Those are my words. You'll have to post the Blocknet dev's words so we can compare the meaning behind them. But if we're speaking of ideals, and these ideals are true, then it's not surprising that two different people describe the same thing.
By "retaining their security properties", I mean PoS allows you to do this. Not so with a network of PoW chains, where the miners can be bribed on a whim. Our proposed solution to that problem is BFT PoS, a constitution, and a governance system to amend the constitution.
Hey hey
Thanks for the response. I tweeted at you guys several times about this, to no avail. Glad to see you're around.
To be clear (to all reading), I'm not accusing you of plagiarism or of copying our code. I'm just engaging you in conversation.
Having read your whitepaper, there's no question of your copying the Blocknet's technical approach. You're using DPoS and sidechains/sharding; we're using an inter-chain network overlay, a blockchain router, p2p messaging and atomic protocols.
However, when it comes to how you represent/market yourselves, there's a striking similarity in both concept and wording.
Consider, for example,
the third paragraph of your whitepaper: this echoes, almost verbatim, the following:
- a sentence in
the second paragraph of our last blog post- a sentence in
our last radio interview- many other instances, over the course of at least the past year, in which we've described our goal as preserving the security properties of blockchains in inter-chain scenarios.
The other, more obvious similarity (note I'm intentionally not using the accusatory word "copying"), is "internet of blockchains." That's effectively our slogan or descriptive title. It's been that for the past two years. If there are two "reserved terms" I'd like not to be used for other projects, they would be
- internet of blockchains
- blockchain router
I can't - and I'm not trying to -
stop you from using "internet of blockchains" or phrases about "preserving security properties."
I'm not accusing you of plagiarism either.
But I request, as a matter of prior art, that you both (a) find equivalent but different ways of describing your project, and (b) that consider acknowledging - where relevant - that we precede you in pursuing the vision of inter-chain interoperability and were the first in carving out the concepts that you've arrived at.
Cheers
Arlyn
