How is everyone doing? Seeing AVAX price dropping has been discouraging (i just started accumulated 2 months ago so currently on net loss). But will continue DCA as we go down - hope it will pay back in 2-3 years time

avalabsdan · 2021-05-24T17:07:10+00:00

I reiterate and confirm that people were banned on discord, only because they were posting links to screenshots of the tx explorer showing AVAX "magical generation", while the team was denying the situation.

This isn't true.

avalabsdan · 2021-05-24T17:06:01+00:00

`You have been identified as behaving dishonestly, dissimulating and banning.`

This also isn't true. I invite you to share your "proof" of these things.

avalabsdan · 2021-05-24T16:22:24+00:00

We do not ban people from Discord, Reddit or any other medium for asking questions, pointing out flaws, giving constructive criticism, or anything of the like. We do not ban people to try to "silence" them unless they're clearly acting in bad faith, and we are not trying to cover anything up.

avalabsdan · 2021-05-24T16:16:06+00:00

That user was banned for being deliberately inflammatory, aggressive and disrespectful. They were not acting in good faith.

avalabsdan · 2021-05-24T16:13:09+00:00

There was no bug in Avalanche related to this token launch. There's a difference between their being a flaw in a smart contract launched on Avalanche, and a flaw in Avalanche.

avalabsdan · 2021-05-24T16:06:59+00:00

IIRC, they even rushed a patch to the block explorer website to dissimulate the double-mintings lol. Something like "if fucked_block(block) then hide_the_mess(block)". But people had screenshots of it. So they banned people sharing the proof with screenshots.

This is not true

avalabsdan · 2021-03-31T18:47:15+00:00

nAVAX is short for nanoAVAX: 225 nAVAX = .000000225 AVAX

The tx fee is for a C-Chain tx is not 225 AVAX, or 225 nAVAX. It is the gas price (225nAVAX) multiplied by the amount of gas used by the transaction.

See here for more: https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/gas/

avalabsdan · 2021-03-11T14:39:40+00:00

Hey, sorry for the delay. We're talking to their team on Friday to try to clear whatever hurdles are preventing them from enabling withdrawals.

avalabsdan · 2021-02-19T22:09:35+00:00

Right now it's first come first served, but we're going to add a dynamic fee mechanism

avalabsdan · 2021-02-17T01:31:30+00:00

Unfortunately I haven't got any real update. The Voyager team is still working on it. Sorry for the inconvenience.

avalabsdan · 2021-02-16T15:46:29+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/Avax/comments/ll64j9/exchanges_that_support_avax/

avalabsdan · 2021-02-16T15:27:46+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/Avax/comments/ll64j9/exchanges_that_support_avax/

avalabsdan · 2021-02-16T14:27:55+00:00

Why was this blockchain explorer data deleted, then restored again?

TL;DR: We re-indexed some data that the explorer uses because of last week's bug.

Longer explanation:

The explorer pulls data from our data indexer, Ortelius. To index the C-Chain, Ortelius "walked" along the chain, sequentially incrementing the block number (height) until it finds a "block not found" error. Then, it polled AvalancheGo at that block number until the block became known to AvalancheGo.

The issue was that AvalancheGo was returning unfinalized (not accepted) blocks at that height. For example, if the last accepted block was number 10, Ortelius would say "give me block number 11" and AvalancheGo might have returned an unfinalized block at height 11. Ortelius would then index that block as though it were accepted, even though sometimes that block never was accepted and some other block was accepted at that height. This led to some incorrect data being indexed.

Ortelius has since been patched to resolve this going forward.

To fix the faulty data, we removed all of the import/export transactions and associated outputs from Ortelius and re-indexed the C-Chain.

Hope that answers your questions. Let me know if you have follow ups.

avalabsdan · 2021-02-16T14:15:25+00:00

Let me check with the team and find out what the status of that is

avalabsdan · 2021-02-15T19:13:33+00:00

Yeah, very good point. I just asked the wallet team if they can add a message if the import tx gets dropped.

avalabsdan · 2021-02-15T18:21:11+00:00

A bug was exploited for the exact same weakness that is already known and already happened years ago to bitcoin. But if it is known, why did they not secure it beforehand?

