Topic: [ANN] Finality: Trustless and Permissionless Cryptocurrency Interoperability (Read 435 times)
January 25, 2019, 04:18:05 AM
After long introduction of which many of us already aware OP just went offline. There is no progress at all, no communication neither on social media. This is first time I saw the thread when it almost is one month old. I don't know how much serious is who started it but things are not on track. Website is up, no exchange and no roadmap looks like abandoned already.
January 25, 2019, 02:55:43 AM
Send mutual insults in a public field? I don’t understand a damn thing about the intricacies of the protocol, but you don’t have to be too smart not to see that there is a negative flow.
January 25, 2019, 01:31:33 AM
It is obvious that you are the same guy who posted it. I don't believe in one sided story though but if you are the one who did everything, how are you envisioning this project to unfold. Or the project dies here as many of the projects get killed because of internal disputes.
Why I am interested in this, is because I am working on a 2nd layer protocol too and the concept presented in the paper is definitely better than the one I am working on.
- It doesn't matter who is behind this handle, one person or a group of people.
- As it has already been stated clearly about who played what role in the research.
- The vision is to create an exchange network (crypto, ad network, digital assets etc) where anybody can be a 'BAUS' (similar to operator in Plasma but not the same). The protocol is aimed to provide order-matching performance of centralised exchange & custodial security of blockchain - decentralised consensus.
The mission is to launch a second layer protocol over ethereum first and then to work on interoperability part. - It's obvious that the project is divided now. ill-formed ideas kill the big vision but we are onto it and will release the corrected paper soon.
- You need not look at one side of the story for sure. But since, you have gone through the paper look at the following calculation (refer sec 7.3)
Let’s analyze an example Baus with:
n = 1, 000, 000 live accounts
m = 1, 500 merkle leaf proofs
t = 6, 000 FSB challenge period
50 coins
100 trades per active user
100, 000 total trades
A malicious account update published by a Baus would have at most a 1 in 66,553,888,
or a 0.000001503% chance of successfully cheating the network.
Using the above values, the gas required to submit just merkle proofs for every sidechain block to the eth root chain comes out to be ~23,000,000,000 (the fee is 20k gas to store a 256 bit word. A kilobyte is thus 640k gas. refer eth yellowpaper http://gavwood.com/paper.pdf). But MAX POSSIBLE GAS in eth block is ~8,000,000 at the moment. LOL. But you can still ask questions to Mr. Ho Lee Hua if he knows anything
That’s shit.
When are you releasing the corrected research?
Where can I track it?
January 18, 2019, 01:05:35 AM
It is obvious that you are the same guy who posted it. I don't believe in one sided story though but if you are the one who did everything, how are you envisioning this project to unfold. Or the project dies here as many of the projects get killed because of internal disputes.
Why I am interested in this, is because I am working on a 2nd layer protocol too and the concept presented in the paper is definitely better than the one I am working on.
- It doesn't matter who is behind this handle, one person or a group of people.
- As it has already been stated clearly about who played what role in the research.
- The vision is to create an exchange network (crypto, ad network, digital assets etc) where anybody can be a 'BAUS' (similar to operator in Plasma but not the same). The protocol is aimed to provide order-matching performance of centralised exchange & custodial security of blockchain - decentralised consensus.
The mission is to launch a second layer protocol over ethereum first and then to work on interoperability part. - It's obvious that the project is divided now. ill-formed ideas kill the big vision but we are onto it and will release the corrected paper soon.
- You need not look at one side of the story for sure. But since, you have gone through the paper look at the following calculation (refer sec 7.3)
Let’s analyze an example Baus with:
n = 1, 000, 000 live accounts
m = 1, 500 merkle leaf proofs
t = 6, 000 FSB challenge period
50 coins
100 trades per active user
100, 000 total trades
A malicious account update published by a Baus would have at most a 1 in 66,553,888,
or a 0.000001503% chance of successfully cheating the network.
Using the above values, the gas required to submit just merkle proofs for every sidechain block to the eth root chain comes out to be ~23,000,000,000 (the fee is 20k gas to store a 256 bit word. A kilobyte is thus 640k gas. refer eth yellowpaper http://gavwood.com/paper.pdf). But MAX POSSIBLE GAS in eth block is ~8,000,000 at the moment. LOL. But you can still ask questions to Mr. Ho Lee Hua if he knows anything
ohh. did i wasted my time on dis or u hav smthing gud to add?
January 15, 2019, 02:01:15 PM
In the struggle for the independence of crypto-fiat exchange, the state always wins. For example, in Russia, the law FZ 115 was adopted. According to which banks can block accounts, if there is an assumption of money laundering. Exchange for Fiat for the bank can be regarded as such.
January 15, 2019, 10:31:36 AM
It is obvious that you are the same guy who posted it. I don't believe in one sided story though but if you are the one who did everything, how are you envisioning this project to unfold. Or the project dies here as many of the projects get killed because of internal disputes.
Why I am interested in this, is because I am working on a 2nd layer protocol too and the concept presented in the paper is definitely better than the one I am working on.
- It doesn't matter who is behind this handle, one person or a group of people.
- As it has already been stated clearly about who played what role in the research.
