a fifth of UK households and businesses moved their deposits into digital money, it said this could drive up the costs for high street banks because they would lose a key source of funding – this would in turn affect the cost and availability of borrowing.
The Bank said widespread use of private stablecoins could affect its ability to set interest rates, a key tool used by the central bank to manage inflation and the conditions for economic growth. It said the overall impact on lending and credit provision would probably be “relatively modest”, but there was a large degree of uncertainty.
More:
At least they are honest about the fact that they are managing the national economy to further the interests of the banks. I just wish more of the general public realized that it could be managed in our interests instead.
I think I don’t understand something about their logic though, surely high street banks relying even more on the central bank for funding of loans rather than customer deposits would increase their power to set interest rates, not decrease it?