Vitalik touched upon this briefly in an other-wise long and wide-reaching essay. I think its a good treatment of the topic that the author is talking about.
He categorizes the ecosystem broadly into 4 cohorts- [token holders] (which includes investors, speculators, etc.), [pragmatic users] (actual end-users who spend crypto to buy stuff), [intellectuals] (who give the vision and ideology), [builders] (of blockchains, apps, etc.) - These 4 groups come together but with different motivations and there is a gap in understanding between them. Indeed, there is even resistance against trying to reach an understanding - one which plays out in the comments section of every crypto-related post on hn. The author of this twitter-post clearly falls under [intellectual, builder] and has been disillusioned by the speculators from [token-holders]. Yet the [token-holders] are a vital component (as are the other groups) as they fund most of the development and adoption. Ultimately these 4 groups have more in common than not. The challenge going forward is to balance the occasionally conflicting needs of all the 4 groups, which includes checking the excesses of each group, while try to achieve a consensus. (Vitalik provides a nice diagram that maps out what that would look like). Crypto is an experiment in economics and economics is a science as well as a social-science. Anyone looking for a good solution must seek to understand and address the psychology of all the actors involved.
In a casino you have
- The gamblers spending a lot on the casino
- The people coming in for the fun and spending little money
- The owners/C-levels
- The operational team
Someone from the operational team just learned that business relies only on the first group to be successful.
I worked in blockchain ("builder") for 5 years. I started 'eh, there are speculators, whatever, I build good tech' but finished 'holy crap speculators completely dominate and distort everything, nobody cares about good tech'
Yep. As much as I can see utility in some crypto, and there are some personalities in respect (e.g. Vitalik) by and large the sector in such a dumpster fire I'm not going anywhere near it. I've got some bitcoin in a Coinbase account, that's as close as I'm getting.
Indeed. For example: Chia is arguably decent tech (better than Bitcoin), built by Bram Cohen (of BitTorrent fame), innovative PoSpace+Time. But nobody cares, it's at #450 in market cap, way down below Doge (#10), $TRUMP (#72), Fartcoin (#144), Melania (#375).
The market cap obsession is part of the problem. Can I use it to buy things, easily? That's the only metric that should count if you're looking for practical use, not speculation.
A successful cryptocurrent probably has to start by first having a market that is dissatisfied with the available traditional currencies. If that market were to introduce on (with good tech), then it could immediately see the cryptocurrency used for its intended purpose. At that point, if it avoided the attention of speculators (not forever, just long enough for it to get its feet underneath itself) or could discourage those speculators somehow, what happens then?
Is there some other failure mode waiting, or does it take off?
It's hard to measure that directly. Market cap is a decent proxy, albeit inexact. If a coin has a market cap of $1.8 trillion, you know a lot of people are doing a lot of something with it, and it's likely that includes using it to buy and sell stuff to some extent. If it has a market cap of $200 million, then there just can't be many people buying and selling with it, and that means it's pretty likely to be difficult to use that way.
Nano is also another interesting one or litecoin etc., basically just having low gas fees I guess and being more efficient but I don't like shilling these products because I personally am a stauch believer in stablecoins and there are stablecoins like USDC's on chains like polygons which can satisfy the function "good enough" for me where they have trust etc. which I don't wish to replicate
There are still some 0 gas fees innovations happening in stablecoin marketplaces which is going to be interesting to see how that pans out.
Agreed re Chia, but here’s a counterpoint: MXE is 16,000 times faster than FHE, completely changes the concept of computing (that in order to calculate something you need to see the data) and it as a result Arcium the hottest thing in crypto right now.
The point i was trying to make was that the disillusionment faced by technologists possibly stemmed from a naivety about how the economy works and how people respond to incentives. Speculators are a "feature/bug" of pretty much any financial system. Stocks, real-estate, fiat-currencies, potatoes - The price of everything is being distorted by speculators. Done right, they bring liquidity, financial stability, and wealth creation. Left to their own devices, they cause volatility, inequity and financial destruction. (Crypto is probably more on the latter side on some of those metrics atm). The People looking to build a good crypto solution has to be clear-eyed about how to handle them.
I also wonder if the author has partly himself to blame. From his post, it looks like he worked for the seedier players in the space (because the pay was better) and is angry at the whole space. Its like a developer who worked for Oracle on MySql swearing off the entire open-source community.
edit: >nobody cares about good tech'
True. That's a big part of why you need [token-holders], "Build it and they will come" is more of a hope than a strategy.
