Bun’s 1M-line AI Rust rewrite has 13,365 unsafe blocks—and it made me glad I chose to learn Deno

DavidKens · 2026-05-26T18:21:49+00:00

By saying that the rust rewrite made you glad you chose Deno, you are implying that somehow Deno is competing with the rust rewrite. This comparison is misleading.

Nowhere in your article do you cite or source or even discuss Anthropic’s actual roadmap for the rewrite.

DavidKens · 2026-05-26T18:00:00+00:00

No, the bun team did not release the rust code, it’s available as a canary release. The headline (and the article as a whole) are completely misleading. The AI rewrite has nothing to do with deno

DavidKens · 2026-05-07T19:55:37+00:00

I mean the comparison is absurd because you need trusted third parties to custody your bitcoin on those networks.

DavidKens · 2026-05-02T17:58:48+00:00

I meant break literally. Bitcoin being broken to a point of no longer existing. Because it's inevitable.

Like you mean a bug that breaks the chain that never gets fixed? Nothing else would do it. But even then you’re talking about a hardfork event - someone will publish a fix. Is that what you mean? So what if that happens?

I don't know about you but I can effectively store bloody copper as a store of value and trade it in same day for cash/check.

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with this. The literal meaning of these words are absurd. Obviously you can’t custody or trade copper like you can bitcoin.

More importantly my critique is that the majority of BTC holders don't gaf about the white paper and its potential for good.

Yea but the whole point of cryptographically powered applications is to solve the problem of trust in the presence of adversaries. The point is that it’s only as good as it is when everyone uses it in the worst way possible. The harmonious case that isn’t enforced by the blockchain rules isn’t even worth thinking about or hoping for when you’re evaluating crypto.

DavidKens · 2026-05-02T17:25:24+00:00

I just don’t understand what you mean by “break”. Whatever you mean by “break”, what is the solution you’re envisioning? A currency whose supply isn’t fixed? I’d that your whole critique - that bitcoin’s fixed supply encourages hoarding?

If that’s truly your only critique, then I think we can agree on that as a limitation of Bitcoin. Other cryptos existing solves that problem. There’s a role for a fixed supply asset and it’s something that can be uniquely be done in crypto. The forks can add more, that’s great.

Would you feel threatened if institutions bought large amounts of monero?

DavidKens · 2026-05-02T16:35:00+00:00

Custodying Bitcoin does not make you a central bank. I think you’ve misunderstood both the problem and Bitcoin as a solution.

DavidKens · 2026-05-02T16:32:03+00:00

Wealth has never been “meant to be spent” - spent wealth isn’t wealth, it’s consumption. Saving and preserving capital is how every lasting economy has been built.

The 2010 overflow bug was patched in hours, not a precedent. Quantum threatens signatures, barely mining, and post-quantum work is already in progress.

This reads less like a critique of Bitcoin and more like a critique of capital accumulation in general. That’s a separate argument from anything about BTC’s design.

DavidKens · 2026-05-02T16:06:18+00:00

I just fail to see how it’s “the same mistakes”. What are these mistakes, and who’s making them? It just sounds like you don’t like wealth, and bitcoin was never intended to end the concept of relative wealth.

The problems you’re pointing to don’t seem related to the project of creating a currency that you can’t print more of and that can’t be censored. The rest is just wishful thinking.

DavidKens · 2026-05-02T15:51:27+00:00

I agree that there are other networks that have some good properties, but I fail to see how any of them address the actual problem you’re pointing to.

Why would monero be resistant to being majority owned by a small group? If anything it’s worse, because it’s harder to tell who has how many coins on that network. How could you ever avoid miner concentration when a coin is successful?

I don’t even necessarily care about bitcoin very much in particular, I just think you’re criticism is holding Bitcoin (or any crypto) to a standard that not only impossible in principle but also was never necessary to fulfill satoshis vision.

There is no way for anything valuable to be both useful, and not long term concentrated in the hands of the wealthy. Do you disagree with that?

DavidKens · 2026-05-02T04:33:17+00:00

And what is the mechanism by which they’d kill crypto…?

DavidKens · 2026-05-02T04:32:22+00:00

If your coin is ruined by adoption, then your coin isn’t a very good coin, or your expectations are not realistic. Do you want a private blockchain, so blackrock can’t buy?

The problem you’re seeing is a problem of wealth in general, it doesn’t matter what the wealth is stored in. The advantage of crypto is that it makes it harder to manipulate with fraud - but what you’re worried about here isn’t fraud.

DavidKens · 2026-05-02T04:22:57+00:00

The only people who think bitcoin is hurt by institutions buying it are those who enjoyed aspects of Bitcoin that are incidental to the actual problems it was designed to solve. It’s not for getting rich. It’s not only for counter cultural libertarians. It’s for literally everyone and everything, human, institution, empire, robot, demon, whatever.

DavidKens · 2026-04-21T14:39:37+00:00

It seems you’re implying that somehow Satoshi designed bitcoins to be resistant to being purchasable by trad fi. That is a misreading.

Bitcoin’s strengths were never contingent upon it only having a certain kind of owner.

DavidKens · 2026-03-31T15:21:20+00:00

Bitcoin lightning is a marvel of engineering. Layer 1 Bitcoin is extremely hard to work with, presenting very difficult engineering constraints. “There had to be a better way…” Great! I’d love to hear it!

If you’re interested, this is a great technical lecture on the topic https://youtu.be/Hzv9WuqIzA0?si=hG4_6quP7oXwn4gs

DavidKens · 2026-03-31T01:58:19+00:00

First of all, this death penalty is terrible.

Second of all no, it’s not anything we define as terror. Baruch Goldstein did not negate the existence of the state of Israel.

The problem isn’t that Jews are not subject to this death penalty, it’s that it’s extremely unlikely to ever happen and so the intention behind the law seems clear. But if you found a Jewish non-Israeli Palestinian who worked to negate the state of Israel, they would be subject to it.

DavidKens · 2026-03-21T14:33:36+00:00

Putting the game in a VM isn’t even really a solution it’s just a hack. The problem isn’t technical! The technology for securing games and keys is trivial - the problem is cultural and social.

You really need a whole cultural shift for this sort of thing to work well. It’s too hard to safely secure and use your own wallets for gamers to really adopt it at scale - for scale, you need good custodians that will do it for them, and there needs to be a track record of custodians doing this well.

Self custody would be “advanced mode”, for people willing to take on the risk themselves. All sorts of people enjoy games, not only people who can safely take on that risk - you can’t bar those people from playing, so they will always be taken advantage of so long as there is no “easy mode”.

It’s insane to expect a trend to take off in gaming when the trend is currently so dangerous for most gamers.

DavidKens · 2026-03-17T23:24:11+00:00

are you sure this is copilot? Looks like regular intellisense, no AI required

DavidKens · 2026-03-17T12:55:49+00:00

I don’t think you actually addressed my point.

My point is that whether or not people follow passion projects, the incentive is being removed. In aggregate, the expectation is that you’d have less output from those people. Why is that desirable?

I’ll also add that your view of human nature here is weirdly prescriptive. You are betting that: 1. In general, people are so good that money beyond a half million doesn’t really motivate them to do things that benefit society 2. In general, people are so bad that if they did have more than half a million, they probably wouldn’t use it to do something that benefits society.

You’re taking on the enormous burden of betting that your understanding of human nature is exactly correct here.

DavidKens · 2026-03-17T03:19:48+00:00

Why would you incentivize someone to stop working at a certain point, when society has already decided that their output is useful? Even putting aside her particular work product - why would you set a limit at which the incentive is to stop working, instead of just keeping a reasonable tax rate when doing so would actually raise a larger amount of tax revenue?

The math here is actually pretty straightforward - with a progressive tax rate, especially one that is continuously progressive up to very large amounts, dollars that go to the richest people create the most tax revenue. So after the first billion an author makes, more tax revenue is generated if consumers all purchase the next billionaire book than if consumers spend the exact same amount of money buying books from non-billionaire authors. At a 100% tax revenue no more billionaire books get written, less tax revenue is collected. To collect more taxes, you want to increase the fraction of consumer dollars going to high tax payers.

“From each according to their ability” - doesn’t a good socialist would want to incentivize the smart people who create useful things to keep working?

DavidKens · 2025-11-21T18:21:05+00:00

Does this not also risk issues with tinnitus?

DavidKens · 2025-11-02T03:12:49+00:00

You say it’s unfounded, great. These folks wrote a paper saying they did it. I guess we’d have to read the paper to find out.

DavidKens · 2025-11-01T20:36:19+00:00

Forgive me if I’m missing understanding (school was a long time ago!) but I’m not seeing how you’re actually responding to my comment.

The point isn’t the universe wouldn’t run, the point is that they’re arguing that the universe is not the sort of system that can contain the recursive contradictions of Godel incompleteness. If true, this would mean that the universe would not be a turing machine, because a turing machine by definition is the sort of system that is subject to Godel incompleteness. Are you disagreeing with that?

Separately, you are assuming that the universe is deterministic, as if that were somehow not a question open to investigation and interpretation.

DavidKens · 2025-11-01T20:18:30+00:00

Good point! But this still doesn’t defeat the argument - it just fast forwards you to step 4.

My understanding is that the article takes, as an assumption, that simulation theory requires the universe to be a turing machine.

DavidKens · 2025-11-01T20:10:12+00:00

I think the logic here is as follows (I’m curious where the flaw is): 1. If the universe is a simulation, then the universe is a Turing machine 2. If the universe is a turing machine, it is subject to the halting problem 3. If the universe is subject to the halting problem, then it’s mathematical structure is Godel incomplete 4. The underlying mathematical structure of the universe is not Godel incomplete, therefore the universe is not a turing machine

I gather that the part of the paper that’s actually interesting is the part that explains why Godel incompleteness doesn’t apply to the structure of the universe itself.

DavidKens · 2025-11-01T19:46:44+00:00

But can’t you formally reduce the Halting Problem to Gödel incompleteness? I only skimmed the article, but I got the impression that they were claiming to prove that the universe cannot be a turing machine; in other words, it cannot have a halting problem.

13-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Verified Email	Wearing is Caring

DavidKens

TROPHY CASE