I had a lot of fun with Jo_Bones insane vomit yesterday, that retarded chimp is a special one for sure. He inspired me to write some satire of his delusional CSWesque rant. I list some hilarious quotes from him at the end as well from the comment chain. The original delusional rant If all governments could agree on any single thing at any point in time, it would be an unprecedented moment in history. A "unicorn moonshot" so to speak. If the unicorn moonshot were to manifest as every government suddenly desiring to throw their already digital currencies into complete disarray and chose a technically inferior and non-compliant product in the process, then you can bet your ass they would use BSV for their fiscal policies. At the moment, here is what came up when I googled Central Banks for the first time today. Here's what came up when I googled fractional reserves. I then googled what reconciled means, and after my eyes rolled back in to my head out of sheer inability to digest the information I was reading, I decided BSV was the blockchain to solve all of this because I personally think this thing is an awesome high-school comp sci project. If every central bank suddenly decided to relinquish state control of their monetary policy, and instead decided that the security model of 7 amateur software developers paid by an ex-felon hiding in Antigua who controls the #11 cryptocurrency on coinmarketcap was the answer, we could have the opportunity to use a strictly worse version of our current banking software and IT infrastructure. Instant transactions between bank accounts you own? Screw that, welcome to 10 minute block times! Did you fat finger that bill payment to the wrong sender? Too bad, it's gone forever! Welcome to immutability! It's a feature not a bug! If you extrapolate how bad this is, suddenly taxes would be lower because digital monetary transactions would come to a screeching halt. Can't pay taxes on money you don't have, right? Suck that statists! The world would benefit from one giant economy of scale even though that phrase makes no sense in this context, and in reality is another buzzword I just simply don't have the time to try to understand. I forgot to Google that one I guess. This means prices around the globe would be out of control because we'd have to revert to a primal barter system! My chicken for your box of peaches! The possibilities to fuck over literally the entire world are endless! Additionally, there would now be a high degree of transparency to how poorly BSV scales, since blocks take hours to propagate at 1GB sizes and that would only represent the hourly transactions of a town of 10,000 people, which would inevitably lead everyone to understand what 99.99% (AKA the non-mentally retarded "subset" of the population) already know. In the comments I decided to change potential use cases from the utter nonsense I listed above to a couple different things. https://www.reddit.com/bsv/comments/j9u2jt/a_single_global_economy_of_scale/g8ppeq7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 Here I am demonstrating that I know currency lives in a database today:
The point is that they centrally issue and control their own tokens on the bitcoin network. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about this. They already issue tokens on their own network. It’s just a different database.
Here I am 7 comments later saying those databases don't allow for digital cash when I just stated they did.
Your SQL databases don’t really allow for digital cash.
Shit maybe token issuance on BSV won't work time to pivot to:
But bank transfers still take days between Europe and Asia and have high fees precisely because all the banks maintain their own networks.
Think of the possibilities guys. You totally can't do this today, right?
so they can (for example) sell a YouTube video directly to the whole world, for their native national token... on the bitcoin network.
Crap, maybe there are some good points there. At least Bitcoin can push transactions out in seconds despite having a 10 minute block time! And wait until you see the block times if anyone ever does try to send a billion tx in a second!
These hashes cost bitcoin, but you can sell billions of them per second.
What do you mean risks of minority hash rate on BSV? Nobody has ever done a 51% attack and not been arrested! THEY'LL LOSE THEIR MINING EQUIPMENT!
Except that it’s illegal to attack another chain, and it’s public, and traceable and the punishment would be your company loses all its mining equipment.
I'm running out of use cases since they're getting shot down so fast. Here's a good one. Why pay $80 a month for internet in 1 transaction, when you can pay for internet 1.7trillion times every month for every data packet you get?
And the advantage of sending 0.0011p to someone might be that they’re providing a service to you, like a data packet.
But think of all the UnIqUe AnD gReAt FeAtUrEs on BSV. Really cutting edge stuff that SQL Server doesn't have due to being obsolete in the 90s, like the ability to append only instead of modify data elements! Also, watch the blockchain desync if you ever tried 1billion tx/sec!
The network scales to handle billions of TX/sec and the ledger is append only so it matches the criteria for keeping accurate records and/or updating them as needs be.
Time to pivot again since I'm being dismantled at every turn. What haven't I mentioned yet?
you haven’t solved the issue of the US dollar being the worlds default currency on which global trade relies.
Here is me doing my best Craig Wright technobabble nonsense impression. I know this is technically English but the words being strung together make no sense!
Once again you’ve really missed the point of all this. A data commodity that comes about through consensus of the network on ‘what value is’ contains a fraction of every part of the global economy.
Time to revert to some Craig Wright technobabble bullshit again:
Those in charge of producing dollars ultimately have an unfair advantage over those who don’t and they can game the system. That’s a peer to peer internet model where producers get paid directly by consumers for the data they consume and miners get paid according to how fast and how efficiently and how accurately they can deliver the data.
Have I mentioned the fact I don't understand that blockchains are literally distributed databases?
Finally, you can send any kind of data in a bitcoin transaction. Not just fiat currencies issued by a government but audio, video, text, a webpage, etc.
Ultimate glossary of crypto currency terms, acronyms and abbreviations
So there was a big fight in Bitcoin early on, between the idiot asshole anarchists who wanted a drug-currency and the banker types who thought Blockchain would be incredibly useful. And the Anarchists 'won' temporarily because they got to limit the size of the blockchain and make it useless for all the things those banker types wanted to use it for. It's not even a debate that this happened. There's no debate really that the block size was always intended to scale. They just made this stupid argument that the people who invested in the network were 'winning' and that it wouldn't be 'Peer to Peer' anymore if the miners 'took over'. It was total and utter crap then, and it's total and utter crap now. If you remember, back in the early days of conferences, there'd be a ton of people around from the tech industry who showed up to enthuse over how cool Bitcoin technology was, and that sort of exploded into the crypto industry. But the truth is pretty plain: the Bitcoin blockchain could have grown and grown into something big and useful full of people's data and used in multiple different ways. It would be secured by big big companies with lots to lose who had their own interests invested in the blockchain they were securing. It didn't happen like that precisely because the cypherpunks tried to hide transactions on chain. It didn't happen because the cypherpunks didn't like the idea of a big public blockchain. Fundamentally, they don't like the internet as it is, because they say they're privacy advocates. The reality is that they like the fact that they can hack and explore the digital world, so the 'privacy advocacy' is really just an excuse. So what are these people afraid of exactly? They're basically afraid of an authoritarian future based on the blockchain. But are their fears reasonable or warranted? They don't want to be tracked and traced (especially, they're campaigning for the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten). But truthfully speaking, the blockchain works because it's a public database where transactions are broadcast in public. And the reality of the system may well be that the economics work PRECISELY because of the publishing of the transactions. Public transactions, in economic terms, may well be 'cheaper' than private ones, and probably for a very good reason. Honest transactions carry less need for privacy, less need for secrecy, so they don't need to be protected so much, as a result so they don't cost as much. So if you look at it through this lens it becomes MORE THAN CLEAR why they hate Satoshi's Original Vision (now BSV). They hate the public nature of the chain. They want an alternative system to the banking system, and they want it to be hidden, uncensorable, uncontrollable and 'free' in all the worst ways.
https://github.com/gridcoin-community/Gridcoin-Research/releases/tag/188.8.131.52 Finally! After over ten months of development and testing, "Fern" has arrived! This is a whopper. 240 pull requests merged. Essentially a complete rewrite that was started with the scraper (the "neural net" rewrite) in "Denise" has now been completed. Practically the ENTIRE Gridcoin specific codebase resting on top of the vanilla Bitcoin/Peercoin/Blackcoin vanilla PoS code has been rewritten. This removes the team requirement at last (see below), although there are many other important improvements besides that. Fern was a monumental undertaking. We had to encode all of the old rules active for the v10 block protocol in new code and ensure that the new code was 100% compatible. This had to be done in such a way as to clear out all of the old spaghetti and ring-fence it with tightly controlled class implementations. We then wrote an entirely new, simplified ruleset for research rewards and reengineered contracts (which includes beacon management, polls, and voting) using properly classed code. The fundamentals of Gridcoin with this release are now on a very sound and maintainable footing, and the developers believe the codebase as updated here will serve as the fundamental basis for Gridcoin's future roadmap. We have been testing this for MONTHS on testnet in various stages. The v10 (legacy) compatibility code has been running on testnet continuously as it was developed to ensure compatibility with existing nodes. During the last few months, we have done two private testnet forks and then the full public testnet testing for v11 code (the new protocol which is what Fern implements). The developers have also been running non-staking "sentinel" nodes on mainnet with this code to verify that the consensus rules are problem-free for the legacy compatibility code on the broader mainnet. We believe this amount of testing is going to result in a smooth rollout. Given the amount of changes in Fern, I am presenting TWO changelogs below. One is high level, which summarizes the most significant changes in the protocol. The second changelog is the detailed one in the usual format, and gives you an inkling of the size of this release.
Note that the protocol changes will not become active until we cross the hard-fork transition height to v11, which has been set at 2053000. Given current average block spacing, this should happen around October 4, about one month from now. Note that to get all of the beacons in the network on the new protocol, we are requiring ALL beacons to be validated. A two week (14 day) grace period is provided by the code, starting at the time of the transition height, for people currently holding a beacon to validate the beacon and prevent it from expiring. That means that EVERY CRUNCHER must advertise and validate their beacon AFTER the v11 transition (around Oct 4th) and BEFORE October 18th (or more precisely, 14 days from the actual date of the v11 transition). If you do not advertise and validate your beacon by this time, your beacon will expire and you will stop earning research rewards until you advertise and validate a new beacon. This process has been made much easier by a brand new beacon "wizard" that helps manage beacon advertisements and renewals. Once a beacon has been validated and is a v11 protocol beacon, the normal 180 day expiration rules apply. Note, however, that the 180 day expiration on research rewards has been removed with the Fern update. This means that while your beacon might expire after 180 days, your earned research rewards will be retained and can be claimed by advertising a beacon with the same CPID and going through the validation process again. In other words, you do not lose any earned research rewards if you do not stake a block within 180 days and keep your beacon up-to-date. The transition height is also when the team requirement will be relaxed for the network.
Besides the beacon wizard, there are a number of improvements to the GUI, including new UI transaction types (and icons) for staking the superblock, sidestake sends, beacon advertisement, voting, poll creation, and transactions with a message. The main screen has been revamped with a better summary section, and better status icons. Several changes under the hood have improved GUI performance. And finally, the diagnostics have been revamped.
