The Number Zero and Bitcoin. Satoshi gave the world ...

PT Super Public Chain has the potential to outperform all mainstream public chains

PT Super Public Chain has the potential to outperform all mainstream public chains
Public chains have become a topic that is widely discussed, and it used to be all about comparing who had the better headlines and everyone was talking about Blockchain 3.0. Their normal method was to take a prominent indicator and make comparisons between them and a mainstream public chain in the market, and then come to a predetermined conclusion. Few articles objectively and comprehensively compare the current mainstream public chains in the market and give the public an intuitive and credible conclusion. Today, we are going to break this bad habit of this industry and make a horizontal comparison of the current mainstream public chains, and thus intuitively and objectively tell you what the differences are between public chains.

https://preview.redd.it/heczp9tj29t51.jpg?width=1772&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cbac81221394b3d5294b8c6eb1be52581b0d725f
Contestants:
First generation public chain: BTC (father of blockchain)
Second generation public chain representatives: ETH, EOS
Third generation public chain representatives: polkaDOT, VDS, PT public chain
Criteria for the different generations: classification

  • First generation public chain: mainly referring to the transformation from theory to the implementation of blockchain, Bitcoin is recognized as the representative of the first generation of blockchain.
  • Second generation public chain: the main purpose is to explore the possibility of blockchain applications, among which ETH is the representative. Although EOS claims to be the third-generation public chain, it really should belong to the enhanced version of the second-generation public chain.
  • Third generation public chain is on top of the second generation. It has generally found its niche, and comes with more valuable technical public chains, such as VDS resonance, or polkaDOT’s superb cross chain innovation, PT public chain's full chain compatibility mode and ultra-high throughput.
Four dimensions for comparison:

  • Public chain consensus: the core indicator of public chain innovation, which directly affects the performance and security of the public chain, with a top score of five stars.
Usage scenarios of the public chain: it mainly reflects the commercial value of the public
  • TPS: before upgrading to the 2.0 network, the TPS of ETH can only handle 30 transactions per second, which is considered to be in the weak category, and thus I can only give 1.5 stars.

  • Influence: the representative of the second generation blockchain, giving it 4 stars.
To sum up, the average score of the second-generation public chain ETH is 3.625 stars.
EOS (Second generation public chain):

  • Consensus: OPOS is a new set of consensus created in addition to POW, which perfectly avoids the shortcomings of the POW consensus mechanism. However, its own security has not been recognized by the community. Coupled with the existence of a centralized "referee mechanism", DPOS on the EOS chain has always received mixed reviews in the industry. At this stage, it only deserves a 3-star rating.

  • Usage scenario: thanks to the improvement of the consensus mechanism, EOS has the possibility of being suitable for large-scale applications. There have also been popular applications such as Pixel Wars. However, due to the high rental costs of CPU resources, developers are becoming more and more distant from the EOS ecosystem, and it has been a long time since there have been any popular new applications, so only 2.5 stars.

  • TPS: EOS claimed to have a million concurrency at the beginning of development, but the actual tested volume is 3800 transactions per second at the moment. Compared with the first two public chains, this was a major breakthrough, scoring it 5 stars.

  • Influence: at the beginning when launched, there was a massive wave of interest but then there were no popular applications and the ecosystem has gradually withered away, so influence gets only 2 stars.
To sum up, the average score of the second-generation public chain EOS is 3.125 stars.
polkaDOT (Third generation public chain)

  • Consensus: NPOS is an updated consensus, based on an improved DPOS. The double confirmation mechanism makes it more difficult for nodes to be corrupted, but the cost is higher, so taking into account the utility of the public chain performance, I’ll give it 4 stars.

  • Usage scenarios: polkaDOT provides a cross-chain relay chain mode, and its own positioning is to connect highways without public chains. At present, there is still a lack of real demand in terms of practical scenarios. So far, polkaDOT has been in a tepid state, giving it 3.5 stars.

  • TPS: the processing is 1000 transactions per second on the chain, and taking into account the safety and efficiency, this is a relatively ideal performance, giving an overall score is 4 stars. United States, but at present, based on its budding state, it can only score 2 stars for the time being.
    To sum up, the average score of the third-generation public chain PT is 3.5 stars.
In summary, from the score point of view, the scores of the three generations of public chain are beyond my original expectations. The second-generation public chain is still the preferred platform for mainstream applications, with mature technology, a friendly development environment and low user education costs being the key advantages. However, the third-generation public chain, as a latecomer, generally has a lower score. The technical purposes of the third-generation public chain are very obvious, so there is the phenomenon of partiality. Some of the main functions came close to a full score, while the rest scored relatively low.
https://preview.redd.it/vic3k7j049t51.jpg?width=3334&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=27a24ce91445d25881d25a8ac8abbbdffbf82a8f
I am very optimistic about the PT public chain. As a latecomer, PT public chain has the first decentralized Dpos+Spos consensus mechanism in the blockchain circle. It has high security, high privacy levels, high efficiency, high capacity expansion, supports compatibility and cross chain technologies, which makes it easier to carry out multi technology development. It also innovates the efficiency of the destruction mechanism of mining coalescence, effectively improving the shortcomings of the traditional mining allocation mechanism, eliminating speculative players, and increasing the participation rate of consensus innovation in the technology and methodology. However, due to the weakness of the latecomers themselves, the ecosystem is in its infancy, and there has not been enough time for all of the innovative mechanisms to be tested by the market, so I can
chain and is an important basis for measuring the commercial prospects of the public chain, with a top score of five stars.
  • TPS of public chain: represents the maximum potential upper limit of the public chain, with top score of five stars.
Influence / achievement of public chain: represents the contribution value of the public chain to the blockchain industry, with a top score of five stars.
These four dimensions mainly consider the practicability of the public chain, and focus on the commercial value itself, as I believe that productivity is the only standard by which to measure technology.
BTC (first generation public chain)

  • Consensus: POW (workload proof mechanism) this is a consensus with the highest degree of security and decentralization so far. The disadvantage is that it is less efficient, because it is the pioneer of POW, so we will give it a great score of 4 stars.

  • Usage scenario: digital currency (payments, transfers, asset management) although BTC is currently the most commonly accepted digital currency, it has a single purpose. We give it a score of 2.5 stars.

  • TPS: it can only process 7 transactions per second, which is also the major factor restricting the popularity of BTC at present. This was a technology compromise in the initial start-up stage, we can only rate it 1.5 stars.

  • Influence: the father of blockchain, the founder of digital currency, it has to be the top score of 5 stars.
To sum up, the average score of the first-generation public chain is 3.25 stars.
ETH (Second generation public chain)

  • Consensus: POW (Proof of Workload) it is the same as bitcoin's consensus mechanism, and its advantages and disadvantages are also basically the same. The difference is that ETH has added an algorithm against mining machines, which makes the computing power more decentralized. In addition, the witness mechanism of DPOS was introduced in the era of ETH2.0, which means I can give a score of 4 stars.

  • Usage scenario: in terms of applications, ETH is invincible. It has the largest user group and developer team in the industry. It has produced popular and even quasi killer applications like Cryptocat, FOMO3D and DEFI, which is the king of blockchain applications. This gives it a full score of five stars.
  • Influence: the influence is limited to a small portion of the technology exploration community, giving it a 2.5-star rating.
To sum up, the average score of the third-generation public chain polkaDOT is 3.5 stars.
VDS (Third generation public chain)

  • Consensus: due to the lack of powerful computing power to support it, the safety and the performance of the public chain have basically not been considered, so, only 1.5 stars can be given.

  • Usage scenario: it has its own resonance mechanism, and it is no exaggeration to say that VDS was the most popular public chain in 2019. It immediately gained explosive popularity in the industry. We have to give credit to this kind of strength, scoring it 4.5 stars.

  • TPS: the official marker is 60,000 transactions per second, but there is no way to evaluate it, and only one star is given.

  • Influence: the once explosive project is now a thing of the past. All of the ecological hot spots have already been extinguished and only one star can be given.
To sum up, the average score of the third-generation public chain VDS is 1.875 stars.
PT Public Chain (Third generation public chain)

  • Consensus: DPOS+SPOS, double consensus. This is the application of the latest blockchain research results, which effectively balances the differing demands of security, efficiency and decentralization. It may become the mainstream in the future. Here I’m giving a high score of 4.5 stars.

  • Usage scenario: built-in cross chain, quantum computer confrontation, and has the first multi-currency aggregate mining mode. At present, PT public chain is the only fair chain in existence with zero pre-mining, zero reservations and zero handling charges. It is a public chain with long-term development potential. The PT public chain has just been put online, and the current ecosystem is still far from perfect, so, only scoring 4 stars.

  • TPS: under the normal condition of the main chain, the processing speed of 4,000 transactions per second is excellent, but the PT public chain also has a hidden power-up mode. Once the fragmentation mechanism is enabled, processing speed of up to 100,000 transactions per second can be achieved, which is quite amazing data. At present, it can only be given 3.5 stars based on the normal state.
Influence: as a public chain, PT has utilized a lot of new technology research, and also has a lot of innovation built into the operations. Recently, it has become popular in Europe and the only give it a low score unfortunately.
However, this score can only be used as a reference based on the specific current environment. Over time, the public chain ecosystem has had its ups and downs, user migration, pop-ups, technology iterations, etc., I still believe that the public chain, with its technical advantages and model innovations, such as PT, can stand out in the market, and time will be the best witness. Just as the PT white paper says, you will slowly get rich together if you make the right choice.
submitted by According_Ticket7936 to u/According_Ticket7936 [link] [comments]

【NeoLine Talk】How to keep your assets when the loss of tokens occurs frequently

【NeoLine Talk】How to keep your assets when the loss of tokens occurs frequently

https://preview.redd.it/bfdmaiyb32x41.jpg?width=900&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9f8ecf44fcd6b7cda7b5df4402c242c274fea55a
There is a plot in The Big Bang Theory: In 2010, Shelton first dug out Bitcoin and invited three other friends to play the mining game, but he was kicked out of the founding team. The time came in 2017, Bitcoin broke through $ 5,000. The trio found the mining computer of the year and planned how to spend the huge sum of money, but found that the folder was empty. It turned out that Shelton had stolen the computer to retaliate the trio, and downloaded the file to a USB flash disk. But in the past seven years, the USB flash disk has long disappeared.

https://preview.redd.it/blnbonrh32x41.jpg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8aea207fb961f1f7175d9498b0de74fa064e0d4a
The story comes from life. Although some drama elements are added to the plot of the TV series, the case of “Token lost” is common in real life.
In this article, let’s take a look at “the predecessors who have lost tokens”!
Count the cases of coin loss caused by personal reasons, learn from their experience, and never let “history” repeat.

Type 1: Private key on the “cloud”

A user has always remembered the promotion of not taking screenshots of the private key and used another mobile phone to take the wallet private key and upload it to the cloud disk. This move gave criminals the opportunity to find his cloud disk password with the help of various third-party libraries, thus successfully obtaining his private key and stealing digital assets.
There is also a user who keeps his private key in the mailbox of a website, thinking it is foolproof. Unexpectedly, three years later, the website turned off the mailbox function, his mailbox could no longer be logged in, and the private key could not be found. He can only know that he has digital assets, but he cannot trade.
Therefore, you must pay attention to the choice of equipment when backing up the private key. It is best to copy it by hand, distinguish between upper and lower case, back up two copies, and save it in a safe place.

Type 2: Acquaintance crime

Once a user was backing up his wallet, a friend happened to be by his side, but he didn’t pay much attention. After that, the friend obtained his private key by some means and transferred the tokens. Fortunately, this friend was located through the investigation and the digital assets were restored.
Cases of acquaintance crimes have often heard in recent years, and some even stolen by their relatives. However, in the known case of recovering stolen assets, there is a high probability that stolen by acquaintances. Therefore, if your digital assets are stolen, you can give priority to the possibility of “acquaintance crime”. In addition, when backing up the private key, pay attention to whether the surrounding is safe, and ensure that there are no people and cameras around.

Type 3: Missing one letter makes it difficult to find assets

Let’s talk about the actual cases recently handled by NeoLine customer service. These dozens of users have encountered the same problem: the private key cannot be imported because it is not case sensitive.
Such cases often happen in life. When users first started copying, they were very confident in their writing and did not do a second check. Moreover, they were able to distinguish between the upper and lower case at the beginning and were successfully imported.
After one or two years, the user took out the copied private key and imported it, but failed. Only then did they realize that some letters were indeed doubtful. Common: K and V are not case sensitive; q and 9 are indistinguishable, and I and 1 are unclear.
If you encounter this type, users who understand the code can write a script and run thousands of combinations, and you can find it out.
However, some users found the private key and found out that they didn’t know when the writing fainted. This situation is too bad, the probability of finding out is almost zero.
Therefore, we emphasize that when copying the private key, you must be careful, pay attention to the order, the writing is clear, pay special attention to case-sensitivity, and copy the copy to a safe place. Don’t let carelessness ruin your digital assets.

Type 4: The person opposite is not the right person

I have seen such a case in a group chat. When a user was transferring funds, many people in the group were sending addresses, so he copied others’ addresses and transferred tokens. Fortunately, users in the group are familiar. After the negotiation, the currency was transferred back, which did not cause the “token loss” consequences.

CONTACT US

weibo:https://weibo.com6724929880
NEXT Official website:https://neonext.io
NeoLine Official website:https://neoline.io
Telegraph group:https://t.me/NeoLine_Official
NEXT Twitter:https://twitter.com/NE0NEXT
NeoLine Twitter:https://twitter.com/NEOLine20
Scan code to pay attention to Neo NEXT official public number
Get more first-hand community information

https://preview.redd.it/t2j2xtd242x41.jpg?width=258&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c95acc852a23e0c24334c758a6a5094a1e286cbe
submitted by NeoLine_Wallet to NEO [link] [comments]

"Crowding Out" and the hidden opportunity costs of on-chain funding.

