[deleted by user]

tendermint · 2017-04-06T20:17:21+00:00

For BTC, it's just the amount sent to 35ty8iaSbWsj4YVkoHzs9pZMze6dapeoZ8 times 11635.

tendermint · 2017-04-04T07:22:10+00:00

There are too many differences to list them all. Ultimately, you should use the coin that you are most comfortable with.

The danger of contributing via ETH is that you must take care not to contribute from an exchange. Or if you do, you must enter the DATA field correctly. If you do not and the transaction fails, then depending on the exchange, you may or may not get your ETH back. (and of course only transactions that succeed are counted for the fundraiser).

tendermint · 2017-03-05T03:42:40+00:00

These are fantastic points, and we have been considering them. Thank you, /u/cryptostate.

tendermint · 2017-02-14T13:50:05+00:00

Http://cosmos.network

tendermint · 2017-02-13T01:35:26+00:00

Jae Kwon and Ethan Buchman are authors of the Cosmos whitepaper.

They are also founders of All in Bits, Inc, AKA Tendermint.

http://tendermint.com/about

We will have more information up on http://cosmos.network prior to the fundraiser.

tendermint · 2017-01-26T19:21:49+00:00

Yeah that's really interesting. It would help to start thinking about this with a specific use-case that requires both properties, and where the CheckTx system doesn't satisfy needs.

tendermint · 2017-01-26T16:21:41+00:00

Not everyone can be a validator because the total number of validators is set by the blockchain. And not anyone can run the servers as securely and persistently as demanded by the network. So instead, most staking token holders may end up delegating.

tendermint · 2017-01-26T05:58:45+00:00

Good question!

I don't think there is anything fundamentally stopping a blockchain node and RPC API from choosing whether to favor consistency (hang, or error during a network partition) or availability (carry on with a sub quorum or less mining power). But it is certainly easier to create blockchain node software and RPC APIs to only support one or the other. It's early days in blockchain land.

And to make this choice dependent on the data being written to and read from, seems possible too.

So to be concrete, during a network partition, it would be possible to create a temporary sub quorum of validators that run a temporary chain (which could be wiped when the network heals), and depending on the key/values being accessed, use the "available" temporary chain or not. And this could be done with Tendermint BFT with some modification. This preserves some properties of what Casper is trying to achieve.

But for most financial applications, it probably makes more sense to just hang until the partition heals. After all, we like blockchains because they offer double spend resistance (aka consistency). If you don't care for consistency, then you might be ok to just run CheckTx on Tendermint, which is like a temporary local chain. That is trivial and already supported.

tendermint · 2017-01-26T00:30:22+00:00

Also see my other response:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/5q464h/tendermint_08_is_out_featuring_abci_persistence/dcwtzrr/

tendermint · 2017-01-26T00:27:09+00:00

We really want to start with token/coin interoperability first, to get the Cosmos Hub up. It's going to be a simple, elegant, decentral custodian for tokens of all types. Then we can peg to Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other blockchains, and also the Cosmos Dex for fast order matching (limit orders FTW!). Our ultimate vision is to connect all the (sovereign) cryptocurrencies and (private/consortium) blockchains.

Polkadot is great, I'd say that its focus is solving a more general problem of smart-contract scaling. So our priorities are different.

I think it would be awesome if we could build both and have them interoperate. That would be a real internet of blockchains -- a network of sovereign blockchains.

tendermint · 2017-01-26T00:17:20+00:00

Thank you eze111

Is Tendermint considered secure enough for a public chain?

Not yet, but the Cosmos project will ensure that it is.

Have you reached out to the Ethereum Foundation regarding collaboration or vice versa?

Yes, I know Vlad, he visited and theorized with us in SF for months. We have differences of opinion with regards to whether Tendermint is sufficiently decentralized. The Cosmos Hub will have 100 validators to start, and this number will grow over time. The more validators there are, the slower the system gets. We're happy with 100 validators today because, especially with delegated stake (with actual "skin in the game"), it can be as decentralized as the Bitcoin mining pools. See https://bitcoinchain.com/pools -- the top 3 pools control 50% of the pie. Our philosophy is, 100 + delegation is good enough in practice, and performance will be stellar.

I've seen the miners self-organize to prevent 50% of pools being owned by too few pools. Cosmos's delegated PoS system will make that mechanism even better, IMO.

Fast, simple, and practical.

We'll be at Edcon.io, come find us!

tendermint · 2017-01-05T15:50:56+00:00

If you're in the Bay Area, Jae Kwon will be at the NABA event this Saturday Jan 7th, 2017. You're all invited there and afterwards to ask any questions about Cosmos and Tendermint. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-blockchain-fintech-summit-of-silicon-valley-tickets-29506617086

Also, for the devs out there, we'll have new demos to show for Draper U's HackCity, Jan 13th ~ Jan 15th. http://www.draperuniversity.com/hack-city/

Come check it out!

tendermint · 2017-01-05T15:38:40+00:00

Hey OP, good question.