The wallet sync speed has been DRASTICALLY improved. A decent machine with a good network connection should be able to sync the entire mainnet blockchain in less than 4 hours. A fast machine with a really fast network connection and a good SSD can do it in about 2.5 hours. One of our goals was to reduce or eliminate the reliance on snapshots for mainnet, and I think we have accomplished that goal with the new sync speed. We have also streamlined the in-memory structures for the blockchain which shaves some memory use. There are so many goodies here it is hard to summarize them all. I would like to thank all of the contributors to this release, but especially thank @cyrossignol, whose incredible contributions formed the backbone of this release. I would also like to pay special thanks to @barton2526, @caraka, and @Quezacoatl1, who tirelessly helped during the testing and polishing phase on testnet with testing and repeated builds for all architectures. The developers are proud to present this release to the community and we believe this represents the starting point for a true renaissance for Gridcoin!
Most significantly, nodes calculate research rewards directly from the magnitudes in EACH superblock between stakes instead of using a two- or three- point average based on a CPID's current magnitude and the magnitude for the CPID when it last staked. For those long-timers in the community, this has been referred to as "Superblock Windows," and was first done in proof-of-concept form by @denravonska.
Network magnitude unit pinned to a static value of 0.25
Max research reward allowed per block raised to 16384 GRC (from 12750 GRC)
New CPIDs begin accruing research rewards from the first superblock that contains the CPID instead of from the time of the beacon advertisement
500 GRC research reward limit for a CPID's first stake
6-month expiration for unclaimed rewards
10-block spacing requirement between research reward claims
Rolling 5-day payment-per-day limit
Legacy tolerances for floating-point error and time drift
The need to include a valid copy of a CPID's magnitude in a claim
10-block emission adjustment interval for the magnitude unit
One-time beacon activation requires that participants temporarily change their usernames to a verification code at one whitelisted BOINC project
Verification codes of pending beacons expire after 3 days
Self-service beacon removal
Burn fee for beacon advertisement increased from 0.00001 GRC to 0.5 GRC
Rain addresses derived from beacon keys instead of a default wallet address
Beacon expiration determined as of the current block instead of the previous block
The ability for developers to remove beacons
The ability to sign research reward claims with non-current but unexpired beacons
As a reminder:
Beacons expire after 6 months pass (180 days)
Beacons can be renewed after 5 months pass (150 days)
Renewed beacons must be signed with the same key as the original beacon
Magnitudes less than 1 include two fractional places
Magnitudes greater than or equal to 1 but less than 10 include one fractional place
A valid superblock must match a scraper convergence
Superblock popularity election mechanics
Yes/no/abstain and single-choice response types (no user-facing support yet)
To create a poll, a maximum of 250 UTXOs for a single address must add up to 100000 GRC. These are selected from the largest downwards.
Burn fee for creating polls scaled by the number of UTXOs claimed
50 GRC for a poll contract
0.001 GRC per claimed UTXO
Burn fee for casting votes scaled by the number of UTXOs claimed
0.01 GRC for a vote contract
0.01 GRC to claim magnitude
0.01 GRC per claimed address
0.001 GRC per claimed UTXO
Maximum length of a poll title: 80 characters
Maximum length of a poll question: 100 characters
Maximum length of a poll discussion website URL: 100 characters
Maximum number of poll choices: 20
Maximum length of a poll choice label: 100 characters
Magnitude, CPID count, and participant count poll weight types
The ability for developers to remove polls and votes
[184.108.40.206] 2020-09-03, mandatory, "Fern"
Backport newer uint256 types from Bitcoin #1570 (@cyrossignol)
Implement project level rain for rainbymagnitude #1580 (@jamescowens)
Upgrade utilities (Update checker and snapshot downloadeapplication) #1576 (@iFoggz)
Provide fees collected in the block by the miner #1601 (@iFoggz)
Add support for generating legacy superblocks from scraper stats #1603 (@cyrossignol)
Port of the Bitcoin Logger to Gridcoin #1600 (@jamescowens)
Implement zapwallettxes #1605 (@jamescowens)
Implements a global event filter to suppress help question mark #1609 (@jamescowens)
Add next target difficulty to RPC output #1615 (@cyrossignol)
Add caching for block hashes to CBlock #1624 (@cyrossignol)
Make toolbars and tray icon red for testnet #1637 (@jamescowens)
Add an rpc call convergencereport #1643 (@jamescowens)
Implement newline filter on config file read in #1645 (@jamescowens)
Implement beacon status icon/button #1646 (@jamescowens)
Add gridcointestnet.png #1649 (@caraka)
Add precision to support magnitudes less than 1 #1651 (@cyrossignol)
Replace research accrual calculations with superblock snapshots #1657 (@cyrossignol)
Publish example gridcoinresearch.conf as a md document to the doc directory #1662 (@jamescowens)
Add options checkbox to disable transaction notifications #1666 (@jamescowens)
Add support for self-service beacon deletion #1695 (@cyrossignol)
Add support for type-specific contract fee amounts #1698 (@cyrossignol)
Add verifiedbeaconreport and pendingbeaconreport #1696 (@jamescowens)
Add preliminary testing option for block v11 height on testnet #1706 (@cyrossignol)
Add verified beacons manifest part to superblock validator #1711 (@cyrossignol)
Implement beacon, vote, and superblock display categories/icons in UI transaction model #1717 (@jamescowens)
The dichotomy is between computationally infeasible vs informationally-theoretic infeasible. Basically:
Something is computationally infeasible if it could in theory be done, but you would not be able to build a practical computer to do it within the age of the universe and using only the power available in just one galaxy or thereabouts.
Something is informationally-theoretic infeasible if even if you had any arbitrarily large amount of time, space, and energy, you cannot do it.
Quantum breaks represent a possible reduction in computational infeasibility of certain things, but not information-theoretic infeasibility. For example, suppose you want to know what 256-bit preimages map to 256-bit hashes. In theory, you just need to build a table with 2256 entries and start from 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 and so on. This is computationally infeasible, but not information-theoretic infeasible. However, suppose you want to know what preimages, of any size, map to 256-bit hashes. Since the preimages can be of any size, after finishing with 256-bit preimages, you have to proceed to 257-bit preimages. And so on. And there is no size limit, so you will literally never finish. Even if you lived forever, you would not complete it. This is information-theoretic infeasible.
How does this relate to confidential transactions? Basically, every confidential transaction simply hides the value behind a homomorphic commitment. What is a homomorphic commitment? Okay, let's start with commitments. A commitment is something which lets you hide something, and later reveal what you hid. Until you reveal it, even if somebody has access to the commitment, they cannot reverse it to find out what you hid. This is called the "hiding property" of commitments. However, when you do reveal it (or "open the commitment"), then you cannot replace what you hid with some other thing. This is called the "binding property" of commitments. For example, a hash of a preimage is a commitment. Suppose I want to commit to something. For example, I want to show that I can predict the future using the energy of a spare galaxy I have in my pocket. I can hide that something by hashing a description of the future. Then I can give the hash to you. You still cannot learn the future, because it's just a hash, and you can't reverse the hash ("hiding"). But suppose the future event occurs. I can reveal that I did, in fact, know the future. So I give you the description, and you hash it and compare it to the hash I gave earlier. Because of preimage resistance, I cannot retroactively change what I hid in the hash, so what I gave must have been known to me at the time that I gave you the commitment i..e. hash ("binding").
A homomorphic commitment simply means that if I can do certain operations on preimages of the commitment scheme, there are certain operations on the commitments that would create similar ("homo") changes ("morphic") to the commitments. For example, suppose I have a magical function h() which is a homomorphic commitment scheme. It can hide very large (near 256-bit) numbers. Then if h() is homomorphic, there may be certain operations on numbers behind the h() that have homomorphisms after the h(). For example, I might have an operation <+> that is homomorphic in h() on +, or in other words, if I have two large numbers a and b, then h(a + b) = h(a) <+> h(b). + and <+> are different operations, but they are homomorphic to each other. For example, elliptic curve scalars and points have homomorphic operations. Scalars (private keys) are "just" very large near-256-bit numbers, while points are a scalar times a standard generator point G. Elliptic curve operations exist where there is a <+> between points that is homomorphic on standard + on scalars, and a <*> between a scalar and a point that is homomorphic on standard * multiplication on scalars. For example, suppose I have two large scalars a and b. I can use elliptic curve points as a commitment scheme: I can take a <*> G to generate a point A. It is hiding since nobody can learn what a is unless I reveal it (a and A can be used in standard ECDSA private-public key cryptography, with the scalar a as the private key and the point A as the public key, and the a cannot be derived even if somebody else knows A). Thus, it is hiding. At the same time, for a particular point A and standard generator point G, there is only one possible scalar a which when "multiplied" with G yields A. So scalars and elliptic curve points are a commitment scheme, with both hiding and binding properties. Now, as mentioned there is a <+> operation on points that is homomorphic to the + operation on corresponding scalars. For example, suppose there are two scalars a and b. I can compute (a + b) <*> G to generate a particular point. But even if I don't know scalars a and b, but I do know points A = a <*> G and B = b <*> G, then I can use A <+> B to derive (a + b) <*> G (or equivalently, (a <*> G) <+> (b <*> G) == (a + b) <*> G). This makes points a homomorphic commitment scheme on scalars.
Confidential Transactions: A Sketch
This is useful since we can easily use the near-256-bit scalars in SECP256K1 elliptic curves to easily represent values in a monetary system, and hide those values by using a homomorphic commitment scheme. We can use the hiding property to prevent people from learning the values of the money we are sending and receiving. Now, in a proper cryptocurrency, a normal, non-coinbase transaction does not create or destroy coins: the values of the input coins are equal to the value of the output coins. We can use a homomorphic commitment scheme. Suppose I have a transaction that consumes an input value a and creates two output values b and c. That is, a = b + c, i.e. the sum of all inputs a equals the sum of all outputs b and c. But remember, with a homomorphic commitment scheme like elliptic curve points, there exists a <+> operation on points that is homomorphic to the ordinary school-arithmetic + addition on large numbers. So, confidential transactions can use points a <*> G as input, and points b <*> G and c <*> G as output, and we can easily prove that a <*> G = (b <*> G) <+> (c <*> G) if a = b + c, without revealing a, b, or c to anyone.
Actually, we cannot just use a <*> G as a commitment scheme in practice. Remember, Bitcoin has a cap on the number of satoshis ever to be created, and it's less than 253 satoshis, which is fairly trivial. I can easily compute all values of a <*> G for all values of a from 0 to 253 and know which a <*> G corresponds to which actual amount a. So in confidential transactions, we cannot naively use a <*> G commitments, we need Pedersen commitments. If you know what a "salt" is, then Pedersen commitments are fairly obvious. A "salt" is something you add to e.g. a password so that the hash of the password is much harder to attack. Humans are idiots and when asked to generate passwords, will output a password that takes less than 230 possibilities, which is fairly easy to grind. So what you do is that you "salt" a password by prepending a random string to it. You then hash the random string + password, and store the random string --- the salt --- together with the hash in your database. Then when somebody logs in, you take the password, prepend the salt, hash, and check if the hash matches with the in-database hash, and you let them log in. Now, with a hash, even if somebody copies your password database, the can't get the password. They're hashed. But with a salt, even techniques like rainbow tables make a hacker's life even harder. They can't hash a possible password and check every hash in your db for something that matches. Instead, if they get a possible password, they have to prepend each salt, hash, then compare. That greatly increases the computational needs of a hacker, which is why salts are good. What a Pedersen commitment is, is a point a <*> H, where a is the actual value you commit to, plus <+> another point r <*> G. H here is a second standard generator point, different from G. The r is the salt in the Pedersen commitment. It makes it so that even if you show (a <*> H) <+> (r <*> G) to somebody, they can't grind all possible values of a and try to match it with your point --- they also have to grind r (just as with the password-salt example above). And r is much larger, it can be a true near-256-bit number that is the range of scalars in SECP256K1, whereas a is constrained to "reasonable" numbers of satoshi, which cannot exceed 21 million Bitcoins. Now, in order to validate a transaction with input a and outputs b and c, you only have to prove a = b + c. Suppose we are hiding those amounts using Pedersen commitments. You have an input of amount a, and you know a and r. The blockchain has an amount (a <*> H) <+> (r <*> G). In order to create the two outputs b and c, you just have to create two new r scalars such that r = r + r. This is trivial, you just select a new random r and then compute r = r - r, it's just basic algebra. Then you create a transaction consuming the input (a <*> H) <+> (r <*> G) and outputs (b <*> H) <+> (r <*> G) and (c <*> H) <+> (r <*> G). You know that a = b + c, and r = r + r, while fullnodes around the world, who don't know any of the amounts or scalars involved, can just take the points (a <*> H) <+> (r <*> G) and see if it equals (b <*> H) <+> (r <*> G) <+> (c <*> H) <+> (r <*> G). That is all that fullnodes have to validate, they just need to perform <+> operations on points and comparison on points, and from there they validate transactions, all without knowing the actual values involved.
What does this mean? It's just a measure of how "impossible" binding vs hiding is. Pedersen commitments are computationally binding, meaning that in theory, a user of this commitment with arbitrary time and space and energy can, in theory, replace the amount with something else. However, it is information-theoretic hiding, meaning an attacker with arbitrary time and space and energy cannot figure out exactly what got hidden behind the commitment. But why? Now, we have been using a and a <*> G as private keys and public keys in ECDSA and Schnorr. There is an operation <*> on a scalar and a point that generates another point, but we cannot "revrese" this operation. For example, even if I know A, and know that A = a <*> G, but do not know a, I cannot derive a --- there is no operation between A G that lets me know a. Actually there is: I "just" need to have so much time, space, and energy that I just start counting a from 0 to 2256 and find which a results in A = a <*> G. This is a computational limit: I don't have a spare universe in my back pocket I can use to do all those computations. Now, replace a with h and A with H. Remember that Pedersen commitments use a "second" standard generator point. The generator points G and H are "not really special" --- they are just random points on the curve that we selected and standardized. There is no operation H G such that I can learn h where H = h <*> G, though if I happen to have a spare universe in my back pocket I can "just" brute force it. Suppose I do have a spare universe in my back pocket, and learn h = H G such that H = h <*> G. What can I do in Pedersen commitments? Well, I have an amount a that is committed to by (a <*> H) <+> (r <*> G). But I happen to know h! Suppose I want to double my money a without involving Elon Musk. Then:
(a <*> H) <+> (r <*> G)
== (a <*> (h <*> G)) <+> (r <*> G)
== ((a * h) <*> G) <+> (r <*> G); remember, <*> is also homomorphic on multiplication *.
== ((a * h + a * h - a * h) <*> G) <+> (r <*> G); just add 0.
== ((a * h + a * h) <*> G) <+> ((-a * h) <*> G) <+> (r <*> G)
== ((2 * a * h) <*> G) <+> ((r - a * h) <*> G)
== ((2 * a) <*> (h <*> G)) <+> ((r - a * h) <*> G)
== ((2 * a) <*> H) <+> ((r - a * h) <*> G); TADA!! I doubled my money!
That is what we mean by computationally binding: if I can compute h such that H = h <*> G, then I can find another number which opens the same commitment. And of course I'd make sure that number is much larger than what I originally had in that address! Now, the reason why it is "only" computationally binding is that it is information-theoretically hiding. Suppose somebody knows h, but has no money in the cryptocurrency. All they see are points. They can try to find what the original amounts are, but because any amount can be mapped to "the same" point with knowledge of h (e.g. in the above, a and 2 * a got mapped to the same point by "just" replacing the salt r with r - a * h; this can be done for 3 * a, 4 * a etc.), they cannot learn historical amounts --- the a in historical amounts could be anything. The drawback, though, is that --- as seen above --- arbitrary inflation is now introduced once somebody knows h. They can multiply their money by any arbitrary factor with knowledge of h. It is impossible to have both perfect hiding (i.e. historical amounts remain hidden even after a computational break) and perfect binding (i.e. you can't later open the commitment to a different, much larger, amount). Pedersen commitments just happen to have perfect hiding, but only computationally-infeasible binding. This means they allow hiding historical values, but in case of anything that allows better computational power --- including but not limited to quantum breaks --- they allow arbitrary inflation.
Changing The Tradeoffs with ElGamal Commitments
An ElGamal commitment is just a Pedersen commitment, but with the point r <*> G also stored in a separate section of the transaction. This commits the r, and fixes it to a specific value. This prevents me from opening my (a <*> H) <+> (r <*> G) as ((2 * a) <*> H) <+> ((r - a * h) <*> G), because the (r - a * h) would not match the r <*> G sitting in a separate section of the transaction. This forces me to be bound to that specific value, and no amount of computation power will let me escape --- it is information-theoretically binding i.e. perfectly binding. But that is now computationally hiding. An evil surveillor with arbitrary time and space can focus on the r <*> G sitting in a separate section of the transaction, and grind r from 0 to 2256 to determine what r matches that point. Then from there, they can negate r to get (-r) <*> G and add it to the (a <*> H) <+> (r <*> G) to get a <*> H, and then grind that to determine the value a. With massive increases in computational ability --- including but not limited to quantum breaks --- an evil surveillor can see all the historical amounts of confidential transactions.
This is the source of the tradeoff: either you design confidential transactions so in case of a quantum break, historical transactions continue to hide their amounts, but inflation of the money is now unavoidable, OR you make the money supply sacrosanct, but you potentially sacrifice amount hiding in case of some break, including but not limited to quantum breaks.
Summary: Everyone knows that when you give your assets to someone else, they always keep them safe. If this is true for individuals, it is certainly true for businesses. Custodians always tell the truth and manage funds properly. They won't have any interest in taking the assets as an exchange operator would. Auditors tell the truth and can't be misled. That's because organizations that are regulated are incapable of lying and don't make mistakes. First, some background. Here is a summary of how custodians make us more secure: Previously, we might give Alice our crypto assets to hold. There were risks:
Alice might take the assets and disappear.
Alice might spend the assets and pretend that she still has them (fractional model).
Alice might store the assets insecurely and they'll get stolen.
Alice might give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force.
Alice might lose access to the assets.
But "no worries", Alice has a custodian named Bob. Bob is dressed in a nice suit. He knows some politicians. And he drives a Porsche. "So you have nothing to worry about!". And look at all the benefits we get:
Alice can't take the assets and disappear (unless she asks Bob or never gives them to Bob).
Alice can't spend the assets and pretend that she still has them. (Unless she didn't give them to Bob or asks him for them.)
Alice can't store the assets insecurely so they get stolen. (After all - she doesn't have any control over the withdrawal process from any of Bob's systems, right?)
Alice can't give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force. (Bob will stop her, right Bob?)
Alice can't lose access to the funds. (She'll always be present, sane, and remember all secrets, right?)
See - all problems are solved! All we have to worry about now is:
Bob might take the assets and disappear.
Bob might spend the assets and pretend that he still has them (fractional model).
Bob might store the assets insecurely and they'll get stolen.
Bob might give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force.
Bob might lose access to the assets.
It's pretty simple. Before we had to trust Alice. Now we only have to trust Alice, Bob, and all the ways in which they communicate. Just think of how much more secure we are! "On top of that", Bob assures us, "we're using a special wallet structure". Bob shows Alice a diagram. "We've broken the balance up and store it in lots of smaller wallets. That way", he assures her, "a thief can't take it all at once". And he points to a historic case where a large sum was taken "because it was stored in a single wallet... how stupid". "Very early on, we used to have all the crypto in one wallet", he said, "and then one Christmas a hacker came and took it all. We call him the Grinch. Now we individually wrap each crypto and stick it under a binary search tree. The Grinch has never been back since." "As well", Bob continues, "even if someone were to get in, we've got insurance. It covers all thefts and even coercion, collusion, and misplaced keys - only subject to the policy terms and conditions." And with that, he pulls out a phone-book sized contract and slams it on the desk with a thud. "Yep", he continues, "we're paying top dollar for one of the best policies in the country!" "Can I read it?' Alice asks. "Sure," Bob says, "just as soon as our legal team is done with it. They're almost through the first chapter." He pauses, then continues. "And can you believe that sales guy Mike? He has the same year Porsche as me. I mean, what are the odds?" "Do you use multi-sig?", Alice asks. "Absolutely!" Bob replies. "All our engineers are fully trained in multi-sig. Whenever we want to set up a new wallet, we generate 2 separate keys in an air-gapped process and store them in this proprietary system here. Look, it even requires the biometric signature from one of our team members to initiate any withdrawal." He demonstrates by pressing his thumb into the display. "We use a third-party cloud validation API to match the thumbprint and authorize each withdrawal. The keys are also backed up daily to an off-site third-party." "Wow that's really impressive," Alice says, "but what if we need access for a withdrawal outside of office hours?" "Well that's no issue", Bob says, "just send us an email, call, or text message and we always have someone on staff to help out. Just another part of our strong commitment to all our customers!" "What about Proof of Reserve?", Alice asks. "Of course", Bob replies, "though rather than publish any blockchain addresses or signed transaction, for privacy we just do a SHA256 refactoring of the inverse hash modulus for each UTXO nonce and combine the smart contract coefficient consensus in our hyperledger lightning node. But it's really simple to use." He pushes a button and a large green checkmark appears on a screen. "See - the algorithm ran through and reserves are proven." "Wow", Alice says, "you really know your stuff! And that is easy to use! What about fiat balances?" "Yeah, we have an auditor too", Bob replies, "Been using him for a long time so we have quite a strong relationship going! We have special books we give him every year and he's very efficient! Checks the fiat, crypto, and everything all at once!" "We used to have a nice offline multi-sig setup we've been using without issue for the past 5 years, but I think we'll move all our funds over to your facility," Alice says. "Awesome", Bob replies, "Thanks so much! This is perfect timing too - my Porsche got a dent on it this morning. We have the paperwork right over here." "Great!", Alice replies. And with that, Alice gets out her pen and Bob gets the contract. "Don't worry", he says, "you can take your crypto-assets back anytime you like - just subject to our cancellation policy. Our annual management fees are also super low and we don't adjust them often". How many holes have to exist for your funds to get stolen? Just one. Why are we taking a powerful offline multi-sig setup, widely used globally in hundreds of different/lacking regulatory environments with 0 breaches to date, and circumventing it by a demonstrably weak third party layer? And paying a great expense to do so? If you go through the list of breaches in the past 2 years to highly credible organizations, you go through the list of major corporate frauds (only the ones we know about), you go through the list of all the times platforms have lost funds, you go through the list of times and ways that people have lost their crypto from identity theft, hot wallet exploits, extortion, etc... and then you go through this custodian with a fine-tooth comb and truly believe they have value to add far beyond what you could, sticking your funds in a wallet (or set of wallets) they control exclusively is the absolute worst possible way to take advantage of that security. The best way to add security for crypto-assets is to make a stronger multi-sig. With one custodian, what you are doing is giving them your cryptocurrency and hoping they're honest, competent, and flawlessly secure. It's no different than storing it on a really secure exchange. Maybe the insurance will cover you. Didn't work for Bitpay in 2015. Didn't work for Yapizon in 2017. Insurance has never paid a claim in the entire history of cryptocurrency. But maybe you'll get lucky. Maybe your exact scenario will buck the trend and be what they're willing to cover. After the large deductible and hopefully without a long and expensive court battle. And you want to advertise this increase in risk, the lapse of judgement, an accident waiting to happen, as though it's some kind of benefit to customers ("Free institutional-grade storage for your digital assets.")? And then some people are writing to the OSC that custodians should be mandatory for all funds on every exchange platform? That this somehow will make Canadians as a whole more secure or better protected compared with standard air-gapped multi-sig? On what planet? Most of the problems in Canada stemmed from one thing - a lack of transparency. If Canadians had known what a joke Quadriga was - it wouldn't have grown to lose $400m from hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast. And Gerald Cotten would be in jail, not wherever he is now (at best, rotting peacefully). EZ-BTC and mister Dave Smilie would have been a tiny little scam to his friends, not a multi-million dollar fraud. Einstein would have got their act together or been shut down BEFORE losing millions and millions more in people's funds generously donated to criminals. MapleChange wouldn't have even been a thing. And maybe we'd know a little more about CoinTradeNewNote - like how much was lost in there. Almost all of the major losses with cryptocurrency exchanges involve deception with unbacked funds. So it's great to see transparency reports from BitBuy and ShakePay where someone independently verified the backing. The only thing we don't have is:
ANY CERTAINTY BALANCES WEREN'T EXCLUDED. Quadriga's largest account was $70m. 80% of funds are in 20% of accounts (Pareto principle). All it takes is excluding a few really large accounts - and nobody's the wiser. A fractional platform can easily pass any audit this way.
ANY VISIBILITY WHATSOEVER INTO THE CUSTODIANS. BitBuy put out their report before moving all the funds to their custodian and ShakePay apparently can't even tell us who the custodian is. That's pretty important considering that basically all of the funds are now stored there.
ANY IDEA ABOUT THE OTHER EXCHANGES. In order for this to be effective, it has to be the norm. It needs to be "unusual" not to know. If obscurity is the norm, then it's super easy for people like Gerald Cotten and Dave Smilie to blend right in.
It's not complicated to validate cryptocurrency assets. They need to exist, they need to be spendable, and they need to cover the total balances. There are plenty of credible people and firms across the country that have the capacity to reasonably perform this validation. Having more frequent checks by different, independent, parties who publish transparent reports is far more valuable than an annual check by a single "more credible/official" party who does the exact same basic checks and may or may not publish anything. Here's an example set of requirements that could be mandated:
First report within 1 month of launching, another within 3 months, and further reports at minimum every 6 months thereafter.
No auditor can be repeated within a 12 month period.
All reports must be public, identifying the auditor and the full methodology used.
All auditors must be independent of the firm being audited with no conflict of interest.
Reports must include the percentage of each asset backed, and how it's backed.
The auditor publishes a hash list, which lists a hash of each customer's information and balances that were included. Hash is one-way encryption so privacy is fully preserved. Every customer can use this to have 100% confidence they were included.
If we want more extensive requirements on audits, these should scale upward based on the total assets at risk on the platform, and whether the platform has loaned their assets out.
There are ways to structure audits such that neither crypto assets nor customer information are ever put at risk, and both can still be properly validated and publicly verifiable. There are also ways to structure audits such that they are completely reasonable for small platforms and don't inhibit innovation in any way. By making the process as reasonable as possible, we can completely eliminate any reason/excuse that an honest platform would have for not being audited. That is arguable far more important than any incremental improvement we might get from mandating "the best of the best" accountants. Right now we have nothing mandated and tons of Canadians using offshore exchanges with no oversight whatsoever. Transparency does not prove crypto assets are safe. CoinTradeNewNote, Flexcoin ($600k), and Canadian Bitcoins ($100k) are examples where crypto-assets were breached from platforms in Canada. All of them were online wallets and used no multi-sig as far as any records show. This is consistent with what we see globally - air-gapped multi-sig wallets have an impeccable record, while other schemes tend to suffer breach after breach. We don't actually know how much CoinTrader lost because there was no visibility. Rather than publishing details of what happened, the co-founder of CoinTrader silently moved on to found another platform - the "most trusted way to buy and sell crypto" - a site that has no information whatsoever (that I could find) on the storage practices and a FAQ advising that “[t]rading cryptocurrency is completely safe” and that having your own wallet is “entirely up to you! You can certainly keep cryptocurrency, or fiat, or both, on the app.” Doesn't sound like much was learned here, which is really sad to see. It's not that complicated or unreasonable to set up a proper hardware wallet. Multi-sig can be learned in a single course. Something the equivalent complexity of a driver's license test could prevent all the cold storage exploits we've seen to date - even globally. Platform operators have a key advantage in detecting and preventing fraud - they know their customers far better than any custodian ever would. The best job that custodians can do is to find high integrity individuals and train them to form even better wallet signatories. Rather than mandating that all platforms expose themselves to arbitrary third party risks, regulations should center around ensuring that all signatories are background-checked, properly trained, and using proper procedures. We also need to make sure that signatories are empowered with rights and responsibilities to reject and report fraud. They need to know that they can safely challenge and delay a transaction - even if it turns out they made a mistake. We need to have an environment where mistakes are brought to the surface and dealt with. Not one where firms and people feel the need to hide what happened. In addition to a knowledge-based test, an auditor can privately interview each signatory to make sure they're not in coercive situations, and we should make sure they can freely and anonymously report any issues without threat of retaliation. A proper multi-sig has each signature held by a separate person and is governed by policies and mutual decisions instead of a hierarchy. It includes at least one redundant signature. For best results, 3of4, 3of5, 3of6, 4of5, 4of6, 4of7, 5of6, or 5of7. History has demonstrated over and over again the risk of hot wallets even to highly credible organizations. Nonetheless, many platforms have hot wallets for convenience. While such losses are generally compensated by platforms without issue (for example Poloniex, Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Gatecoin, Coincheck, Bithumb, Zaif, CoinBene, Binance, Bitrue, Bitpoint, Upbit, VinDAX, and now KuCoin), the public tends to focus more on cases that didn't end well. Regardless of what systems are employed, there is always some level of risk. For that reason, most members of the public would prefer to see third party insurance. Rather than trying to convince third party profit-seekers to provide comprehensive insurance and then relying on an expensive and slow legal system to enforce against whatever legal loopholes they manage to find each and every time something goes wrong, insurance could be run through multiple exchange operators and regulators, with the shared interest of having a reputable industry, keeping costs down, and taking care of Canadians. For example, a 4 of 7 multi-sig insurance fund held between 5 independent exchange operators and 2 regulatory bodies. All Canadian exchanges could pay premiums at a set rate based on their needed coverage, with a higher price paid for hot wallet coverage (anything not an air-gapped multi-sig cold wallet). Such a model would be much cheaper to manage, offer better coverage, and be much more reliable to payout when needed. The kind of coverage you could have under this model is unheard of. You could even create something like the CDIC to protect Canadians who get their trading accounts hacked if they can sufficiently prove the loss is legitimate. In cases of fraud, gross negligence, or insolvency, the fund can be used to pay affected users directly (utilizing the last transparent balance report in the worst case), something which private insurance would never touch. While it's recommended to have official policies for coverage, a model where members vote would fully cover edge cases. (Could be similar to the Supreme Court where justices vote based on case law.) Such a model could fully protect all Canadians across all platforms. You can have a fiat coverage governed by legal agreements, and crypto-asset coverage governed by both multi-sig and legal agreements. It could be practical, affordable, and inclusive. Now, we are at a crossroads. We can happily give up our freedom, our innovation, and our money. We can pay hefty expenses to auditors, lawyers, and regulators year after year (and make no mistake - this cost will grow to many millions or even billions as the industry grows - and it will be borne by all Canadians on every platform because platforms are not going to eat up these costs at a loss). We can make it nearly impossible for any new platform to enter the marketplace, forcing Canadians to use the same stagnant platforms year after year. We can centralize and consolidate the entire industry into 2 or 3 big players and have everyone else fail (possibly to heavy losses of users of those platforms). And when a flawed security model doesn't work and gets breached, we can make it even more complicated with even more people in suits making big money doing the job that blockchain was supposed to do in the first place. We can build a system which is so intertwined and dependent on big government, traditional finance, and central bankers that it's future depends entirely on that of the fiat system, of fractional banking, and of government bail-outs. If we choose this path, as history has shown us over and over again, we can not go back, save for revolution. Our children and grandchildren will still be paying the consequences of what we decided today. Or, we can find solutions that work. We can maintain an open and innovative environment while making the adjustments we need to make to fully protect Canadian investors and cryptocurrency users, giving easy and affordable access to cryptocurrency for all Canadians on the platform of their choice, and creating an environment in which entrepreneurs and problem solvers can bring those solutions forward easily. None of the above precludes innovation in any way, or adds any unreasonable cost - and these three policies would demonstrably eliminate or resolve all 109 historic cases as studied here - that's every single case researched so far going back to 2011. It includes every loss that was studied so far not just in Canada but globally as well. Unfortunately, finding answers is the least challenging part. Far more challenging is to get platform operators and regulators to agree on anything. My last post got no response whatsoever, and while the OSC has told me they're happy for industry feedback, I believe my opinion alone is fairly meaningless. This takes the whole community working together to solve. So please let me know your thoughts. Please take the time to upvote and share this with people. Please - let's get this solved and not leave it up to other people to do. Facts/background/sources (skip if you like):
The inspiration for the paragraph about splitting wallets was an actual quote from a Canadian company providing custodial services in response to the OSC consultation paper: "We believe that it will be in the in best interests of investors to prohibit pooled crypto assets or ‘floats’. Most Platforms pool assets, citing reasons of practicality and expense. The recent hack of the world’s largest Platform – Binance – demonstrates the vulnerability of participants’ assets when such concessions are made. In this instance, the Platform’s entire hot wallet of Bitcoins, worth over $40 million, was stolen, facilitated in part by the pooling of client crypto assets." "the maintenance of participants (and Platform) crypto assets across multiple wallets distributes the related risk and responsibility of security - reducing the amount of insurance coverage required and making insurance coverage more readily obtainable". For the record, their reply also said nothing whatsoever about multi-sig or offline storage.
In addition to the fact that the $40m hack represented only one "hot wallet" of Binance, and they actually had the vast majority of assets in other wallets (including mostly cold wallets), multiple real cases have clearly demonstrated that risk is still present with multiple wallets. Bitfinex, VinDAX, Bithumb, Altsbit, BitPoint, Cryptopia, and just recently KuCoin all had multiple wallets breached all at the same time, and may represent a significantly larger impact on customers than the Binance breach which was fully covered by Binance. To represent that simply having multiple separate wallets under the same security scheme is a comprehensive way to reduce risk is just not true.
Private insurance has historically never covered a single loss in the cryptocurrency space (at least, not one that I was able to find), and there are notable cases where massive losses were not covered by insurance. Bitpay in 2015 and Yapizon in 2017 both had insurance policies that didn't pay out during the breach, even after a lengthly court process. The same insurance that ShakePay is presently using (and announced to much fanfare) was describe by their CEO himself as covering “physical theft of the media where the private keys are held,” which is something that has never historically happened. As was said with regard to the same policy in 2018 - “I don’t find it surprising that Lloyd’s is in this space,” said Johnson, adding that to his mind the challenge for everybody is figuring out how to structure these policies so that they are actually protective. “You can create an insurance policy that protects no one – you know there are so many caveats to the policy that it’s not super protective.”
The most profitable policy for a private insurance company is one with the most expensive premiums that they never have to pay a claim on. They have no inherent incentive to take care of people who lost funds. It's "cheaper" to take the reputational hit and fight the claim in court. The more money at stake, the more the insurance provider is incentivized to avoid payout. They're not going to insure the assets unless they have reasonable certainty to make a profit by doing so, and they're not going to pay out a massive sum unless it's legally forced. Private insurance is always structured to be maximally profitable to the insurance provider.
The circumvention of multi-sig was a key factor in the massive Bitfinex hack of over $60m of bitcoin, which today still sits being slowly used and is worth over $3b. While Bitfinex used a qualified custodian Bitgo, which was and still is active and one of the industry leaders of custodians, and they set up 2 of 3 multi-sig wallets, the entire system was routed through Bitfinex, such that Bitfinex customers could initiate the withdrawals in a "hot" fashion. This feature was also a hit with the hacker. The multi-sig was fully circumvented.
Bitpay in 2015 was another example of a breach that stole 5,000 bitcoins. This happened not through the exploit of any system in Bitpay, but because the CEO of a company they worked with got their computer hacked and the hackers were able to request multiple bitcoin purchases, which Bitpay honoured because they came from the customer's computer legitimately. Impersonation is a very common tactic used by fraudsters, and methods get more extreme all the time.
A notable case in Canada was the Canadian Bitcoins exploit. Funds were stored on a server in a Rogers Data Center, and the attendee was successfully convinced to reboot the server "in safe mode" with a simple phone call, thus bypassing the extensive security and enabling the theft.
The very nature of custodians circumvents multi-sig. This is because custodians are not just having to secure the assets against some sort of physical breach but against any form of social engineering, modification of orders, fraudulent withdrawal attempts, etc... If the security practices of signatories in a multi-sig arrangement are such that the breach risk of one signatory is 1 in 100, the requirement of 3 independent signatures makes the risk of theft 1 in 1,000,000. Since hackers tend to exploit the weakest link, a comparable custodian has to make the entry and exit points of their platform 10,000 times more secure than one of those signatories to provide equivalent protection. And if the signatories beef up their security by only 10x, the risk is now 1 in 1,000,000,000. The custodian has to be 1,000,000 times more secure. The larger and more complex a system is, the more potential vulnerabilities exist in it, and the fewer people can understand how the system works when performing upgrades. Even if a system is completely secure today, one has to also consider how that system might evolve over time or work with different members.
By contrast, offline multi-signature solutions have an extremely solid record, and in the entire history of cryptocurrency exchange incidents which I've studied (listed here), there has only been one incident (796 exchange in 2015) involving an offline multi-signature wallet. It happened because the customer's bitcoin address was modified by hackers, and the amount that was stolen ($230k) was immediately covered by the exchange operators. Basically, the platform operators were tricked into sending a legitimate withdrawal request to the wrong address because hackers exploited their platform to change that address. Such an issue would not be prevented in any way by the use of a custodian, as that custodian has no oversight whatsoever to the exchange platform. It's practical for all exchange operators to test large withdrawal transactions as a general policy, regardless of what model is used, and general best practice is to diagnose and fix such an exploit as soon as it occurs.
False promises on the backing of funds played a huge role in the downfall of Quadriga, and it's been exposed over and over again (MyCoin, PlusToken, Bitsane, Bitmarket, EZBTC, IDAX). Even today, customers have extremely limited certainty on whether their funds in exchanges are actually being backed or how they're being backed. While this issue is not unique to cryptocurrency exchanges, the complexity of the technology and the lack of any regulation or standards makes problems more widespread, and there is no "central bank" to come to the rescue as in the 2008 financial crisis or during the great depression when "9,000 banks failed".
In addition to fraudulent operations, the industry is full of cases where operators have suffered breaches and not reported them. Most recently, Einstein was the largest case in Canada, where ongoing breaches and fraud were perpetrated against the platform for multiple years and nobody found out until the platform collapsed completely. While fraud and breaches suck to deal with, they suck even more when not dealt with. Lack of visibility played a role in the largest downfalls of Mt. Gox, Cryptsy, and Bitgrail. In some cases, platforms are alleged to have suffered a hack and keep operating without admitting it at all, such as CoinBene.
It surprises some to learn that a cryptographic solution has already existed since 2013, and gained widespread support in 2014 after Mt. Gox. Proof of Reserves is a full cryptographic proof that allows any customer using an exchange to have complete certainty that their crypto-assets are fully backed by the platform in real-time. This is accomplished by proving that assets exist on the blockchain, are spendable, and fully cover customer deposits. It does not prove safety of assets or backing of fiat assets.
If we didn't care about privacy at all, a platform could publish their wallet addresses, sign a partial transaction, and put the full list of customer information and balances out publicly. Customers can each check that they are on the list, that the balances are accurate, that the total adds up, and that it's backed and spendable on the blockchain. Platforms who exclude any customer take a risk because that customer can easily check and see they were excluded. So together with all customers checking, this forms a full proof of backing of all crypto assets.
However, obviously customers care about their private information being published. Therefore, a hash of the information can be provided instead. Hash is one-way encryption. The hash allows the customer to validate inclusion (by hashing their own known information), while anyone looking at the list of hashes cannot determine the private information of any other user. All other parts of the scheme remain fully intact. A model like this is in use on the exchange CoinFloor in the UK.
A Merkle tree can provide even greater privacy. Instead of a list of balances, the balances are arranged into a binary tree. A customer starts from their node, and works their way to the top of the tree. For example, they know they have 5 BTC, they plus 1 other customer hold 7 BTC, they plus 2-3 other customers hold 17 BTC, etc... until they reach the root where all the BTC are represented. Thus, there is no way to find the balances of other individual customers aside from one unidentified customer in this case.
Proposals such as this had the backing of leaders in the community including Nic Carter, Greg Maxwell, and Zak Wilcox. Substantial and significant effort started back in 2013, with massive popularity in 2014. But what became of that effort? Very little. Exchange operators continue to refuse to give visibility. Despite the fact this information can often be obtained through trivial blockchain analysis, no Canadian platform has ever provided any wallet addresses publicly. As described by the CEO of Newton "For us to implement some kind of realtime Proof of Reserves solution, which I'm not opposed to, it would have to ... Preserve our users' privacy, as well as our own. Some kind of zero-knowledge proof". Kraken describes here in more detail why they haven't implemented such a scheme. According to professor Eli Ben-Sasson, when he spoke with exchanges, none were interested in implementing Proof of Reserves.
And yet, Kraken's places their reasoning on a page called "Proof of Reserves". More recently, both BitBuy and ShakePay have released reports titled "Proof of Reserves and Security Audit". Both reports contain disclaimers against being audits. Both reports trust the customer list provided by the platform, leaving the open possibility that multiple large accounts could have been excluded from the process. Proof of Reserves is a blockchain validation where customers see the wallets on the blockchain. The report from Kraken is 5 years old, but they leave it described as though it was just done a few weeks ago. And look at what they expect customers to do for validation. When firms represent something being "Proof of Reserve" when it's not, this is like a farmer growing fruit with pesticides and selling it in a farmers market as organic produce - except that these are people's hard-earned life savings at risk here. Platforms are misrepresenting the level of visibility in place and deceiving the public by their misuse of this term. They haven't proven anything.
