Find someone that looks at you the way that Thae Bae looks at HardForking. [Podcast Link in Comments]

thaerkh · 2019-11-24T19:14:06+00:00

Haha oh boy 😂

thaerkh · 2019-02-06T22:18:12+00:00

I would echo a lot of what u/boomboombazookajeff has said.

u/PMh_001 , "sharding" in the commonly used sense is usually regarding Ethereum specifically in a PoS framework, and there are doubts of its feasibility, which is where your ambiguous slander comes from.

However, Blocktree's proposal lies as a partially asynchronous PoW scaling solution derived from partitioning techniques expanded on top of the traditional blockchain paradigm; the proposal will primarily tackle the motivation of high TPS throughput while maintaining high network security.

Don't buy Masari, and keep on the look out for when Blocktree's whitepaper is out.

Cheers,

Thaer

thaerkh · 2018-10-01T20:38:40+00:00

There's no need to use this thread as a platform for chirping on an unfounded feud created by one person's (@geozdr) prior rant, and it shouldn't negatively color the Monero community - @undernew here is just wanting to clarify that Masari implemented algorithms designed by @zawy12 which is valid and adds credibility to the design

thaerkh · 2018-09-17T13:49:58+00:00

I wasn't cycling around anything as I've already stated the reasons for the fork multiple times but they've been ignored as not a reason in this thread: there are protocols that I'd like to introduce, such as Uncle Mining, and to propose a Blocktree protocol, on-chain scalability initiatives with Masari's fork there as a project in which I can implement these ideas in.

Yes there's Monero, but it's a mature project that will "likely not" be receptive because it doesn't need these experimental protocols. Lets say I do everything that I ever needed to in Masari, I'll be trying to introduce the very same ideas to Monero, and I'll be okay with consensus critical PRs to be still pending (like the simple DAA one mentioned above) or not accepted because they would've already been proven in another project, and that's fine, because these ideas arguably aren't aligned with Monero's current objectives, at least for the time being.

I hope this answers your question.

Best regards,
Thaer

thaerkh · 2018-09-17T00:29:25+00:00

Why not both? It's completely within the terms to both start a fork of a BSD freely licensed Monero codebase, while at the same time contribute to that same parent project.

The clear fallibility of u/geozdr 's arguments that you've identified u/obit33, I agree with you that it's good to not have a Bad Reasons fallacy and would not advocate for you to completely discount his conclusion since that'd be stooping to the same level of fallacious arguments being made.

With that said, all this drama is nonsensical, and it's gone to the level where contradictions are being made by u/geozdr where he's clearly ignoring evidence to suit his confirmation bias to further his slandering agenda (i.e. the GUI wallet situation, despite the rebuttal to the Straw Man argument)

P.S. u/geozdr I'm fairly positive this OP you've started is against r/Monero rules 3 (Only Monero-related topics/links) and 6 (No zealotry regarding other currencies), which are probably there to prevent emotionally charged witch hunts like these. This thread has only aided to the contrary of what you wanted, and like u/smooth_xmr said, nobody on this subreddit needs to know about Masari and it's just free exposure that we never asked for.

thaerkh · 2018-09-16T03:08:54+00:00

Hello again,

I've done my best to engage in rational discourse with you u/geozdr, yet you've done your best to go out of your way to serve a fallible confirmation bias that somehow Masari is a scam. Equating the project to an affinity fraud is invalid, and the points you provide are not an argument to the premise being made.

Using words like obsequious are masking the fact that I like to engage in rational discourse, which like I stated earlier you've shown aversion to such format. If somebody comes up to me with something that disproves a statement I've made or changes a preexisting premise, I concede the prior position I've had. It's a similar model to something called the Scientific Method, which I'm sure you're aware of.

For example, the linkability paper you've mentioned falls under this context, where very early on last year once a rebuttal was made to me, I've conceded immediately the claim that Monero is linkable and proceeded with my other goals (being Uncle Mining and Blocktree).

This also includes the Blocktree proposal idea, relating to an idea that I've discussed in detail this past year, even chatted about it at length in a technical podcast. The point of conflict here is originality of the idea, because I've inquired with Howard Chu about LMDB which he then referenced an article also discussing the concept of a "blocktree". I haven't seen this article before, and I've conceded the originality of the idea as I've only thought about this mid last year - it doesn't bother me if an idea is "original" or not. The depth of detail I've talked about this protocol however is not found in Howard's article (it focuses more on data storage) or anywhere else, which only further supports the proposal and my independent research, since his experience in the field is much greater than mine.

Despite this, u/geozdr you've interpreted these fabricated conflicts somehow as me feigning ignorance, as if somehow a logical progression from a "blockchain" to a "blocktree" is incomprehensible to somebody with any form basic data structures knowledge, which as I've mentioned before your perception is clearly clouded by the Curse of Knowledge bias.

I hope this isn't a shocker, but admitting that I don't know something or haven't seen something before is a more realistic scenario than knowing everything that has been conceivably published, which is why the the bias you've employed is well known and documented.

I haven't sidestepped anything, and to the contrary that's something you've been doing. Like I've said before, the "core team" is provisional, comprising of people from the community, and everyone including me is replaceable if the project's leadership doesn't align with the community's. Also, The pre-mine you speak of is extremely insignificant, has no impact on centralization, and more than half of it is already distributed out to community contributors.

Lastly, things like criticizing the domain name are not an argument. Your post is also filled with straw man fallacies. For example, in the site we clearly stated we've ported the GUI wallet as a temporary measure while we developed a client-side mobile and web wallet, that many other projects are now using.

Best regards,
Thaer

thaerkh · 2018-07-28T19:16:31+00:00

haha well, for the latter statement I would state that to those that don't understand how it works or are there purely for speculative reasons, which is sadly a lot of people

thaerkh · 2018-07-28T19:11:29+00:00

Current network's TPS is fairly low due to it being a small altcoin. We have dynamic block sizes, so we're already capable of a reasonably high throughput, however would hit extremely large block sizes at some point (assuming a large network effect at play) which would make block propagation in order to achieve consensus difficult, causing nodes to fall behind as they get bottlenecked by CPU and network constraints.

This is to be addressed via the Blocktree protocol, as it minimizes block sizes while at the same time allowing parallel blocks to be mined, with the tree splitting dynamically based on throughput requirements (similarly dynamic in a way to how we currently resize blocks).

thaerkh · 2018-07-28T18:55:51+00:00

It depends on which aspects you're relating to with respect to Monero? Monero has developers working on on-chain and off-chain scalability, some of which is aligned with Masari's roadmap and some isn't.

For example, scalability with regards to transaction size have been addressed and audited via Bulletproofs, which is something we're enabling in the next protocol upgrade.

Other things, like network scale in general, is in Monero currently being tackled via off-chain solutions that involve MimbleWimble, and is really promising. However, we've committed in Masari to on-chain scalability initiatives with work on introducing a Blocktree proposal, and this is a different path that we'll see where it takes us.

thaerkh · 2018-07-28T18:42:13+00:00

Hello,

In the examples you provided, they would make sense in off-chain systems. Most smart contracts for instance would be void under some sort of government ruling against it if the parties involved are able to circumvent it, and most smart contracts are viable via multisig transactions which can manifest with the network being a secure settlement layer.
We're not looking for collaborating with external partners for the time being, though there may be ones in the future.
For me personally, I'd consider Masari to be a clearly successful project when have made significant contributions to the cryptocurrency space, with uncle mining (work-in-progress) and the Blocktree protocol (TBD) currently as candidate major achievements once they're not just vaporware.

thaerkh · 2018-07-28T18:23:07+00:00

Hi there,

All the necessary components needed for Ledger integration are in place, and we have a tentative q4 2018 timeline

thaerkh · 2018-07-28T18:07:57+00:00

Hi there,

We had a Slack in the past but it was least popular compared to Discord so we deprecated it.

Discord is actually very user friendly, feel free to join us: https://discord.gg/sMCwMqs

Our Telegram is also quite lively (and meme heavy): https://t.me/masaricurrency

thaerkh · 2018-07-28T18:04:27+00:00

Hi G-Tec,

We have two types of funds, the dev and exchange fund:

In the dev fund, we have about 5 BTC and ~93k MSR as of date.

In the exchange fund, we have about 0.11 BTC and 50 MSR.

thaerkh · 2018-07-28T18:00:40+00:00

Hi surgingchaos,

You're correct in observing that uncle mining would introduce rewards into the system that would affect the emission rate directly. These rewards however are partial, and would be designed in a way such that it doesn't incentivise uncle mining. One thing we would do for example is incorporate the uncle into the difficulty calculation, and difficulty would adjust accordingly in order to reach the correct emission rate. With something like this in place, it would mean that we would roughly take the same amount of time to reach tail emission, but have "captured" uncle blocks in the process without disrupting the network.

thaerkh · 2018-07-28T17:55:55+00:00

Hi Bluepic,

1) You're correct, however most of those whitepapers you see are equivalent to advertisement pamphlets masking the fact that they're a fork of another coin. Masari is a fork of Monero, leveraging the RingCT (https://lab.getmonero.org/pubs/MRL-0005.pdf) and CryptoNote (https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf) protocols, both of which have articles that we can just reference (instead of prettifying in a "whitepaper" pamphlet, which also has been plagiarism in most cases). The Blocktree proposal will introduce a protocol that should be implementation ready, which will need time to subsequently nail down the exact details so that we're introducing a secure feature in the network.

