Topic: [ANN][COS] COSMOS, internet of blockchains - page 22. (Read 60010 times)
Didnt understand the status here...is this going to an Ico or is it self funded?
Can I get the strong points of BFT-Pos ?
and what is different points between BFT and PBFT ??
from wan.
and what is different points between BFT and PBFT ??
from wan.
The slack of cosmos and tendermint is very busy.
But this thread is some cold now.
If you want to know more about his prjoect, Go to slack.
From wan.
But this thread is some cold now.
If you want to know more about his prjoect, Go to slack.
From wan.
I am looking forward to new information coming out.
Good luck on your development.
Good luck on your development.
New blog post, BFT: The Most Secure Proof-of-Stake
From https://cosmos.network/blog/bft-the-most-secure-proof-of-stake
Bitcoin brought the world’s attention to the blockchain. But alas, the Bitcoin version of blockchain isn’t sufficient for the world’s blockchain needs. That is because Bitcoin’s proof of work (PoW) consensus requires an enormous amounts of energy. In addition, transactions are painstakingly slow, taking an hour or longer to commit. And because PoW miners have little incentive to be loyal to one chain or other, upgrades are difficult to coordinate.
We need an approach to manage blockchains securely that does not impose a huge energy cost on our planet. That approach is Byzantine fault-tolerance (BFT)-based proof-of-stake (PoS). We call it BFT-PoS.
Before I delve into the merits of BFT-PoS, let me first address the concept of Byzantine faults without going into confusing detail about Lamport’s General and his armies.
In a distributed system, where data is replicated across hundreds or thousands of nodes, there needs to be some type of fault-tolerance or consensus algorithm, for the simple fact that computers break down or go offline from time to time. So if a portion of those nodes fail, the system as a whole still needs to reach a consensus.
Standard fault-tolerant consensus algorithms like Raft and Paxos assume that when a node fails, it simply stops working and doesn’t send back a reply. Google, Facebook, and some existing database products already use this family of consensus algorithms within their firewalls to ensure that services remain available despite faulty computers.
But these algorithms aren’t suitable for public blockchains, because there is no firewall in a public blockchain. Anyone with mining power (in PoW) or staking tokens (in PoS) can participate, or even try to sabotage the network. To reach consensus on a public blockchain, we need Byzantine fault-tolerance. In a Byzantine fault, the faulty node can behave in a completely arbitrary manner. Nodes can even collude to try and maximize the damage they cause.
So essentially, the purpose of a BFT consensus algorithm is to establish trust between otherwise unrelated parties over an untrusted network like the Internet.
BFT is nothing new. The concept was first introduced in an academic paper by Lamport, Shostak, and Pease in 1982. But Lamport et al only demonstrated the theoretical feasibility of the algorithm in a synchronous environment, where all the messages always arrive on time.
But in the real world, you can’t really trust the Internet to deliver anything on time. So in 1988, Dwork, Lynch, and Stockmeyer (DLS) proposed an algorithm that works in mostly asynchronous environments. Later in 1999, Miguel Castro and Barbara Liskov proposed a practical solution for continuous BFT consensus that was, and still is today, the state-of-the-art in BFT algorithms.
But for a long time, the mainstream press ignored these seminal works. Nobody understood the importance of BFT outside academia and major institutions like IBM and DARPA, until 2009 when Bitcoin came along. Bitcoin was the first open decentralized application to provide BFT consensus on a global currency ledger, but using a completely novel solution to the Byzantine general’s problem: PoW.
In PoW, miners compete, based on who has the most processing power, to validate transactions. And for their efforts they are rewarded with transaction fees and newly minted bitcoins. This is how Bitcoin creates new currency. Bitcoin miners around the globe compete in a lottery-like system for these newly issued bitcoins, and the efficient market makes it so that the cost of the energy used by the global mining network is on the order of the block reward (plus transaction fees). Today, that turns out to be around $1M worth of electricity per day. In addition, Bitcoin mining is being commoditized by large data centers in places of the world where electricity is more affordable, making it difficult for laymen to participate.
PoS, on the other hand, does away with the energy dependence of PoW entirely. In PoS, miners are replaced with “validators” who have a stake in the system. Validators don’t have to invest in expensive processing systems but they do have to purchase “staking tokens.” Any normal laptop will suffice to solve the algorithm.
Peercoin, BitShares, Nxt, and others already use some form of PoS, and Ethereum is planning a move to PoS in the near future. Yet, while PoS makes practical sense, many people have rallied against the use of PoS, claiming it is impossible to secure. But that is simply not true. Using BFT, you absolutely can secure PoS. It’s just that we haven’t seen any BFT-PoS public blockchains yet.
