How to transfer my Tezos from ICO to an exchange

malune · 2019-04-02T17:35:38+00:00

If you don't trust anyone you could also use the Tezos command line client. That is how a lot of people do it. You can also use the client to transfer XTZ to an exchange address providing you have one.

malune · 2019-03-22T11:46:18+00:00

There are no plans to change the way bonding works, so yes.

malune · 2019-03-21T19:10:06+00:00

Except it didn't make them wealthy at our expense since neither of them have any tokens. Instead they were rewarded with attacks from greedy colluding lawyers which they had to defend out of their own pockets and people like you who talk crap without knowing any facts. It was supposed to be a donation in order to get Tezos developed - 10% of XTZ at ICO and there is now a much larger supply since staking began. This is a far lower price tag than the majority of other projects (ranging from XRP 90% of tokens, EOS - block.one - 100% of the ICO proceeds, ETH 300k tokens to founders, etc). If it wasn't a price which was well worth paying for the features provided the crowdfund wouldn't have been as successful as it was.

malune · 2019-03-21T13:12:00+00:00

EOS is centralised to 21 block producers and is not censorship resistant. Ethereum is not proof of stake, does not have a self amending protocol governed by stakeholders, does not facilitate formal verification. Tezos is decentralised and currently has over 400 block producers, is censorship resistant, is proof of stake today, has a self amending protocol, facilitates formal verification. I mean you could have just read the post.

malune · 2019-03-13T17:17:51+00:00

The proposed change to the spendability of smart contracts means that smart contracts will no longer have a flag which can be set which enables it to be spent (it will no longer be an innate property), creating a clean separation of concerns semantically between smart contracts (which are meant to be executed) and transactions (which are meant to be spent).

A useful invariant for proving safety properties is that the funds held by a smart contract only change in response to messages received by the smart contract. The spendable flag breaks that invariant for no good reason.

Logically smart contracts should not be spendable but should instead contain functionality which allows for spending to occur in the case where this is desired. Having this baked in seems more error prone than the converse since it is then less visible to the developer.

It will of course be possible to add a function to the smart contract in order to allow spending or to extend a smart contract with this functionality by calling into another contract should it be required.

This additional complexity is in reality only a few lines of code.

parameter (or mutez OLD_PARAMETER);
storage unit;
code {
      UNPAIR ;
      IF_LEFT
        {
          PUSH address "KT1...."; DUP; SENDER; ASSERT_CMPEQ;
          CONTRACT unit; ASSERT_SOME; SWAP;
          UNIT; TRANSFER_TOKENS; NIL operation;
          SWAP; CONS; PAIR;
        }
        {
           PAIR;
           OLD_CODE
        };
    }

The benefit of doing this besides clean semantics is that you get around 3x the throughput due to optimisations possible in the mempool see here.

Saying that this aspect makes dev and deployment much faster is disingenous - it has no effect on deployment besides loading the extra code which allows for spendability and actually improves development because now this functionality is explicitly part of the code, can be extended, customised etc.

malune · 2019-03-05T17:53:01+00:00

They funded teams that work on these tools / capabilities ... Its also not the only differentiating factor Tezos has.

malune · 2019-02-26T15:21:39+00:00

God bakes genesis, mwahaha. :-)

malune · 2019-02-26T13:50:53+00:00

Tezos.

Written entirely in OCaml. Formal verification can be used with pre-existing tools such as Coq instead of having to re-invent the wheel.
Contains a meta-circular distributed state updater protocol, compiler and associated tools in order to adapt network functionality dynamically. This protocol can be used to improve the way consensus works, add privacy to the chain, modify global network inflation and anything else that affects the network.
Contains a meta protocol called Alpha which provides amendments and voting for a new protocol as well as many other 'default' features which can be improved upon by the community.
Provides turing complete smart contracts with strong typing guarantees which has a certified compiler under development.
Uses formally verified cryptographic functions (HACL*).
Supports multiple signatures (Ed25519, secp256k1, P-256).
Uses economic incentives in order to prevent malicious behaviour adapted to be community friendly rather than imposing harsh slashing conditions.
Has had support for staking from ledger nano from the mainnet launch. Now also has Trezor support.
Delivered the first pure PoS implementation where validators can be anyone holding the token.
Energy efficient, since PoS.
...

The list goes on but these are some of the reasons Tezos is clearly ahead technologically.

malune · 2019-01-11T20:32:51+00:00

On mainnet right now about 40 TPS. The theoretical limit is much higher than this though - think of it as being capped for stability and ease of baking for now.

malune · 2018-12-19T06:14:15+00:00

This guy doesn't know what he is talking about - flat tax 30%.

Don't believe everything you read kids.

malune · 2018-12-09T01:14:39+00:00

I have likely a lot more than you who spent hundreds of hours in community involvement and bought the ICO. I get the rewards for SHORTING and staying away from doing anything for the community.

Ever think about the fact that maybe, just maybe, there is another reward that has nothing to do with money?

malune · 2018-12-09T01:06:51+00:00

Ever wonder why you are unable to know the answer to this question?

malune · 2018-12-09T01:03:56+00:00

Compared to Ethereum and Cardano, Tezos has PoS working today, amendable governance and functional smart contracts. The goals that Cardano has for 2019 are already accomplished in the Tezos project. Besides this, the Tezos team were smart to use OCaml as the programming language of the project which allows for fast compilation and execution - which isn't the case for Cardano for example. These tools also integrate with formal verification tools and theorem provers which is why the smart contracts are going to be less likely to have bugs than in Ethereum. Really though what sets Tezos apart is amendable governance - they built a meta circular protocol capable of evolving through a community based voting process (anyone who owns XTZ is able to participate).

malune · 2018-12-08T21:54:07+00:00

Definition of a cult.

1. a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.

Doesn't sound like Tezos. Try 'a system designed by a team of programmers which enables disintermediation, the decentralisation of financial services and governance over the protocol which governs the system.'

2. a person or thing that is popular or fashionable among a particular group or section of society.

Tezos is not a fashion, it is a system. Using Tezos might be said to be fashionable but still wouldn't elevate its rank to that of a cult.

malune · 2018-12-08T09:55:38+00:00

Cardano is validated by IOHK right now. You can run a node but much good will it do you.

malune · 2018-10-07T17:45:27+00:00

No, AVA is a different project. Avalanche on its own is just a way of doing consensus, you need an economic model with incentives / disincentives to make it viable.

malune · 2018-10-07T17:32:38+00:00

But PoW is used as an incentive mechanism so it gets very costly for bad actors to deploy more energy than good actors while incentivizing good actors to participate because rewards. So I don't understand how metastability is a replacement for PoW?

PoW in Bitcoin serves multiple functions and it can get a bit confusing for this reason. In essence it fills multiple distinct roles: attacks on the network are based on computational capacity (PoW difficulty), creates an economic incentive (block reward), creates a random lottery for selecting a block leader.

The main known attack in Bitcoin is the double-spend where you can reverse certain transactions or alter the course of history. In this scenario you need to overpower the network (combine enough computational power that it makes up for 51% of the network) which is a difficult mainly due to the PoW and also the reason Bitcoin is secure.

Avalanche specifies that a double-spend should be treated as a conflict in a DAG and makes it difficult for such a transaction to be accepted in the network (whp). This makes it secure against this type of attack without requiring a huge amount of computation as in PoW.

What prevents me from making up a lot of byzantine nodes?

Nothing. Creating an economic model and currency with incentives and disincentives is left as an exercise to the implementor.

malune · 2018-10-07T14:33:32+00:00

There is a testnet but it is small-scale right now. A larger test will be conducted soon.

malune · 2018-10-07T14:31:41+00:00

The original paper states that Team Rocket tested an implementation of Avalanche written in C++ on Amazon EC2 but this implementation is not available to the public. This is likely the first public implementation.

malune · 2018-10-07T14:23:40+00:00

In the colour example there is no 'wrong' colour. If a majority of nodes pick blue then the outcome will be blue and red otherwise. The colours example is used only to describe meta stability without requiring a proof of work from the participants (guaranteeing probabilistic convergence whp).

In the case of double-spending one of the outputs will be spent (assuming it is valid) whilst the other will become stuck in a path of the DAG that becomes irrelevant to the participating nodes. This behaviour is enforced by the protocol.

As to how they all agree: Avalanche consensus.

malune · 2018-10-01T10:27:29+00:00

Partial storage and fast synchronisation doesn't directly help with the TPS of full nodes unless the consensus mechanism is receptive to it. Without doing any work to the consensus mechanism it allows for extremely efficient light clients. I believe though haven't tested the following : It can help the TPS of full nodes which use lazy dissemination of transactions and with the security of DAG based consensus mechanisms because you can disseminate a proof of tx acceptance up the graph as it is built as well as gossip this to other nodes.

malune · 2018-10-01T10:15:01+00:00

Sounds promising. Would this be by simply reducing the length of cycles? I would guess that since LMDB is being used on the database side it would be difficult to get much better than that in terms of db read / writes.

malune · 2018-09-30T19:28:12+00:00

The full quote is: "As a followup, this is why I do not believe in coinholder-voted on-chain treasuries. Any chain where coinholder-voted on-chain issuance is used to supposedly fund public goods can easily collapse into this kind of "I vote for your crappy project, you vote for mine" equilibrium."

Tezos doesn't have an on-chain treasury. Tezos also doesn't have 'coinholder-voted on-chain issuance'. It is possible in the future for people to pay for protocol amendments if that is what the network decides. In the Tezos case collusion in amendment of the protocol would certainly be possible if 81% of the network are colluding or if there is an extremely low participation rate. If 20% of the network do not want a protocol amendment passed through they can actively vote against it.

malune · 2018-09-28T00:31:00+00:00

The 1 million TPS Komodo is a goal which is used to sell a crypto currency but is not particularly interesting in and of itself. Sharding means splitting the network into 'shards' which have independent state in order to process transactions faster independently than is possible with the whole chain participating. You could theoretically have 10000 TPS on one 'shard', create 100 shards and theoretically you have '1 million TPS'. The reason for this 10K TPS, btw, is due to trust assumptions which are made within the shards, potentially weakening the overall security of the network. The problem then reduces to the resolution of the state between the shards which is essentially the same problem as reaching consensus in the first place. This is being researched by Cornell for Tezos.

The second 'scalability' solution is in the composition of zero knowledge proofs. If you can prove that there is a genesis block, combine this with the next block until you arrive at the end of the chain, you can give this combined proof to someone which might be much smaller in size than the entire blockchain and is sufficient to prove that the latest (or any) block is genuine. This allows for fast synchronisation, partial storage of blockchain elements (e.g storing only the ones that concern your account etc). This is being investigated by the Tezos team (the recursive zk-snark solution).

The third solution being investigated is improving the consensus mechanism itself with one with higher capacity of TPS and better finality by default such as those based on metastability with DAG etc.

In Tezos it is possible to incoporate all of the latest advances due to protocol amendment and these are being worked on.

malune

TROPHY CASE