I got into crypto because it seemed like a fascinating real world test of some economic theories that I hold. For the most part, it has been very successful, but when something unexpected happens, it becomes a learning opportunity. I expected Dash to have an advantage over other crypto projects because the Treasury allows funding of development, integrations, adoption, marketing, promotions, etc. So far none of these "advantages" has resulted in a higher trading price or market rank. Why? Inefficient markets? I think it may be something else.
Humans have a psychological bias called "zero sum thinking" in which we overfocus on how a given amount of wealth is distributed than on the size of the wealth pile or how fast or slow it may be shrinking or growing. This is most obvious when it comes to discussing government budgets but could just as equally apply to the Dash Treasury. When resources are allocated collectively (politically), various interest groups cooperate and compete to maximize their own benefit sometimes to the benefit of the whole but more often to its detriment. People "can't see the forest for the trees". This is base on a couple of assuptions that are actually true and one that if false. First, the Government or blockchain is more stable and likely long-lasting than any of the individual components that make it up. Second, A government that prints it's own money or a crypto network that has no mechanism for going into debt cannot be insolvent, at least not like people or companies can be. Because these things are true, people assume that we need to focus on the health of components of the system and by benefiting them, the system's overall health improves.
This is False. A system may be the sum of its components, but a healthy organic anti-fragile system not only allows individual components to fail, but REQUIRES that they do so. Every component must be subject to the discipline of competition. No component can be allowed to grow "too big to fail" and thereby pose a systemic risk and single point of failure.
I'm not going to dwell on the problems inherent to voting, which is collusion between players to "crowd out" those who aren't in the most powerful coalition. I've done that before and it's a problem not specific to Dash. What's unique to Dash is the very existence of a funding Treasury and how it crowds out volunteer contributions in time, effort, skill and funding.
An anecdotal example: Joel Valenzuela told me about a Dash ATM that was installed in The Bitcoin Store in Portsmouth, New Hampshire (I'm going by memory here so the details may not be 100% accurate). The store manager wanted some Treasury funding for placing the ATM in the store. Joel pointed out that Bitcoin had been supported by the store with no such compensation and the manager's response was "Yeah, but they CAN"T pay us. You can."
ANYBODY who wants to contribute to the Dash Network, whether it's development, integrations, PR, etc is effectively competing with SUBSIDIZED groups who are attempting to do the same things. Nobody wants to do that and of course they don't have to with so many other crypto projects around.
Dash has a ruling coalition who support and vote for each other's projects. Anyone outside that coalition (and that's most of us) is swimming upstream. Example: Some people get paid to write articles about Dash. I also write articles about Dash, but because I'm not getting paid, I write fewer and spend less time and effort than I would if I was getting paid. Some may say that's a good thing because my articles aren't always positive, but the uncritical parade of fluff coming out of Dash News doesn't seem to be tempting too many investors either, so I might as well keep my credibility and be thought-provoking.
To date, the Dash Treasury hasn't seemed to give us any advantage in adoption, Market rank, or trading price. My best explanation for this is a "crowding out" of would-be participants who are reluctant to compete with subsidized competition. A vendor may think it's unfair to integrate Dash into its Point-of-sale payment system for free when other vendors are getting paid to do it. When some people are getting subsidized, a lack of a subsidy feels like a penalty.
This human perception of inequity seems to have outsize effects on decisions. Dash hodlers who don't get Masternode Service rewards feel like they are paying a penalty by getting zero interest on their holdings. They pay no more penalty than for most other crypto hodlers of most other coins, but irrational feelings guide decisions as much as thoughts. A good deal is a good deal even if others get a better deal, but that's not how humans usually think. We jump to buy some product because 1% of the profits go to fund a popular charity and we shun a company when 1% of profits go to some CEO who got caught insider trading. Things that shouldn't matter apparently do or at least that's the best explanation I can come up with why Dash is doing so poorly. If someone has a different idea, I'd love to hear it (as long as it isn't Monero boogeymen).
submitted by billyjoeallen to DashUncensored [link] [comments]

Establishing a smart contract commercial scenario: Chainlink, Zk-Snarks and sharding technology work together to make the ultimate killer

This text was translated from Chinese, open following link in Chrome and translate to see all images:
https://bihu.com/article/1242138347
EDIT: found an English text with pictures:
https://medium.com/@rogerfeng/making-smart-contracts-work-for-business-how-chainlink-zk-snarks-sharding-finally-delivered-8f268af75ca2
Author: Feng Jie translation: Liu Sha
“The highest state of technology is to integrate into the various scenes of everyday life, to fade away from high-tech outerwear and become a part of everyday life.” – Mark Weiser
People in the future will not even think that smart contracts are "innovative." By that time, smart contracts would permeate every aspect of life, and people couldn't even imagine what the era of non-digital currency would look like.
Later historians may divide human business history into two eras, the pre-smart contract era and the post-smart contract era. After all, digital money has brought unprecedented changes to the nature and patterns of business practices in the real world. An anonymous member of the Chainlink community once said: "Smart contracts can change the DNA of the business."
Of course, like all the technological revolutions of the past, smart contracts also need to reach a "tipping point" to truly achieve large-scale applications. So we need to ask ourselves two questions:
  1. What exactly is this so-called tipping point?
  2. As of August 2019, have we reached this tipping point?
To reach the tipping point means unlocking the ultimate nirvana of business.
Tipping point We can think about this issue from the perspective of mainstream companies. Imagine what a perfect smart contract platform should look like. What characteristics should this platform have? Or what features must be possessed?
To reach the tipping point, you must establish a public chain with the following four characteristics:
  1. Privacy protection
  2. In addition to the cryptocurrency, the transaction can also be settled in mainstream legal currency and comply with the regulatory requirements of financial markets such as ISO 20022.
  3. Achieve scalability without sacrificing decentralization or security, that is, solving the "impossible triangle problem."
  4. Connect the external data under the chain, that is, solve the "prophecy problem."
Now that we have Chainlink, zk-snarks and sharding technology, we have reached this tipping point.
Next, let's explore how this ultimate nirvana is actually made. Our discussion will be mainly from the perspective of Ethereum, which is still the top smart contract platform for community size and mainstream applications.
So what about the private chain?
Before delving into it, I want to take the time to solve an unavoidable problem. The mainstream view has always believed that the private chain is a more suitable solution for the enterprise. Therefore, we first dialectically analyze the two advantages and two major drawbacks of the private chain.
Disadvantages
  1. Centralization leads to relatively lower security
It's not surprising that IBM and Maersk's blockchain freight alliances have a hard time finding customers who are willing to join. How can other freight companies be willing to let their biggest competitors (Maersk) verify their trading data? Only madmen dare to do this.
  1. The staking of the horses occupy the hills:
This problem is even more serious than centralization. John Wolpert, co-founder of the IBM blockchain, wrote an excellent article called Breaking the Barriers to Realize Security: Why Companies Should Embrace the Ethereum Public Chain, which he covered in detail in the article.
If every company builds its own private chain, it will lead to chaos in the mountains. Today's B2B ecosystem is very complex. Imagine the innumerable private chains of the world intertwined to form a huge "spider web." This is not only cost-effective, but also not scalable.
The starting point of the blockchain is to break down barriers instead of building more barriers.
"One day, one of your big buyers called you to ask if you want to join their private chain. You promised. The next day you received a call from the wholesaler to ask you the same question. Then came the supplier, freight. Business, insurance company or even bank, and each company may have several private chains! Finally you have to invest a lot of time and cost to operate dozens of blockchains every day . If there are partners to let you join them at this time The private chain, you might say "Forget it, or fax me the order!" ”—Paul Brody (Ernst & Young)
“Every time you connect two private chains through a system integrator, you have to pay a lot of money .”
Advantage
  1. Scalability: With the Ethereum public chain implementing fragmentation technology, this advantage is rapidly shrinking.
  2. Privacy protection: At this stage, the classification of public chain / private chain is actually not very accurate. The Aztec , Zether, and Nightfall protocols (both based on the zk-snarks protocol) effectively provide a "private chain model" for the Ethereum public chain, allowing it to switch between the public and private chains. Therefore, a more accurate classification should be the alliance chain and the public chain.
By 2020, the label of the public chain/private chain will gradually disappear. The public and private chains will no longer be two opposing concepts. Instead, the concept of publicly traded/private transactions and confidential contracts/open contracts is changed, and the scope of these transactions and contracts varies according to specific needs, either bilaterally or multilaterally or even publicly.
All in all, the private chain has two major drawbacks compared to the public chain. Not only that, but the two major advantages of the private chain are also rapidly disappearing.
“Technology will evolve over time, so there will be a variety of solutions to solve existing problems. Ultimately, the public-chain platform will have the same performance, scalability and data privacy as the private chain, while at the same time ensuring security and Decentralized."
Feature 1: Privacy protection (predictive machine and public chain privacy)
Enigma founder Guy Zyskind once joked in his MIT graduation thesis that smart contracts can only become commercially valuable if they become "confidential contracts." He later proposed that zk-snarks and Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) are the most promising solutions. He said nothing wrong.
What is zk-snarks ? Zk-snarks is a zero-knowledge proof mechanism (ZPK). So what is the zero-knowledge proof mechanism? In short: a zero-knowledge proof mechanism allows you to prove that you own certain information without revealing the content of the information.
Vitalik Buterin explained this concept in detail from a technical point of view in an article published in 2017. Hackernoon also wrote an excellent article explaining the concept in an easy-to-understand way with the example of a five-year-old child and Halloween candy.
What is the trusted execution environment? The trusted execution environment lets the code run on closed hardware, and
1 ) The guarantee result cannot be tampered with
2 ) Protecting absolute privacy, even hardware running code can't get confidential information.
The most well-known trusted execution environment is Intel SGX. Chainlink has established a partnership with Intel SGX after acquiring Tom Crier.
Ernst & Young released the Nightfall agreement on Github on May 31, 2019. A well-known accounting firm with a history of 100 years will choose to add privacy features to the public chain instead of developing a private chain. This is a problem.
Since then, the community has been actively developing on this basis, not only to improve the code, but also to develop a plug-and-play Truffle Box for those who are not good at writing code. Blockchain communities and businesses generally rarely collaborate, so these collaborations fully demonstrate the popularity of Nightfall.
Prior to this, two zk-snark-based Ethereum public chain privacy protocols were introduced, namely AZTEC (Consensys) and Zether (Stanford, JPMorgan Chase). An obvious trend is slowly taking shape.
In the field of oracles, Chainlink uses both zero-knowledge proof and a trusted execution environment to complement each other. Trusted execution environments guarantee data privacy, even for nodes that cannot access data (this feature is critical for bank accounts and API keys).
Chainlink is still trying to implement a trusted execution environment, and nodes can access data temporarily, so authentication services are also needed. Although the credible execution environment is almost 100% foolproof, in theory, a strong shield has a spear that can penetrate it. Therefore, the team is currently trying to run zk-snarks in a trusted execution environment (Thomas Hodges mentioned this in the 2019 Trufflecon Q&A session). The combination of the two can form a very robust and complete system. The attacker must find a way to strip all the layers of an onion at the same time to make any effective attack (and it is already difficult to peel off a layer of skin).
“Chainlink combines a trusted execution environment with zero-knowledge proof to build what we call a defense-in-depth system, which means they provide all the tools needed for smart contract developers, including trusted execution environments, multiple nodes, and Data sources, fine margins, reputation systems, asymmetric encryption, zero-knowledge proofs, WASM, and OTP+RNG, these features allow smart contract developers to adjust the confidentiality and cost of contracts based on specific budget and security needs. Machine, Chainlink and its four major application scenarios》
In the future, zk-snarks may be upgraded to zk-starks (a fully transparent zero-knowledge proof mechanism) that protects the system from quantum computer attacks. And the best thing about zk-starks is that it's more scalable than zk-snarks. In other words, it can better protect privacy, and the cost of gas will not increase.
If you want to learn more about zk-starks, you can read a popular science article written by Adam Luciano.
Feature 2: Scalability (scalability of predictive machines and public chains) To understand this problem, we can make an analogy like this:
A public chain is like a large enterprise, and every employee (ie, a node) must attend each meeting (ie, confirm each transaction). Imagine how inefficient this company is! Only customers who have a lot of money (ie gas fees) can get their requests to the forefront. And this is not the most serious problem. The most serious problem is that the more employees (ie nodes) who join the company, the harder it is for the company to function properly! In the end, the company not only failed to expand linearly, but also became smaller and smaller. Although this guarantees decentralization and security to the greatest extent, the price is completely abandoning scalability.
There are various temporary fire fighting solutions, but no one solution can completely solve this "impossible triangle problem." For example, EOS uses the DPOS mechanism (share authorization certification mechanism), where only 21 super nodes (many of which are well-known nodes) are responsible for verifying all transactions.
Sidechains (such as Bitcoin's Lightning Network and Ethereum's lightning network) guarantee scalability and decentralization at the expense of security.
So how to use the fragmentation technology to solve this problem? Let's make another analogy:
In reality, there is only one company that is not too much to ask everyone to attend all meetings, that is, small start-ups (that is, private chains that limit the number of nodes).
In most cases, large companies divide employees into thousands of teams (ie, shards), and each team's principal (ie, the certifier) ​​is responsible for reporting to the senior management (ie, the main chain). If people from different teams need to collaborate (and sometimes also), then they can collaborate by cross-shard receipts. If a new employee joins the company, the team can be re-segmented (ie re-sharding). This allows for linear expansion.
In fact, the process of developing a start-up to a large enterprise is surprisingly similar to the process of Ethereum 1.0 developing into Ethereum 2.0.
“The Ethereum 1.0 period is that several people who are alone are trying to build a world computer; and Ethereum 2.0 will really develop into a world computer.” Vitalik Buterin said in the first piece of the workshop.
Since Ethereum was not originally built on the principle of fragmentation, it takes seven steps to achieve the goal (this is a bit like the word morphing solitaire game). The first step is planned for January 3, 2020.
At the same time, developers can use many other blockchain platforms designed based on the fragmentation principle. Some platforms, including Zilliqa and Quarkchain, are already compatible with Chainlink.
If you want to see more in-depth technical analysis of shards, check out an article by Ramy Zhang.
In the field of oracles, Chainlink has the following two characteristics:
1 ) Use Schnorr threshold signatures to quickly reach consensus in a cost-effective manner. The next version of the chain only needs 16,000 gas.
2 ) We have previously discussed the need to use trusted execution environment hardware to ensure that nodes cannot access sensitive data. Since you have hardware in your hand, you can use it to do some actual computing work, so that you can properly reduce the amount of computation on the smart contract platform.
"With the SGX system (Town Crier) and zero-knowledge proof technology, the oracle can be truly reliable and confidential, so the boundaries between the oracle and the smart contract are beginning to flow... Our long-term strategy... is to let The predictor becomes the key chain of computing resources used by most smart contracts. We believe that the way to achieve this goal is to perform chain operations in the oracle to meet various computing needs, and then send the results to the smart contract."Chainlink White Paper, Section 6.3 (26 pages)
Of course, this “long-term strategy” has certain risks, unless Chainlink can implement a trusted execution environment and its service provider ecosystem can achieve a qualitative leap. However, the Chainlink team's vision is absolutely forward-looking: under-chain computing is a key factor in ensuring that blockchains are not dragged down by large amounts of IoT data.
The Internet of Things has dramatically increased the current state of big data. At present, most of the data is still generated on the software side, and it is not real-time data, and most of the data in the future will be real-time data generated on the sensor side. One of the big drawbacks of real-time data is that it increases storage pressure. For example, Coughlin Associates expects an unmanned car to generate 1G of data per second. This means that the same car will produce 3.6T data per hour!
The only viable solution is to do real-time analysis of the data, rather than storing the data first. In the Global Cloud Index: 2016-2021 Forecast and Methodology White Paper, Cisco predicts that more than 90% of data in 2021 will be analyzed in real time without storage.
That is to say, the essence of data is that it can only exist in just one instant. The nature of the blockchain is not to be modified, so the two are as incompatible as water and oil.
The solution is to analyze the raw data under the chain, extract the meaningful results and send them to the blockchain. The combination of fragmentation technology and trusted execution environment forms a new computing architecture, similar to the cloud computing-fog computing-edge computing architecture.
It should be noted here that it is good to improve computing power, but this is not the main purpose of the blockchain.
The fundamental purpose of the blockchain is not to reduce the original cost of computing and data storage. After all, technology giants such as Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Salesforce, Tencent, Alibaba, and Dropbox have built world-class cloud services. The centralized server wins high computational efficiency (but the blockchain will greatly improve the computational efficiency through fragmentation technology, and will catch up with it one day). The value of the blockchain is to reduce the cost of building trust. Nick Szabo calls it "social scalability" (this is a relative concept to the "operational" scalability we have been talking about). Vitalik Buterin also made it clear that the meaning of smart contracts is to accept small arithmetic delay penalties in exchange for a substantial reduction in "social costs."
Alex Coventry of the Chainlink team once raised the question: "We have missed many opportunities for cooperation and reciprocity because we can't confirm whether the other party will fulfill the promise?"
Is there any potential for data storage projects like Siacoin and IPFS? What about decentralized computing projects like SONM and Golem?
Siacoin 's core value proposition is not that its computing efficiency is higher than traditional cloud services. The cost of computing is required to split, repeat, and reassemble data. And companies are more capable of buying the latest and greatest hardware than individuals. Siacoin's core value proposition is to process data in an Airbnb-like mode, so management fees will be lower than traditional models. It also generates additional social value, such as flood control, privacy and security, and anti-censorship.
The same is true of Golem and SONM. Even with the most efficient protocol, it is inevitable that a small amount of delay will be imposed and fined to coordinate the hardware of different geographical locations. Therefore, under the condition that all other conditions are equal, the centralized hardware still has the advantage of faster computing speed. However, the core value proposition of the above project is to use the Airbnb-like model to reduce management costs.
We must strictly distinguish between "social scalability" and "operational scalability", and the two cannot be confused. I will explain these two concepts in detail when I discuss "Magic Bus and Lightweight Library" later.
Feature 3: Compatible with legal currency
Most mainstream companies do not regard cryptocurrencies as "real currencies." In addition, even if someone wants to use cryptocurrency for trading, it is very difficult to actually operate because of its high price volatility. I discussed the “price volatility problem” in detail in Chapters 8 and 9 of the previous article. These problems do not completely erase the existence value of cryptocurrencies, because cryptocurrencies also have many advantages that legal currency does not have. I am just emphasizing what we need to know more about the comfort zone of mainstream companies.
Chainlink acts as a universal API connector that triggers open banking payments. Chainlink is fully compliant with ISO 20022 and has established a long-term partnership with SWIFT (it is worth mentioning that SWIFT has not been updated for a long time and hopes to be updated after the SIBOS 2019 conference).
PSD2 will take effect on September 14, 2019. All banks in the EU will all comply with this new regulation by then. In other words, the bank must put all account data in the "front end" and can be called through the API. The approved third party (ie, the Chainlink node) can trigger the payment directly without the payment service provider.
Although the United States and Japan have not adopted similar laws, many banks still spontaneously promote the development of open banks. Banks open APIs to third-party developers to create new revenue streams and customer experiences that ultimately increase profitability. In addition, this will allow banks to better respond to competitors in the mobile payment and financial technology sectors in an APP-centric economic model.
As this open banking revolution continues, Chainlink will connect smart contracts with the world's major currencies (US dollar, euro, yen, etc.).
Only one external adapter is required to connect to the authenticated API. From a programming perspective, it is relatively simple to allow everyone in the community to contribute code to the code base (and thus achieve scalability). Chainlink has released adapters for PayPal and Mister Tango (European version of PayPal).
Feature 4: Data connection with the chain
Chainlink has been working on solving the "prophecy problem" and successfully succeeded on the main online line on May 30, 2019.
Chainlink has made many achievements in just a few months. Provable (formerly Oraclize) was successfully used on the Chainlink node and finally settled the debate about whether the predictor should be centralized or decentralized.
Synthetic Ether lost 37 million Ethercoins in a hack because it did not connect to Chainlink. Fortunately, the money was finally recovered and did not cause any loss. This lesson illustrates the importance of decentralized oracles.
In addition, both Oracle and Google have partnered with Chainlink to monetize their API data and create a virtuous circle to capture the market opportunities that Facebook missed.
There are new nodes coming online every week, and the network activity has been very high. The Chainlink team maintains a list of certified nodes in the documentation and Twitter releases. Twitter user CryptoSponge also set up a new development for the Tableau push update Chainlink team:
Regarding the importance of the current stage in the history of blockchain development, Brad Huston summed it up very brilliantly:
"The biggest problem with cryptocurrencies is to build bridges between cryptocurrencies, fiat currencies and big data. Chainlink is very beautifully narrowing the distance between the three. Now it can even be said: 'The bridge has been built.'"
Magic bus and lightweight library
Let's summarize what we discussed earlier. The real purpose of the blockchain is to reduce the cost of building trust and achieve "social scalability."
Therefore, according to this logic, the main application scenarios of platforms such as Ethereum 2.0 and Zilliqa should be in the B2B field. I quote a sentence I wrote in a previous article:
“My conclusion is: If the smart contract is successful, it will also succeed in the B2B field first.”
The private chain itself is self-contradictory and destined to fail. It has led to the phenomenon of occupying the hills, thus increasing the social cost, which is in opposition to B2B itself, and ultimately it is self-restraint. ”
Before the emergence of fragmentation technology, even simple games (ie, etheric cats) could not be smoothly run on the public chain, let alone dealing with complex B2B contracts and even changing commercial DNA. With the sharding technology, everything is ready.
Despite this, we can't use Ethereum 2.0 as an all-powerful platform. Just now we said that although it is a good thing to speed up the calculation, this is not the real purpose of Ethereum 2.0. And before we also said that due to the irreversible modification of the blockchain, it is not good to deal with a large number of fleeting real-time data of the Internet of Things. In other words, we must be soberly aware that Ethereum 2.0 will not replace traditional web 2.0. Instead, we should make better use of the real advantages of Ethereum 2.0:
“There is a new concept now, that is to think of the Ethereum main network as a global bus... We use the Ethereum 2.0 main network to treat various business resources as a working group on Slack: it can be easily built and integrated. And restructuring. The SAP inventory management system in your company, the dealer's JD Edwards ERP system, and the financial technology partner's tall blockchain system can seamlessly interface, eliminating the need to develop an infrastructure specifically for each partner." - John Wolper describes his ideal "magic bus"
Ethereum 2.0 should be an integration center, not a data center or computing center. It should be a library built specifically to store B2B contract terms (to be honest, even with fragmentation technology, the amount of data is large enough).
We should not expect Ethereum 2.0 to be an all-powerful platform, but rather develop it into a "lightweight library."
If we reorder the pyramid model just now, the architecture of the magic bus is obvious:
Of course, the positional relationship in the above model is not static. With the development of 5G technology, edge computing and IoT sensors, they may bypass the cloud to directly interact (or even bypass the fog end). If the collaboration between Iotex and Chainlink is successful, then the edge can interact directly with the trusted execution environment.
Time will tell if Airbnb's shared data storage and computing model can make management costs lower than the current mainstream Web 2.0 model. Time will also prove whether the market really needs anti-censorship, anti-tampering, security protection and privacy protection. Do users really care about these social values ​​and are willing to pay for them? Do they think these are just the icing on the cake or the most fundamental value?
in conclusion
Whether it is the battle between web2.0 and web3.0 or the battle between cryptocurrency and legal currency, one thing is beyond doubt:
We have reached the tipping point, and the era of smart contracts with commercial value has arrived.
In fact, the only problem at the moment is the time issue, and the main roadblocks have been basically cleared.
  1. When will Ethereum 2.0 finish these 7 stages and be officially released?
  2. When will Chainlink use a trusted execution environment on a large scale? If the cooperation between Intel SGX and Town Crier fails, what alternative plans are there? Will Chainlink communicate with other blockchain teams that plan to use a trusted execution environment (such as Dawn Song's Oasis Labs)?
At present, the main technical problems in the ecosystem have been solved, and now it is only necessary to recruit a group of enthusiastic developers to do the work of “connecting the line”.
Digital currency has changed commercial DNA, and the future is full of possibilities.
The only thing that hinders us now is our own imagination. The future is infinitely imaginative, and the future will be the world of developers. Dapps is already overwhelming. There is no doubt that we have found the ultimate nirvana.
This text was translated from Chinese, open following in Chrome and translate to see all images:
https://bihu.com/article/1242138347
submitted by QuantLink to LINKTrader [link] [comments]

As 20m more Tether are issued today, I think it's important for people to know that an unbacked Tether could be a big reason for the recent bitcoin price rise. (x/post)

The Basics
What is Tether? It's a digital asset distributed on the Omni token platform, which allows for assets to be issued over the bitcoin blockchain. Tethers (USDT) are supposed to be valued 1:1 with USD. Any new USDT is only supposed to be issued when there is at least an equivalent amount of USD sitting in reserve that can be redeemed at any time.
The point of issuing USDT is to allow customers to easily transfer USD value to exchanges, to create a stable reserve token to hold in times of volatility, and to allow exchanges to participate in USD-reference trades without having to hold or deal with USD KYC/AML compliance requirements.
Vast quantities of Tether have been issued over the past several months, almost $340 million are now in circulation.
But there are some problems with Tether as we know it today.
The Problems
  1. Tether's website claims it's 100% backed, regularly audited, and users have 24/7 access... but that's the extent of their proof. You really just have to take the them at their word.
  2. Tether hasn't provided any public audits, despite a promise of full transparency on January 15th, 2015 when Bitfinex acquired Tether
  3. After losing $72 million in a hack announced on August 2nd, 2016, Bitfinex issued a redemption token called BFX to their customers as a promise to pay back what they owed. They began paying this back at an increasing rate, finally buying back the remaining 95% of liabilities between March and April 2017. One theory is that Bitfinex was issuing Tether to themselves to buy assets, pay back the BFX tokens, and appear solvent faster. As long as the public held trust that Tether was worth 1:1 on par with USD and there was no bank run, this activity would go unnoticed. At that time, there were approximately 50m tether issued.
  4. Around that same time, Bitfinex's US banking troubles began as Wells Fargo blocked 180m in funds belonging to their parent company ifinex and Tether:
  5. Bitfinex then filed a lawsuit against Wells Fargo and withdrew it a week later. They to this day have not been successful in establishing a US banking relationship for their customers. This is important, because in order to back Tether, they need to hold USD reserves. So they're either lying, or they have another banking relationship set up to hold $340m worth of assets as USD equivalent.
  6. On August 11th 2017 Bitfinex suspended verification for US customers. It then seems extraordinarily odd that they continue to issue enormous sums of USD-backed Tether, where does the money come from?
  7. On April 18th, Taiwanese banks also began blocking wires to the Tether backed bank, suggesting the funding mechanism for Tether is tenuous and subject to the whims of the banking industry:
  8. The Tether whitepaper has a section called "Proof of Reserves" process, which essentially boils down to "You can see whenever new Tether are issued, and the issuance comes from our bank deposits, ...and you're just going to have to trust us on the bank deposits" The whitepaper goes on detail a summary of weaknesses:
Their responses to these threats mainly try to minimize their severity by claiming other banks and exchanges have these same problems, we should trust their banking partners because they are 3rd parties to Bitfinex, bank transactions are traceable on some level even if not public, and we should trust Bitfinex because their business owners information is public.
Dodging questions
The co-founder of Tether, udecker, participated in an interesting thread where someone was calling out the weaknesses in the process. His arguments included responses like
See above about the TOS - of course you don’t have a right to redeem your tethers for fiat. Who are you? Get an account and go through thorough KYC/AML if you want to do any fiat operations.
Try simple logic. Running a fractional reserve would mean that the company couldn’t stay in business. Why would it do that?
If Taiwan closes Tether’s accounts? For what reason? Tether is a legally operating business in Taiwan.
His responses seem naive to the fact that bitcoin exchanges can and have been operating as fractional reserves in the past under the guise of solvency.
nobodybelievesyou repied:
Most of your answers here so far have boiled down to "this would never happen!"
You also dodged his question about the audit, which has been getting asked and dodged now for almost a year.
https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/4vhak0/usd_wallet_idea/d5zfa48/
udecker's only response to this was
At least your username checks out.
External scrutiny
Various redditors and crypto news agencies have taken note of tether's issues over time.
Implications
So why care? What predictions can we make from all this?
  • Bitfinex either can't provide actual, verifiable, 3rd party proof of it's reserves backing Tether, or so far has not cared to.
  • If there aren't enough reserves in the bank to back the USDT, then not everyone will be able to redeem them for USD. A sudden sell pressure would see prolonged withdrawal delays, and a drop in the value of USDT
  • Issuing unbacked Tether would allow an exchange to appear solvent and obtain assets at essentially zero cost, driving up the market price of many digital currencies in the process as their supply dries up.
submitted by digital_del to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies are in reality a hyperinflationary multilevel-marketing pyramid cult of anarcho-capitalism and contradictory hypocrisy, prove me wrong/change my mind effort post itt

Reminder, Satoshi's Bitcoin and every other cryptocoin is designed to enrich a tiny minority of oligarchs who produce the supply for measurably less work/capital input than late adopters. These members form the inner circle of the cult who are than heavily incentivized to disseminate propaganda and psychological marketing tactics to the public "investors" who further spread the marketing-cult "white paper" claims like a virus in the hope that they will be able to leverage their low-effort low-capital database tokens though the smoke and mirrors and low liquidity exchanges and tape painting in order to pass their bags for real capital as all the later users buy into the dream that they too will become one of the oligarchs.
For future alpaca farmers, Sexton and Saitone laid out some of the major hallmarks of a speculative bubble, including: (1) The asset not the product is the thing being marketed (i.e. live alpacas, not fiber),
Bitcoin cult members sell users the dream of egalitarian wealth, when in reality the math and code behind Bitcoin simply created a system where existing capital is proportionally transfered into Bitcoin during the temporary hyperinflationary phase at an accelerated rate based on how early one begins to to set up server farms. Early users spent measurably less capital to generate significantly more of the supply. The Bitcoin protocol and mining algorithm is not some fancy complex math (Bitcoin mining math amounts to a lottery system, more capital gives more lottery ticket printers). Mining boils down to wasting more work and energy for less output as time passes.
(2) investors have unrealistic expectations (alpaca fiber would replace wool, despite the lack of infrastructure; and besides the fact that people don’t really wear that much wool),
Cryptocoins seek to turn money and now entire industries and services into speculative gift cards where the majorty of the supply is in the hands of a few "pre-sale ICO" kings and a few existing wealthy whales who have set up large warehouses in China, Washington, South East Asia, etc. Are we to expect the future robber barons who bought a bunch of gamer graphics cards to waste energy running this software deserve anything?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/09/bitcoin-mining-energy-prices-smalltown-feature-217230
https://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/web/a11610/this-is-what-happens-when-a-bitcoin-mine-burns-down-17410755/
Honestly, if the mining software actually produced real world useful work though distributed computing like BOINC ( https://boinc.berkeley.edu/ ) , [email protected] ( http://folding.stanford.edu/ ) - than mining would have a measurable value but instead the computational energy is wasted though a convoluted "guess a random number" game. Also note, guessing a random number and increasing the amount of capital to waste by guessing a random number (leading 0 hash) is not to be confused with a secure decenteralized ledger of trust - this is a gimmicky ass way that can be observed being actively exploited by pools and large hashfarms in many of the smaller PoW altcoins.
See also how smart contracts can be manipulated by large mining operations:
https://steemit.com/ethereum/@dhumphrey/f2pool-manipulates-usd1-2-million-on-the-ethereum-blockchain-during-the-status-im-ico
and note that PoS systems are even bigger scams (i.e. Raiblocks and supposedly the future of Ethereum) where the supply is premined and PoW transaction verification rewards are statistically granted to the richest users who coincidently are the early adopters or existing capital hodlers, poors don't even qualify for staking rewards.
(3) information is controlled through industry sources (most of the information the researchers were able to dig up was put out by breeding associations),
Even in the more reputable publications, journalists boil down the computer science into the marketing claims of what Blockchain and smart contracts cultist CLAIM it can do. These are solutions in search of problems.
Blockchains are inefficenct databases, and lying about data input or stealing the deed to your house never seems to be a problem.
Smart contracts need a data source to trigger, and how can data be trusted in an adveserial decenteralized network? A set of trusted "Oricales" who 'stake' their beanie babies? What's the use case for a smart contract? What happens if someone puts up a smart contract to assisinate the head of all the three letter agencies, the Queen, and the UN, and the international monitary fund?
(4) small scale investors predominate (Foster Farms did not open an alpaca plant).
The cult of bagholders think they are the kings.
The underlying bitcoin/cryptocoin systems are simply a shitty anarcho-capitalist scam cult.
The idealist vision behind ecash is great and all but it's a huge mistake to dismiss the side effect of further enabling a system designed for anarcho-capitalist black markets. This could easily spiral out into a long winded debate and flame war, but ill just point out that the game theory behind bitcoin favors early adopters (just some dudes who ran some software before other people.. software that can be duplicated ad infinitum ) at the expense of extracting real wealth from users who join at any later time.
Bitcoiners claim Satoshi style ecash systems are a response to the 2008 financial collapse, fiat inflation, central banks etc, and yet the replacement system Satoshi designed just exacerbates the existing capital system into a measurably worse oligarchical techno-cult which embraces the enablement of lawlessness. If the claim of "trustless" and "decenteralized" is a main selling point, it's an illusion at best and manipulative propaganda at worst as there are centeral points of control within the cryptocoin ecosystems- i.e. /bitcoin censorship, anonymous developers, mining pool operators, really fucked up exchanges operating behind 7 shell companies in seychelles, the whole shitshow behind tether pulling what amounts to be fraud and theft of large sums of assorted cryptocurrencies simply because exchanges are central power hodlers and can exploit normie small fish traders (exchanges are poised to even exploit the whales) via front running and cooking the books though manipulative insider trading.
There's no accountablity in the cryptocoin space - so while tradiational systems are flawed, we at least know who to blame and how to find them and hold them legally responsible. With anarcho-capital systems, we lose that option. Additionally, the production of the money supply in these specific implementations of cryptocoins are measurably worse than traditional money minting and distribution systems.
One important point: if we actually include all 7 billion people on the earth, most of whom have zero BTC or Ethereum, the Gini coefficient is essentially 0.99+. And if we just include all balances, we include many dust balances which would again put the Gini coefficient at 0.99+. Thus, we need some kind of threshold here. The imperfect threshold we picked was the Gini coefficient among accounts with ≥185 BTC per address, and ≥2477 ETH per address. So this is the distribution of ownership among the Bitcoin and Ethereum rich with $500k as of July 2017.
In what kind of situation would a thresholded metric like this be interesting? Perhaps in a scenario similar to the ongoing IRS Coinbase issue, where the IRS is seeking information on all holders with balances >$20,000. Conceptualized in terms of an attack, a high Gini coefficient would mean that a government would only need to round up a few large holders in order to acquire a large percentage of outstanding cryptocurrency — and with it the ability to tank the price.
With that said, two points. First, while one would not want a Gini coefficient of exactly 1.0 for BTC or ETH (as then only one person would have all of the digital currency, and no one would have an incentive to help boost the network), in practice it appears that a very high level of wealth centralization is still compatible with the operation of a decentralized protocol. Second, as we show below, we think the Nakamoto coefficient is a better metric than the Gini coefficient for measuring holder concentration in particular as it obviates the issue of arbitrarily choosing a threshold.
...However, the maximum Gini coefficient has one obvious issue: while a high value tracks with our intuitive notion of a “more centralized” system, the fact that each Gini coefficient is restricted to a 0–1 scale means that it does not directly measure the number of individuals or entities required to compromise a system.
Specifically, for a given blockchain suppose you have a subsystem of exchanges with 1000 actors with a Gini coefficient of 0.8, and another subsystem of 10 miners with a Gini coefficient of 0.7. It may turn out that compromising only 3 miners rather than 57 exchanges may be sufficient to compromise this system, which would mean the maximum Gini coefficient would have pointed to exchanges rather than miners as the decentralization bottleneck.
Conversely, if one considers “number of distinct countries with substantial mining capacity” an essential subsystem, then the minimum Nakamoto coefficient for Bitcoin would again be 1, as the compromise of China (in the sense of a Chinese government crackdown on mining) would result in >51% of mining being compromised.
https://medium.com/@balajis/quantifying-decentralization-e39db233c28e
https://medium.com/@Bitfinexed
submitted by buttcoin_juice to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

My Intern Experience

My Intern Experience
Shreemoon Rajbhandari
My Intern Experience
During my time as an undergraduate, one of the key experiences recommended is to do an internship. Gaining work experience as an intern overseas will improve a skill set in my area of interest. Working somewhere as culturally different and economically significant as China is a talking point in any interviews. There are many reasons that made me choose to do an internship in China. Definitively the best part of the experience has been living out of your comfort zone. Encountering new situations and experiences, that increase my self awareness, my capabilities and also to discover my weaknesses.
Over the past 2 years, we have seen many digital currencies/cryptocurrencies being introduced globally.These have added the aspect of using this financial ecosystem to eventually solve social issues. This could be the application of Blockchain technology in areas like logistics/supply chain to food security. Eventually, there would be many more areas where blockchain and related technology developers would be needed. It's emerging to change the way we solve the many roadblocks that we face.
Blockchain is considered to be one of the most trending topics. This is the right time for me to learn about the technology and start implementing. Blockchain is a notion that can be implemented directly or indirectly to any sector as such. Only two months prior, I had a minimal amount of knowledge about blockchain innovation, and my insight into blockchain comprised distinctly of an obscure comprehension of bitcoin and cryptographic money all in all.
During my internship, I was given investigation material to help assemble my base comprehension of Loopring and the blockchain innovation that it depends on. In the wake of beginning at Loopring, I have been given significantly more prominent chance to learn. While my comprehension of blockchain is still new, it has improved extensively since my first day at the organisation.
In this post, I would like to talk about two cryptographic methods aiming to give privacy to blockchain technology ; the zk-SNARKS and zk-STARKS protocols are two significant examples. We will look into their advantages and disadvantages, comparison between two protocols, and conclusion.
ZK-SNARKS vs ZK-STARKS
Along with the countless benefits of the Internet from which we can benefit, when we use it for social media or business company purposes, privacy is at greater risk. Approximately 90 million of Facebook users information were damaged by Cambridge Analytical data. The Wall Street stated that “ this is just the beginning, and the results are expected to grow”. The Equifax data breach revealed information on social media channels from private users. Thus, birth dates were exposed to the majority of the populations. Due to the Uber hack, data from over 55 million customers were also shared and exposed.
Privacy has consistently been seen as a valuable element within the cryptocurrency community. There is always a growing focus on improving privacy within the cryptocurrency space. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin and many other cryptocurrencies are all actively searching for the most convenient approaches to increase their security. It is the antecedent to fungibility, which is vital for a broadly used form of money. Additionally, most crypto-asset holders do not want their transaction history to be completely public to the world. Among the different cryptographic methods aiming to give privacy to blockchain technology; the zk-SNARK and zk-STARKS protocols are two main significant examples.
Two leading technologies today offer their cryptocurrencies - Monero and zcash— and strive to address protection issues. Monero uses the technology of Ring Confidential Signature. By contrast, Z-Cash uses zk-SNARK( Zero-Knowledge transparent knowledge argument), a technology that provides the ability to conduct anonymous transactions.
In recent years, zk-SNARKS has exploded as the most promising technology to solve blockchain privacy. It is a technology derived from proofs of zero-knowledge, a type of proof that anyone with a verification key can check this “proof” without disclosing the information itself. If the statement holds, a verifier will be convinced by a correct proof. If the statement is false, it is true that no prover can convince a verified statement.
zk-SNARK stands for :
- Zero-knowledge : if the statement is true, there is nothing the verifier learns beyond the fact that the statement is true.
- Succinct : The proof size needs to be small enough in a few milliseconds to be verified.
- Non-interactive :Only one set of information is sent to the verifier for verification, therefore there is no back and forth communication between the prover and verifier.
- Argument of Knowledge : A computationally soundproof: soundness runs counter to a prover leveraging polynomial-time, i.e. limited computing. Also, Without access to the witness (the private input needed to prove the statement), the evidence can not be constructed.
zk-SNARKS aims to provide fast, scalable solutions to ensure financial security. Therefore, transaction encryption is possible.When zk-SNARK is applied to a cryptocurrency, it implies you can conceal the majority of the transaction data information. This incorporates the sender address, collector address, just as the transaction sum amount. zk-SNARKS enables us to shroud the majority of this data information, while likewise enabling the system to affirm and verify the transactions. It amplifies security while maintaining consensus. In the realm of blockchain, it is one of the most exceptional blockchain level protection innovation being used.
With the launch of version 3.0, Loopring’s decentralised protocol solution struck a noteworthy milestone in early May- adding off-chain scaling and fee optimisation using zk-SNARKs. Low fees, liquidity, transparency and security are the key goal of the loopring solution. Loopring says the new Loopring 3.0 based zk-SNARK will increase trade speeds and on-chain activity efficiency tenfold. The data previously stored on-chain in Loopring 3.0 is now stored off-chain in a Merkle tree and then used as required in zk-SNARKS, updating the tree.
Be that as it may, there are a few issues with zk-SNARKS. The main problem has been the need for a trusted setup. zk-SNARKS rely on a permission private key. This essentially undermines the entire purpose of decentralised public blockchain. By introducing the need to trust a person rather than code, you threaten the entire concept of trustlessness. In theory, a prover with sufficient computational power could create fake proofs, and this is one of the reasons why many consider quantum computers as a threat to zk-SNARKs (and blockchain systems).
Last year zk-SNARKS were incorporated on a MIT Tech Review list of the top 10 Breakthrough Technologies of 2018 among AI advancements. zk-SNARKS allows both a tremendous speedup in verifying the correctness of a computation while at the same time it hides the private details from prying eyes. Some of the potential uses citied in MIT article were verifying you’re over 18 without having to share your date of birth, and providing you have a enough money in your back account as collateral without having to give away account details like your exact balance. It establishes trust which you need to interact on the blockchain. Zk-SNARK proofs are as of now being used on Zcash, on JP Morgan Pursue's blockchain-based payment system, and as an approach to safely validate customers to servers.
The more developed version of zk-SNARKS is called zk-STARKS which stands for :
Zero-Knowledge
Scalable
Transparent
Argument of Knowledge
zk-STARKS verifications are currently being touted as the better than ever form of the convention, tending to a considerable lot of the past disadvantages of zk-SNARKs. It has demonstrated an approach to accomplish a similar degree of privacy as zk-SNARKS without the requirement for the trusted setup. Starks are practically superior to Snarks as they require weaker crypto suppositions, they don't require a trusted setup and are post-quantum resistant. zk-SNARKs are based on Elliptic-Curve Cryptography, which is susceptible to advances in Quantum-Computers. zk-STARKs, on the other hand are Post-Quantum system meaning that even if Quantum-computers become powerful and ubiquitous they will not have an advantage, compared to classical computers, in breaking zk-STARKs. Anyway they have a noteworthy downside, as in the proof being too enormous. Their problem is their storage requirements. STARKs are doubly scalable, which means the proof verification is exponentially faster than the original computation’s time but the drawback is the size of the proof they create being too large, possibly 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more than those produced by zk-SNARKs. One example : StarkWare solves the inherent problems of scalability and privacy of blockchains. Using STARK technology, they generate a full proof-stack to produce and verify computer integrity tests. They utilise STARKs to batch transactions into a single proof that is verified on Ethereum. Matt Taylor states that the present iteration of StarkDEX demonstrates the viability of using STARKs for the scalability of Layer-2 by showing a substantial rise in the amount of blockchain transaction.
The idea of zk-STARKS was proposed by Eli-Ben Sasson, a professor at the Technion-Israel institute of Technology. zk-STARKS provide proofs that can be verified a lot quicker than zk-SNARKS. At the present time, Z-cash and Ethereum are on the whole considering to utilize zk-STARKS. zk-STARKS have solved the trusted setup issue. They have totally expel the requirement for multiple parties to create the private key required for the string. Rather everything needed to produce the proofs is public and the verifications are generated from arbitrary numbers. zk-STARKS actually removed the necessity in zk-SNARKS for unbalanced cryptography and rather utilizes the hash fuctions like those found in Bitcoin mining. In addition, they ought to have longer timeframe of realistic usability as far as their crytographic resilience than zk-SNARKS. However, there are some impediment of zk-STARKS, the main issue with zk-STARKS is their size. The verifications it uses are basically too enormous to use in many blockchains as they stand. As indicated by Vitalik Buterin, zk-STARKS will result in proofs of a couple of hundreds kilobytes versus the 288 bytes seen in zk-SNARKS.

The Difference Between zk-STARKS and zk-SNARKS.

https://preview.redd.it/k1fap29yd4m31.png?width=411&format=png&auto=webp&s=769ef7be2646a2d0ac31a5334f7e7249e2e2e246

Source : The Medium - Coinmonks
The complexity of communication : With the computation’s expanded complexity, the zk-SNARKS communication complexity also increases linearly, whereas zk-STARKs develops in the opposite direction and grows slowly as the computation size grows.The graph above shows that the communication required by the zk-STARKs to complete the calculation rises much slower than zk-snarks as the underlying evidence increases in complexity.