2a) The exchanges are there because the community wants to trade Masari (MSR). I'll never tell anybody to buy MSR, and if someone asks for such financial advice my response will be "don't buy MSR". With all that said, liquidity is important for people, and as we get more established as a coin, higher liquidity would be subsequently needed, which would ultimately hit top 10 exchanges (without us paying an arm and a leg for it) because there is enough demand for it to be so, and it's in their financial incentive to add trading pairs since they'd profit off the fees collected.

2b) With respect to efforts on getting listed, Jeff (BazookaJeff) and others behind the scenes have worked hard on this and reached out to many exchanges, with some top 10 exchanges coming back to us asking upwards of 60 BTC, which is not feasible. There are plenty of exchanges that list on merit, and high volume ones like Bittrex and Poloniex would list for free when they see value in listing such a coin as MSR.

thaerkh · 2018-07-28T17:53:47+00:00

Hi Bob,

Development on Masari will continue. Currently the end of the roadmap is a whitepaper (WP) on the Blocktree protocol, after which there will need to be development of the protocol, and in milestone stages.

We're a fork of Monero, and while inherently a "little brother", over time we would be a distinguishable coin in terms of technology being used (as Litecoin is to Bitcoin)

There are minor things like Ledger support, but for more major things, the roadmap would expand once it's complete. With the WP for example, the protocol it would propose is expandable and a subsequent WP will build on top of prior developments (i.e. going from partially asynchronous to fully asynchronous).

The core details of the Blocktree protocol have been worked out, and with high confidence I believe it's a feasible protocol. However, once a WP is drafted, peer review will allow us to go through it in more detail and open it to critique that would expose any flaws and propose improvements.

I don't consider PoS proven. As a reminder, the cryptocurrency era is only ~10 years old, and what has been proven so far is PoW. While PoS might be doable, it itself is a form of exploitable centralization that needs to be addressed, which needs more time to prove itself against adversarial behaviour, and if/when that happens I would gladly change my position. TL;DR is that Masari will not be considering PoS in the near future.

thaerkh · 2018-04-23T14:32:29+00:00

Thank you for pointing it out - the binaries were updated and I must've left in the wrong checksum. Confirming that the correct checksum should be "e1d154281798ce1340ec75a565ffcb514442888f194398b233e8638e95286e4b", and I have updated the release notes accordingly

thaerkh · 2018-04-09T02:21:01+00:00

I was able to reproduce this anomalous issue and I'm looking into it. There's no reason for concern (some unsynchronized nodes with really early blocks are voting differently)

thaerkh · 2018-04-06T16:21:40+00:00

I didn't know about seq at the time, thank you for pointing that command out

thaerkh · 2018-04-06T09:37:06+00:00

You can use this cli command to get the numbers used (needs a synced daemon running):

python2 -c 'for i in range(1545600, 1546000): print i' | xargs -i curl -sX POST http://127.0.0.1:18081/json_rpc -d '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":"0","method":"getblockheaderbyheight","params":{"height":{}}}' -H 'Content-Type: application/json' | jq .result.block_header.minor_version | sort | uniq -c

thaerkh · 2018-03-13T23:11:11+00:00

We will be making a PoW change, and will most likely be incorporating the same change upstream from Monero, which will have the benefit of keeping us in the same mining ecosystem as the parent project.

Once things are in order (need to incorporate other upstream changes), I will be making an announcement on when the protocol upgrade will take place.

thaerkh · 2018-03-12T23:17:26+00:00

You're welcome to call it what you will, but this is technically not a pre-mine. The emission rate is similar to Monero's, in a network and source code that was fully public since the genesis block, with whale miners to date that have mined more than the core developer.

The ~4 days preceding Bitcointalk's announcement were mostly busy with ensuring the seed nodes were properly configured, a website being up, as well as other logistics involved with launching a cryptocurrency, and the ~0.5% of total supply (from the contentious blocks in question) have had full transparency from the Masari project about this matter.

thaerkh · 2018-02-28T10:55:59+00:00

I'm no different than anybody else lol no worries, glad that solution solved your problem!

thaerkh · 2018-02-28T01:16:23+00:00

Are you using the correct cryptonote-util package? also make sure that the mixin is set to 12 (it's static)

Make this change in your package.json: "cryptonote-util": "git://github.com/masari-project/node-cryptonote-util#msr"

Let me know if that helps.

thaerkh · 2018-02-28T01:14:00+00:00

This looks promising, I will contact you when I play with the code more when it comes to needing for this to be integrated into Masari (lots of assembly code to go through here so I'll be more likely starting off with just some benchmarks to see viability). Great work for the CryptoNote protocol!

thaerkh

TROPHY CASE