Fraud isn't a problem that is unique to cryptocurrency. Fraud happens all the time. Enron, WorldCom, Nortel, Bear Stearns, Wells Fargo, Moser Baer, Wirecard, Bre-X, and Nicola are just some of the cases where frauds became large enough to become a big deal (and there are so many countless others). These all happened on 100% reversible assets despite regulations being in place. In many of these cases, the problems happened due to the over-complexity of the financial instruments. For example, Enron had "complex financial statements [which] were confusing to shareholders and analysts", creating "off-balance-sheet vehicles, complex financing structures, and deals so bewildering that few people could understand them". In cryptocurrency, we are often combining complex financial products with complex technologies and verification processes. We are naïve if we think problems like this won't happen. It is awkward and uncomfortable for many people to admit that they don't know how something works. If we want "money of the people" to work, the solutions have to be simple enough that "the people" can understand them, not so confusing that financial professionals and technology experts struggle to use or understand them.
For those who question the extent to which an organization can fool their way into a security consultancy role, HB Gary should be a great example to look at. Prior to trying to out anonymous, HB Gary was being actively hired by multiple US government agencies and others in the private sector (with glowing testimonials). The published articles and hosted professional security conferences. One should also look at this list of data breaches from the past 2 years. Many of them are large corporations, government entities, and technology companies. These are the ones we know about. Undoubtedly, there are many more that we do not know about. If HB Gary hadn't been "outted" by anonymous, would we have known they were insecure? If the same breach had happened outside of the public spotlight, would it even have been reported? Or would HB Gary have just deleted the Twitter posts, brought their site back up, done a couple patches, and kept on operating as though nothing had happened?
In the case of Quadriga, the facts are clear. Despite past experience with platforms such as MapleChange in Canada and others around the world, no guidance or even the most basic of a framework was put in place by regulators. By not clarifying any sort of legal framework, regulators enabled a situation where a platform could be run by former criminal Mike Dhanini/Omar Patryn, and where funds could be held fully unchecked by one person. At the same time, the lack of regulation deterred legitimate entities from running competing platforms and Quadriga was granted a money services business license for multiple years of operation, which gave the firm the appearance of legitimacy. Regulators did little to protect Canadians despite Quadriga failing to file taxes from 2016 onward. The entire administrative team had resigned and this was public knowledge. Many people had suspicions of what was going on, including Ryan Mueller, who forwarded complaints to the authorities. These were ignored, giving Gerald Cotten the opportunity to escape without justice.
There are multiple issues with the SOC II model including the prohibitive cost (you have to find a third party accounting firm and the prices are not even listed publicly on any sites), the requirement of operating for a year (impossible for new platforms), and lack of any public visibility (SOC II are private reports that aren't shared outside the people in suits).
Securities frameworks are expensive. Sarbanes-Oxley is estimated to cost $5.1 million USD/yr for the average Fortune 500 company in the United States. Since "Fortune 500" represents the top 500 companies, that means well over $2.55 billion USD (~$3.4 billion CAD) is going to people in suits. Isn't the problem of trust and verification the exact problem that the blockchain is supposed to solve?
To use Quadriga as justification for why custodians or SOC II or other advanced schemes are needed for platforms is rather silly, when any framework or visibility at all, or even the most basic of storage policies, would have prevented the whole thing. It's just an embarrassment.
We are now seeing regulators take strong action. CoinSquare in Canada with multi-million dollar fines. BitMex from the US, criminal charges and arrests. OkEx, with full disregard of withdrawals and no communication. Who's next?
We have a unique window today where we can solve these problems, and not permanently destroy innovation with unreasonable expectations, but we need to act quickly. This is a unique historic time that will never come again.
Cryptocurrency has now become the backbone of digital assets and online/ virtual investments. The first cryptocurrency (Bitcoin) was developed in 2009, and it used blockchain technology in it. Blockchain technology uses a distributed database for storing transaction history, and it cannot be hacked and not possible to process and fraudulent transactions. For over a decade, we are helping global clients with their custom and on-demand crypto solutions. We hold great expertise in creating smart contracts, crypto-coin mining software, wallet, websites, exchange platforms, and software development services. All our clients are happy and satisfied enough that they contact us for all their IT needs since our service offering, and we feel so glad to serve them our in-house and outsourced IT services. Some of these services are software development, web development, application development, IT support services, network and server management services. Once we have programmed any code, we are responsible for the complete management and maintenance throughout the life of the code that we have programmed. Clients can contact us at any instance of time as per their suitability; our support executive is available online 24*7. The primary business motive of Sara Technologies is to gain the client's faith and trust in its offered services. Our entire lifespan has never targeted our clients and their projects as the source of building the business; our deep-rooted efforts always relied on discovering the more innovative way to produce more customized results with hi-tech functionality. https://preview.redd.it/8zvlgxvn9uu51.jpg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b96a42a1f7def1f296a77e95ccf24bf651f45e1b Since the year 2007, we have served hundreds of clients with their vivid IT needs worldwide. From the start of the journey, we have promised ourselves to deliver the clients the best return on money. After the delivery of the results, the client reaches us with some variations in the already delivered project. We have served them satisfactorily without any additional charges. Sara Technologies is a trusted Industry 4.0 technology and blockchain development company in the USA; we are a team of experienced crypto-coin mining experts, wallet, exchange, and website developers. Our cryptocurrency development services are purely based on blockchain technology. Thousands of real-time transactions can be processed bug-freely using the feature-rich exchange platform we have developed.
What Makes SARA a Perfect Cryptocurrency Development Partner?
EXPERIENCED TEAM OF DEVELOPERS & ANALYSTS: We are a team of experienced and highly skilled technology leaders who have vast experience serving global clients. We only aim at delivering perfection and cost-effective solutions without letting our client budget cross their pocket size. Since the day we are into the IT service domain, we focused all our efforts on delivering perfection with maximum satisfaction. We know this is the only key to let the clients stay connected for long term associations. WE KNOW WHAT OUR CLIENTS NEED: We do not just believe in delivering what clients are asking for; we deeply go into their business requirements and produce fully customized business solutions to suit their needs. We have served hundreds of clients with diverse cryptocurrency solutions, including exchange platform, wallet, and mining software. We are very well known for the challenges that any business can face and how they can be solved at any stage of their occurrence. FULLY PERSONALIZED CODE: We have ready-to-deliver scripts of all the possible crypto solutions, including wallet, exchange, mining software, trading platform, etc. We can deliver it within 24-hours with unmatched quality, superior performance, and assured satisfaction. Based on your preference and business needs, we can create a fully-customized code to meet your root to top requirements. Other Services That We Offer
Update and Few Thoughts, a (Well-Typed) transcript: Liza&Charles the marketeers, Voltaire kick-off, PrisM and Ebb-and-Flow to fuck ETH2.0 Gasper, the (back)log of a man and a falcon, lots of companies, September Goguen time, Basho, 2021 Titans, Basho, Hydra and much more thoughts and prayers
Hi everybody this is Charles Hoskinson broadcasting live from warm sunny Colorado. I'm trying a new streaming service and it allows me to annotate a few things and simulcast to both periscope and youtube. Let's see how this works. I also get to put a little caption. I think for the future, I'm just for a while going to put: "I will never give away ada". So, when people repost my videos for giveaway scams they at least have that. First off, a thank you, a community member named Daryl had decided to carve a log and give his artistic impression of my twitter profile picture of me and the falcon so that always means a lot when I get these gifts from fans and also I just wanted to, on the back of the Catalyst presentation, express my profound gratitude and excitement to the community. You know it's really really cool to see how much progress has been made in such a short period of time. It was only yesterday when we were saying "when Shelley"? Now Shelley's out and it's evolving rapidly. Voltaire is now starting to evolve rapidly and we're real close to Goguen. At the end of this month we'll be able to talk around some of the realities of Goguen and some of the ideas we have and give some dates for certain things and give you a sense of where that project is at. The good news is that we have gained an enormous amount of progress and knowledge about what we need to do and how to get that done and basically people are just executing and it's a much smaller task than getting us to Shelley. With Byron to Shelley we literally had to build a completely new cryptocurrency from the ground up. We had to have new ledger rules, new update system, we had to invent a way of transitioning from one system to another system and there's hundreds of other little innovations along the way: new network stack and so forth. Byron cosmetically looks like Shelley but under the hood it's completely different and the Shelley design was built with a lot of the things that we needed for Goguen in mind. For example, we built Shelley with the idea of extended UTXO and we built Shelley understanding what the realities were for the smart contract model and that's one of the advantages you get when you do this type of bespoke engineering. There's two consequences to that, one, the integration is significantly easier, and two, the integration is significantly faster. We won't look at that same complexity there. The product update at the end of the month... We'll really start discussing around some of these things as well as talk about partners and talk about how the development ecosystem is going to evolve. There are a lot of threads throughout all three organizations that are happening simultaneously. Emurgo, they're really thinking deeply about DeFi and they've invited us to collaborate with them on things like stablecoins for example but we're also looking at oracles (oracle pools), DEX and these other things and because there are already people in market who have made mistakes, learned lessons, it gives us the benefit of hindsight. It means we can be much faster to market and we can build much more competitive things in market and the Cardano community gets first access to these next generation DeFi applications without a lot of the problems of the prior generations and that's super beneficial to us. You know, the other side of it, is that Voltaire is going to have a systemic influence not just on community funding but also the overall evolution and direction of the platform. The longer it exists the more pervasive it will become. Probably first applied towards the Cardano foundation roadmap but later on it will definitely have a lot of influence and say over every element aspect of the system including the launch dApps and these other things. Basically, long term, the types of problems that Cardano solves so that's incredibly appealing to me and very exciting to me because it's like I have this giant community brain with the best and brightest of all of you working with us to get us where we need to go. You know, another thing that was super encouraging, it's a small thing, but it shows us that we're definitely in the right direction was that we recently got a demo from Pramod (Viswanath) and his team out of university of Illinois on a protocol they create called PrisM which is a super fast proof-of-work protocol and they wrote this beautiful paper and they wrote code along with it that showed that PrisM is a ten thousand times faster than Nakamoto consensus. If you take the bitcoin proof-of-work protocol, you strip it out, you put PrisM in, you can run the entire bitcoin system 10000 times faster. They have these beautiful benchmarks to show that. Even in bad network conditions. (I'm) promoting this team, they're, they're real researchers, and they're real engineers, they use a lot of cool HPC concepts like springboarding and other things like that to accommodate that. Then I asked him in the presentation, I said well, how much faster if you replay the Ethereum chain? He says, well, that it takes a big performance hit, could be only maybe a hundred times because that model is not as easy to optimize and shard with standard computer science concepts. In fact in some cases there are limitations there that really can't be overcome. It turns out that we're more on that UTXO side than we are on the account side. As a coincidence or intent of the design of extended UTXO we're gonna have a lot easier time getting much higher performance where and when it's necessary. I also approved this week a scaling up of the Basho project. In particular, to build a hydra prototype team. The science has gotten to a point where we can make a really competitive push in that particular direction. What does that mean? It means that in just a few short months we can de-risk technological approaches that long-term will give us a lot of fruit where and when the community decides that they need infrastructure like hydra. Now, here's the beautiful thing about hydra. If you watch my whiteboard back in September of 2017 when Cardano first hit market with Byron I talked about this concept of looking at scalability with a very simple test which is as you get more people in the system it stays at the same performance or it gets faster. We all experience systems that do this, for example, bittorrent, more people downloading something you tend to be able to get it faster and we all experience the converse which is, the system gets slower when you get more people. What does this mean? It means that hydra is an actual approach towards true scalability in the system and it's a lot easier to do than sharding even though we have a beautiful approach to get the sharding on the ledger side if we truly desire to go down that way. There's beautiful ideas that we are definitely in deep discussions about. That's a very complex thing. There was recently a paper ("Ebb-and-Flow Protocols: A Resolution of the Availability-Finality Dilemma") out of Stanford that showed that the Gasper protocol as proposed for ETH2.0 does have some security concerns and it's going to be the burden on the shoulders of the Ethereum 2.0 developers and Vitalik to address those concerns from those Stanford professors. Whenever you have these very complex protocols they have so many different ways they can break and things can go wrong so it's much more appealing when you don't have to embrace complexity to achieve the same. The elegance of hydra is that stake pool operators are very natural parties to put hydra channels on and every time we add one we get much more performance out of that and the system as it gets more valuable. The k factor increases which means you get more stake pull operators, which means you get more hydra channels, so with growth we get appreciation, with appreciation we get more decentralization, with more decentralization we get more performance. In essence, this spiritually speaking, is really what we meant when we said scalability. That the system will always grow to meet its particular needs and we have a very elegant way of moving in that direction that doesn't require us to embrace very sophisticated techniques. It's not to say that these techniques don't have a place and purpose but it says that the urgency of implementing these is gone and we then have the luxury to pick the best science when it's ready instead of rushing it to market to resolve a crisis of high fees. We'll never have that crisis so there's a beauty to Cardano that is missing, I in my view, from many cryptocurrencies and blockchains in the marketplace and we're now seeing that beauty shine through. Not only through our community who are so passionate and amazing but in the science and the engineering itself and how easy it is for us to navigate the concepts. How easy it is for us to add more things, to take some things away, to clean some things up here and there and our ability to move through. I never imagined when in 2015 I signed up to go in on this crazy ride and try to build a world financial operating system we would have made as much progress as we made today. We've written more than 75 research papers as an organization many of which are directly applicable to Cardano. We've got great partners who work with Nasa and Boeing and Pfizer, massive companies, that have 10 years of history and millions of users to come in and help us grow better. We've worked with incredible organizations, major universities like university of Wyoming, university of Edinburgh, Tokyo, tech professors all across the world. We've worked with incredible engineering firms like VacuumLabs and AtixLabs and Twig and Well-Typed, runtime verification, QuviQ and dozens of others along the years and despite the fact that at times there's been delays and friction throughout this entire journey we've mostly been aligned and we keep learning and growing. It gives me so much hope that our best days are ahead of us and an almost fanatical belief that success is inevitable in a certain respect. You see because we always find a way to be here tomorrow and we always find a way to make tomorrow a better day than today and as long as that's the trend you're monotonically increasing towards a better tomorrow, you're always going to have that outcome, you're always going to be in a position where Cardano shines bright. Towards the end of the month we'll have a lot more to say about the development side and that'll be a beginning just like Voltaire is the beginning and then suddenly you now notice the beautiful parallelism of the roadmap. Shelley continues to evolve, partial delegation is coming, in fact, I signed the contract with vacuumlabs to bring that to Ledger (and Trezor). The Daedalus team is hard at work to make that feature apparent for everyone as is the Yoroi team. You see that, with now Voltaire, and soon was Goguen, and these are not endpoints, rather they're just beginnings and they're never over. We can always make staking better, more diverse, more merit-based and entertain different control models, have better delegation mechanics, have better user experience. The same for smart contracts, that's an endless river and along the way what we've discovered is it's easy for us to work with great minds and great people. For example with testing of smart contracts I would love to diversify that conversation above and beyond what we can come up with and bring in some firms who have done this for a long time to basically take that part with us shoulder to shoulder and build beautiful frameworks to assist us. For example, runtime verification is doing this with, the EVM with a beautiful project called Firefly to replace Truffle. I believe that we can achieve similar ends with Plutus smart contracts. When you ask yourself what makes a system competitive in the cryptocurrency space? In my view there are four dimensions and you have to have a good story for all four of those dimensions. You need security and correctness. A lot of people don't prioritize that but when they get that wrong it hurts retail people, it hurts everyday people, billions of dollars have been lost due to the incompetence and ineptitude of junior developers making very bad mistakes and oftentimes those developers faced no consequences. The people who lost money were innocent people who believed in cryptocurrencies and wanted to be part of the movement but didn't protect themselves adequately. That's a really sad thing and it's unethical to continue pushing a model that that is the standard or the likely outcome rather than a rare edge case. You have to as a platform, a third generation platformn invest heavily in giving the developers proper tools to ensure security and correctness. We've seen a whole industry there's been great innovations out of Quantstamp and ConsenSys and dozens of other firms in the space including runtime verification who have really made major leaps in the last few years of trying to improve that story. What's unique to Cardano is that we based our foundations on languages that were designed right the first time and there's over 35 years of history for the approach that we're following in the Haskell side that allows us to build high assurance systems and our developers in the ecosystem to build high assurance systems. We didn't reinvent the wheel, we found the best wheel and we're giving it to you. I think we're going to be dominant in that respect as we enter 2021. Second, you look at things like ease of maintenance, ease of deployment, the life cycle of the software upgrades to the software and as we've demonstrated with things like the hard fork combinator and the fact that Voltaire is not just a governance layer for ada and Cardano but will eventually be reusable for any dApp deployed on our system. You have very natural tooling that's going to allow people to upgrade their smart contracts, their dApps and enable governance for their users at an incredibly low cost and not have to reinvent the governance wheel each and every application. This is another unique property to our system and it can be reused for the dApps that you deploy on your system as I've mentioned before. Performance is a significant concern and this was often corrupted by marketers especially ICO marketers who really wanted to differentiate (and) say: "our protocol tested on a single server in someone's basement is 500000 transactions per second" and somehow that translates to real life performance and that's antithetical to anyone who's ever to study distributed systems and understands the reality of these systems and where they go and what they do and in terms of performance. I think we have the most logical approach. You know, we have 10 years of history with bitcoin, it's a massive system, we've learned a huge amount and there's a lot of papers written about, a lot of practical projects and bitcoin is about to step into the world of smart contracts. We congratulate them on getting Schnorr sigs in and the success of Taproot. That means entering 2021, 2022, we are going to start seeing legitimate dApps DeFi projects, real applications, instead of choosing Ethereum or Algorand, EOS, Cardano, choosing bitcoin and they're adding a lot to that conversation. I think that ultimately that model has a lot of promise which is why we built a better one. There are still significant limitations with what bitcoin can accomplish from settlement time to the verbosity of contracts that can be written. The extended UTXO model was designed to be the fastest accounting and most charitable accounting model ever, on and off chain, and hydra was designed to allow you to flex between those two systems seamlessly. When you look at the foundations of where we're at and how we can extend this from domain specific languages, for domain experts, such as Marlowe to financial experts, and the DSLs that will come later, for others, like lawyers and supply chain experts in medical databases and so forth and how easy it is to write and deploy these. Plutus being beautiful glue code for both on and off chain communications. I think we have an incredibly competitive offering for performance and when hydra comes, simply put, there'll be no one faster. If we need to shard, we're going to do that and definitely better than anybody else because we know where our security model sits and there won't be surprise Stanford papers to blindside us that require immediate addressing. In terms of operating costs, this is the last component, in my view, and that's basically how much does it cost you the developer to run your application? There are really two dimensions, one is predictability and the other is amount. It's not just good enough to say: it's a penny per transaction today. You need to know that after you spend millions of dollars and months or years of effort building something and deploying something that you're not going to wake up tomorrow and now it's five dollars to do what used to cost a penny. You need that cost to be as low as possible and as predictable as possible and again the way that we architectured our system and as we turn things on towards the end of this year and as we enter into the next year we believe we have a great approach to achieve low operating cost. One person asks why Cardano? Well because we have great security and correctness in the development experience and tools with 35 years of legacy that were built right the first time and don't put the burdens of mistakes on your customers. They ask why Cardano and we say: well the chain itself is going to give you great solutions with identity value transformation and governance itself and as a consequence when you talk about upgrading your applications having a relationship with your customers of your applications and you talk about the ease of maintenance of those applications. There's going to be a good story there and we have beautiful frameworks like Voltaire that allow that story to evolve and we keep adding partners and who have decades of experience to get us along. We won't stop until it's much better. They asked why Cardano? We said because at the moment we're 10 times faster today than Ethereum today and that's all we really need for this year and next year to be honest and in the future we can be as fast as we need to be because we're truly scalable. As the system gets more decentralized the system improves performance and where and when we need to shard we can do that. We'll have the luxury of time to do it right, the Cardano way, and when people ask why Cardano? Because the reality is, it's very cheap to do things on our platform and the way we're building things. That's going to continue being the case and we have the governance mechanisms to allow the community to readjust fees and parameters so that it can continue being affordable for users. Everything in the system will eventually be customizable and parameterizable: from block size, to transaction fees and the community will be in a good position to dynamically allocate these things where and when needed so that we can enjoy as an ecosystem predictability in our cost. In the coming weeks and months, especially in my company, we're going to invest a lot of time and effort into comparison marketing and product marketing. When I see people say, oh well, you've launched proof of stake, a lot of other people have done. I don't think those people fully appreciate the magnitude of what we actually accomplished as an ecosystem and the quality of the protocols that are in distribution. That's not their fault, it's our fault, because we didn't take the time in simplistic terms, not scientific papers and deep code and formal specifications, but rather everyday language, to really show why we're different. I admit that that's a product failing and that