Source : The Medium - Coinmonks
The complexity of the verifier : zk-STARKs slightly widening with the development in computation size. On the other side, for confirmation evidence, zk-SNARKs requires less time than zk-STARKs. zk-STARKs, for instance need up to 100 ms to verify and zk-SNARKs need only up to 10ms. The graph above illustrates the the time taken by the zk-STARK to verify an evidence rises very slowly compared to the zk-SNARK as the underlying evidence increases in complexity.

Overall these two protocols have excellent potential in the cryptocurrency globe and can be a breakthrough avenue for mainstream implementation. Both conventions are truly needed steps to protect our privacy.


Reference
https://www.technologyreview.com/lists/technologies/2018/
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/themerkle.com/mit-review-acclaims-zk-snarks-but-zk-starks-may-steal-the-show/amp/
https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/59145/zk-snarks-vs-zk-starks-vs-bulletproofs-updated
https://www.binance.vision/blockchain/zk-snarks-and-zk-starks-explained?amp=1
https://applicature.com/blog/blockchain-technology/can-zk-snarks-and-zk-starks-solve-privacy-issues
https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/046.pdf
https://medium.com/coinmonks/zk-starks-create-verifiable-trust-even-against-quantum-computers-dd9c6a2bb13d
https://blog.0xproject.com/starkdex-bringing-starks-to-ethereum-6a03fffc0eb7
submitted by Shreemoon to loopringorg [link] [comments]

Dear Greg (and other Core developers)

Dear Greg (and other Core developers),
Your response is deeply worrying me, I've decided to stop being just a spectator and register to make a comment, I hope this will help you and Core in some way.
Let me just begin by stating that I've been a long time Core supporter.
When Core released a new version of their Bitcoin software, I knew there was a certain level of quality control as well as forward thinking, a certain level of trust. It is because of that trust that I've never even considered looking at other alternatives, until now.
As a general fan and user of digital currency, I have no allegiance to Core/BU/XT/Miners or who ever, I don't feel personally attached to any party, I am just interested in Bitcoin's general progress, how Bitcoin will change the world for the better and make people's lives easier. I am also a realist, that means I will only make judgment base on practical matters instead of some arbitrary ideal moral high ground. So, everything I am posting here will be as neutral as you can get from a Bitcoin user.
With that out of the way, I must say, what happened in the past few months have really begun to change my perspective on Core.
For example the current BU fiasco, my understanding is that, a year ago some miners wanted 8MB blocks, some wanted 4MB, there was the usual struggle and bargaining between users/miners/nodes/developers, eventually the miners made a compromise, the "Hong Kong Agreement" was made, in which miners agreed to support Segwit and a 2MB block size increase, Adam Back signed the agreement, only to have you call them "dipshits" and broke the agreement afterwards. Source.
Because of that, now, a year later, the block chain has reached the 1MB block size limit, there is a huge tx backlog and as a result the tx fee has sky rocketed, users are affected and many have moved their money to alt coins. The miners have no choice but to choose the other best options: Bitcoin Unlimited.
So how can anyone honestly blame the miners and BU at this point? Seriously, even if you're paid to do so, deep down you must know this crisis was coming a year ago, and it was Core's responsibility to prepare for it.
Core and some of its fans (some are obviously paid) keep repeating miners and BU are evil because they are splitting the chain, sure you can say that, but seriously, what did you expect them to do. They already compromised and was ignored, now there is a tx backlog, Bitcoin is losing ground to competitions, Core is sitting on their asses holding the code hostage, breaking agreements, making insults, what else are the miners supposed to do. What did Core expect them to do?
I am not even defending miners/BU here, it's all about the block size limit, I am using a pure practical pov: If BU didn't exist, miners would have switched to something else without the 1M limit, simple as that.
Anyone who keep pointing their fingers at miners/BU is just trying to ignore the fact that Core did nothing about the 1MB limit for years.
The thing that really irritates me though, is that the block size limit wasn't even in the white paper, so why would Core hold the code hostage and refuse to increase the limit from 1MB? 1MB is such a small number, how can you even justify not increasing it?
The fact is many Core developers were openly supporting block size increase, but then became strongly opposed to it after they started working for Blockstream, now I don't care for all the conspiracy theories, but can you people just come out and explain why the sudden change of heart?
I find that really puzzling, it's like watching people who used to love pizza, suddenly hate pizza after they work for McDonalds, it just doesn't make sense. Mind you these Core members didn't just simply change their taste, they went from openly supporting raising block size limit to openly hating it with a passion.
Every explanations I've read from Core in the past few months, can basically translate to: "Our Segwit and LN will be soooooo great, who cares what people actually need right now, stop talking to me, I don't care, I already know what you want, if you don't agree with me, you're just stupid."
If Segwit and LN is so great, it'll naturally be adopted when there is a real demand. Core already had the market share and user trust, they already have the golden goose, so why do they have to kill the goose just to get the Segwit golden egg?
Core kept chanting how great Segwit and LN are, it may be true, but their actions tell me they are really insecure about them, otherwise they wouldn't need to artificially create a crisis just to force everyone to use it, I don't know about you, but I believe actions always speak louder than words.
Satoshi saw this tx backlog coming when he was designing Bitcoin, the block size limit isn't even in the white paper, the 1MB limit was only a temporary measure to stop spam in the beginning.
Satoshi's white paper clearly states that consensus should be made base on CPU power, not the number of nodes or IP addresses, not the number of developers, not online poll ratings, not social media, not forum polls, just CPU power. Satoshi made this decision not because he trusted the miners, but because he expected everyone to be selfish and act on their own interests, and of all the pieces in the ecosystem, hash power is the most difficult to fake and come by.
Miners are constantly in an arm race, hash rate never stop climbing, in this constant zero sum survival of the fittest, they get nothing the moment they stop competing, eventually miners become so focused on competing with each other, fine tuning every last knob to gain an hash rate advantage.
Regardless of what anyone else is doing, miners are always at maximum greed under the highest pressure, like a piano wire.
And that is the beauty of the Bitcoin design: All miners worry about is turning electricity into profit, they don't even care who is running the show, they ignore everyone else equally, because no amount of sucking up to users or developers will help their hash rate, but, miners do care about the stability of the ecosystem, because their profit depends on it. Given a choice they'd rather not make any decision that may shake the grounds and risk their profit.
So, in a world full of greed, lies, mistrusts, secret schemes, accusations and back stabs, miner's indiscriminately pure and focused self serving nature makes them the perfect center of balance. When nothing is reliable and nobody can be trusted, the simplest and purest form of greed becomes the constant.
As a digital currency, having consensus base on hash rate is why Bitcoin succeeded while other digital currency failed.
Miners generally don't care about what anyone else is doing, unless some other part of the system did something really short sighted (read: stupid) to tip the balance, and that is EXACTLY what Core did, miners tried to make compromises but were ignored and insulted, now the back log is full, miners are simply reacting in self defense.
Anyone who still blames the miners at this point, simply don't understand Bitcoin and why it succeeded.
Regardless of what you think of BU or Segwit, from a development point of view, Core simply failed, it failed because it ignored user's immediate and practical needs. They sat on their fat asses for a year, making promises after promises on some ideal vision, while there is a huge tx backlog on ground floor.
There are good and responsible Core members, but unfortunately a lot of Core members, especially the loudest ones, seem to be focused on excuses, launching personal attacks, making empty promises, making threats, playing victims, while ignoring practical and immediate user needs.
Greg, you may have a big ego, but you're not Bill Gates, and Bitcoin Core is not Microsoft Windows, block chain technology is young and there are competitions, Bitcoin users are mostly early adopters, they are sharp and they like trying new things, you can't play Bill Gates and use Microsoft tactics and still expect to win.
It is true that you currently have some status and spot light, you have your financial backings, you have your crew and echo chamber, you have your side chain patents, from your pov it really looks like you can do whatever you want, insult people, ignore users, and nobody can do anything about it.
But, in this field anything can happen in a year, so many new and shiny things have come and gone.
Pride goes before a fall, Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo all spent billions and failed because they ignored their users. Blockstream only have $75 million, they already made a big mistake, but for some reason they're not turning around, instead acting even cockier than Microsoft.
Judging from how you ignored Satoshi's email and only arrive back to the scene years after Satoshi has gone. I have reason to believe you're the type of person that lacks intuitive foresight.
So I am going to give you an advice: You're on the wrong side of history, but you still have a chance to turn around.
You can't treat your users like they are idiots, they might not find out the truth the first day, they might be fooled by censoring tactics, but eventually there will be a crack, and once people find out you've been lying to them, the trust is gone forever, they'll never trust you again.
Look at the Iraq war, the so called WMD, look at Powell, there were massive misinformation campaign to push people to war, emotions were high, lies mixed with half truths were flying around, SJWs and useful idiots were screaming on top of their lungs, so many people were convinced there were 100% right.
But a decade later, everyone just remember Powell as the guy who lied on TV holding a bottle of white powder.
Where do you think you will be in 10 years, Greg?
Are you going to be remembered as someone who made Bitcoin better, or someone who missed the Bitcoin boat twice?
Bitcoin Core team, this is for you: You had your chance and you failed, no matter who you think you are, you're on the wrong side of history and I don't believe in you people anymore.
And before you try to point fingers and accusing me of helping a side, I am telling you, I don't care who wins, I am tired of your BS and I am going to ditch Bitcoins until things clear.
I am not going to risk my hard earned money on a bunch of short sighted arrogant insecure emotional lying pricks and bitches stuck with messiah complexes who scream a lot and talk big but can't solve simple and practical problems right in front of their noses and screw things up for everyone then turn around and play victims like some entitled pre-adolescent brat asking for a kick in the face.
That's all.
Alex
Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1842146.msg18335776#msg18335776
submitted by MobTwo to btc [link] [comments]

My letter to the SEC regarding the SolidX ETF

Dear SEC,
I stand opposed to any ETFs connected to Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency. The reasons for my opposition are obvious, simple and evidence-based.
Leaving aside the fact that almost all cryptocurrencies are unregistered securities created by a wave of fake start ups who have stolen millions of dollars from retail investors, let's focus on Bitcoin itself.
We don't know who started Bitcoin for sure. The latest insider speculation is that a volatility trader working in New York and then London created Bitcoin after befriending a circle of traders who were conspiracy-theory minded libertarians and cult-members.
What we do know for sure is that Bitcoin propagandists tend to have incorrect beliefs about how economies should function. They don't understand the role of inflation and they are among the least productive citizens. I have yet to see them create meaningful products, jobs, or companies that add value to the global economy. They are engaged almost solely with zero-sum games and game theory.
There are also major threats present.
The two groups with the largest Bitcoin holdings are:
  1. DarkNet criminals who gained most of their cryptocurrency wealth from 2011 to present from trafficking narcotics and child sex slaves.
  2. The Chinese government.
We will come to the latter in a moment. The first group, DarkNet criminals, are well documented in the Silk Road case and also in the documentary 'I Am Jane Doe' which tells the story of how child traffickers accumulated a large number of Bitcoins via adverts published on Backpage.com, the website subsequently seized by the FBI.
We must be mindful of the fact that this group of hardened criminals most likely still owns a large percentage of Bitcoins as they have been led to believe the value will continue to rise until the "currency" is legitimized as a financial instrument. The rise in Bitcoin's questionable value, which comes with its own controversies, in recent years has made holding them immensely profitable for the first group. Not only did they make an immediate profit at the time of trafficking drugs and child sex slaves, but they have continued to profit from retail investors buying into the pyramid scheme structure of Bitcoin.
The lack of genuine liquidity in the cryptocurrency sector, even over-the-desk trades, also meant it would have been very difficult for them to convert much of their Bitcoins to cash. We must believe they have continued to accumulate cryptocurrencies instead.
This is a threat to society and politics. Criminals who become enormously wealthy in such a manner are bound to become a threat to democracies if they choose to become politically influential.
We now move on to the second largest group of Bitcoin holders - the Chinese government and their associates.
Bitmain are the operator of the largest Bitcoin mining facilities and they are also the largest manufacturer of Bitcoin (also Litecoin and Ethereum) mining machines which they ship globally. They have achieved this hegemony by being subsidized by the Chinese state. The massive amount of electricity they consumed was free and possibly the hardware itself was also subsidized. This would not be allowed to happen in China without the state benefiting from Bitcoin. China's recent stances against cryptocurrencies appear to be nothing more than a distraction tactic to avoid being implicated. They control the market.
Furthermore, we see from the Panama Papers that Bitmain is not an independent company and that it has layers of secret ownership.
https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/82022780
An explosion in the value of Bitcoin would make the Chinese state the de facto Central Bank of the world. With it they would be able to drain investment from western companies, channel the investment into their own companies, control national currencies by proxy, and control governments.
With all the above in mind, I cannot stress enough how dangerous a Bitcoin or cryptocurrency ETF is for global democracy. We must see it as nothing more than a tool for subversion, which cryptocurrency's most ardent supporters are happy to admit.
submitted by PatrickBitmain to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Why Bitcoin Whales Are Becoming Ever Richer and Hamsters Are Becoming Poorer?

Why Bitcoin Whales Are Becoming Ever Richer and Hamsters Are Becoming Poorer?


Analysts and players in the market have been worrying about unequal distribution of the digital assets for several years already. Well-founded doubts arise among many traders that almost all digital gold is absorbed by whales which are controlling the market. Last year a study was conducted where it was indicated that the extreme inequality sharply increases the risk of the volatility of the market which is already not predictable.
The whales’ actions can lead to the situation when the market and the major coins may either take a leap into the top or fall down. Moreover, in both situations it will be the whales anyway who will benefit, and the rest of the players will have to count on a zero-sum outcome at best. And what is the reason why crypto whales are becoming ever richer and the grassroots players are becoming ever poorer?
It’s all a matter of classical economy. Cryptocurrency industry is in the process of the initial capital accumulation. If you look at the history of the classical economics, then it immediately becomes obvious that then, as it is now, money are being accumulated in the early arrivals’ addresses or in the wallets of the largest platforms’ owners.
No one has ever struck down the laws of the economy even for cryptocurrency market, and the fall in the actual number of Bitcoins and the increasing demand for them from the players aggravates the current situation even further. Besides, investors constantly prefer Bitcoin to all the rest of the currencies, and therefore its value in the long term will only rise.
Those players who have just acquired a small number of coins are at a disadvantage from the very beginning, and however long they would try to make money; they will still be losing to the whales. In addition, there is a theory which poses that cryptocurrencies were created specifically to form an elitist community outside of the authority of the governmental structures and regulators.
This may be so, but more likely the whales possessing considerable resources and authority are just acquiring another profitable asset for themselves relegatingeveryone else to the sidelines. It leads to the classical situation when only those who have both authority and money from the very beginning continue to accumulate their capital even in the digital currency, and everyone else will be able only to keep their deposits at best or to become poor at all, as it indeed happens.
submitted by iTradeBit to bitcoin_crypto [link] [comments]

Mimblewimble in IoT—Implementing privacy and anonymity in INT Transactions

Mimblewimble in IoT—Implementing privacy and anonymity in INT Transactions

https://preview.redd.it/kyigcq4j5p331.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=0584cd96378f51ead05b447397dcb0489995af4e

https://preview.redd.it/rfc3cw7q5p331.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=2b10b33defa0b354e0144745dd20c2f257812f29

The years of 2017 and ’18 were years focused on the topic of scaling. Coins forked and projects were hyped with this word as their sole mantra. What this debate brought us were solutions and showed us where we are right now satisfying the current need when paired with a plan for the future. What will be the focus of years to come will be anonymity and fungibility in mass adoption.
In the quickly evolving world of connected data, privacy is becoming a topic of immediate importance. As it stands, we trust our privacy to centralized corporations where safety is ensured by the strength of your passwords and how much effort an attacker dedicates to breaking them. As we grow into the new age of the Internet, where all things are connected, trustless and cryptographic privacy must be at the base of all that it rests upon. In this future, what is at risk is not just photographs and credit card numbers, it is everything you interact with and the data it collects.
If the goal is to do this in a decentralized and trustless network, the challenge will be finding solutions that have a range of applicability that equal the diversity of the ecosystem with the ability to match the scales predicted. Understanding this, INT has begun research into implementing two different privacy protocols into their network that conquer two of the major necessities of IoT: scalable private transactions and private smart contracts.