Ah I see, so the [token holder] hires a [builder] to build something, and uses that to then hire [intellectual] to scam the ['pragmatic user']?
To take this a little more seriously, this is computer programming, very famously you don't need massive gobs of VC capital to build something. The only reason for the [builder] needs [token holder] is to hire [intellectual] to scam [user].
Oh and of course, [token holder] [builder] and [intellectual] are the same guy with 3 different anime profile pics.
If you can afford Lambo you can come to place like Dubai and pay for it in AnyUSDcoin, gold nuggets or anime profile picture NFTs. Barrier for using crypto of any kind does not exist in countries without paranoid AML / KYC regulations.
Or tbh you can just buy it with crypto card issued in Hong Kong / Singapore even if you buying it in the US.
That's a very nice categorization, but it seems orthogonal to the categories of: [scammers and hackers that want an untraceable and unrefundable payment method], [scammers that use cryptos themselves to scam and rugpull], ...
I don't see how the article you linked is relevant at all to the OP and the topic of scams in general.
If anything it just shows how the leadership and allegedly well-meaning leadership chooses to ignore the issue.
Isn't it very likely that the malicious actors are part of the ecosystem and they contribute with funding? I'm not convinced that the scams and the casinos are an entirely separate fifth group (as opposed to a spectrum pyramid which might place say the Eth or Sol devs at the top). But even if they were, it's possible that the whole ecosystem and developers are benefitting from it?
It seems that the very nature of banks is associating and trading deposits and debts, so if more than half of the ecosystem consists of scams and theft, the other 'good' half is both benefitting and enabling the 'bad' half. Legislation is very clear on this, which is why we have KYC, money laundering laws, which are curiously enough the very social features that the supposedly "technological" innovations seem to do without.
In any case just ignoring the issue as a whole is a bit damning by itself, ignorance at best.
Because he is only talking about categories that can contribute to the system. [Scammers] do not. In so far as the system and the diagram is concerned, [scammers] are to be thwarted and their harmful effects mitigated. A lot of the work done in crypto is security which is entirely about thwarting [scammers]. As an example, The original bitcoin paper on double-spending problem is devoted to securing against a particular type of scam.
Speculators fall in a gray area and need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. many of them are straight up scams, Some are legit, and the rest are in between. Stratton Oakmont was a scam. Does that mean your index-fund is also one? Or the stock market and financial system as a whole?
From what I understand the Ethereum Foundation has attracted a lot of criticism. I am not sure how much power and influence he has over it.
One of the sensitive issue is the price of ETH it seems as it didn't perform well over the last 3-4 years. And staking it will only give you about 2.5% today.
So in a sense the Ethereum Foundation is the opposite of the criticism we usually hear about crypto: the "stock" doesn't perform well but real progress have been made with the technology and in the ecosystem.
One thing that is clear is that transactions are cheaper, more reliable and anybody can still participate and build on it.
The only buyers are criminals, sanction evaders, and probably the dumbest people in the world given that the entire crypto ecosystem is focused on one thing and one thing only. Creating the most deflationary monetary system in history.
The entire crypto ecosystem is hardly all about deflation these days. If anything, I'd argue the opposite. Stablecoins, yield, perpetual futures etc. are hardly what Satoshi had in mind.
I'm living in a reality very different from yours, I don't think you can understand. In my country, actual journalism and speaking about certain things are crimes that will put you into the jail for the rest of your life, get you tortured and likely murdered. Access to the knowledge about certain things is blocked. To be able to do journalism or to circumvent the censorship, one essentially has to commit crimes in another (supposedly free) country as well, because there it's considered to be sanctions evading and/or illegal money laundering.
So yeah, of course you can frame it in your way and that would be valid. That was the original ideal of cryptocurrencies - to have a financial system not controlled by the governments. Of course it can be used for fraud and other things we probably both consider bad, by design. Just like gold.
There are a lot of places in the world where crypto payments are now prevalent, not because users are the "dumbest people in the world" but because they have no better alternative for electronic finance. Either conventional banking is nonexistent/abysmal for this purpose or their national currencies are in such bad condition that it's better for them to hold and use cryptocurrencies.