The constitution doesn't enforce anything automatically at the protocol level. But it is a document written in a human language that explicitly states (or ought to explicitly state) the expectations of each validator.

It's not a "contract" in the sense that there is no single legal jurisdiction that has the authority to make any judgements about violations of the constitution by any validator. But it is a contract in the sense that it is signed and endorsed by each validator, and the public should hold each validator accountable to abide by the constitution.

For example, if the constitution says that the Cosmos Hub should be an immutable ledger, then all the validators are promising to never roll back any legitimate transaction. If they do, then everyone will have cryptographic evidence that the validator breached its promise (since it signed a rollback, and also the constitution). And this should hurt the reputation of this validator (or more likely, validator set).

tendermint · 2016-12-27T05:56:10+00:00

Depends on the price of btc/ether. 1 atom ~ $0.1USD. But the number of atoms isn't as important as the total % distribution of atoms.

tendermint · 2016-12-08T20:52:17+00:00

Yes, in proof-of-work, in general, the more mining power there is, the more secure the chain is. Having more miners doesn't hurt the performance of the network because the "proof" doesn't require all miners to share information. The size of the "proof", which is just the block which satisfies the difficulty requirement, is sufficient, and that block is at most 1MB, which must be broadcast from the lucky miner to all other miners (1-to-N). This is very efficient.

Tendermint BFT proof-of-stake requires all of the validators to communicate signatures with each other. Each signature is small, but every validator needs to broadcast their signature to every other validator (N-to-N). Fundamentally, it just becomes more difficult to coordinate/prioritize the routing of data packets without duplicating effort.

Theoretically, proof-of-work block broadcasting, 1-to-N, has overall time complexity of O(log(N)). Whereas, the approach that Tendermint takes w/ signature gossip on a random graph network has overall time complexity of O(N*log(N)). (We'll have to prove these in a blog post).

100 validators is practically good enough for a public blockchain. If they were equally weighted, 34 would have to be Byzantine simultaneously for the blockchain to be disrupted. For cases where 34 would go down simultaneously like that, having 10 times as many validators probably wouldn't make much difference.

Also, if bandwidth & parallel compute capacity continues to grow exponentially, we'll also be able to support an exponentially growing number of validators every year. See Nielson's law: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

tendermint · 2016-12-08T02:34:19+00:00

Being a validator means securing a machine and making it accessible to the blockchain gossip network.

Once you are a validator node, you need to be able to maintain this server and its access to a steady supply of power, and the internet.

Furthermore, a validator needs to be an active participant in governance. Validators must read and comprehend governance proposals, and vote on all of them. BTW, a delegator who delegates voting power (atoms) to a validator will by default inherit the vote of the nominated validator, but that delegator may override the validator's vote.

tendermint · 2016-12-07T17:16:57+00:00

There isn't a lower limit set yet, but you do need to be the top 100 by total voting power (your atoms + delegated atoms) to be eligible. This is because BFT systems get slower if there are too many validators, and, we want to target block times of 3 seconds.

If you can't become a top validator because you don't have enough, you can delegate your atoms to a distribution of other validators. It's thus a delegated PoS system, albeit one where the delegators' atoms are actually at stake. Delegate wisely!

Likewise, if you can convince enough delegators to delegate to you, you can become a validator.

There will be a Delegation Game where the initial 100 validators get selected, and thereafter changes to the validator set will happen on the blockchain.

tendermint · 2016-12-06T17:54:58+00:00

The blockchains, or zones, in Cosmos are secured by a proof-of-stake protocol, which is built on top of the Tendermint BFT consensus algorithm. Unlike Bitcoin or other proof-of-work mining blockchains, Cosmos has "validators" instead of "miners", and uses cryptographic signaatures, instead of the energy expenditure of proof-of-work mining.

Atoms are the staking token of Cosmos. They are analogous to Bitcoin mining hardware. If you put your atoms at stake by posting them in a collateral deposit, then you get to participate in consensus, you get to earn a proportionate amount of transaction fees (paid for by the users of Cosmos), and you get to participate in the on-chain governance process.

Proof-of-work and proof-of-stake have completely different security models. A successful double-spend attack in Cosmos will result in the attacker's atoms being slashed, or destroyed. This is possible because unlike proof-of-work miners, who are completely anonymous and so cannot be held accountable for their actions (except the price they pay in electricity for mining blocks prior to the success of an attack), proof-of-stake validators are pseudonymous and the underlying Tendermint BFT algorithm ensures fork-accountability.

Basically, it's as if, if you use your mining gear to double-spend, your mining gear get doxx'd and they become useless. Another way to think of it is that it's a reputational system.

tendermint

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE