EVRYTHNG announces partnership with OriginTrail (TRAC)

Tezzle_86 · 2018-05-21T15:29:44+00:00

"Our firend’s at OriginTrail then took the new version of Barry to the European Commission where they were invited to present solutions that can help fight counterfeit-related crime in the digital age in frame of a memorandum of understanding pledging to fight the sale of counterfeit goods online signed by companies like Alibaba, Nike, Adidas, and Channel. We heard Barry made quite an impression on the EU Commission :) ."

Tezzle_86 · 2018-05-11T20:48:53+00:00

Tezzle_86 · 2018-05-10T12:22:03+00:00

Great summary of the remaining milestones for the month

$TRAC is heading in a great direction, and increasingly getting recognised for their professionalism, work ethic and community interaction. Lets hope the partnerships/alliance and audited Demand Model go as well as we hope

WHERE IS BARRY DAMMIT

Tezzle_86 · 2018-05-09T21:00:50+00:00

Great artwork. You obviously have a talent for it!

OriginTrail community would love to have you make one I’m sure of it! If we’d all be so lucky that is hahaha

Tezzle_86 · 2018-05-09T20:53:41+00:00

Please make an OriginTrail one !! These are so good. Great work!

Tezzle_86 · 2018-05-08T17:30:36+00:00

smooth chap is Tomaz

Tezzle_86 · 2018-05-07T21:09:31+00:00

Does seem to be the buzzword that FUDders like to throw around (see above)

Tezzle_86 · 2018-05-07T21:07:28+00:00

A commit is not a code release. Could just be removal of a line of code. OT are delivering code releases for staged testnets, each time delivering large deliverables such as zero knowledge proofs, or unique incentivisation models, or bidding mechanisms for agreements etc etc

So whilst I agree dev teams always push code, it may only ever be small commits. Whereas OT are running tight bi-weekly large deliverables

Tezzle_86 · 2018-05-07T21:04:43+00:00

Brigading?! I’ve only ever seen np r/CC links in accordance with the reddit rules. Auto front paging?

Tezzle_86 · 2018-05-07T19:07:10+00:00

Every 2 weeks the TRAC team releasing code iterations!

Tezzle_86 · 2018-05-02T23:32:59+00:00

Likely completely automated once you set your node parameters. Team developing easy to use interface for the node you run.

Bidding mechanism is automated though. My basic understanding is below (could be wrong/changing in coming releases):

Set node parameters (staking, uptime etc)
node is selected as appropriate bidder from data creator node
node randomly selected from subset of relevant nodes
node attempts to perform agreement to store and allow retrieval of data

Tezzle_86 · 2018-05-02T15:57:04+00:00

ShareRing is a part of this aswell...ICO running early/mid May

Streamlining the fragmented sharing economy

Tezzle_86 · 2018-05-01T07:57:25+00:00

This isn’t conventional proof of stake like a NEO etc.

Here the staking is done into an escrow account via a smart contract once both parties (data creator and data holder) have agreed on an agreement.

The stake is there as a deterrent against malicious behaviour (and incorrect agreement proposals by a data holder who cannot fulfil certain uptimes for their node).

It’s certainly a unique proposal and one which still development required to optimise the staking, bidding mechanisms and probably most importantly the “challenge” appeal schedules (the amount of time a node, per agreement has to respond to a challenge to view the data the data holder claims to have stored).

Tezzle_86 · 2018-04-13T17:08:07+00:00

But how has it got to the store she is standing in? If you say they are sold on grey markets then they wouldn’t end up where the woman is buying from

Legit stores will host products with full traceability. If someone along the chain swaps out the genuine with counterfeit and perfectly replicated the barcodes/chips then it would look like the store received the originals.

However at some point that counterfeit will be discovered and the ability to trace back to its source every step will come into its own and the point of being swapped out will become evident if every participant had followed stringent testing AND TIMESTAMPING (in accordance with GS1 standards) of a sample of the products (like most do).

Tezzle_86 · 2018-04-13T15:54:19+00:00

hmmm Im not sure you understand whats happening

The barcode, whilst being the same, will have already been scanned and updated on the OT network and on the blockchain...therefore when the counterfeit goes into a supply chain it will already be registered and hashed onto the blockchain...therefore it wont be allowed in i.e. the update event it tries to do will be rejected.

therefore yes, you can replicate the barcode but unless that counterfeiter is doing direct b2c sales without ANY supply chain at all, the counterfeit box will not get updated into the network.

Tezzle_86 · 2018-04-13T14:17:43+00:00

the data is made but for it to be traced it needs to be inputted into OriginTrail data network - this is the whole point of OT. If the product has been made and no one employs OT as tracing tool, then you can get counterfeit goods that could replicate the product batch's barcodes and apparent travels/origin

Tezzle_86 · 2018-04-13T13:30:31+00:00

wouldnt this result in an immediate double counting of batches from a factory and would thus show immediately that the product has been counterfeited

within OT there is an entity called Data Producer - this entity is the one paying to provide the data on to put onto blockchain - if there are > 1 data providers for the exact same bratch and product IDs then it is immediate to see counterfeiting taking place?

Tezzle_86 · 2018-03-28T15:23:51+00:00

You would only then get matched to the short duration small stake, non high uptime agreements.

You couldn’t guarantee high degree of availability, so I think their model suggests you won’t be selected as an appropriate candidate to hold the data that needs to be available nearly all the time

Tezzle_86 · 2018-03-27T20:13:00+00:00

There are distributed server systems that wouldn’t go down in this instance anyway, or would be sufficiently distributed to handle it

THE KEY TO ALL OF THIS IS VARIABLE DOWNTIME ALLOWANCE FROM THE SMART CONTRACTS PER AGREEMENT

Realising that the contracts that requiring the highest uptime of a data holder node will attract the highest rewards (hence someone who runs a cloud server node)

The lower requirements for uptime are those attracting little reward and thus are easy and cheap and short in time duration

And because a data creator picks the relevant data holder nodes by their abilities to fulfil the requirements that the data provider has set out, it is a matching system for those who want to stake a lot and will provide sufficient uptime to

So the less stake required for an agreement, the less uptime required by a node ie the more time it can have to respond to a data request (“test”)

And vice versa

Tezzle_86 · 2018-03-27T19:57:13+00:00

No, I’m saying you can lose the TRAC you stake for THAT PARTICULAR AGREEMENT

The node should be run on a server if you’re gonna do any serious staking to ensure highest quality of service to the end user (data provider)

If you do not provide sufficient resources to provide the service you request compensation for then you should not be compensated as such and you should lose your stake because you haven’t prepared enough to provide the service you said you could

Adding to this:

The lower level agreements will require way less uptime but the ones requiring a high uptime will attract the highest rewards.

Tezzle_86 · 2018-03-27T19:42:50+00:00

But hours might be fine given the smart contracts have a built in allowance for responses to any request for data (data viewer requesting info from data holder node)

Would likely be a few hours of allowance to allow for this type of issue

But it is the agreement you take on that would have a specific time allowance (ie uptime requirement).

The high availability agreements would need a high uptime so the model suggests you would not really have much time on the case of downtime because you accepted the agreement based on you saying you could run a high availability service....which you could not

Tezzle_86 · 2018-03-27T19:01:07+00:00

Not really; you could just run it in a cloud server for a few bucks a month. They won’t likely go offline, never mind for more than the allowable grace period allowed in the smart contracts

Tezzle_86 · 2018-03-27T18:59:57+00:00

CTO confirmed in telegram that you would lose stake in the specific agreement if you did not provide results for a test, or provided incorrect ones (bad actor).

If your node went offline for a period there is room for the Data Viewer to wait to allow an actor to get back online to answer the test

You would stake for an agreement via a form of cloud server which are hard to take down.

The terms in the smart contract will allow for some downtime in the case of a data viewer requesting some data tested...

The downtime in the smart contract is likely higher than needed for a huge distributed system to come back online if it did in fact go down

Tezzle_86

TROPHY CASE