Mimblewimble

One of the privacy protocols INT is looking into is Mimblewimble. Mimblewimble is a fairly new and novel implementation of the same elements of Elliptic-Curve Cryptography that serves as the basis of most cryptocurrencies.

https://preview.redd.it/dsr6s6vt5p331.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=0249e76907c3c583e565edf19276e2afaa15ae08

In bitcoin-wizards IRC channel in August 2016, an anonymous user posted a Tor link to a whitepaper claiming “an idea for improving privacy in bitcoin.” What followed was a blockchain proposal that uses a transaction construction radically different than anything seen today creating one of the most elegant uses of elliptic curve cryptography seen to date.
While the whitepaper posted was enough to lay out the ideas and reasoning to support the theory, it contained no explicit mathematics or security analysis. Andrew Poelstra, a mathematician and the Director of Research at Blockstream, immediately began analyzing its merits and over the next two months, created a detailed whitepaper [Poel16] outlining the cryptography, fundamental theorems, and protocol involved in creating a standalone blockchain.
What it sets out to do as a protocol is to wholly conceal the values in transactions and eliminate the need for addresses while simultaneously solving the scaling issue.

Confidential Transactions

Let’s say you want to hide the amount that you are sending. One great way to hide information that is well known and quick: hashing! Hashing allows you to deterministically produce a random string of constant length regardless of the size of the input, that is impossible to reverse. We could then hash the amount and send that in the transaction.

X = SHA256(amount)
or
4A44DC15364204A80FE80E9039455CC1608281820FE2B24F1E5233ADE6AF1DD5 = SHA256(10)

But since hashing is deterministic, all someone would have to do would be to catalog all the hashes for all possible amounts and the whole purpose for doing so in the first place would be nullified. So instead of just hashing the amount, lets first multiply this amount by a private blinding factor*.* If kept private, there is no way of knowing the amount inside the hash.

X = SHA256(blinding factor * amount)

This is called a commitment, you are committing to a value without revealing it and in a way that it cannot be changed without changing the resultant value of the commitment.
But how then would a node validate a transaction using this commitment scheme? At the very least, we need to prove that you satisfy two conditions; one, you have enough coins, and two, you are not creating coins in the process. The way most protocols validate this is by consuming a previous input transaction (or multiple) and in the process, creating an output that does not exceed the sum of the inputs. If we hash the values and have no way validate this condition, one could create coins out of thin air.

input(commit(bf,10), Alice) -> output(commit(bf,9), BOB), outputchange(commit(bf,5), Alice)
Or
input(4A44DC15364204A80FE80E9039455CC1608281820FE2B24F1E5233ADE6AF1DD5, Alice) ->
output(19581E27DE7CED00FF1CE50B2047E7A567C76B1CBAEBABE5EF03F7C3017BB5B7, Bob)
output(EF2D127DE37B942BAAD06145E54B0C619A1F22327B2EBBCFBEC78F5564AFE39D, Alice)

As shown above, the later hashed values look just as valid as anything else and result in Alice creating 4 coins and receiving them as change in her transaction. In any transaction, the sum of the inputs must equal the sum of the outputs. We need some way of doing mathematics on these hashed values to be able to prove:

commit(bf1,x) = commit(bf2,y1) + commit(bf3,y2)

which, if it is a valid transaction would be:

commit(bf1,x) - commit(bf2+bf3,y1+y2) = commit(bf1-(bf2+bf3),0)

Or just a commit of the leftover blinding factors.

By the virtue of hashing algorithms, this isn’t possible. To verify this we would have to make all blinding factors and amounts public. But in doing so, nothing is private. How then can we make a valued public that is made with a private-value in such a way that you cannot reverse engineer the private value and still validate it satisfies some condition? It sounds a bit like public and private key cryptography…
What we learned in our primer on Elliptic-Curve Cryptography was that by using an elliptic curve to define our number space, we can use a point on the curve, G, and multiply it by any number, x, and what you get is another valid point, P, on the same curve. This calculation is quick but in taking the resultant point and the publically known generator point G, it is practically impossible to figure out what multiplier was used. This way we can use the point P as the public key and the number x as the private key. Interestingly, they also have the curious property of being additive and communicative.
If you take point P which is xG and add point Q to it which is yG, its resulting point, W = P + Q, is equal to creating a new point with the combined numbers x+y. So:
https://preview.redd.it/yv0knclr6p331.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=9a3abccdc164e615651147141736356013e4b829
This property, homomorphism, allows us to do math with numbers we do not know.
So if instead of using the raw amount and blinding factor in our commit, we use them each multiplied by a known generator point on an elliptic curve. Our commit can now be defined as:
https://preview.redd.it/aas2wm0u6p331.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=c3ebb5728f755f30e878ce5f1885397f6667d4f3
This is called a Pedersen Commitment and serves as the core of all Confidential Transactions.
Let’s call the blinding factors r, and the amounts v, and use H and G as generator points on the same elliptic curve (without going deep into Schnorr signatures, we will just accept that we have to use two different points for the blinding factor and value commits for validation purposes**). Applying this to our previous commitments:
https://preview.redd.it/zf246t8z6p331.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=17e2e155c59002f05f38ccb27082f79a5dd98a1f
and using the communicative properties:
https://preview.redd.it/km4fuf017p331.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=13541d62ec3f6e5728388b7a8d995c3829364a42
which for a valid transaction, this would equal:
with ri, vi being the values for the input, ro,vo being the values for the output and rco, vco being the values for the change output.

This resultant difference is just a commit to the excess blinding factor, also called a commitment-to-zero:
https://preview.redd.it/tqnwao667p331.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=9da5ecab5c670024f171a441e0d2477cf8f41a56
You can see that in any case where the blinding factors were selected randomly, the commit-to-zero will be non-zero and in fact, is still a valid point on the elliptic curve with a public key,
https://preview.redd.it/19ry9i297p331.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=4fb6628a01dc784816e1aea43cc0f5cfb025af52
And private key being the difference of the blinding factors.
So, if the sum of the inputs minus the sum of the outputs produces a valid public key on the curve, you know that the values have balanced to zero and no coins were created. If the resultant difference is not of the form
https://preview.redd.it/71mpdobb7p331.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=143d28da48d40208d5ef338444b3c7edea1fab9c
for some excess blinding factor, it would not be a valid public key on the curve, and we would know that it is not a balanced transaction. To prove this, the transaction is then signed with this public key to prove the transaction is balanced and that all blinding factors are known, and in the process, no information about the transaction have been revealed (the by step details of the signature process can be read in [Arvan19]).
All the above work assumed the numbers were positive. One could create just as valid of a balanced transaction with negative numbers, allowing users to create new coins with every transaction. Called Range Proofs, each transaction must be accompanied by a zero-knowledge argument of knowledge to prove that a private committed value lies within a predetermined range of values. Mimblewimble, as well as Monero, use BulletProofs which is a new way of calculating the proof which cuts down the size of the transaction by 80–90%.

*Average sizes of transactions seen in current networks or by assuming 2 input 2.5 output average tx size for MW

Up to this point, the protocol described is more-or-less identical between Mimblewimble and Monero. The point of deviation is how transactions are signed.
In Monero, there are two sets of keys/addresses, the spend keys, and the view keys. The spend key is used to generate and sign transactions, while the view key is used to “receive” transactions. Transactions are signed with what is called a Ring Signature which is derived from the output being spent, proving that one key out of the group of keys possesses the spend key. This is done by creating a combined Schnorr signature with your private key and a mix of decoy signers from the public keys of previous transactions. These decoy signers are all mathematically equally valid which results in an inability to determine which one is the real signer. Being that Monero uses Pedersen Commitments shown above, the addresses are never publically visible but are just used for the claiming, signing of transactions and generating blinding factors.
Mimblewimble, on the other hand, does not use addresses of any type. Yes. That’s right, no addresses. This is the true brilliance of the protocol. What Jedusor proved was that the blinding factors within the Pedersen commit and the commit-to-zero can be used as single-use public/private key pairs to create and sign transactions.
All address based protocols using elliptic-curve cryptography generate public-private key pairs in essentially the same way. By multiplying a very large random number (k_priv) by a point (G) on an elliptic curve, the result (K_pub) is another valid point on the same curve.
https://preview.redd.it/pt2xr33i7p331.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=1785cebcc842cab19b3987d848b2029032ae1195
This serves as the core of all address generation. Does that look familiar?
Remember this commit from above:
https://preview.redd.it/w9ooxudk7p331.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=d94ad3ac103352aa4c9653934d61cccc25a6bf8f
Each blinding factor multiplied by generator point G (in red) is exactly that! r•G is the public key with private key r! So instead of using addresses, we can use these blinding factors as proof we own the inputs and outputs by using these values to build the signature.
This seemingly minor change removes the linkability of addresses and the need for a scriptSig process to check for signature validity, which greatly simplifies the structure and size of Confidential Transactions. Of course, this means (at this time) that the transaction process requires interaction between parties to create signatures.

CoinJoin

Even though all addresses and amounts are now hidden, there is still some information that can be gathered from the transactions. In the above transaction format, it is still clear which outputs are consumed and what comes out of the transaction. This “transaction graph” can reveal information about the owners of the blinding factors and build a picture of the user based on seen transaction activity. In order to further hide and condense information, Mimblewimble implements an idea from Greg Maxwell called CoinJoin [Max13] which was originally developed for use in Bitcoin. CoinJoin is a trustless method for combining multiple inputs and outputs from multiple transactions, joining them into a single transaction. What this does is a mask that sender paid which recipient. To accomplish this in Bitcoin, users or wallets must interact to join transactions of like amounts so you cannot distinguish one from the other. If you were able to combine signatures without sharing private keys, you could create a combined signature for many transactions (like ring signatures) and not be bound by needing like amounts.

In this CoinJoin tx, 3 addresses have 4 outputs with no way of correlating who sent what
In Mimblewimble, doing the balance calculation for one transaction or many transactions still works out to a valid commit-to-zero. All we would need to do is to create a combined signature for the combined transaction. Mimblewimble is innately enabled to construct these combined signatures with the commit of Schnorr challenge transaction construction. Using “one-way aggregate signatures” (OWAS), nodes can combine transactions, while creating the block, into a single transaction with one aggregate signature. Using this, Mimblewimble joins all transactions at the block level, effectively creating each block as one big transaction of all inputs consumed and all outputs created. This simultaneously blurs the transaction graph and has the power to remove in-between transactions that were spent during the block, cutting down the total size of blocks and the size of the blockchain.

Cut-through

We can take this one step further. To validate this fully “joined” block, the node would sum all of the output commitments together, then subtract all the input commitments and validate that the result is a valid commit-to-zero. What is stopping us from only joining the transactions within a block? We could theoretically combine two blocks, removing any transactions that are created and spent in those blocks, and the result again is a valid transaction of just unspent commitments and nothing else. We could then do this all the way back to the genesis block, reducing the whole blockchain to just a state of unspent commitments. This is called Cut-through. When doing this, we don’t have any need to retain the range proofs of spent outputs, they have been verified and can be discarded. This lends itself to a massive reduction in blockchain growth, reducing growth from O*(number of txs)* to O*(number of unspent outputs)*.
To illustrate the impact of this, let’s imagine if Mimblewimble was implemented in the Bitcoin network from the beginning, with the network at block 576,000, the blockchain is about 210 GB with 413,675,000 total transactions and 55,400,000 total unspent outputs. In Mimblewimble, transaction outputs are about 5 kB (including range proof ~5 kB and Pedersen commit ~33 bytes), transaction inputs are about 32 bytes and transaction proof are about 105 bytes (commit-to-zero and signature), block headers are about 250 bytes (Merkle proof and PoW) and non-confidential transactions are negligible. This sums up to a staggering 5.3 TB for a full sync blockchain of all information, with “only” 279 GB of that being the UTXOs. When we cut-through, we don’t want to lose all the history of transactions, so we retain the proofs for all transactions as well as the UTXO set and all block headers. This reduces the blockchain to 322 GB, a 94% reduction in size. The result is basically a total consensus state of only that which has not been spent with a full proof history, greatly reducing the amount of sync time for new nodes.
If Bulletproofs are implemented, the range proof is reduced from over 5kB to less than 1 kB, dropping the UTXO set in the above example from 279 GB to 57 GB.

*Based on the assumptions and calculations above.

There is also an interesting implication in PoS blockchains with explicit finality. Once finality has been obtained, or at some arbitrary blockchain depth beyond it, there is no longer the need to retain range proofs. Those transactions have been validated, the consensus state has been built upon it and they make up the vast majority of the blockchain size. If we say in this example that finality happens at 100 blocks deep, and assume that 10% of the UTXO set is pre-finality, this would reduce the blockchain size by another 250 GB, resulting in a full sync weight of 73 GB, a 98.6% reduction (even down 65% from its current state). Imagine this. A 73 GB blockchain for 10 years of fully anonymous Bitcoin transactions, and one third the current blockchain size.
It’s important to note that cut-through has no impact on privacy or security. Each node may choose whether or not to store the entire chain without performing any cut-through with the only cost being increased disk storage requirements. Cut-through is purely a scalability feature resulting in Mimblewimble based blockchains being on average three times smaller than Bitcoin and fifteen times smaller than Monero (even with the recent implementation of Bulletproofs).

What does this mean for INT and IoT?

