วีดีโอ

If you want to run a node on Kadena, you have to either choose a shard and only verify that the shard you chose is valid and just trust that the other shards are honest or run a node for every single shard. So it hasn't solved scalability if you want to be able to verify the whole network by running a node like you can with BTC/ETH.

@@altexplainer so wrong Kadena solved the Trilemma and the scalability. Period.🙂

I've looked into ouroboros Leios since the research paper came out but it looks like there's still a lot more research needed for how it will be implemented and there are still many unanswered questions around it so I think Leios is still multiple years away. I might make a video when it's more concrete. From my understanding, essentially validators will run a VRF for producing input blocks which occur much more often and are blocks that contain transactions. They will also run a VRF to produce reference blocks which are blocks that reference the hash of many input blocks. They also run another VRF to vote on if a reference block and all the input blocks it references are available to be downloaded and there is no information missing. After this, it's less clear on how it will work. It seems like they will keep the current ouroboros but instead of block winners including transactions in their blocks, they include references to one or many reference blocks that have passed the threshold of data being available. I'm not sure if the current consensus is fast enough for this as a reorg would mean potentially re-running a bunch of blocks so nodes would need to have extra unused capacity for these situations which is against what Leios is aiming to do in utilising more of the nodes capacity. There's still a lot of uncertainty on how it will actually be implemented.

tbh I need to learn more about actual cryptography to understand it. It seems to be using elliptic curve pairing based cryptography to aggregate signatures together similar to the BLS signatures used in Ethereum. These aggregated signatures can then be used in things like state proofs and are basically just the validators all signing something and aggregating their signatures together so it doesn't use much space.

@@altexplainer nice, no problem. I’ll continue to watch these videos anyways - I appreciate the content

It's already been released. No one it using it though

ETC uses proof of work and isn't used anywhere near as much as ETH. One of the main things that add value for cryptocurrencies is network effects. The more people who use a crypto, the more valuable it becomes. ETC isn't really being used so isn't better than ETH.

They still have their private key that can create signatures. They can't create blocks from after they stopped staking but can create blocks from before this. e.g. They started staking at block 100 and stopped at block 150. The chain is now on block 200. The attacker can't create a valid block after 150 but can create a valid alternate block between blocks 100 and 150. They could create this alternate block but this time in their alternate chain, not make the un-staking transaction. Then they can continue building the chain on-top of this block as in this alternate chain, they are still an active validator. No one else who is online would recognise this alternate chain as they could see it wasn't made on time but for new nodes joining the network, they will see 2 valid chains and will need help deciding which is correct.

@@altexplainer Very well explained, very knowledgeable !!! big hugs !! But why does it have to be 51% staked for this secret fork to happen ? and how could this secret fork chain be heavier than the real chain ? And did anything like this ever happen in the past in ethereum history and how was it solved ?

This attack is theoretical for proof of stake chains. Ethereum uses weak subjectivity as mentioned in the video to prevent it from happening in the first place.

1. Yes attestation is basically the same as a vote. 2. Only 16 random validators are chosen to produce a BLS signature. You only need 1 person to do it per committee but 16 are chosen for redundancy incase the 1 person chosen is offline or doesn't receive the signatures from everyone. 3. Yes if many validators aren't voting they will get punished by the inactivity leak so will eventually go below 16.75 ETH which is when they will be ejected from the active validator set. The validators that were voting will then make up a higher percentage of the active validator set so should be able to hit 67% again and reach finality. Thanks, glad it's been useful

Yes this is correct. All consensus methods are basically ways to vote

Glad I could help, I also had to do a lot of reading to finally figure out data availability. The way it's normally described is not intuitive

It’s not manual for the user but for the application developer. Only thing the user will do is commit funds. All the rest is abstracted.

eth2book.info/capella/part2/incentives/rewards/ This is a good resource for more in-depth areas of Ethereum staking. The reward for validators comes from newly minted Ether but it's hard to predict the exact rate of minting as the more validators in the network, the more Ether gets minted. The burn rate still works the same as EIP-1559 and is also difficult to predict as it comes from how much users are willing to pay in transaction fees. During bull markets there will be more fees burned and during bear markets there will be less.

You are right, it looks like I accidentally used 1,200,000,000 for the calculations. I don't think I can do anything to edit the video but I'll see if I can add a correction somewhere. Thanks for pointing it out

No problem at all just wanted to make sure I was understanding ok. Great video btw - best I've found on TH-cam. Its well paced and gives credible, and deep explanation with highly effective visuals. More please, greatly appreciated! @@altexplainer

I don't think the trilemma is solvable so it's more down to what aspects you think are more important. I think crypto's main use case is being high security so chains that aim for high security and decentralisation are best. Then to get scalability we should use L2's. Out of the L2's I've looked at, rollups and validiums seem the best and Ethereum is by far the furthest ahead with using these so currently Ethereum is the closest to solving the trilemma. For governance, it's going to be difficult to beat the existing social consensus model. Using stake seems like a worse option as it leaves any vote up to a few whales who own all the stake. I don't really see any good governance models out there yet and think a lot more experiments will be needed. I also don't think L1's should be experimenting with governance at all and we should leave all governance experiments to L2's until one of them finds something good.

​@altexplainer you must *hate* CIP-1694 then 😅

Which would take priority? If there's a fork and fork A has the majority of the hashpower but fork B has the majority of the stake which one wins? If proof of stake always wins over proof of work in a fork, why not just fully switch to proof of stake?

The L1 will only accept new updates from the rollup if the rollup provides data. If the rollup shuts down without sharing the latest data, the latest changes won't be accepted on the L1 so users can still withdraw from the L1 from an older state as the newer states aren't valid. Erasure coding means if you have 50% of the data you can recreate 100% of the data. This means if you sample some of the data from a node and have made enough samples to be statistically confident that the node has more than 50% of the data, then you can be confident that enough data has been shared so that 100% of the data can be recreated. This allows a light client to only sample a small amount of data to confirm a large amount of data has been published/made available without having to download all the data itself.

@@altexplainer thanks but what if the sequencer shuts down after posting to L1? If you do not withdraw immidiately, then the data is not available anymore?

If they post to L1 without sharing the data the L1 will reject their post. You will be able to withdraw through the last valid post that did contain data.