- The vision is to create an exchange network (crypto, ad network, digital assets etc) where anybody can be a 'BAUS' (similar to operator in Plasma but not the same). The protocol is aimed to provide order-matching performance of centralised exchange & custodial security of blockchain - decentralised consensus.
The mission is to launch a second layer protocol over ethereum first and then to work on interoperability part. - It's obvious that the project is divided now. ill-formed ideas kill the big vision but we are onto it and will release the corrected paper soon.
- You need not look at one side of the story for sure. But since, you have gone through the paper look at the following calculation (refer sec 7.3)
Let’s analyze an example Baus with:
n = 1, 000, 000 live accounts
m = 1, 500 merkle leaf proofs
t = 6, 000 FSB challenge period
50 coins
100 trades per active user
100, 000 total trades
A malicious account update published by a Baus would have at most a 1 in 66,553,888,
or a 0.000001503% chance of successfully cheating the network.
Using the above values, the gas required to submit just merkle proofs for every sidechain block to the eth root chain comes out to be ~23,000,000,000 (the fee is 20k gas to store a 256 bit word. A kilobyte is thus 640k gas. refer eth yellowpaper http://gavwood.com/paper.pdf). But MAX POSSIBLE GAS in eth block is ~8,000,000 at the moment. LOL. But you can still ask questions to Mr. Ho Lee Hua if he knows anything
January 06, 2019, 09:13:42 AM
It is obvious that you are the same guy who posted it. I don't believe in one sided story though but if you are the one who did everything, how are you envisioning this project to unfold. Or the project dies here as many of the projects get killed because of internal disputes.
Why I am interested in this, is because I am working on a 2nd layer protocol too and the concept presented in the paper is definitely better than the one I am working on.
January 04, 2019, 10:03:08 AM
You wrote. "We offer a scalable second-level protocol that allows any interested party to create and operate a cryptocurrency exchange without trust and without permission, capable of processing millions of transactions per second.". Where can I find out about your new protocol? White paper ?
January 03, 2019, 11:10:45 PM
it was posted in https://ethresear.ch/ but thn removed.
google cache:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://ethresear.ch/t/finality-trustless-and-permissionless-cryptocurrency-interoperability/4679
luks like a big truble to baus.
google cache:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://ethresear.ch/t/finality-trustless-and-permissionless-cryptocurrency-interoperability/4679
luks like a big truble to baus.
December 30, 2018, 11:25:09 AM
I also have not fully believed in this project, because the information I received was very little,
let alone not explained by the team and clear vision and mission
let alone not explained by the team and clear vision and mission
December 30, 2018, 06:26:39 AM
I read the paper and here are my few satoshis:
Good:
No consensus on the 2nd layer. Pure maths to reach finality.
Inspired from Plasma but account based approach used rather than UTXO. So splitting/merging of coins is not an issue.
Best suited for Hybrid exchanges. Centralised matching of orders and Decentralised custody of tokens.
Okay:
It doesn't cover interoperability, future version might have it, don't know.
Research is around the exchange and not on the scaling per se.
Limited to Ethereum/smart contract based chains.
Bad:
Paper is not consistent throughout.
Token economics is not properly defined.
Good:
No consensus on the 2nd layer. Pure maths to reach finality.
Inspired from Plasma but account based approach used rather than UTXO. So splitting/merging of coins is not an issue.
Best suited for Hybrid exchanges. Centralised matching of orders and Decentralised custody of tokens.
Okay:
It doesn't cover interoperability, future version might have it, don't know.
Research is around the exchange and not on the scaling per se.
Limited to Ethereum/smart contract based chains.
Bad:
Paper is not consistent throughout.
Token economics is not properly defined.
December 29, 2018, 11:46:25 AM
It luks tht its based on plasma. I did go thru math. Many equations.
block publishing time's dynamic n num of txns increases, block freq increases. So more txns can be done.
Thou did not understood the proof, will give more time.
P.S. sorry for my bad english
block publishing time's dynamic n num of txns increases, block freq increases. So more txns can be done.
Thou did not understood the proof, will give more time.
P.S. sorry for my bad english
December 29, 2018, 06:02:28 AM
Looks Interesting. Some good stuff for the weekend !!
December 27, 2018, 09:08:57 PM
for all the time I spent with crypto, I saw only one fair distribution, this is NANO. What is stopping you under the guise of a reset to take any number of tokens for yourself?
December 27, 2018, 03:59:18 PM
You wrote. "We offer a scalable second-level protocol that allows any interested party to create and operate a cryptocurrency exchange without trust and rights, capable of processing millions of transactions per second." But, without exchanges in Fiat, no cryptocurrency can exist. It turns into ordinary, useless wrappers.
December 27, 2018, 10:34:03 AM
Could you elaborate on M-RAD please?
December 27, 2018, 01:12:30 AM
How can you realize this idea without any funds? Will other people be interested? Do they want to work voluntarily?
Some of projects in here are intended to make a non profit project in which they are not getting funds in any way to get the funds. December 27, 2018, 12:47:55 AM
How can you realize this idea without any funds? Will other people be interested? Do they want to work voluntarily?
December 27, 2018, 12:12:20 AM
Technically an ERC20 shittoken is 100% premine soooo.....
Jump to: