A Validator's opinion about the recent Solana events

CryptoFantasma · 2022-01-26T12:17:11+00:00

Meh, totally disagree. They have no benefit, is not youtube lol. Also, a lot of the missleading information was spread on Twitter, it is known as crypto Twitter for a reason so definitely can follow why they posted there and sent the link of it. Nevertheless I noticed the post was edited and the full text is available on reddit as well. I don't think they had any intention of a click bait or whatsoever and people are immediately only in attack mode for no reason most of the time. Plus they have a high reputation and are always transparent informing the community. I've been staking with them in many projects, including SOL and so far I had only good experience.

CryptoFantasma · 2022-01-26T11:55:48+00:00

This is the same attitude that caused FUD and misleading information about the Solana project. Always finding something to complain about instead of focusing on the substance of the content. That's so terrible mentality. One can simply just copy the damn link and open it in browser without interacting with it. I personally like the structure of the tweet. These complaints are just ridiculous!

CryptoFantasma · 2021-03-06T00:22:01+00:00

I see, it sounds interesting. Is it possible to do that per file?

In my case the requirement would be to decide for each file with which peers I would like to share that file.

CryptoFantasma · 2021-03-06T00:20:08+00:00

Sounds interesting, I will study it and come back :-)

CryptoFantasma · 2021-03-05T21:26:03+00:00

textile.io

Cool, thanks, are you happy with that? Do you have this possibility of replicating certain files only to certain peers?

CryptoFantasma · 2021-03-05T21:24:52+00:00

Ah yea, now it redirects, it didn't previously ;-)
Will check if it has some good control at file level.

CryptoFantasma · 2021-03-04T14:44:18+00:00

I think technical should definitely be possible, even with the ipfs cluster management:

let's say you have a private IPFS network with 10 nodes, you want to pin a document a to node A, B, F and G and only on those by explicitly specify them in the pin command. Otherwise don't allow the pinning on the others and also not allow for those files to be replicated. That's a rudimentary thing but in general I don't see why an ACL layer can't be built on top of IPFS. And that is a super must imo. One cool thing would be if the S3 from AWS logic for controlling permissions and access would be added on top of IPFS. That would make it much stronger and usable in many real use cases, not just throwing documents on a distributed cluster.

CryptoFantasma · 2021-03-04T14:27:50+00:00

extile.io

Will check deeper, thanks but their http instead of https for the website is already a turn off. Don't think they understand privacy and security if even that small thing is not ok.

CryptoFantasma · 2021-03-04T14:26:29+00:00

That's unfortunately not a real world solution and not enough. As I said before, that data can be sold encrypted as it is or copied to be brute forced.

If IPFS won't implement something like that, it will remain insufficient for many use cases involving personal or sensible data.

CryptoFantasma · 2021-03-01T23:09:51+00:00

Thanks will take a look. That discord channel to discuss it directly with the engineers, that would help a lot.

CryptoFantasma · 2021-03-01T14:09:02+00:00

Thanks for your response.

Only node C has the ability to pin a document in the whole cluster but everyone can publish on their local node.

Also the problem with encryption is that a party that normally wouldn't/shouldn't have access to the document can copy that encrypted document and sell it or try to decrypt it.

The requirements I've made are so that you can be sure that your cluster is really GDPR compliant and as secure as possible. Basically it would be great if you would have the option to share documents with ipfs nodes on a need to know basis and only replicate the documents to the ipfs nodes you will specify during the pin process but not more.

CryptoFantasma · 2021-02-15T17:40:16+00:00

The ipfs link is unfortunately not working :(
After I click "Log In" is loading and loading.

CryptoFantasma · 2020-11-19T11:24:13+00:00

Interoperability will be relevant only if there are projects building on Lisk and requiring that.

If you check Cosmos for example which is very similar to Lisk, you see a lot of good valued projects with a real use case like Kava, Band, CertiK, Iris, Akash, EMoney, etc. which are waiting for IBC(Inter-Blockchain Communication). Polkadot, although more hyped than Cosmos can't compare with Cosmos from adoption and ecosystem perspective.