While the theory may be difficult to explain or understand, the ultimate results provided by proper BFT algorithms are simple to grasp. Unlike PoW blockchains, BFT-PoS blockchains do not fork (i.e. get double-spend attacked) at all unless ⅓ or more validators coordinate such an attack. And, when 1/3 or more validators do cause a double-spend attack, we can computationally determine which validators were responsible for the attack, destroy their staking tokens and eject them from the network. It’s as if the staking tokens are virtualized PoW miners that blow up when used to attack the system. No other blockchain consensus algorithm, including PoW, can provide the level of collateralization that is possible with BFT-PoS.
BFT-PoS performs extremely well. Today, in global public blockchain with a few hundred validators, you can get transaction finality on the order of 3 seconds, easily – no need to wait for additional block confirmations! The theory has proven to us that these are optimal fault-tolerance thresholds for “instant-finality” blockchains. While more validators does slow down consensus, if Nielsen’s law continues to hold, we’ll even be able to support an exponentially increasing number of validators every year with the same performance.
In addition, BFT-PoS will also increase the security of mobile wallets. Few of the mobile wallets in existence today take full advantage of the security offered by Bitcoin, for the simple fact that nobody is willing to wait an hour for a transaction to clear. Instead, most wallets just assume that the person sending the money isn’t trying to double spend it. And, though we don’t have time to dive into it here, efficient mobile wallet protocols, or “light client SPV” protocols are the key to future blockchain interoperability.
While PoW worked well for Bitcoin, it’s costly, slow, and environmentally unfriendly. The best alternative out there right now is BFT-PoS. It’s an enduring, energy efficient solution that works well in asynchronous environments. And best of all, because BFT was developed by the best and the brightest in the computer science industry, it’s provably secure. You can’t do any better than that.
From https://cosmos.network/blog/bft-the-most-secure-proof-of-stake
Bitcoin brought the world’s attention to the blockchain. But alas, the Bitcoin version of blockchain isn’t sufficient for the world’s blockchain needs. That is because Bitcoin’s proof of work (PoW) consensus requires an enormous amounts of energy. In addition, transactions are painstakingly slow, taking an hour or longer to commit. And because PoW miners have little incentive to be loyal to one chain or other, upgrades are difficult to coordinate.
We need an approach to manage blockchains securely that does not impose a huge energy cost on our planet. That approach is Byzantine fault-tolerance (BFT)-based proof-of-stake (PoS). We call it BFT-PoS.
Before I delve into the merits of BFT-PoS, let me first address the concept of Byzantine faults without going into confusing detail about Lamport’s General and his armies.
In a distributed system, where data is replicated across hundreds or thousands of nodes, there needs to be some type of fault-tolerance or consensus algorithm, for the simple fact that computers break down or go offline from time to time. So if a portion of those nodes fail, the system as a whole still needs to reach a consensus.
Standard fault-tolerant consensus algorithms like Raft and Paxos assume that when a node fails, it simply stops working and doesn’t send back a reply. Google, Facebook, and some existing database products already use this family of consensus algorithms within their firewalls to ensure that services remain available despite faulty computers.
But these algorithms aren’t suitable for public blockchains, because there is no firewall in a public blockchain. Anyone with mining power (in PoW) or staking tokens (in PoS) can participate, or even try to sabotage the network. To reach consensus on a public blockchain, we need Byzantine fault-tolerance. In a Byzantine fault, the faulty node can behave in a completely arbitrary manner. Nodes can even collude to try and maximize the damage they cause.
So essentially, the purpose of a BFT consensus algorithm is to establish trust between otherwise unrelated parties over an untrusted network like the Internet.
BFT is nothing new. The concept was first introduced in an academic paper by Lamport, Shostak, and Pease in 1982. But Lamport et al only demonstrated the theoretical feasibility of the algorithm in a synchronous environment, where all the messages always arrive on time.
But in the real world, you can’t really trust the Internet to deliver anything on time. So in 1988, Dwork, Lynch, and Stockmeyer (DLS) proposed an algorithm that works in mostly asynchronous environments. Later in 1999, Miguel Castro and Barbara Liskov proposed a practical solution for continuous BFT consensus that was, and still is today, the state-of-the-art in BFT algorithms.
But for a long time, the mainstream press ignored these seminal works. Nobody understood the importance of BFT outside academia and major institutions like IBM and DARPA, until 2009 when Bitcoin came along. Bitcoin was the first open decentralized application to provide BFT consensus on a global currency ledger, but using a completely novel solution to the Byzantine general’s problem: PoW.
In PoW, miners compete, based on who has the most processing power, to validate transactions. And for their efforts they are rewarded with transaction fees and newly minted bitcoins. This is how Bitcoin creates new currency. Bitcoin miners around the globe compete in a lottery-like system for these newly issued bitcoins, and the efficient market makes it so that the cost of the energy used by the global mining network is on the order of the block reward (plus transaction fees). Today, that turns out to be around $1M worth of electricity per day. In addition, Bitcoin mining is being commoditized by large data centers in places of the world where electricity is more affordable, making it difficult for laymen to participate.
PoS, on the other hand, does away with the energy dependence of PoW entirely. In PoS, miners are replaced with “validators” who have a stake in the system. Validators don’t have to invest in expensive processing systems but they do have to purchase “staking tokens.” Any normal laptop will suffice to solve the algorithm.
Peercoin, BitShares, Nxt, and others already use some form of PoS, and Ethereum is planning a move to PoS in the near future. Yet, while PoS makes practical sense, many people have rallied against the use of PoS, claiming it is impossible to secure. But that is simply not true. Using BFT, you absolutely can secure PoS. It’s just that we haven’t seen any BFT-PoS public blockchains yet.
While the theory may be difficult to explain or understand, the ultimate results provided by proper BFT algorithms are simple to grasp. Unlike PoW blockchains, BFT-PoS blockchains do not fork (i.e. get double-spend attacked) at all unless ⅓ or more validators coordinate such an attack. And, when 1/3 or more validators do cause a double-spend attack, we can computationally determine which validators were responsible for the attack, destroy their staking tokens and eject them from the network. It’s as if the staking tokens are virtualized PoW miners that blow up when used to attack the system. No other blockchain consensus algorithm, including PoW, can provide the level of collateralization that is possible with BFT-PoS.
BFT-PoS performs extremely well. Today, in global public blockchain with a few hundred validators, you can get transaction finality on the order of 3 seconds, easily – no need to wait for additional block confirmations! The theory has proven to us that these are optimal fault-tolerance thresholds for “instant-finality” blockchains. While more validators does slow down consensus, if Nielsen’s law continues to hold, we’ll even be able to support an exponentially increasing number of validators every year with the same performance.
In addition, BFT-PoS will also increase the security of mobile wallets. Few of the mobile wallets in existence today take full advantage of the security offered by Bitcoin, for the simple fact that nobody is willing to wait an hour for a transaction to clear. Instead, most wallets just assume that the person sending the money isn’t trying to double spend it. And, though we don’t have time to dive into it here, efficient mobile wallet protocols, or “light client SPV” protocols are the key to future blockchain interoperability.
While PoW worked well for Bitcoin, it’s costly, slow, and environmentally unfriendly. The best alternative out there right now is BFT-PoS. It’s an enduring, energy efficient solution that works well in asynchronous environments. And best of all, because BFT was developed by the best and the brightest in the computer science industry, it’s provably secure. You can’t do any better than that.
actually ,if post information of your team,maybe higher authoritative
Jae (me) and Ethan from the Tendermint team, are two directors involved in the Cosmos Network Foundation. There are others involved with Cosmos as well.
http://tendermint.com/about
everyone need 50,000USD to attent pre-sale, it is too much
Sorry about that, it's just too much work to handle pre-fundraiser agreements manually. We'll open up the fundraiser to everyone though.
Hi everyone, a couple of announcements:
We will soon reach out to translators. **PLEASE DO NOT REPLY ON THIS THREAD! Just PM me. Also include your price, if you want.**. If you want to maintain translations subs, please PM me as well. Thank you for the support and interest!
Also, check out the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-ytzLX-2EE
And our official Reddit: http://reddit.com/r/thecosmos
We're getting more interest for Cosmos integration every week. More announcements coming, please stay tuned!
- Jae
We will soon reach out to translators. **PLEASE DO NOT REPLY ON THIS THREAD! Just PM me. Also include your price, if you want.**. If you want to maintain translations subs, please PM me as well. Thank you for the support and interest!
Also, check out the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-ytzLX-2EE
And our official Reddit: http://reddit.com/r/thecosmos
We're getting more interest for Cosmos integration every week. More announcements coming, please stay tuned!
- Jae
everyone need 50,000USD to attent pre-sale, it is too much
It it great project.
I think the devs need promotion and marketing specialist.
to say the potential of this amazing project to generals.
Wow.
From wan.
I think the devs need promotion and marketing specialist.
to say the potential of this amazing project to generals.
Wow.
From wan.
It's great.
Is there any symbol or icon of cosmos yet ?
From wan.
Is there any symbol or icon of cosmos yet ?
From wan.
any bounty for newsletter sub dev???
COSMOS: We delayed our crowdfund until Q1 2017
The going date is now Feb 15th, 2017. That will give us time to finish the production version of Tendermint and an alpha version of the hub.
Cheers, Jae
The going date is now Feb 15th, 2017. That will give us time to finish the production version of Tendermint and an alpha version of the hub.
Cheers, Jae
When will we see a roadmap? What is your time to revenue?
Hi sir, i had some questiona about translation.
Pm sent.
Pm sent.
Can you explain this project in simpler terms? What are you guys trying to do and what value will come out of it? How could the world not go without this project?
thats why we need more information
some samples in real life usability 1 or 2
Can you explain this project in simpler terms? What are you guys trying to do and what value will come out of it? How could the world not go without this project?
thats why we need more information
Can you explain this project in simpler terms? What are you guys trying to do and what value will come out of it? How could the world not go without this project?
actually ,if post information of your team,maybe higher authoritative
Jump to: