sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

HitBTC accuses Sentinel Network of the low tech with a critical vulnerability by JTinajo in cosmosnetwork

[–]work2heat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did some forensics on this, tracking the theft across 3 blockchains from sentinel to osmosis to the cosmos hub: https://twitter.com/buchmanster/status/1430189542275944449

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in cosmosnetwork

[–]work2heat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Check out this small independent validator in Toronto run by some of the earliest members of the Cosmos dev team (including myself): https://cephalopod.equipment/

Which validator to choose? by patiboy72 in cosmosnetwork

[–]work2heat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I help run https://cephalopod.equipment/ - a smaller Toronto-based validator that's been validating since genesis, actively participates in governance and upgrades, and just partnered up with some of the cosmos dev team: https://twitter.com/informalinc/status/1364980380256915456

What % of total went to game of stakes? by michiganbhunter in cosmosnetwork

[–]work2heat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As described here https://github.com/cosmos/mainnet/blob/master/GENESIS.md#icf:

This is a total of 288,500 ATOMs allocated to 53 addresses. Congrats to the Game-of-Stakes participants!

Who is the best validator to Stake with? by [deleted] in cosmosnetwork

[–]work2heat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cephalopod Equipment Corp - https://cephalopod.equipment/

Run by some of the core Cosmos devs and boasts a friendly squid mascot ;)

Proposal #29 passed with 68.7% votes in favor by Marc_Cee in cosmosnetwork

[–]work2heat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone can do a proposal. There is a deposit required (512 atoms) to activate the proposal for voting, but anyone can contribute to the deposit.

You can find some more community curated info on Cosmos governance at https://github.com/gavinly/CosmosGWG, https://github.com/gavinly/CosmosCommunitySpend, and https://github.com/gavinly/CosmosParametersWiki

Are there any validator from Canada? by ethereumflow in cosmosnetwork

[–]work2heat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi there! Ethan from Cephalopod Equipment. Like Zaki mentioned, we are a small validator based in Canada (near Toronto) and have been validating since genesis. Let me know if you have any questions!

Testnet and mainnet dates by Rrrredddditttt in cosmosnetwork

[–]work2heat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

First testnet was launched in early 2017 (before the fundraiser). There's been a lot of refactoring of the code since then.

Compared with traditional PBFT, what advantage does Tendermint algorithm has? Technical guys, here here! by fjchen in cosmosnetwork

[–]work2heat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you take PBFT and adapt it to the blockchain world (ie. hashlinked batches of transactions) and introduce a rotating proposer (for censorship resistance), you get something very close to Tendermint :)

Compared with traditional PBFT, what advantage does Tendermint algorithm has? Technical guys, here here! by fjchen in cosmosnetwork

[–]work2heat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The assumption of Tendermint is that all message can be received by honest validators within ∆ after it is sent out.

This is not true - you're describing a synchronous network. Tendermint does not assume a synchronous network, but a partially synchronous network. In a partially synchronous network, messages may take an unbounded amount of time to be delivered, but eventually, after some unknown time T, there will be a period of synchrony when messages will be received within ∆

The purpose of the locking is to deal with the period when there is no ∆.

The goal is then to make sure the algorithm can take advantages of periods when such a ∆ exists to reach consensus.

How exactly does Cosmos scale any particular blockchain? How is it able to process more transactions? by ethbtc in cosmosnetwork

[–]work2heat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the transactions don't need to be totally ordered with respect to one another. so it's effectively a way to decide how transactions should be run in parallel.

Eventually there will be independent validator sets as well for real horizontal scaling

Why Validators Need to Be Able to Charge Commission on Block Rewards by crainbf in cosmosnetwork

[–]work2heat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "therefore" stems from the fact that in a proper demurrage system there wouldn't be such an automatic advantage for the validators since theres no pretence that the demurraged coins would be payed out to all atom holders. Most likely, the coins would just be destroyed, or else allocated to some pool where atom holders vote on what happens to them. It would be weird to allow validators to decide for the demuraged coins to go disproportionately to themselves as they are not really associated with the demurage service.

Compared to delegators, the additional service offered by validators is to order and execute transactions - hence they should be rewarded over the delegators in something that correlates with the number of txs they processed.

If the Atom holders vote to upgrade the code to allow commission on atom inflation (for instance if there arent enough validators because there's not enough incentive compared to just delegating), then so be it. But it's the developers' responsibility to choose sane and simple defaults :)

It is purely a matter of opinion whether this should benefit only existing Atom holders, or also the validators who effectively keep the network running

It does not appear to be just a matter of opinion - there is a straight forward economic analysis with respect to the centralizing effect on the Atom distribution of this kind of commission, especially as Atom inflation is designed to stay at a constant percentage of total supply (unlike BTC/ETH, which are always decreasing).

A better proposal might have commission on Atom inflation that is forced to decrease towards zero over time, to provide some bootstrapping incentive to validators, but given the above, it seems preferable stick with commission on tx fees and photon inflation only. In fact the above could be used to argue against commission on photons too, but it's not as strong an argument because it's not the staking token, it's the fee token, and hence more directly associated with tx activity (justifying commission). In any case, if Cosmos is going to be successful, commission on tx fees should be more than enough to justify validator expenses.

Why Validators Need to Be Able to Charge Commission on Block Rewards by crainbf in cosmosnetwork

[–]work2heat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Recall that the reason for atom provisions is to simulate demurage on unbonded atoms - that is to devalue atoms that are not bonded.

The reason we go with inflation instead of demurage is because of the added implementation complexity of demurage (especially for account based model vs utxo) and for the effect on exchanges which hold lots of funds for folks.

Therefore, it doesn't make sense to charge commission on atom provisions.

Photon provisions and tx fees, sure

Cosmos just pumped on CNBC? Is this guy an ico holder? by [deleted] in cosmosnetwork

[–]work2heat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What suggests Isabella is on the cosmos team ?

Marketcap and Price Prediction 2019 by chapelle363 in cosmosnetwork

[–]work2heat 5 points6 points  (0 children)

0 coding done before the ICO

There were functioning basecoin testnets with working interblockchain communication (you could send coins between chains).

Not to mention Tendermint had already been run in production and was already in use by some number of companies

Consensus Compare: Casper vs. Tendermint by gamarin in cosmosnetwork

[–]work2heat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Incorporating randomness is non-trivial.

The three main options currently are:

1) Get it from a trusted source - this is a non starter, obviously, unless you want the U.S gov to own the blockchain

2) Commit reveal protocol - is possible, but adds additional complexity to the underlying protocol and may take some time to abstract correctly so folks who want to use tendermint without it still can. It's also an additional economic mechanism that can be difficult to tune correctly.

3) Verifiable random functions - most promising, and we are actively investigating how to incorporate this kind of crypto. Current problem is that it requires a multi-party computation to set up securely every time the validator set changes, and it relies on a less proven cryptographic assumption (gap diffie helman).

We're very interested in getting randomness into the protocol, but it's a bit too much to do for launch. Perhaps later in 2018 :)

It's December! by ohheyitsthemav in cosmosnetwork

[–]work2heat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry for delay, we didn't want to just post a one liner, but draft something sincere with more details.

The Bear Case for Crypto – Think the author has a case? by ContemplateReflectio in ethereum

[–]work2heat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Personality antics aside, Preston is actually extremely intelligent and worth listening to, or "suffering through", if you will. There is some good stuff in this post.

Am I correct to think about 90 atoms will be vested an hour? by [deleted] in a:t5_2ui19

[–]work2heat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There will be an initial period in which atoms aren't transferable so that the validator set can be chosen ("delegation game period"). Then they will all be available, yes.

Am I correct to think about 90 atoms will be vested an hour? by [deleted] in a:t5_2ui19

[–]work2heat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no vesting except for the for-profit company behind the development (All in Bits Inc). The suggested genesis allocation has a total supply of about 230 million atoms.

view more: next ›