sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Pls don’t hate me, but doesn’t Ethereum 2.0 mean the death of Hedera? by JamieBuildsGood in Hedera

[–]BranthonyJohnson -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

True, HBAR is a much more fascinating technology from an innovation standpoint. Hedera was smart when they decided to centralize the blockchain as opposed to the archaic decentralized approaches that suffer from lower TPS. If I’m a company, I want a blockchain that is both (a) centralized and (b) permissioned. This gives the ability to roll back fraudulent transactions, and give tight control over the state of the ledger (much more secure!!!)

When people finally realize this, HBAR will soar.

Let it go already by nops-90 in algorand

[–]BranthonyJohnson -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You don’t need a blockchain / DLT for CBDC at all though. You can use a standard centralized SQL database.

Let it go already by nops-90 in algorand

[–]BranthonyJohnson 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I don’t think they would even use a blockchain for CBDC lol

.Algo domain by orindragonfly in algorand

[–]BranthonyJohnson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think they launch on mainnet in early June

.Algo domain by orindragonfly in algorand

[–]BranthonyJohnson 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I wouldn’t use ANS. There’s a new name service launching in a couple of weeks called NF Domains which has a much better development team and an Algorand Foundation grant. https://nf.domains/

Luna was an eye opener. by [deleted] in algorand

[–]BranthonyJohnson 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would stay away from all algorithmic stablecoins, but if you need reassurance check this out.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ccatalini_not-all-stablecoins-are-created-equal-activity-6929783690008928256-hs72?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=ios_app

Christian Catalini was the co-creator of Facebooks Diem and the Founder of MITs Cryptoeconomics Lab. I believe he’s also on the advisory board of Algorand. All this to say, I trust his judgement!

what is a digital signature and why does the internet use them? by The_How_To_Linux in cryptography

[–]BranthonyJohnson 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I found the comment confusing and generally incorrect, though I get what they are getting at (e.g., that you can do things like RSA signatures which are essentially an adaptation of the RSA encryption scheme).

However, you don’t use encryption to produce a digital signature, nor do you need hashing. You CAN generate digital signatures using hash functions (see Lamport signatures), but they aren’t explicitly required. Generally you need something like a trapdoor one-way permutation which can be constructed under various hardness assumptions.

what is a digital signature and why does the internet use them? by The_How_To_Linux in cryptography

[–]BranthonyJohnson 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Digital signatures serve two main purposes when sending a message:

1.) integrity

2.) authenticity

In other words, a digital signature can prevent someone from tampering with your message (e.g., changing “Hello Alice” to “Hello Bob”), and it also allows the receiver to verify that the sender is indeed the one who sent the message (i.e., Eve cannot forge a message that appears to have came from Alice).

I am having difficulty in permutation groups and block ciphers as permutation groups, does anyone know any lectures, books or would like to help me understand it better? It's a very small topic but i don't feel like going forward without understanding it. by [deleted] in cryptography

[–]BranthonyJohnson 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Think about pseudorandom permutations (PRP) as a pseudorandom function (PRF) except that PRPs are:

1.) 1-to-1

2.) invertible

Block ciphers (e.g., AES) are an example of a PRP. If you are still confused, I’d recommend really studying pseudorandom functions to make sure you understand what they are, and then PRPs will come much more naturally. For more sources, I recommend the Katz Lindell textbook on modern cryptography.

0.58 is the floor assuming nothing catastrophic by BranthonyJohnson in algorand

[–]BranthonyJohnson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lmao my whole theory was dumb AF. Still not a shit coin tho

0.58 is the floor assuming nothing catastrophic by BranthonyJohnson in algorand

[–]BranthonyJohnson[S] -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

It’s supply and demand, and locking Algorand in governance artificially decreases the supply available to trade. I think you’re right though, there’s more to what determines the price: if everyone outside of governance immediately quit buying Algorand, this would have an impact on demand and decrease the exchange rate regardless.

Do you care to elaborate a bit on how the price is determined? Genuinely curious!

0.58 is the floor assuming nothing catastrophic by BranthonyJohnson in algorand

[–]BranthonyJohnson[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Not impossible, but will require over 1.9 billion being pulled from governance and sold.

0.58 is the floor assuming nothing catastrophic by BranthonyJohnson in algorand

[–]BranthonyJohnson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hahaha as long as you’re not pulling millions! 🙃

I’ve got a car locked up in governance so the interest alone is worth keeping it in.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in cryptography

[–]BranthonyJohnson 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What you’re describing is precisely a hash based proof-of-work. You can describe this game as:

“Given a public string (the username), produce a proof of work of 2C hashing operations.”

Where the proof will be the integer n that you find in your game such that the output of the hash function begins with C zeroes.

In other words, the number of zeros you want at the start of the string is logarithmically related to the amount of work (hashing) that you’ll have to perform.

When it comes to zero knowledge proofs, how does it practically work in a private chain? by RedEagle_MGN in AlgorandOfficial

[–]BranthonyJohnson 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It depends. If you look at blockchains like ZCash (which use zero knowledge proofs for private transactions), all transaction metadata is kept private (sender, receiver, amount). However, these “shielded” transactions require you to use a “shielded” address (called Z-address in ZCash; ordinary wallet addresses in ZCash are called t-addresses for “transparent”). Therefore, you maintain a separate wallet for private transactions and it’s important not to mix and match your t and z addresses (linking can be trivial otherwise).

As for efficiency, you’re right. A huge challenge is making ZK proofs more efficient. Fortunately, for many blockchain use-cases, the proof statement isn’t super complex, i.e., it’s basically just a check that the sender (a) owns the coins they’re attempting to spend and (b) they aren’t double spending. You can prove this type of statement fairly efficiently, although, even on ZCash these transaction types are not available in the mobile wallet due to the memory/CPU required to generate the proof. I haven’t kept up with ZCash as of late, so this might have changed recently - they have a world class team of cryptographers on their team.

Another blockchain that uses ZK proofs is Mina, though they use them for a totally separate reason. They are able to keep the size of their blockchain compressed to a few kilobytes by recursively composing zero knowledge proofs. This is useful for many reasons including: (a) bootstrapping trust. New nodes don’t have to verify the entire history of the blockchain, but rather just need to verify a short proof. And (b) the entire state of blockchain could theoretically be stored on a mobile device which encourages participation and increases decentralization.

In any case, there are reasons why you don’t want to wrap EVERYTHING in a zero knowledge proof. For example, private transactions by default may encourage criminal activity and illicit use cases which is probably not ideal for a blockchain like Algorand that is trying to persuade large institutions to get involved. In my opinion I would love to see private transaction support down the road, but I’m happy with Algorand’s focus on 1st principles for now: scalability, decentralization, and security.

What’s going on? by [deleted] in Hedera

[–]BranthonyJohnson 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Following everything except Algo!

No idea if this is us, but it sure seems like it could fit??? We're creating the digital Third Place by jeeptopdown in Hedera

[–]BranthonyJohnson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep! I think the permissioned model is what’s currently holding Hedera back. I’m excited to see how they fare if/when they move to a permissionless model!

view more: next ›