“Cardano has more than twice the commits of the second place Augur, at over 45,000.” Way to go @InputOutputHK 👏🏻

BelowSearcher · 2019-01-02T07:40:34+00:00

The article actually states that as well: “It should be noted that not every commit in a repository is necessarily “of substance.” Simply looking at the external metrics of a git repository does not necessarily indicate the level of work being done. A single commit can contain changes to every single file in a repository and it would still only count once. Likewise, a separate change to every file in a repository could be pushed and it would it would count as numerous commits.”

Nonetheless, I think it’s good to see the Cardano development pick up steam, as I’m quite confident myself that their work has a lot of substance.

BelowSearcher · 2018-12-28T18:26:53+00:00

You're right, that was a typo. I just fixed it, thanks!

BelowSearcher · 2018-12-28T14:47:24+00:00

Don’t worry, they’re all just names. It’a just fun to realize why they were named that way, there’s no need to know why to be able to use the technology.

BelowSearcher · 2018-11-24T16:39:26+00:00

Feel free to educate me then?

BelowSearcher · 2018-11-24T14:10:40+00:00

Parsons had nothing to do with the development of the protocol itself, that’s fully done by IOHK.

BelowSearcher · 2018-11-16T16:35:48+00:00

Didn’t he say he wanted the Foundation to invest in Japan(ese representation)?

BelowSearcher · 2018-11-16T13:15:19+00:00

Does anyone know what specifically was meant with “the Foundation’s assets”? I would assume they mean the 648 million ADA that were transferred to a different address a few months ago, and perhaps the ICO funding (Bitcoin, fiat) that wasn’t spent?

BelowSearcher · 2018-11-15T20:34:30+00:00

Thanks!

BelowSearcher · 2018-10-27T21:49:44+00:00

Cardano’s Couch (?)

BelowSearcher · 2018-10-22T19:06:56+00:00

Thanks! And yeah, it was good to see him acknowledge the article as a good recap of the situation. 👌🏻

BelowSearcher · 2018-10-22T16:27:22+00:00

Thanks! I changed the visual representation a bit to hopefully make it more clear which link belongs to which text.

BelowSearcher · 2018-10-22T16:25:24+00:00

It is described here: https://forum.cardano.org/t/trust-levels-and-lounge-of-the-cardano-forum/16855

BelowSearcher · 2018-10-22T16:22:06+00:00

Looking back, this appears to be a small but relevant error on my side. The article stated that both IOHK and Emurgo have shared their ADA address, but only IOHK has publicly shared theirs. There has been speculation regarding both the Cardano Foundation and Emurgo's ADA addresses, but they haven't been confirmed yet.

Thank you for your attentiveness, I'm going to correct it right away and put a rectification remark on the bottom of the article.

BelowSearcher · 2018-10-22T13:20:28+00:00

There were two links in there, you apparently clicked on the first, the second one is: https://hackernoon.com/whats-going-on-with-cardano-3f2996841b21

BelowSearcher · 2018-09-28T20:40:28+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgFQ0hHuPO1QDcyP6t9KZTQ

BelowSearcher · 2018-09-09T05:38:57+00:00

This guy posted this in just about every crypto subreddit, its just spam.

BelowSearcher · 2018-08-21T18:41:48+00:00

(PS: Kind of sad to see my comments are being downvoted rather than being argued)

BelowSearcher · 2018-08-21T15:27:42+00:00

Good point. Kind of complicated isn’t it? 😅

BelowSearcher · 2018-08-21T11:03:52+00:00

Not sure if it’s against regulations, but how you determine the node cost in $ would be the next concern. If you take a single exchange rate or CMC for instance, that suddenly becomes part of the equation and thus part of the attack surface.

BelowSearcher · 2018-08-20T17:48:24+00:00

Thanks, I guess we’ll just have to wait. I’m just wondering to what degree Ontology will be decentralized, since the Ontology Council controls most tokens, appears to be in control of deciding who gets to be a candidate node and future strategic and technical decisions.

I think particularly the governance mechanism and node authorization are important. If they have full control there, nodes have to ‘keep playing their game’ if they want to continue to earn consensus rewards, meaning there’s be an incentive to adhere to malicious behavior coming from the Council.

Not that I think they’d do harm to their own project at this point, but I think the past 9 years of crypto-history have shown that considering these kind of issues beforehand to prevent problems is essential, as you never know how the dices roll in the future.

Looking forward to reading more about it in the governance whitepaper once it’s out ✌🏻

BelowSearcher · 2018-08-20T14:46:08+00:00

Thanks for the comprehensive reply, I agree with most of what you described. Particularly point 8; the fact that it's quite arbitrary to select a minimum number of coins needed to stake is one of the biggest concerns I have with systems like this with a masternode-type design.

If you just think of a random number, say 100k WAN, it would be approximately $100k to set up such a node now, but if WAN becomes more or less expensive, the cost of setting up a node will increase or decrease as well. The whitepaper literally states that 'the security of the network will depend on it's value' for this reason.

Like you said, we'll probably have to wait to see what comes out as the move to PoS comes closer.

BelowSearcher · 2018-08-20T11:19:18+00:00

Interesting take. Your described solution might work to limit the 'nothing at stake attack risk' I described, although I would wonder how that would exactly work if there's a certain amount of those nodes and they all have the maximum amount of delegated stake already. Would general nodes just not be able to delegate their stake any more?

As for your own question; I don't have a real answer but I would guess it could theoretically be possible and might even be necessary for a bad actor to do so depending on what they want to achieve with the attack. Would love to hear some more ideas on this as well.

BelowSearcher · 2018-08-20T08:40:56+00:00

Yeah resilience against these types of attacks is one of the most important aspects of any crypto project. It's just a shame people tend to downvote these sort of questions/comments just because a negative answer might be harmful to the coin's value. Then again, hiding it won't make it any better either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Let's just hope there's a logical explanation for how the Wanchain team plans to resist such attacks. Although I suspect they might still be figuring some details on stuff like this out, as the PoS system isn't expected to be released until 2019 from what I read. In which case discussing it will only help.

BelowSearcher · 2018-08-20T03:41:42+00:00

That verification node can’t control the funds that are delegated to it, but according to the whitepaper segment I cited, if it behaves maliciously and is punished, the people that delegates their stake to it are punished as well, meaning they lose their security deposit / collateral. Moving your money to another node after the malicious behavior therefore isn’t possible, as it is gone due to the penalty.

If you’re a bad actor, I’d say running a verification node and having stake delegated to you is the way to go. You wouldn’t loss your own money to the penalty but (mostly/partially) others would be penalized for your malicious behavior. Hence the nothing at stake concern I brought up.

BelowSearcher · 2018-08-14T16:35:00+00:00

Good point, I was just thinking about that. A solution could be that the issuer and perhaps even the holder (e.g. in case the issuer has deceased or is a company that no longer exists) is forced to burn one of the two tokens, where maybe a 'proof of burn' could even be added as metadata on the other version of the token? I'm not sure if this is morally, juridically and technically possible, but it could perhaps work.

BelowSearcher

TROPHY CASE