needs to be corrected so we hired a great marketing director, named Liza (Horowitz?) and she is going to work full time with me and others in the ecosystem, a great team of people, every single day to get out there and explain what we have done is novel, unique, competitive and special to our industry. Everything from Ouroboros and contrast to major other protocols from the EOSes and Algorands and the Tezos of the world. Why we're different, trade-offs we chose over them, to our network stack, to the extended UTXO model, to Plutus, to Marlowe and we're going to keep hammering away at that until we get it right and everybody acknowledges and sees what has been accomplished. I've spent five years of my life, good years of my life, and missed a lot to get this project where it needs to go. All of our employees have invested huge sums of their personal lives, their time, their brand, their careers, in trying to make this the really most magical and special cryptocurrency and blockchain infrastructure around. No one ever signed up in this company or the other companies working on Cardano to work on a mediocre protocol. That's just another blockchain, they signed up to change the world, they signed up to build a system that legitimately can look at you in the face and say: one day we have the potential to have a billion users! That's what they signed up for and they showed up to play. They built technology that evolves in that direction with some certainty and great foundations and we have an obligation to market in a way that can show the world why, succinctly, with clarity. Understandably, this has been a failing in the past but you know what? You can always be better tomorrow that monotonically increasing make it better and that's what we're going to do. We recognized it and we're going to invest in it and with Voltaire if we can't do it. You the community can do it and we'll work with you. If you can do a better job and the funding will be there to get that done. In addition to this, we think about 2021 and we ask where does the future take us? I've thought a lot about this you know I've thought a lot about how do we get the next five years as we close out 2020 and here's the reality: we're not going to leave as a company until we have smart contracts and multi-asset and Voltaire has evolved to a point where the community can comfortably make decisions about the future of the protocol and that the staking experience has solidified and it's stable. I don't care if this costs me millions or tens of millions of dollars out of my own pocket to make happen. I'm going to do that because that's my commitment to you, the community and every product update will keep pushing our way there. We'll continue to get more transparent, we'll continue to get more aggressive and hire more and parallelize more. Aware when we can, to deliver that experience so that Cardano gets where it needs to go. Then when we ask about where do we go next? The reality is that the science as an industry, the engineering as an industry has given a menu of incredibly unique attractive and sexy things that we can pursue. What we're going to do is work with the community and the very same tools that are turning on today, the Voltaire tools, the cardano.ideascale.com tools and we're going to propose a consortium and we're going to bring the best and brightest together and give a vision of where we can take the system in another five years. With the benefit of hindsight, massively improved processes, better estimation capabilities and the fact that we're not starting with two people at IOG. We're starting with 250 people and the best scientific division in our industry and the legacy of almost, nearly by the end of this year, 100 scientific papers. That's us, you know what, there's dozens of companies throughout the history who have worked on Cardano. It's about time to scale them up too and get client diversity. So come next year when the protocol has evolved to the point where it's ready for it, we'll have that conversation with you the community and that's going to be a beautiful conversation. At the conclusion of it, there's going to be certainty of how we're going to evolve over the next five years to get ourselves beyond the cryptocurrency space. I'm very tired of these conversations we have about: are you going to go to (coindesk's) consensus or not? Or who's going to be the big winner? What about Libra or what about this particular regulation and this crypto unicorn and this thing? You know I've been in the space a long time and I've noticed that people keep saying the same things year after year in the same venues. Yes, the crowd sizes get larger and the amount of value at risk gets larger but I haven't seen a lot of progress in the places where I feel it is absolutely necessary for this technology to be permanent in the developing world. We need to see economic identity. People often ask what is the mission for Cardano? For us IOG, you look at economic identity and you take a look at a roadmap. For it, you scale up and down, and each and every step along the way, from open data, to self-sovereign identity, to financial inclusion. You can keep going down: to decentralized lending, decentralized insurance, decentralized banking. Each and every step along the way to economic identity. When you admit a blockchain tells you that, there's a collection of applications and infrastructure that you need to build. My life's work is to get to a point where we have the technology to do that. The infrastructure to do that, with principles, and so we'll keep evolving Cardano and we'll keep evolving the space as a whole and the science as a whole until I can wake up and say: each box and that road to economic identity, for all people not just one group, we have a solution for that. I'm going to put those applications on Cardano and success for me is not about us being king of the crypto hill and having a higher market cap than bitcoin or being entrepreneur of the year coindesk's most influential person. It's meaningless noise, success for me is reflecting back at the things that we have accomplished together and recognizing that millions if not billions now live in a system where they all matter, they all have a voice, they all have an equal footing. The Jeff Bezos of the world have the very same experience as the person born in Rwanda and we're not done until that's the case. It's a long road, it's a hard road, but you know what? We're making progress, we have great people in Africa, we have great people in eastern Europe, we have great people in southeast Asia and great partners all along the way. Great people, Latin America, great people in south America, great people here in the United States. When we talk about economic identity there are millions, if not tens of millions of Americans who don't have it. Same for Canadians, hundreds of thousands, who don't have it. Developed western cultures, it's the greatest blind spot of policy and as we enter into a depression as a result of coronavirus, add millions if not tens of millions more onto that list. Generations are being disenfranchised by this legacy system and we as an ecosystem, we as an entire community are offering a different way forward. Not hyper centralizationn not social credit but a way forward where you own your own money, your own identity, your own data. You're not a victim of surveillance capitalism, you're not a victim of civil asset forfeiture. When you say the wrong things, you get shut out of society. Each and every human being matters and I'm optimistic to believe that when you remind people that they matter they're gonna rise to the occasion. That is the point of my company. In the things that we do each and every day, that's our mission to give the platforms to the world so that those who don't have economic identity can get it and they can keep it and no one can take it from them and they can enjoy an ever increasing growth of standard of living wealth and prosperity. However you want to measure that this is my goal post, I couldn't care less about the cryptocurrency space. It was a great place to start but the space needs to be reminded why it exists. Bitcoin was given a mandate on the back of the 2008 financial crisis to do something different. It was not given a mandate to go be a new settlement layer for central banks or a new way for the old guard to make more money and banks get bigger and for those who are in control to preserve their power. The whole point of doing something so crazy as to buy a coin that doesn't even exist in real life, that's just a bunch of numbers in the cloud, the whole point of that was so that we as a society could do something different than the way that we'd been doing things before. So, each and every member of the cryptocurrency space needs to remind everyone else from time to time why we're here and where did we come from and where are we going to go. The beauty of Cardano is we have already achieved for the most part a decentralized brain and that momentum is pushing harder than ever. More and more scientists are waking up, more and more institutions are waking up, getting us there. The code we have, the right approach and I think we have a great competitive offering for 2021 as we go and battle the titans and that's going to be a lot of fun but we know who we are and where we're going and we're in the right places. It's so incredibly encouraging to see the stake pool operators not just be from California or Texas or New York or Canada. To see a lot of stake pool operators from the place that need the most, help everybody does matter and it means a lot to me for the people who are there but it means a lot to everybody to say that we have created an equal platform. It makes the participation of all of us so much more meaningful. We're not just talking to each other, we're talking to the world and by working together on this platform we're lifting the world up and giving people hope. That's the point, there's a lot more to do, we didn't get everything done. You never do you aspire, you work hard, you set a moon, shot and sometimes you can just get to orbit with the first go but you know what? When you build the next rocket you can go to Mars. Thank you all for being with me, thank you all for being part of this. Today was a damn good day with the announcement of Voltaire. Go to cardano.ideascale.com. You can participate in that, so end of September is going to be a good day too. There's a lot of good days to come, in between a lot of hard days, doing tasks sometimes entirely forgettable but always necessary to keep the revolution going and the movement going. I cannot wait for 2021, our best days are ahead of us, because of you. You all take care now . Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFa9zL_Dl_w Other things mentioned: https://cardano.ideascale.com/ https://www.atixlabs.com/blockchain https://www.well-typed.com/ https://www.vacuumlabs.com/ https://medium.com/interdax/what-is-taproot-and-how-will-it-benefit-bitcoin-5c8944eed8da https://medium.com/interdax/how-will-schnorr-signatures-benefit-bitcoin-b4482cf85d40 https://quantstamp.com/ https://bloxian.com/bloxian-platforms/ (TWIG) https://runtimeverification.com/firefly/ https://www.trufflesuite.com/ https://experts.illinois.edu/en/publications/prism-deconstructing-the-blockchain-to-approach-physical-limits (PrisM and not our Prism https://atalaprism.io/) Ebb-and-Flow Protocols: A Resolution of the Availability-Finality Dilemma (aka Gasper and ETH2.0 fucker) https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.04987 http://www.quviq.com/products/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnorr_signature
Blockchain Size (MB) The total size of the blockchain minus database indexes in megabytes. 30 Days 60 Days 180 Days 1 Year 3 Years All Time Raw Values 7 Day Average 30 Day Average Bitcoin Blockchain Size is at a current level of 306.78, up from 306.60 yesterday and up from 245.83 one year ago. This is a change of 0.06% from yesterday and 24.79% from one year ago. Report: Bitcoin Statistics: Category : Cryptocurrency Region: N/A: Source: Blockchain: Stats. Last Value: 306.78: Latest Period: Oct 21 2020: Last Updated: Oct 21 2020, 23:06 EDT: Average Growth Rate: 146.3% ... Bitcoin Core treats its block database files as 100% accurate and trustworthy, whereas during the normal initial sync it treats each block offered by a peer as invalid until proven otherwise. If an attacker is able to modify your block database files, then they can do all sorts of evil things which could cause you to lose bitcoins. Therefore, you should only copy block databases from Bitcoin ... BigchainDB allows developers and enterprise to deploy blockchain proof-of-concepts, platforms and applications with a blockchain database, supporting a wide range of industries and use cases. All Features Get Started. The Hitchhiker's Guide to BigchainDB. Complete the guide to learn about how to create apps in BigchainDB. Key concepts of BigchainDB. Get familiar with our transaction model ... The total size of the blockchain minus database indexes in megabytes. Produkte. Brieftasche Crypto kaufen und verkaufen. Börse Professioneller Handel. Explorer Live-Daten, Diagramme und Transaktionen. Bitcoin kaufen Handel. Gesponserte Inhalte. Währungsstatistik. Blockdetails. Blockchain-Größe (MB) Durchschnittliche Blockgröße (MB) Durchschnittliche Transaktionen pro Block . Gesamtzahl ...
How many transactions can fit in a block, with or without SegWit? What other types of data can you put in a block? What is metadata? What is OP_RETURN? What is OpenTimestamps and what are the use ... Blockchain-based cryptocurrencies (like Bitcoin/Ethereum/Monero etc) are highly replicated transactional databases. More uniquely, they employ a ‘decentraliz... Founding President of the Bitcoin Association and nChain's Jimmy Nguyen provides updates on Bitcoin Satoshi Vision scaling test results, OP_RETURN, no limits on data size, and Dr. Craig Wright's ... What’s the physical cost of a digital currency? The amount of energy that Bitcoin mining consumes is about the same amount as some medium-sized countries – and that will only increase. Take a ... The daily blockchain growth in megabytes for the top proof of work coins from 2010 to 2019. Please note that this does not include some privacy coins such as...