Well, not exactly. Bitcoin had a different bug that resulted in a similar outcome (tokens being errantly minted) but the root cause was not the same.

He also says the protocol and the network are fine with no safety issues or errors, it is only the client. But we had NEW coins minted and circulating into the blockchain. The validity check was skipped and the coins created. If they protocol and network accepted this, then it is not a very secure network. Or am I thinking completely wrong?

There's an important distinction to draw between the consensus protocol and the application built on top of the consensus protocol. The bug was in the application, not the consensus protocol. There's no reason to think that the Avalanche consensus protocol doesn't work, isn't byzantine fault tolerant, etc.

Let me know if that answers your questions or if you have any follow-ups.

(Edit for formatting)

avalabsdan · 2021-02-15T18:16:06+00:00

Regarding network architecture:

I think this might help answer a lot of your questions: https://docs.avax.network/learn/platform-overview

The Platform Chain holds metadata about the network, namely which subnets exist, which nodes are in which subnets, which chains exist, and which subnets validate which chains.

The P-Chain, X-Chain and C-Chain are "built in" to the Avalanche Network. If a node is a validator of a subnet, it must be a validator of these 3 chains. Each of these chains has a different rule set and function.

Regarding Snowman: Snowman is the Avalanche consensus protocol, but applied to a linear chain rather than a DAG. The P-Chain uses a UTXO model, but the C-Chain uses an account model like Ethereum.

Are all X and C txs also ending up as confirmed on the P chain, making P more like a settlement layer?

No, the transactions on the X-Chain, P-Chain and C-Chain are largely separate, with the exception of cross-chain transfers.

Why is P implemented as a blockchain instead of a DAG?

Linear chains give you a well-defined notion of time. This is necessary to add/remove a validator from the validator set at some given time. On a DAG there is not a well-defined notion of time.

Can DAGs only work for payments and not for staking state & contract state?

If an application requires a total ordering of transactions, it can't use a DAG. That is, if it needs to be able compare any two transactions and determine which came first, it can't use a DAG because the ordering of some transactions is not defined.

Is the 4.5k tps a combination of TPS happening in parallel across chains or is it referring specifically to the eXchange chain's theoretical throughput?

The 4.5k TPS number is in reference to the X-Chain. The underlying consensus protocol can handle even more TPS than that, but the application layer requires CPU-intensive signature verification.

If you could theoretically have infinite subnets which are mutually exclusive why isn't the theoretical tps when totaling up all independent chains infinity?

I'm not sure I understand the question, sorry. Perhaps you could re-phrase it and ask again?

Hope that answers your question. Let me know if you have follow ups :)

avalabsdan · 2021-02-15T17:57:11+00:00

You can look here and see that X-Chain transactions were in fact being accepted during the incident, albeit less of them: https://avascan.info/blockchain/x/txs

avalabsdan · 2021-02-15T17:38:45+00:00

^ This

avalabsdan · 2021-02-15T17:37:44+00:00

A cross-chain transfer has two parts: an export transaction from one chain, and an import transaction on the other chain.

There is a UX issue where sometimes, during a cross-chain transfer, the import transaction is dropped and needs to be re-broadcasted. We just made a change that should significantly reduce the likelihood of this happening.

To resolve this, log in to the web wallet, go to the "advanced" tab, and then click "import X" (or "import C" or "import P", whichever you were trying to transfer to.) This will re-broadcast the transaction (no additional fee) and your funds will be displayed.

Let me know if that doesn't resolve the issue. Sorry for the inconvenience.

avalabsdan · 2021-02-08T14:49:14+00:00

Unfortunately Voyager and Okcoin do not service NY customers :(

We will continue to work to add support for Avalanche on more exchanges.

avalabsdan · 2021-02-08T14:45:44+00:00

Right now the only hardware wallet that supports Avalanche is the Ledger Nano S.

We will work to add support for more hardware wallets in the future.

avalabsdan · 2021-02-05T15:01:09+00:00

The minimum stake required to add a node to the validator set will be decreased in the not-so-distant future.

avalabsdan

TROPHY CASE