Transactions within an IoT network require speed, scaling to tremendous volumes, adapting to a variety of uses and devices with the ability to keep sensitive information private. Up till now, IoT networks have focused solely on scaling, creating networks that can transact with tremendous volume with varying degrees of decentralization and no focus on privacy. Without privacy, these networks will just make those who use it targets who feed their attackers the ammunition.
Mimblewimble’s revolutionary use of elliptic-curve cryptography brings us a privacy protocol using Pedersen commitments for fully confidential transactions and in the process, removes the dependence on addresses and private keys in the way we are used to them. This transaction framework combined with Bulletproofs brings lightweight privacy and anonymity on par with Monero, in a blockchain that is 15 times smaller, utilizing full cut-through. This provides the solution to private transactions that fit the scalability requirements of the INT network.
The Mimblewimble protocol has been implemented in two different live networks, Grin and Beam. Both are purely transactional networks, focused on the private and anonymous transfer of value. Grin has taken a Bitcoin-like approach with community-funded development, no pre-mine or founders reward while Beam has the mindset of a startup, with VC funding and a large emphasis on a user-friendly experience.
INT, on the other hand, is researching implementing this protocol either on the main chain, creating all INT asset transfer private or as an optional and add-on subchain, allowing users to transfer their INT from non-private chain to the private chain, or vice versa, at will.

Where it falls short?

What makes this protocol revolutionary is the same thing that limits it. Almost all protocols, like Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc., use a basic scripting language with a function calls out in the actual transaction data that tells the verifier what script to use to validate it. In the simplest case, the data provided with the input calls “scriptSig” and provides two pieces of data, the signature that matches the transaction and the public key that proves you own the private key that created it. The output scripts use this provided data with the logic passed with it, to show the validator how to prove they are allowed to spend it. Using the public key provided, the validator then hashes it, checks that it matches the hashed public key in the output, if it does, it then checks to make sure the signature provided matches the input signature.
https://preview.redd.it/5u6m1eiv7p331.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=3729eb12037107ae744d15cea9f9bc1e18a3c719
This verification protocol allows some limited scripting ability in being able to tell validators what to do with the data provided. The Bitcoin network can be updated with new functions allowing it to adapt to new processes or data. Using this, the Bitcoin protocol can verify multiple signatures, lock transactions for a defined timespan and do more complex things like lock bitcoin in an account until some outside action is taken.
In order to achieve more widely applicable public smart contracts like those in Ethereum, they need to be provided data in a non-shielded way or create shielded proofs that prove you satisfy the smart contract conditions.
In Mimblewimble, as a consequence of using the blinding factors as the key pairs, greatly simplifying the signature verification process, there are no normal scripting opportunities in the base protocol. What is recorded on the blockchain is just:

https://preview.redd.it/dwhiuc8y7p331.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=69ea0a7797bc94a9766a4b31a639666bf9f1ebc4
  • Inputs used — which are old commits consumed
  • New outputs — which are new commits to publish
  • Transaction kernel — which contains the signature for the transaction with excess blinding factor, transaction fee, and lock_height.
And none of these items can be related to one another and contain no useful data to drive action.
There are some proposals for creative solutions to this problem by doing so-called scriptless-scripts†. By utilizing the properties of the Schnorr signatures used, you can achieve multisig transactions and more complex condition-based transactions like atomic cross-chain swaps and maybe even lightning network type state channels. Still, this is not enough complexity to fulfill all the needs of IoT smart contracts.
And on top of it all, implementing cut-through would remove transactions that might be smart contracts or rely on them.
So you can see in this design we can successfully hide values and ownership but only for a single dimensional data point, quantity. Doing anything more complex than transferring ownership of coin is beyond its capabilities. But the proof of ownership and commit-to-zero is really just a specific type of Zero-knowledge (ZK) proof. So, what if, instead of blinding a value we blind a proof?
Part 2 of this series will cover implementing private smart contracts with zkSNARKs.

References and Notes

https://github.com/ignopeverell/grin/blob/mastedoc/intro.md
https://github.com/mimblewimble/grin/blob/mastedoc/pow/pow.md
https://github.com/mimblewimble/grin/wiki/Grin-and-MimbleWimble-vs-ZCash
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=30579
[poel16] http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/bitcoin/mimblewimble-andytoshi-INCOMPLETE-DRAFT-2016-10-06-001.pdf
** In order to prove that v=0 and therefore the commit to zero, in fact, has no Hcomponent without revealing r, we must use Schnorr protocol:
prover generates random integer n, computes and sends point 𝑇←n𝐻
verifier generates and sends random integer 𝑖
prover computes and sends integer 𝑠←𝑖𝑏+n modq, where q is the (public) order of the curve
verifier knowing point r𝐻 computes point 𝑖(r𝐻), then point 𝑖(r𝐻)+𝑇; computes point 𝑠𝐻; and ensures 𝑖(r𝐻)+𝑇=𝑠𝐻.
[Arvan19] https://medium.com/@brandonarvanaghi/grin-transactions-explained-step-by-step-fdceb905a853
[Bulletproofs] https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1066.pdf
[Max13] https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=279249
[MaxCT]https://people.xiph.org/~greg/confidential_values.txt
[Back13]https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=305791.0
http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/grincon/2019/scriptless-scripts-with-mimblewimble/
https://tlu.tarilabs.com/cryptography/scriptless-scripts/introduction-to-scriptless-scripts.html#list-of-scriptless-scripts
http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/bitcoin/2017-03-mit-bitcoin-expo-andytoshi-mimblewmble-scriptless-scripts.pdf
submitted by INTCHAIN to INT_Chain [link] [comments]

AMA with Wanchain VP Lini

AMA with Wanchain VP Lini
Original article here: https://medium.com/wanchain-foundation/ama-with-wanchain-vp-lini-58ada078b4fe

