replace all markdown links

posts/bullveto.md

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Typically, attempts to collapse down political preferences into a few dimensions
 
 </td></tr></table></center>
 
-There have been many variations on this, and even an entire [subreddit dedicated to memes](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalcompassmemes) based on these charts. I even made a spin on the concept myself, with [this "meta-political compass"](https://vitalik.ca/files/misc_files/meta_political_compass_expanded.png) where at each point on the compass there is a smaller compass depicting what the people at that point on the compass see the axes of the compass as being.
+There have been many variations on this, and even an entire [subreddit dedicated to memes](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalcompassmemes) based on these charts. I even made a spin on the concept myself, with [this "meta-political compass"](https://vitalik.eth.limo/files/misc_files/meta_political_compass_expanded.png) where at each point on the compass there is a smaller compass depicting what the people at that point on the compass see the axes of the compass as being.
 
 Of course, "authoritarian vs libertarian" and "left vs right" are both incredibly un-nuanced gross oversimplifications. But us puny-brained human beings do not have the capacity to run anything close to accurate simulations of humanity inside our heads, and so sometimes incredibly un-nuanced gross oversimplifications are [something we need](https://kieranhealy.org/publications/fuck-nuance/) to understand the world. But what if there are other incredibly un-nuanced gross oversimplifications worth exploring?
 

posts/institutions.md

@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ I went through the list and personally graded the 35 maybe-institutions from my
 * **75% on "intentional structure"** (Tesla definitely has a deep structure with shareholders, directors, management, etc, but that structure isn't really part of its _identity_ in the way that, say, proof of stake consensus is for Ethereum or voting and congress are for a government)
 * **50% for "roles independent of individuals"** (while roles in companies are generally interchangeable, Tesla does get large gains from being part of the Elon-verse specifically)
 
-The full data is [here](https://vitalik.ca/files/misc_files/institution_analysis.ods). I know that many people will have many disagreements over various individual rankings I make, and readers could probably convince me that a few of my scores are wrong; I am mainly hoping that I've included a sufficient number of diverse maybe-instiutions in the list that individual disagreement or errors get roughly averaged out.
+The full data is [here](https://vitalik.eth.limo/files/misc_files/institution_analysis.ods). I know that many people will have many disagreements over various individual rankings I make, and readers could probably convince me that a few of my scores are wrong; I am mainly hoping that I've included a sufficient number of diverse maybe-instiutions in the list that individual disagreement or errors get roughly averaged out.
 
 Here's the table of correlations:
 

posts/networkstates_zhCN.md

@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ _感谢 [付航](https://twitter.com/fulihang2009) ，[Roy](https://twitter.com/
 
 <br>
 
-![https://vitalik.ca/images/networkstates/communes.png](https://vitalik.ca/images/networkstates/communes.png)
+![https://vitalik.eth.limo/images/networkstates/communes.png](https://vitalik.eth.limo/images/networkstates/communes.png)
 
 <br>
 
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ _感谢 [付航](https://twitter.com/fulihang2009) ，[Roy](https://twitter.com/
 
 接下来，巴拉吉总结了 [近代历史上的数次政治重组](https://thenetworkstate.com/left-is-the-new-right-is-the-new-left)，最终，我们得到了他的当今政治核心模型：[纽约时报（NYT）、中共（CCP）、比特币（BTC）](https://thenetworkstate.com/nyt-ccp-btc)构成的三角关系：
 
-![https://vitalik.ca/images/networkstates/nytccpbtc.png](https://vitalik.ca/images/networkstates/nytccpbtc.png)
+![https://vitalik.eth.limo/images/networkstates/nytccpbtc.png](https://vitalik.eth.limo/images/networkstates/nytccpbtc.png)
 
 纽约时报阵营基本上控制着美国，它的无能意味着美国正在走向崩溃。比特币阵营（包括比特币至上主义者和美国泛右翼）有着一些积极的价值观，但对集体行动和秩序的鲜明敌意，让他们无力建设任何东西。中共阵营有能力进行建设，但他们在建设的是一个反乌托邦的监控国家，全世界大部分地方都无意效仿。而且这三方都过于民族主义：他们从自己国家的角度看待事物，对所有其他人只会无视或加以利用。即使理论上都是国际主义者，他们阐释各自价值观的特定方式，仍让人们难以接受，除了世界上属于他们自己的那一小部分人。
 
@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ _感谢 [付航](https://twitter.com/fulihang2009) ，[Roy](https://twitter.com/
 
 巴拉吉的历史螺旋论：是的，会有循环周期，但也不断会有进步。当下所处的周期，正需要我们伸出援手，去埋葬僵化的旧秩序， 也要去培育出更美好的新秩序。
 
-![https://vitalik.ca/images/networkstates/helical.png](https://vitalik.ca/images/networkstates/helical.png)
+![https://vitalik.eth.limo/images/networkstates/helical.png](https://vitalik.eth.limo/images/networkstates/helical.png)
 
 <h2 id='do-you-have-to-agree-with-balajis-megapolitics-to-like-network-states'>要接受网络国家就不得不同意巴拉吉的大政治观吗？</h2>
 

posts/pos_faq.md

@@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ In any chain-based proof of stake algorithm, there is a need for some mechanism
 
 1. In [Peercoin](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131901.0), a validator could "grind" through many combinations of parameters and find favorable parameters that would increase the probability of their coins generating a valid block.
 2. In one now-defunct implementation, the randomness for block N+1 was dependent on the signature of block N. This allowed a validator to repeatedly produce new signatures until they found one that allowed them to get the next block, thereby seizing control of the system forever.
-3. In NXT, the randomness for block N+1 is dependent on the validator that creates block N. This allows a validator to manipulate the randomness by simply skipping an opportunity to create a block. This carries an opportunity cost equal to the block reward, but sometimes the new random seed would give the validator an above-average number of blocks over the next few dozen blocks. See [here](http://vitalik.ca/files/randomness.html) and [here](https://hackernoon.com/nxt-pos-block-skipping-attack-myth-de88cf4b3363) for a more detailed analysis.
+3. In NXT, the randomness for block N+1 is dependent on the validator that creates block N. This allows a validator to manipulate the randomness by simply skipping an opportunity to create a block. This carries an opportunity cost equal to the block reward, but sometimes the new random seed would give the validator an above-average number of blocks over the next few dozen blocks. See [here](http://vitalik.eth.limo/files/randomness.html) and [here](https://hackernoon.com/nxt-pos-block-skipping-attack-myth-de88cf4b3363) for a more detailed analysis.
 
 (1) and (2) are easy to solve; the general approach is to require validators to deposit their coins well in advance, and not to use information that can be easily manipulated as source data for the randomness. There are several main strategies for solving problems like (3). The first is to use schemes based on [secret sharing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_sharing) or [deterministic threshold signatures](https://eprint.iacr.org/2002/081.pdf) and have validators collaboratively generate the random value. These schemes are robust against all manipulation unless a majority of validators collude (in some cases though, depending on the implementation, between 33-50% of validators can interfere in the operation, leading to the protocol having a 67% liveness assumption).
 

posts/retro1.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ The entire process was highly transparent from start to finish:
 
 * The rules that the badge holders were supposed to follow were enshrined in [the badge holder instructions](https://www.notion.so/optimismpbc/Public-Badge-Holder-Manual-d05c3695ef684d1fb62ef38690fb3ff7)
 * You can see the projects that were nominated [in this spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rphUkII5-49VmRVKaQBxsOYRNsO56ifGSSLctQyduWg)
-* All discussion between the badge holders happened in publicly viewable forums. In addition to Twitter conversation (eg. [Jeff Coleman's thread](https://twitter.com/technocrypto/status/1454191422601678854?t=qYCreicPHwjsbpkZgBo69w&s=19) and also [others](https://twitter.com/austingriffith/status/1446221993678815237?s=20)), all of the explicit structured discussion channels were publicly viewable: the <span style="color:#880044">#retroactive-public-goods</span> channel on the [Optimism discord](discord.optimism.io), and a [published Zoom call](https://vitalik.ca/files/misc_files/retro_recording.mp4)
+* All discussion between the badge holders happened in publicly viewable forums. In addition to Twitter conversation (eg. [Jeff Coleman's thread](https://twitter.com/technocrypto/status/1454191422601678854?t=qYCreicPHwjsbpkZgBo69w&s=19) and also [others](https://twitter.com/austingriffith/status/1446221993678815237?s=20)), all of the explicit structured discussion channels were publicly viewable: the <span style="color:#880044">#retroactive-public-goods</span> channel on the [Optimism discord](discord.optimism.io), and a [published Zoom call](https://vitalik.eth.limo/files/misc_files/retro_recording.mp4)
 * The full results, and the individual badge holder votes that went into the results, can be viewed [in this spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1g4ilAByMNQsmlBC8cskQip7Ojd_qK6IhozJCyoVfU9k)
 
 And finally, here are the results in an easy-to-read chart form:

posts/traveltime.md

@@ -69,9 +69,9 @@ Now, I needed travel time data for longer distances, where the optimal route wou
     * `flight_time`: the flight time from the starting point to the end point. I used [Google Flights](https://www.google.com/travel/flights)) and always took the top result, except in cases where the top result was completely crazy (more than 2x the length of the shortest), in which case I took the shortest.
 * I computed the travel time as `(to_airport) * 1.5 + (90 if international else 60) + flight_time + from_airport`. The first part is a fairly aggressive formula (I personally am much more conservative than this) for when to leave for the airport: aim to arrive 60 min before if domestic and 90 min before if international, and multiply expected travel time by 1.5x in case there are any mishaps or delays.
 
-This was boring and I was not interested in wasting my time to do more than 16 of these; I presume if I was a serious researcher I would already have an account set up on [TaskRabbit](https://www.taskrabbit.com/) or some similar service that would make it easier to hire other people to do this for me and get much more data. In any case, 16 is enough; I put my resulting data [here](https://vitalik.ca/files/misc_files/travel_time_data_with_flights.csv).
+This was boring and I was not interested in wasting my time to do more than 16 of these; I presume if I was a serious researcher I would already have an account set up on [TaskRabbit](https://www.taskrabbit.com/) or some similar service that would make it easier to hire other people to do this for me and get much more data. In any case, 16 is enough; I put my resulting data [here](https://vitalik.eth.limo/files/misc_files/travel_time_data_with_flights.csv).
 
-Finally, just for fun, I added some data for how long it would take to travel to various locations in space: [the moon](https://science.howstuffworks.com/how-long-to-moon.htm) (I added 12 hours to the time to take into account an average person's travel time to the launch site), [Mars](https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/timeline/cruise/), [Pluto](https://www.universetoday.com/119264/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-pluto) and [Alpha](https://www.iflscience.com/a-mission-to-alpha-centauri-within-a-human-lifetime-has-just-become-more-realistic-59960) [Centauri](https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/06/22/142160/this-is-how-many-people-wed-have-to-send-to-proxima-centauri-to-make-sure-someone-actually/). You can find my complete code [here](https://vitalik.ca/files/misc_files/geoanalyze.py).
+Finally, just for fun, I added some data for how long it would take to travel to various locations in space: [the moon](https://science.howstuffworks.com/how-long-to-moon.htm) (I added 12 hours to the time to take into account an average person's travel time to the launch site), [Mars](https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/timeline/cruise/), [Pluto](https://www.universetoday.com/119264/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-pluto) and [Alpha](https://www.iflscience.com/a-mission-to-alpha-centauri-within-a-human-lifetime-has-just-become-more-realistic-59960) [Centauri](https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/06/22/142160/this-is-how-many-people-wed-have-to-send-to-proxima-centauri-to-make-sure-someone-actually/). You can find my complete code [here](https://vitalik.eth.limo/files/misc_files/geoanalyze.py).
 
 Here's the resulting chart:
 

posts/ux_zhCN.md

@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ _原文：[Some personal user experiences](../../../2023/02/28/ux.html)_
 
 <center>
 
-![](https://vitalik.ca/images/ux/diagram.png)
+![](https://vitalik.eth.limo/images/ux/diagram.png)
 
 <small>
 

posts/voting.md

@@ -211,6 +211,6 @@ In blockchain governance, it seems like this is the only way forward as well. Th
 
 I would argue that it is very useful for coin voting to be one of several coordination institutions deciding whether or not a given change gets implemented. It is an imperfect and unrepresentative signal, but it is a <em>Sybil-resistant</em> one - if you see 10 million ETH voting for a given proposal, you <em>cannot</em> dismiss that by simply saying "oh, that's just hired Russian trolls with fake social media accounts". It is also a signal that is sufficiently disjoint from the core development team that if needed it can serve as a check on it. However, as described above, there are very good reasons why it should not be the <em>only</em> coordination institution.
 
-And underpinnning it all is the key difference from traditional systems that makes blockchains interesting: the "layer 1" that underpins the whole system is the requirement for individual users to assent to any protocol changes, and their freedom, and credible threat, to "fork off" if someone attempts to force changes on them that they consider hostile (see also: [http://vitalik.ca/general/2017/05/08/coordination_problems.html](http://vitalik.ca/general/2017/05/08/coordination_problems.html)).
+And underpinnning it all is the key difference from traditional systems that makes blockchains interesting: the "layer 1" that underpins the whole system is the requirement for individual users to assent to any protocol changes, and their freedom, and credible threat, to "fork off" if someone attempts to force changes on them that they consider hostile (see also: [http://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2017/05/08/coordination_problems.html](http://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2017/05/08/coordination_problems.html)).
 
 Tightly coupled voting is also okay to have in some limited contexts - for example, despite its flaws, miners' ability to vote on the gas limit is a feature that has proven very beneficial on multiple occasions. The risk that miners will try to abuse their power may well be lower than the risk that any specific gas limit or block size limit hard-coded by the protocol on day 1 will end up leading to serious problems, and in that case letting miners vote on the gas limit is a good thing. However, "allowing miners or validators to vote on a few specific parameters that need to be rapidly changed from time to time" is a very far cry from giving them arbitrary control over protocol rules, or letting voting control validation, and these more expansive visions of on-chain governance have a much murkier potential, both in theory and in practice.