Nigeria, Argentina, Venezuela, all prime examples because they faced especially severe problems with hyperinflation and traditional banking. You can also find widespread use in developing economies like Brazil, Indonesia, Philippines, but of course to a lesser degree since the problems with traditional finance are not as severe there. I will gladly provide more in-depth information, if someone provides some evidence to support that crypto users are the dumbest people on Earth. If not, feel free to use your own time instead of mine for your education.
You've mentioned some places in the world that have economic problems. You've provided zero evidence to support the idea that "crypto payments are now prevalent" in any of those places.
As a counterexample, El Salvador adopted bitcoin as an official currency, provided state-subsidized infrastructure for citizens to adopt it, and still achieved only minimal usage:
> The October 2022 “Encuesta Dinámica Empresarial” from FUSADES registered that 97¾ percent of business have not made even one sale in Bitcoin. NBER and Chamber of Commerce and Industry surveys show similar results.
Crypto is not prevalent in the Philippines or Indonesia. Except maybe in the scam centres in the Philippines run by Chinese gangsters that are operating pig butchering and other scams, and threatening to undermine the Philippine government. See The Economist, which estimates that these crypto scammers rake in some $500bn a year.
So it was dumb of me to buy my bitcoins back when they were less than $100 a coin just in the slim chance that it completely blew up? I don't see what was dumb about a decision to put less than $1000 into 10 coins just in case. Worked out really well for me in the end and a less than $1000 gamble doesn't seem like that crazy of a gamble, at least to me.
You don't think a $1000 gamble on this new paradigm of blockchain crypto was a sound decision? When the sum I was putting in was otherwise an insignificant sum to me.
I bought in fully knowing it could go to 0, or maybe it could be worth a ton in 10+ years. To me it seemed like the chance it would blow up was well worth the tiny risk of losing a pretty meaningless amount of money to me.
I am not even otherwise a gambler. I have never gambled at a casino or on sports or anything like that. And my stock investing is all index funds. This was the only singular "crazy gamble" I had ever made and I knew full well it was crazy. But the potential in my mind around the tech and the potential hype around it seemed to greatly outweigh the tiny risk.
You had a positive outcome, but yes, despite that, I don't know if that was based on a sound decision. It's possible to vastly misjudge the expected value of a trade and still come out ahead.
> This was the only singular "crazy gamble" I had ever made and I knew full well it was crazy.
The only thing that matters is whether it's positive EV (and whether your methodology of coming up with the EV itself is sound). If you didn't have any explicit or implicit notion of the EV at the time you made it... It was probably not a sound investment decision, despite being profitable.
I mean I thought that there was a potential in blockchain tech back when I bought it. I also thought that there was also potential in the hype around blockchain to explode the value simply from hype and how humans behave alone.
At least WAY more of a chance than what I would get spending $1000 on a lottery ticket or at a casino.
I shoved £500 down in Sept 2017 knowing full well it was a gamble, and still have a roughtly £500 balance now -- having skimmed enough off the top over the years to buy a couple of iPhones and whatever else. I 100% consider this profit to be literal dumb luck.
Unironic congratulations on being self-aware enough to take your profits without it affecting your reasoning. Anecdotally, not many seem to come out of crypto net positive with that mindset.
I made a singular choice once to put less than 1% of my yearly income into 1 thing that seemed to have some potential.
Back then it was the only crypto. I put in knowing full well it could go to 0, but the potential of where it could possibly go seemed well worth the tiny risk to an essentially insignificant sum of money to me.
There are other cryptos but they aren't the original or anywhere near the biggest, so they are not the same in my eyes. So those are actual legitimate reasons why I would not choose to perform that same risk again with a different crypto.
And the stock market isn't gambling? I view it as such.
Was this more or less risky than buying $1000 in scratch offs, or lottery tickets, or spending $1000 in Vegas?
In my opinion, crypto when I bought it had a lot more "potential" than any of those more "traditional" forms of gambling which is why I was willing to give it a try with a sum of less than 1% of my yearly income...
I am not saying it was a smart choice, just that I don't think it was a particularly stupid choice.
Putting money in a company because you reviewed its business, the way it operates and add value to the society is more of an investment than gambling. Now things happens and I agree there is always a part of luck, called risk.
BTC isn't really adding value to the society, except the shady parts of it. I can't assess the part of luck in BTC gambling. Many lost money, many betted on the wrong coin. Did you bet on it because of the impact on dark economy or because you believed in unlocking the economy, blockchain everything which didn't happen?
I bet on it because in 2009 when I bought the coins for about $100 each I thought that maybe blockchain could do something unique that would cause the value to rise an appreciable amount. Or at the very least that it sounded like something that would get the tech sector excited and that alone would be enough to build enough hype around it that many more people would buy it causing the price to go up.
In my mind it seemed cheap enough to try a $1000 gamble and just hold long, long term ignoring the fluctuations and either this will be worth 0 or it will maybe be worth a boatload in the far future. That was always my idea and goal from day 1.
I mean I invest tens of thousands in the stock market and real-estate every year. This was just a tiny and wild gamble, but I don't think it was a dumb or foolish decision at the time given my financial position at the time and the amount involved.
"So it was dumb of me to buy my lottery tickets just in the slim chance that I won? Worked out really well for me in the end and a less than $1000 gamble doesn't seem like that crazy of a gamble, at least to me."
I don't see how that relates to me. I made a singular choice. I am going to put in $1000 one time and leave it alone because there seems to be some potential here.
I made the choice basically saying OK this $1000 I am putting in will either be worthless in 10+ years or it will be worth a lot.
I am not continuing to buy, I am not dumping loads of money into it. I spent less than 1% of my yearly salary one time knowing full well it could go to 0. The potential seemed well worth the tiny risk.
The point is that, your "investment" was pure gambling. See how I can replace bitcoin with lottery ticket.
> I am going to buy $1000 in lottery tickets one time and leave it alone because there seems to be some potential here.
> I made the choice basically saying OK this $1000 I am putting in will either be worthless in 10 hours or it will be worth a lot.
But it's more than just a binary. Do you not think that the chance that bitcoin blew up big was more or less than my chance at winning a million on a $1000 lottery gamble?
I bought bitcoin because I perceived more potential around blockchain tech becoming either useful or at least drawing hype to explode the value. I wouldn't buy a lottery ticket because the odds of winning are astronomically low. I perceived there to be a far greater chance in bitcoin blowing up than winning the lottery, or even winning big at a casino.
Do you think I really over-estimated bitcoin's odds early on? At least with blockchain there were some potential real-world possibilities to it and that was a big factor in my choice to gamble on it. Is that kind of thought not at least somewhat more sound than buying a simple lottery ticket? To me it was.
You are the lottery winner, extolling the virtues of the lottery. There are many other people who also made singular choices, that — by pure chance — did not pan out.
It's good that you were in a financial position such that you could easily spend $1000 on a dumb investment, but that doesn't make it less of a dumb investment.
I guess my argument is that turning $1000 into 1 million was probably a significantly more probable outcome than winning 1 million in a lottery which is specifically why I decided to put my money into bitcoin instead of lottery tickets.
I just don't see the equivalence in comparing it to buying a lottery ticket.
There are way way way more bitcoin winners than there are lottery winners.
The lottery analogy is reductio ad absurdum analogy — like, yeah, your odds of doing basically anything are better than winning the lottery (that's why the comic is funny). The point is that the positive outcome doesn't retroactively make your risky investment decision less risky. That's survivorship bias!
I bought 10 bitcoin for about $1000 in late 2013. It's currently worth about 900K and was a peak of about 1.2M.
$1000 in NVDA shares in late 2013 was about 35 cents per share, so about 2850 shares. That's currently worth 521K with a peak of 590K.
And why? Because in 2013 I thought there was a greater potential for bitcoin blowing up substantially due to the new concept of blockchain and what it could potentially do, or at least the hype around what people perceived that it could potentially do. Compared to what I thought the potential for NVDA to do.
Nobody is saying it's not luck... But people are comparing it to buying a lottery ticket. I am pretty sure the odds of this gamble are way better than the odds of winning this big in a lottery. Probably by more than an order of magnitude.
I think the author Cory Doctrow (who is actually a published author) laid out his case quite clearly. He doesn't question the intentions or sincerity of the BlueSky team. But from past experience he is not confident that will be enough. We have all been there before. (I am old enough to remember when the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. held themselves to similarly lofty ideals and standards.) But under pressure whether it is financial pressure or political, regulatory or or from investors, employees, the board, competition, etc. Bluesky may very well choose to renege on those promises to their users- This is enshittification. The only guarantee against this is if Bluesky allows users to seamlessly migrate their account (including posts, followers) to another host without any disruption or degradation of their service.
He doesn't question the intentions or sincerity, agreed, but he also doesn't discuss their actions AFAICT. He writes as if Bluesky's actions cannot affect the future of the service.
It seems to me that the Bluesky team is painting the company into a corner, where it'll be able to make a nice profit from a nice service, but can't grow to hire 7000 people, have a 500-strong HR team or a ten-digit valuation.
Related : Corey Doctrow's article (again) about how he doesn't trust Bluesky enough to move there from mastodon. Especially Bluesky's promise to allow users to migrate to another host in the fediverse.
"If the person who runs your server turns out to be imperfect in a way that you can’t endure, you can find another server, spend five minutes moving your account over, and you’re back up and running on the new server"
He's completely wrong about how easy it is to move a Mastodon account to another server.
First, your instance admins can completely wipe your account before you even have a chance to move.
Second, you can't move an account, you create a new one on another server which produces a new handle. You can move followers over using some clunky process few users would understand. It can take up to 30 days to process and may require multiple tries. In case any blockage happens between your old and new server, it gets even trickier.
Worse, your content cannot be migrated. It is forever stuck at the old server and at the whims of whoever runs it. Same for the redirect from your old account to your new account.
If the point is to have a robust network where your account, content and followers/followings are safe...Mastodon is the worst.
Any platform can wipe your account without notice, and so far as I'm aware, without meaningful legal recourse. Your only assurance against this is regular backups. There are tools you can use to automatically mirror your Mastodon / Fediverse accounts locally, as well as in-app content extraction tools.
Content migration isn't implemented yet, and as someone who's migrated a few times more than I can remember (three or four, possibly more), that's a bit of a PITA. But it is on the roadmap, and account migration in general has become far cleaner over the years, see note at bottom of:
Note that there are few if any proprietary / commercial services which afford anything remotely close to what Mastodon does, though blogging platforms probably permit import/export of content to a greater degree.
> Bluesky lacks the one federated feature that is absolutely necessary for me to trust it: the ability to leave Bluesky and go to another host and continue to talk to the people I’ve entered into community with there. While there are many independently maintained servers that provide services to Bluesky and its users, there is only one Bluesky server.
I'm not sure this is up to date, but Bluesky/AT Proto's architecture is pretty complex to wrap my head around so maybe I just misunderstand. The biggest difference is that unlike Mastodon, Bluesky doesn't really have a single concept of an 'instance' that represents an independent segment of the network like Mastodon does. Instead you have PDSs (which is a user and their data), relays (which centrally relay multiple PDSs like a firehose), and the app view (the frontend for visualising the relay and interacting with PDSs).
Bluesky's AT Proto design has different trade offs to Mastodon. Bluesky seems like the more feature complete, technically superior, twitter-scale design, being expectedly more complex. Mastodon/ActivityPub is easier to boot up something completely decentralised, but hosters often complain about scale. The real test comes down to the resiliancy of the service is the main provider shuts down. At the moment I think Bluesky would suffer a lot more than Mastodon if the company just went away.
Thanks for the links! I think this perfectly captures my frustration here. It's like people have learned nothing and are, once again, making an aesthetic choice.
Well, yes. Bluesky offers something close to the look and feel and, crucially, community of pre-ruined twitter, plus some new community moderation tools. Realistically 99% of its users don't care about and arguably don't even want decentralization.
What does he mean there is only one "Bluesky server" ?
You can already run your own Personal data server (for your data), Relay (to aggregate all feeds), AppView (that holds a view of the data), or client (that talks to the AppView).
He's almost certainly talking about the AppView. Yes, people run their own PDSes, but afaik no-one is running their own AppViews. It seems prohibitively expensive. Even running a relay requires at a minimum terabytes of storage space (and presumably more when the network gets bigger?).
The AppView
- controls the way you can search posts
- has the ability to show or hide posts from everyone using that AV
- has per-user data such as notifications, last skeet seen etc
- is a CDN for media, and as such can filter there
- is where the algorithms of what posts to show are implemented
In other words, someone who controls the AppView holds a lot of power in the AT Protocol world.
At the moment, it seems that Bluesky are doing a great job with their AppView, and they've rather magnificently scaled with the extreme load increases in the last months. However, for someone like Doctorow who wants independence from being on someone else's platform, there has to be a viable alternative AppView, or at the very least a documented process for how to host it.
However, it's my personal belief that it's only a matter of time until people do this. I don't know how practical it will be (and what level of resources would be needed to divulge if Bluesky go bad compared to a Mastodon server), but it seems like this is a priority for them, and everything else in the stack has been made easy to self host (see https://alice.bsky.sh/post/3laega7icmi2q).
Can you seamlessly migrate your account (your id, followers, and posts) to another host without losing said followers? I think that's the main feature Doctrow is looking for?
It's a better situation than Mastadon because you can keep your handle. On Mastadon when you change servers you get a new handle since they are tied together.
Yes and no. If you follow the Mastodon migration process, your old handle(s) forward to your new one(s).
What you lose (at least last I checked) are action notifications based on your forwarded handle(s). This mostly doesn't matter, though in my case I have one mildly-viral toot which occasionally gets rediscovered. Missing out on the notifications storm there is mostly feature rather than bug.
You won't lose your existing followers? They will still be able to see your new and old posts from your new host? Even if Bluesky suspends your account?
If that is true then that probably goes a long way in addressing the concern Doctrow and others have with Bluesky.
edit: According to one article[1] PDS isn't really full federation like what mastodon has. Right now you can only host your own account in your PDS (But they plan to gradually increase that limit to 10, and then more later)[2]. But it's certainly a good start. Not sure if Bluesky will have the capability to block you from reaching your own followers though (say if they ban or suspend your account).
Bluesky's only hope to be anything other than a twitter clone posing as a distributed protocol while hoping that Musk Diggs his own grave, was if it were a rich man's hobby and charity, and Dorsey has long left the building.
> This tool was designed such that it had, you know, it was a base level protocol. It had a reference app on top. It was designed to be controlled by the people. I think the greatest idea — which we need — is an algorithm store, where you choose how you see all the conversations. But little by little, they started asking Jay and the team for moderation tools, and to kick people off. And unfortunately they followed through with it.
> That was the second moment I thought, uh, nope. This is literally repeating all the mistakes we made as a company. This is not a protocol that's truly decentralized. It’s another app. It's another app that's just kind of following in Twitter's footsteps, but for a different part of the population.
> Everything we wanted around decentralization, everything we wanted in terms of an open source protocol, suddenly became a company with VCs and a board. That's not what I wanted, that's not what I intended to help create.
For me, i never really liked tab groups. I prefer to organize my tabs under topical windows. Tab groups is kind of an ugly duckling in that paradigm, but thats just me.
I am a broken record on this.
"Tab Session Manager" + "OneTab" people!!!
- Save all your tabs and windows which come under a single topic (say "Buy car", "Learn OpenCV", "Work") as a named session using Tab Session Manager
- You can restore, replace your saved sessions at any point in the future. You can also edit sessions, add/delete tabs, windows from the drop-down menu.
- It also backs up your last 10 (can be adjusted in settings) sessions.
- Very frictionless and intuitive UX.
- Send all the rest of your unclassified tabs (interesting hackernews articles, your readinglist) to OneTab
It opens as a pinned tab but yeah maybe about 10 - 30 seconds when opening it for the first time in a new session. I am patient with it since i figure it probably takes a while to load my 5,000 or so tabs.
The "Tab Session Manager" add-on probably will address the majority of your gripes with firefox's inbuilt session manager :
- It backs up your last 10 (can be changed) sessions.
- You can save specifics sessions for perpetuity. In your example, you can save some or all of the windows under a single session named "Car". You can add/remove tabs/windows from it at any time from within the menu. And it is always there ready to be restored when you need.
- For the rest of my unorgranised miscellaneous tabs (like random hackernews articles), i send them to OneTab rather than save them in a session.
- Overall, very friction-less, intuitive UX.
>(The other thing I would like, is something in mobile Firefox that tells me how many tabs I have open. I hate the cute infinity sign.
Two (rather cumbersome) work-arounds :
- Save all tabs as collection - will tell you how many tabs you have
- The "Clear History" option also tells how many tabs you have currently. (Just don't accidentally click "Delete"!! )
It's a great plugin. I just wish a few of my sites didn't have issues with Firefox... most of which can be easily addressed when it doesn't find a browser it's biased for.
