Once a contract is deployed on the blockchain, its source code is immutable. So before using a contract, check if it gives permission to its deployer (or any address) to change any state at will.
Note that some contracts act as proxy to other contract and can be made to point to another code through a state change, if this is the case then you need to trust whoever can change the state to point to another contract. Such contract sometime have a timelock so that if such a change occurs, there's a delay before it is actually activated, which gives time to users to withdraw their funds if they do not trust the update.
If you are talking about Oracle contracts, if it's an oracle involving offchain data, then there will always be some trust involved, which is usually managed by having the offchain actors share the responsibility and staking some money with the risk to get slashed if they turn into bad actors. But again, offchain data oracles will always require some level of trust that would have to deal with in non-blockchain apps too.
my guess is it's just an electron app or chromium wrapper with an ollama wrapper to talk to it (there are plenty of free open source libs to control browsers).
But we are much more performant than other libs (like playwright) which are written in JS, as we implement bunch of changes at chromium source code level -- for example, we are currently implementing a way to build enriched DOMtree required for agent interactions (click, input text, find element) directly at C++ level.
When someone in their infinite wisdom decides to refactor an api and deprecate the old one, it creates work for everyone downstream.
Maybe as an industry we can agree to do this every so often to keep the LLMs at bay for as long as possible. We can take a page out of the book of the maintainers of moviepy for shuffling their apis around, it definitely keeps everyone on their toes.
I used Continue before Cursor. Cursor’s “agent” composer mode is so much better than what Continue offered. The agent can automatically grep the codebase for relevant files and then read them. It can create entirely new files from scratch. I can still manually provide some files as context, but it’s not usually necessary. With Continue, everything was very manual.
Cursor also does a great job of showing inline diffs of what composer is doing, so you can quickly review every change.
I don’t think there’s any reason Continue can’t match these features, but it hadn’t, last I checked.
Cursor also focuses on sane defaults, which is nice. The tab completion model is very good, and the composer model defaults to Claude 3.5 Sonnet, which is arguably the best non-reasoning code model. (One would hope that Cursor gets agent-composer working with reasoning models soon.) Continue felt much more technical… which is nice for power users, but not always the best starting place.
I used to be close minded as well before actually studying Bitcoin.
There are plenty of bad actors in crypto but Bitcoin is at worst a very interesting experiment that can profoundly change the world for the better. Most is not all of the rest of crypto is basically hawk tuah coin with less obvious illegitimacy. In fact bitcoiners don't consider Bitcoin as "crypto"
> You don't need to be dumb to fall for a dumb idea
I get you can do something stupid in a rush but the longer you have time to reconsider, the higher the likelihood that you "didn't just fall for a dumb idea". Bitcoin is 15 years old.
> Also, the average person is smarter than about 4 billion people.
Bitcoiners are drawn from a normal distribution and not from the bottom part of the distribution, so that argument doesn't really work here.
There are less than 5 billion smartphone users, and you think every fifth has a bitcoin? Though, I'm not surprised hearing such estimations from a bitcoiner.
Anyway, no matter how large the unity of dumbs is or how passionate they are about their goal, it won't make them smarter. What they can achieve, though, is making other people dumber than they are, so that they can appear relatively "smarter".
Let's say they're taking a financial risk which incentivizes (some of) them to study the matter more closely than someone else that is not taking that risk.
Does that mean they're smarter? I don't think so. It's a bet they're willing to take and time will tell who was right.
reply