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.
Can you please paste the sentence from the second paragraph of your last blog post that you find strikingly similar? I just want to make sure we're talking about the same parts.
Sure: "The Blocknet is an inter-blockchain application platform, devoted to creating solutions to inter-chain interoperability without sacrificing the security properties of blockchains."
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.
I have no qualms changing the phrase. "Network of blockchains"? We'll take that then
Nice one. Sounds good :-)
I didn't pursue any vision of blockchains until early 2014. Well, even before then, if you count the fact that since 2013 I had developed exchange software for a crypto-crypto exchange to compete with Cryptsy. I abandoned that (
https://github.com/jaekwon/ftnox-backend) and started working on Tendermint because it is what enables secure PoS. And we have to get away from PoW in order for the security of many chains to be independent of each other.
http://tendermint.com/blog/security-of-cryptocurrency-protocols/Looking at BlockNet's vision, it seems like we're fully aligned. We're not even competing, we're both developing toward a shared system from different angles. To call us plagiarizing is a stretch... we've created and proposed solutions to longstanding problems in the crypto space.
Absolutely. I'm explicitly
not accusing you of plagiarism.
Here, I've changed our tagline. We'll update them on our website too. I acknowledge that jl777 has had great ideas, inevitable ideas. I'd like for us to take part in the journey. The internet of blockchains will not be centralized, or hierarchical. Like the WorldWideWeb that preceded it, it is connected in every possible way.
Onward to a decentralised internet! For the record though, jl777 has nothing to do with the Blocknet. He's behind that SuperNET thing, right?
Anyway, yes, it's great that there are a few projects working toward "web 3.0".
All the best with the project,
Arlyn
Hi folks :-)
Arlyn here from the Blocknet.
A while back I chatted with Jaekwon (see above) about Cosmos's use of "internet of blockchains" and we mutually agreed that Cosmos would use "network of blockchains" instead.
I'd like to ask whether this project would mind changing "internet of blockchains" to "network of blockchains" on the following pages:
- Twitter:
https://twitter.com/cosmos- Cosmos website:
https://cosmos.network/- Github:
https://github.com/cosmos/cosmosThanks very much, and best of luck networking blockchains together!
Arlyn
Re-posting because it got lost.
Awaiting your response (or to its duplicate on the Cosmos forum, or to the few requests on Twitter).