“What is unique about us is that we have actually put theory into practice.”
— Lini
https://preview.redd.it/n6lo2xcmtn621.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=281acce4b45eed8acf0c52b201d01cb6f0d13507
https://preview.redd.it/10aj3ointn621.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=6a187e8a6eb5ac0445ddc73d5b0f9077f12bce39
Wanchain’s Vice President of Business Development, Lini, sat down with blockchain media organization Neutrino for an AMA covering a wide range of topics concerning Wanchain’s development.
The following is an English translation of the original Chinese AMA which was held on December 13th, 2018:
Neutrino: Could you please first share with us a little basic background, what are the basic concepts behind cross chain technology? What are the core problems which are solved with cross-chain? In your opinion, what is the biggest challenge of implementing cross chain to achieve value transfer between different chains?
Lini: Actually, this question is quite big. Let me break it down into three smaller parts:
  1. First, what is the meaning of “cross-chain”?
https://preview.redd.it/cpui6t7qtn621.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=86bc39d94b0713949c150598e2397a4f9d3ac491
In China, we like to use the word “cross-chain”, the term “interoperability” is used more frequently in foreign countries. Interoperability is also one of the important technologies identified by Vitalik for the development of a future blockchain ecosystem mentioned in the Ethereum white paper. So cross-chain is basically the concept of interoperability between chains.
  1. The core problem solved by cross chain is that of “multi-ledger” synchronous accounting
https://preview.redd.it/603dl86stn621.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=425b827298ac919f8cf05909037458a173100cc4
In essence, blockchain is a distributed bookkeeping technique, also known as distributed ledger technology. Tokens are the core units of account on each chain, there currently exist many different chains, each with their own token. Of especial importance is the way in which each ledger uses tokens to interact with each other for the purpose of clearing settlements.
  1. The core purpose of the cross-chain technology is as one of the key infrastructures of the future economy based on digital currencies.
https://preview.redd.it/3d61f26utn621.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=b735482c9734e1d32176e406adce1718be20583e
Cross chain technology is one of the foundational technological infrastructures that is necessary for the large scale application of blockchain technology.
Neutrino: As we all know, there are many different kinds of cross-chain technologies. Please give us a brief introduction to several popular cross-chain technologies on the market, and the characteristics of each of these technologies。
Lini: Before answering this question, it is very important to share two important concepts with our friends: heterogeneity and homogeneity, and centralization and decentralization.
https://preview.redd.it/n6wbs77wtn621.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=83fcadd09afb214d2aa5a2a6deb6c24d0d4da671
These two points are especially important for understanding various cross-chain technologies, because there are many different technologies and terminologies, and these are some of the foundational concepts needed for understanding them.
There are also two core challenges which must be overcome to implement cross-chain:
https://preview.redd.it/84wqd28ytn621.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=dafe1cd2993f853547b532421404e6ab86e185f1
Combining the above two points, we look at the exploration of some solutions in the industry and the design concepts of other cross-chain projects.
First I’d like to discuss the Relay solution.
https://preview.redd.it/qgcqiwlztn621.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=0925d4221c9e92e365e150638c645bef8c609b3f
However the Relay solution must consume a relatively large amount of gas to read the BTC header. Another downside is that, as we all know, Bitcoin’s blocks are relatively slow, so the time to wait for verification will be long, it usually takes about 10 minutes to wait for one block to confirm, and the best practice is to wait for 6 blocks.
The next concept is the idea of Sidechains.
https://preview.redd.it/9cg79bl1un621.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=1260e14213b1757eadc4b6141a365ed3b0e20316
This solution is good, but not all chains contain SPV, a simple verification method. Therefore, there are certain drawbacks. Of course, this two way peg way solves challenge beta very well, that is, the atomicity of the transaction.
These two technical concepts have already been incorporated into a number of existing cross chain projects. Let’s take a look at two of the most influential of these.
The first is Polkadot.
https://preview.redd.it/1o3xwz93un621.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=249909a33b5420050a6010b961a944285fc94926
This is just a summary based on Polkadot’s whitepaper and most recent developments. The theoretical design is very good and can solve challenges alpha and beta. Last week, Neutrino organized a meetup with Polkadot, which we attended. In his talk, Gavin’s focus was on governance, he didn’t get into too much technical detail, but Gavin shared some very interesting ideas about chain governance mechanisms! The specific technical details of Polkadot may have to wait until after their main net is online before it can be analyzed.
Next is Cosmos.
https://preview.redd.it/5gtjf6x4un621.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=94d6408ff65dc7041316f0130867888e108848b2
Cosmos is a star project who’s basic concept is similar to Polkadot. Cosmos’s approach is based on using a central hub. Both projects both take into account the issue of heterogeneous cross-chain transactions, and both have also taken into account how to solve challenges alpha and beta.
To sum up, each research and project team has done a lot of exploration on the best methods for implementing cross-chain technology, but many are still in the theoretical design stage. Unfortunately, since the main net has not launched yet, it is not possible to have a more detailed understanding of each project’s implementation. A blockchain’s development can be divided into two parts: theoretical design, and engineering implementation. Therefore, we can only wait until after the launch of each project’s main network, and then analyze it in more detail.
Neutrino: As mentioned in the white paper, Wanchain is a general ledger based on Ethereum, with the goal of building a distributed digital asset financial infrastructure. There are a few questions related to this. How do you solve Ethereum’s scaling problem? How does it compare with Ripple, which is aiming to be the standard trading protocol that is common to all major banks around the world? As a basic potential fundamental financial infrastructure, what makes Wanchain stand out?
Lini: This question is actually composed of two small questions. Let me answer the first one first.
  1. Considerations about TPS.
First of all, Wanchain is not developed on Ethereum. Instead, it draws on some of Ethereum’s code and excellent smart contracts and virtual machine EVM and other mature technical solutions to build the mainnet of Wanchain.
The TPS of Ethereum is not high at this stage, which is limited by various factors such as the POW consensus mechanism. However, this point also in part is due to the characteristics of Ethereum’s very distributed and decentralized features. Therefore, in order to improve TPS, Wanchain stated in its whitepaper that it will launch its own POS consensus, thus partially solving the performance issues related to TPS. Wanchain’s POS is completely different from the POS mechanism of Ethereum 2.0 Casper.
Of course, at the same time, we are also paying close attention to many good proposals from the Ethereum community, such as sharding, state channels, side chains, and the Raiden network. Since blockchain exists in the world of open source, we can of course learn from other technological breakthroughs and use our own POS to further improve TPS. If we have some time at the end, I’d love to share some points about Wanchain’s POS mechanism.
  1. Concerning, Ripple, it is completely different from what Wanchain hopes to do.
Ripple is focused on exchanges between different fiat pairs, the sharing of data between banks and financial institutions, as a clearing and settlement system, and also for the application of DLT, for example the Notary agent mechanism.
Wanchain is focused on different use cases, it is to act as a bridge between different tokens and tokens, and between assets and tokens. For various cross-chain applications it is necessary to consume WAN as a gas fee to pay out to nodes.
So it seems that the purpose Ripple and Wanchain serve are quite different. Of course, there are notary witnesses in the cross-chain mechanism, that is, everyone must trust the middleman. Ripple mainly serves financial clients, banks, so essentially everyone’s trust is already there.
Neutrino: We see that Wanchain uses a multi-party computing and threshold key sharing scheme for joint anchoring, and achieves “minimum cost” for integration through cross-chain communication protocols without changing the original chain mechanism. What are the technical characteristics of multi-party computing and threshold key sharing? How do other chains access Wanchain, what is the cross-chain communication protocol here? What is the cost of “minimum cost?
Lini: The answer to this question is more technical, involving a lot of cryptography, I will try to explain it in a simple way.
  1. About sMPC -
It stands for secure multi-party computation. I will explain it using an example proposed by the scholar Andrew Yao, the only Turing Award winner in China. The scenario called Yao’s Millionaire Problem. How can two millionaires know who is wealthier without revealing the details of their wealth to each other or a trusted third party? I’m not going to explain the answer in detail here, but those who are interested can do a web search to learn more.
In sMPC multiple parties each holding their own piece of private data jointly perform a calculation (for example, calculating a maximum value) and obtain a calculation result. However, in the process, each party involved does not leak any of their respective data. Essentially sMPC calculation can allow for designing a protocol without relying on any trusted third parties, since no individual ever has access to the complete private information.
Secure multiparty computing can be abstractly understood as two parties who each have their own private data, and can calculate the results of a public function without leaking their private data. When the entire calculation is completed, only the calculation results are revealed to both parties, and neither of them knows the data of the other party and the intermediate data of the calculation process. The protocol used for secure multiparty computing is homomorphic encryption + secret sharing + OT (+ commitment scheme + zero knowledge proofs, etc.)
Wanchain’s 21 cross chain Storeman nodes use sMPC to participate in the verification of a transaction without obtaining of a user’s complete private key. Simply put, the user’s private key will have 21 pieces given to 21 anonymous people who each can only get 1/21 part, and can’t complete the whole key.
  1. Shamir’s secret sharing
There are often plots in a movie where a top secret document needs to be handed over to, let’s say five secret agents. In order to protect against the chance of an agent from being arrested or betraying the rest, the five agents each hold only part of a secret key which will reveal the contents of the documents. But there is also a hidden danger: if one the agents are really caught, how can the rest of the agents access the information in the documents? At this point, you may wonder if there is any way for the agents to still recover the original text with only a portion of the keys? In other words, is there any method that allows a majority of the five people to be present to unlock the top secret documents? In this case, the enemy must be able to manipulate more than half of the agents to know the information in the secret documents.
Wanchain uses the threshold M<=N; N=21; M=16. That is to say, at least 16 Storeman nodes must participate in multi-party calculation to confirm a transaction. Not all 21 Storeman nodes are required to participate. This is a solution to the security problem of managing private keys.
Cross-chain communication protocols refers to the different communication methods used by different chains. This is because heterogeneous cross-chain methods can’t change the mechanism of the original chains. Nakamoto and Vitalik will not modify their main chains because they need BTC and ETH interoperability. Therefore, project teams that can only do cross-chain agreements to create different protocols for each chain to “talk”, or communicate. So the essence of a cross-chain protocol is not a single standard, but a multiple sets of standards. But there is still a shared sMPC and threshold design with the Storeman nodes.
The minimum cost is quite low, as can be shown with Wanchain 3.0’s cross chain implementation. In fact it requires just two smart contracts, one each on Ethereum and Wanchain to connect the two chains. To connect with Bitcoin all that is needed is to write a Bitcoin script. Our implementation guarantees both security and decentralization, while at the same time remaining simple and consuming less computation. The specific Ethereum contract and Bitcoin scripts online can be checked out by anyone interested in learning more.
Neutrino: What kind of consensus mechanism is currently used by Wanchain? In addition, what is the consensus and incentive mechanism for cross-chain transactions, and what is the purpose of doing so? And Wanchain will support cross-chain transactions (such as BTC, ETH) on mainstream public chains, asset cross-chain transactions between the alliance chains, and cross-chain transactions between the public and alliance chains, how can you achieve asset cross-chain security and privacy?
Lini: It is now PPOW (Permissioned Proof of Work), in order to ensure the reliability of the nodes before the cross-chain protocol design is completed, and to prepare to switch to POS (as according to the Whitepaper roadmap). The cross-chain consensus has been mentioned above, with the participation of a small consensus (at least 16 nodes) in a set of 21 Storeman nodes through sMPC and threshold secret sharing.
In addition, the incentive is achieved through two aspects: 1) 100% of the cross chain transaction fee is used to reward the Storeman node; 2) Wanchain has set aside a portion of their total token reserve as an incentive mechanism for encouraging Storeman nodes in case of small cross-chain transaction volume in the beginning.
It can be revealed that Storeman participation is opening gradually and will become completely distributed and decentralized in batches. The first phase of the Storeman node participation and rewards program is to be launched at the end of 2018. It is expected that the selection of participants will be completed within one quarter. Please pay attention to our official announcements this month.
In addition, for public chains, consortium chains, and private chains, asset transfer will also follow the cross-chain mechanism mentioned above, and generally follow the sMPC and threshold integration technology to ensure cross-chain security.
When it comes to privacy, this topic will be bigger. Going back to the Wanchain Whitepaper, we have provided privacy protection on Wanchain mainnet. Simply put, the principle is using ring signatures. The basic idea is that it mixes the original address with many other addresses to ensure privacy. We also use one-time address. In this mechanism a stamp system is used that generates a one-time address from a common address. This has been implemented since our 2.0 release.
But now only the privacy protection of native WAN transactions can be provided. The protection of cross-chain privacy and user experience will also be one of the important tasks for us in 2019.
Neutrino: At present, Wanchain uses Storeman as a cross-chain trading node. Can you introduce the Storeman mechanism and how to protect these nodes?
Lini: Let me one problem from two aspects.
  1. As I introduced before in my explanation of sMPC, the Storeman node never holds the user’s private key, but only calculates the transaction in an anonymous and secure state, and the technology prevents the Storeman nodes from colluding.
  2. Even after technical guarantees, we also designed a “double protection” against the risk from an economic point of view, that is, each node participating as a Storeman needs to pledge WAN in the contract as a “stake”. The pledge of WAN will be greater than the amount of any single transaction as a guarantee against loss of funds.
If the node is malicious (even if it is a probability of one in a billion), the community will be compensated for the loss caused by the malicious node by confiscation of the staked WAN. This is like the POS mechanism used by ETH, using staking to prevent bad behavior is a common principle.
Neutrino: On December 12th, the mainnet of Wanchain 3.0 was launched. Wanchain 3.0 opened cross-chain transactions between Bitcoin, Ethereum and ERC20 (such as MakerDao’s stable currency DAI and MKR). What does this version mean for you and the industry? This upgrade of cross-chain with Bitcoin is the biggest bright spot. So, if now you are able to use Wanchain to make transactions between what is the difference between tokens, then what is the difference between a cross chain platform like Wanchain and cryptocurrency exchanges?
Lini: The release of 3.0 is the industry’s first major network which has crossed ETH and BTC, and it has been very stable so far. As mentioned above, many cross-chain, password-protected theoretical designs are very distinctive, but for engineering implementation, the whether or not it can can be achieved is a big question mark. Therefore, this time Wanchain is the first network launched in the world to achieve this. Users are welcome to test and attack. This also means that Wanchain has connected the two most difficult and most challenging public networks. We are confident we will soon be connecting other well-known public chains.
At the same time of the release of 3.0, we also introduced cross chain integration with other ERC20 tokens in the 2.X version, such as MakerDao’s DAI, MKR, LRC, etc., which also means that more tokens of excellent projects on Ethereum will also gradually be integrated with Wanchain.
Some people will be curious, since Wanchain has crossed so many well-known public chains/projects; how is it different with crypto exchanges? In fact, it is very simple, one centralized; one distributed. Back to the white paper of Nakamoto, is not decentralization the original intention of blockchain? So what Wanchain has to do is essentially to solve the bottom layer of the blockchain, one of the core technical difficulties.
Anyone trying to create a DEX (decentralized exchange); digital lending and other application scenarios can base their application on Wanchain. There is a Wanchain based DEX prototype made by our community members Jeremiah and Harry, which quite amazing. Take a look at this video below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=codcqb66G6Q
Neutrino: What are the specific application use cases after the launch of Wanchain 3.0? Most are still exploring small-scale projects. According to your experience, what are the killer blockchain applications of the future? What problems need to be solved during this period? How many years does it take?
Lini:
  1. Wanchain is just a technology platform rather than positioning itself as an application provider; that is, Wanchain will continue to support the community, and the projects which use cross-chain technology to promote a wide range of use cases for Wanchain.
  2. Cross-chain applications that we anticipate include things like: decentralized exchanges, digital lending, cross chain games, social networking dAPPs, gambling, etc. We also expect to see applications using non fungible tokens, for example exchange of real assets, STOs, etc.
  3. We recently proposed the WanDAPP solution. Simply speaking, a game developer for example has been developing on Ethereum, and ERC20 tokens have been issued, but they hope to expand the player base of their games to attract more people. To participate and make full use of their DAPP, you can consider using the WanDAPP solution to deploy the game DAPP on other common platforms, such as EOS, TRON, etc., but you don’t have to issue new tokens on these chains or use the previous ERC20 tokens. In this way the potential user population of the game can be increased greatly without issuing more tokens on a new chain, improving the real value of the original token. This is accomplished completely using the cross-chain mechanism of Wanchain.
  4. For large-scale applications, the infrastructure of the blockchain is not yet complete, there are issues which must first be dealt with such as TPS, sharding, sidechains, state channels, etc. These all must be solved for the large-scale application of blockchain applications. I don’t dare to guess when it will be completed, it depends on the progress of various different technical projects. In short, industry practitioners and enthusiasts need a little faith and patience.
Neutrino community member Block Venture Capital Spring: Will Wanchain be developing any more cross chain products aimed at general users? For example will the wallet be developed to make automatic cross chain transfers with other public chains? Another issue the community is concerned about is the currency issuance. Currently there are more than 100 million WAN circulating, what about the rest, when will it be released?
Lini: As a cross-chain public chain, we are not biased towards professional developers or ordinary developers, and they are all the same. As mentioned above, we provide a platform as infrastructure, and everyone is free to develop applications on us.
For example, if it is a decentralized exchange, it must be for ordinary users to trade on; if it is some kind of financial derivatives product, it is more likely to be used by finance professionals. As for cross-chain wallets which automatically exchange, I’m not sure if you are talking about distributed exchanges, the wallet will not be “automatic” at first, but you can “automatically” redeem other tokens.
Finally, the remaining WAN tokens are strictly in accordance with the plan laid out in the whitepaper. For example, the POS node reward mentioned above will give 10% of the total amount for reward. At the same time, for the community, there are also rewards for the bounty program. The prototype of the DEX that I just saw is a masterpiece of the overseas community developers, and also received tokens from our incentive program.
Neutrino community member’s question: There are many projects in the market to solve cross-chain problems, such as: Cosmos, Polkadot, what are Wanchain’s advantages and innovations relative to these projects?
Lini: As I mentioned earlier, Cosmos and pPolkadot all proposed very good solutions in theory. Compared with Wanchain, I don’t think that we have created anything particularly unique in our theory. The theoretical basis for our work is cryptography, which is derived from the academic foundation of scholars such as Yao Zhizhi and Silvio Micali. Our main strong point is that we have taken theory and put it into practice..
Actually, the reason why people often question whether a blockchain project can be realized or not is because the whitepapers are often too ambitious. Then when they actually start developing there are constant delays and setbacks. So for us, we focus on completing our very solid and realizable engineering goals. As for other projects, we hope to continue to learn from each other in this space.
Neutrino community member Amos from Huobi Research Institute question: How did you come to decide on 21 storeman nodes?
Lini: As for the nodes we won’t make choices based on quantity alone. The S in the POS actually also includes the time the tokens are staked, so that even if a user is staking less tokens, the amount of time they stake them for will also be used to calculate the award, so that is more fair. We designed the ULS (Unique Leader Selection) algorithm in order to reduce the reliance on the assumption of corruption delay (Cardano’s POS theory). which is used for ensuring fairness to ensure that all participants in the system can have a share of the reward, not only few large token holders.
Wu Di, a member of the Neutrino community: Many big exchanges have already begun to deploy decentralized exchanges. For example, Binance, and it seems that the progress is very fast. Will we be working with these influential exchanges in the future? We we have the opportunity to cooperate with them and broaden our own influence?
Lini: I also have seen some other exchange’s DEX. Going back the original point, distributed cross-chain nodes and centralized ones are completely different. I’m guessing that most exchanges use a centralized cross-chain solution, so it may not be the same as the 21 member Storeman group of Wanchain, but I think that most exchanges will likely be using their own token and exchange system. This is my personal understanding. But then, if you are developing cross chain technology, you will cooperate with many exchanges that want to do a DEX. Not only Binance, but also Huobi, Bithumb, Coinbase… And if there is anyone else who would like to cooperate we welcome them!
Neutrino community member AnneJiang from Maker: Dai as the first stable chain of Wanchain will open a direct trading channel between Dai and BTC. In relation to the Dai integration, has any new progress has been made on Wanchain so far?
Lini: DAI’s stable currency has already been integrated on Wanchain. I just saw it yesterday, let me give you a picture. It’s on the current 3.0 browser, https://www.wanscan.org/, you can take a look at it yourself.
This means that users with DAI are now free to trade for BTC, or ETH or some erc20 tokens. There is also a link to the Chainlink, and LRC is Loopring, so basically there are quite a few excellent project tokens. You may use the Wanchain to trade yourself, but since the DEX is not currently open, currently you can only trade with friends you know.
https://preview.redd.it/jme5s99bun621.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=7ba3d430ba3e7ddcab4dbcdedc05d596d832f5a7

About Neutrino

Neutrino is a distributed, innovative collaborative community of blockchains. At present, we have established physical collaboration spaces in Tokyo, Singapore, Beijing, Shanghai and other places, and have plans to expand into important blockchain innovation cities such as Seoul, Thailand, New York and London. Through global community resources and partnerships, Neutrino organizes a wide range of online an offline events, seminars, etc. around the world to help developers in different regions better communicate and share their experiences and knowledge.

About Wanchain

Wanchain is a blockchain platform that enables decentralized transfer of value between blockchains. The Wanchain infrastructure enables the creation of distributed financial applications for individuals and organizations. Wanchain currently enables cross-chain transactions with Ethereum, and today’s product launch will enable the same functionalities with Bitcoin. Going forward, we will continue to bridge blockchains and bring cross-chain finance functionality to companies in the industry. Wanchain has employees globally with offices in Beijing (China), Austin (USA), and London (UK).
You can find more information about Wanchain on our website. Additionally, you can reach us through Telegram, Discord, Medium, Twitter, and Reddit. You can also sign up for our monthly email newsletter here.
https://preview.redd.it/w7ezx27dun621.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=6ef7a651a2d480658f60d213e1431ba636bfbd8c
submitted by maciej_wan to wanchain [link] [comments]

Zero sum game in game theory & economics  Convex ... Guide to Game Theory - zero-sum games - YouTube Is Stock Market a Zero Sum Game? - YouTube What is a Zero-Sum Game? - YouTube Zero-Sum Games Vs. Non Zero-Sum Games  Game Theory ...

By making the nominal amount of bitcoin zero-sum, it ensures that the economic system is non-zero sum. In order to join the economy, you must deliver value to someone within the network. No value leaks outside the system; no inefficiency can be introduced through the production of money. Whether new entrants are joining the network or trade occurs from within, value is always transferred, and ... Bitcoin’s zero-sum game. by John Quiggin on January 23, 2018. That’s the title of my latest piece in Inside Story. Nothing that will surprise anyone who’s been paying attention to what I’ve written on this, so I’ll just cite the conclusion . Since bitcoins are not useful as a medium of exchange, or desirable in themselves, their true value is zero. The highest price at which bitcoins ... Zero and Bitcoin are unstoppable ideas gifted to mankind; gestures made in the spirit of “something for nothing.” In a world run by central banks with zero accountability, a cabal that uses ... In game theory, there are two types of games. Zero sum game: It is a game in which the gain of one player comes at the expense of another player. Non zero sum game: A game where the gain of one player doesn’t come at the expense of another player. So, how does one apply game theory? Let’s go back to what we were discussing again, should or shouldn’t a company advertise a particular ... Bitcoin and other digital currencies are new kinds of money and exchange networks that are superior in nearly every way to state-controlled fiat money. Due to the fact that all monies are directly competing with one another as economic units, money create a zero-sum game of competitive economics against one another.

[index] [8180] [31294] [15473] [45583] [41698] [45812] [21636] [35243] [8725] [360]

Zero sum game in game theory & economics Convex ...

Is Trading a Zero Sum Game? Do you think Trading is a zero sum game? No. Its not Zero sum game meaning is when one loses and other wins from what one lost. In this video i explained Zero sum game ... What does ZERO-SUM THINKING mean? ZERO-SUM THINKING meaning - Duration: 4:02. The Audiopedia 879 views. 4:02 . Game Theory 101: What Is a Nash Equilibrium? (Stoplight Game) - Duration: 6:03 ... Using a game of poker as an illustration, 2003 Jeopardy! College Champion Keith Williams explains the concept of a zero-sum game, and shows how the concept a... In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which each participant's gain or loss of utility is ex... Ever wondered if stock market is a zero sum game? Whether the profits of one investor is the loss of another? Well, wonder no more. In this very brief yet il...

#