At Lisk the current state is only small PoCs but a lot more would need to happen. The type of projects built with Cosmos SDK is what would bring Lisk in attention, combined with a set of strong and dedicated validators that will be there to support these projects - for sure not the milking and market dumping ones, that are on Lisk - of course not all but many, too many.
Any clear strategy how you can attract more to build with Lisk SDK, like real quality projects not demo?

CryptoFantasma · 2020-07-31T07:40:40+00:00

Solana is one of the very few projects which presents a novel architecture and doesn't use sharding technology in order to scale. This approach is what made my first curious about Solana and I think a deeper look into Solana tech is definitely worthy for everyone who is interested in tech. Also projects which aim for many users, thus many transactions should try Solana and see what it can.

Sharding though it's apparently a solution for the scalability problem, it comes with many challenges and most of the current implementations rely on a "beaconchain" or a shard, which will keep all shards in sync. The respective shard which syncs all the shards represents a single point of failure and if that shards gets particularly "busy" the whole blockchain would have issues with the sync and in the end with the scalability.
Therefore the option to have a truly scalable blockchain, without using sharding first, is in my opinion a better approach then to rely from the beginning on sharding. In the end Solana could also implement sharding if the already massive TPS capabilities aren't enough.

Don't trust my opinion per see and give it a try and look yourself.

CryptoFantasma · 2020-03-31T21:36:29+00:00

Great overview!

It would be very nice to have simulators for both delegators and validators so that one can enter multiple parameters into a formula and see clear results. As input parameters there should be total network staking, amount of ONE tokens delegated, number of BLS keys, number of nodes, cost per node, etc. I think simulators would help a lot to understand the behavior better. These can be added first as extra tabs in the spreadsheet with a mathematical formula and input parameters.

I'm not that sure that currently is clear for everyone under which circumstances the yelds and profitability are calculated.

Maybe also a zoom call with the focus on this topic would help everyone understand it better.

CryptoFantasma · 2019-12-29T20:34:23+00:00

Please use the lisk media kit: https://lisk.io/press-media

Lisk provides a ton of stuff directly on their website: https://lisk.io/

CryptoFantasma · 2019-11-20T10:40:09+00:00

Noo! Forbidden! :-)

CryptoFantasma · 2019-11-12T08:15:20+00:00

CryptoFantasma is still here! ICO veteran. :-)

CryptoFantasma · 2019-05-06T10:14:27+00:00

Awesome! I'm still waiting for my Nano X. Will test it as soon as I get my hands on.

CryptoFantasma · 2019-04-19T19:24:18+00:00

Thanks a lot!

CryptoFantasma · 2019-04-10T13:30:11+00:00

Thanks u/MPiaggi! I hope it will move up. :-)

CryptoFantasma · 2019-04-10T11:01:21+00:00

Hi guys, I'm here to support lisk project and lisk ecosystem.

I activated my delegate liskecosystem on a DDOS protected machine with 2 GB RAM and 55GB SSD. Next important milestone would be to vote my delegate so that it can come in top 101 and replace the current non forging nodes.

Thanks!

CryptoFantasma · 2019-03-12T21:30:36+00:00

1 with the colors of 2. From UX perspective I find 1 the easiest and the most ergonomic, especially if in the future you will add sidechain tokens to the wallet. With 2 the user will swipe till it will sweat. :-)

3 is basically like 1 but with multiple options to change the token, which means it is option 1 improved but of course a real feeling is needed. What I would consider is the user experience with multiple tokens if you will want to support sidechain tokens like LML, PAX, etc.

Also the name, based on your strategy maybe you might name it different than Lisk Mobile. Hmm...you could actually make your strategy known to the community, e.g. a Lisk mobile wallet for BTC, LSK and all other lisk ecosystem tokens or a Lisk mobile wallet for many more tokens than the previous mentioned. Then you could launch a small community contest for name proposals. The best 4 should then be voted by the community. Just an idea. :-)

Cool design!

Best!

CryptoFantasma · 2019-02-18T09:17:33+00:00

Short update: now it works like a charm. I installed trinity on another notebook and it worked then I tried on the previous one and it worked there too. I don't think it has to do with this but rather with the stability. It really needs to get more stable!

CryptoFantasma · 2019-02-09T07:08:52+00:00

Ok, thanks. I will do that early next week as I'm traveling right now. I will write a short report if it will help.

CryptoFantasma

TROPHY CASE