SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: maceng2 who wrote (178323)9/15/2021 5:14:17 AM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 217592
 
<<Cryptos>> link to hardware discussed by one of the band. Am learning, or trying to keep up. Used to study computer structures. Never worked with whatever knowledge gained in the field of IT, but am familiar-enough for casual curiosity purpose. Enough vocabulary here not familiar that I needed to google along.

reddit.com

What happened to SOL summer??


I need to re-share this. On one of my previous posts where i compared CSPR to AVAX, someone commented asking why I was focusing on the hardware requirements for validators in the comparison:

reddit.com

We can see now with the disruption to SOL, why you cannot start off too heavy weight in terms of specs required for hardware. Blockchains only grow and so getting the requirements on day 1 just right is more important than most people understand. Have a fancy 2 protocol sharded mechanism to increase throughput is irrelevant when it brings down the entire networks. So to recap...here AGAIN, is our comparison of CASPER VS SOLANA:

ghoststaking.com

Summary:

Network nodes:

The SOL network of 200 physically distinct nodes are all run with GPUs. Where each node requires 256 GB of RAM.

CSPR at present has 100 validators which are able to run on standard servers as the node only required 32 GB of RAM

Commentators have repeatedly highlighted the fact that the cost to run a Solana node is much higher than in other networks.

Decentralization:

SOL’s degree of decentralization is still very much up for debate. To become a validator on Solana, an individual would need to shell out thousands of dollars in hardware. This is in contrast with other blockchains including CSPR where anyone can become a validator for much less.

With regard to the tokens:

60% of SOL are controlled by the project’s founders and the Solana Foundation.

This compares with CSPR which totals 24% (where the team hold 8%, advisors hold 6% and CasperLabs Holdings AG holds 10%).

Throughput:

This we feel is the key to the comparison. SOL is able to achieve 50k tps (transactions per second) utilizing an expensive network of very high powered GPUs across 200 nodes. This compares with CSPR which is currently achieving 2.5k transactions per block (100 WASM deploys per block) by utilizing only 100 low power validator nodes (with a possible increase of x5 throughput being tested at present). The way that SOL achieves the high throughput is by the implementation of its parallel PoH protocol. As this is not part of its security consensus protocol, but a mechanism to simply increase throughput, it can be considered in the same way has many sharding methodologies being researched currently. As we are aware (from the final section of our sharing article here), CSPR is currently researching a proposal on how to multi thread (parallel processing) transactions. To summarize the proposal: CSPR Sharing – Transactions will list all spaces in memory (shards) which they require and each block is given a limited amount of sequential computation time. When a block includes a bunch of transactions instead of specifying a transaction order, it specifies a computation schedule. This schedule uses times from 0 to t where t is our bound on sequential compute time. Each transaction is assigned a sub-interval of this window with the length of the sub-interval given by the computation bound specified by the transaction. Furthermore, the intervals for any two transactions that share a shard are not allowed to overlap. Distinctions could also be made between reads to a shard and writes to a shard and allow several transactions to simultaneously read from the same shard so long as none write to it.

You can see from the above that it is inappropriate to compare the throughput of SOL with that of CSPR as without sharding implemented – the comparison is not like for like. A more direction comparison on throughput should be made post the implementation of sharding on the CSPR network. It should be noted however, that once sharding is implemented, high throughput will be achieved on CSPR without the need to expensive GPU infrastructure.

Security:

Security is one of the most fundamental aspects of blockchain technology, as without sufficient security, no utility can be generated. On this point, I would like to refer the reader to our extensive commentary of the CSPR CBC protocol and Highway protocol. These two protocols in conjunction provide by far the most superior security consensus of any PoS blockchain. No statistical methods are used and security is not affected via conflicting messages. .

Solana’s PoS system relies on a Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) mechanism called Tower Consensus. Tower Consensus leverages PoH as a global source of time before consensus is achieved in order to reduce latency. Any validator node is eligible to be chosen as the PoH leader. If there is any failure detected with the PoH generator, then the validator node with the next highest voting power will be chosen to replace the original leader.

Slashing:

Slashing is implemented within SOL. A malicious vote will remove a validator’s bonded tokens and add them to the mining pool. Slashing also occurs if a vote is cast for an invalid hash generated by the PoH generator.

Slashing will not be implemented in CSPR. Instead malicious validator node behaviour will be punished with severe jail time

Enterprise adoption:

At present there are is no focus on Enterprise adoption with SOL. This is in contrast with CSPR where CasperLabs have aggressively targeted and pivoted towards the running of both a public and private blockchain. Read more here

Future Proof:

CSPR has been designed and engineered such that it is a fully future proof blockchain. It has achieved this by ensuring all components (Execution Engine, Network Engine, Consensus Layer) are all pluggable. This allowed the blockchain to be upgraded with relative ease. In comparison, SOL has taken the stance to create a protocol which is theoretically designed to scale with Moore’s Law, doubling in capacity every two years with improvements in hardware and bandwidth.

Looking to stake CSPR? support our research by staking with us at GHOST. ghoststaking.com We run a:

(1) Low fee powerful node

(2) guarantee of no fee increases ever

(3) live node monitor on our website

follow us on twitter for more publications: twitter.com

join our CSPR price chat tg group: t.me



To: maceng2 who wrote (178323)9/15/2021 9:54:20 AM
From: ggersh  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217592
 
I guess you can make all that shit up -g/nfg-

Wealth created outta thin air.

On another note, Ft. Detrick coming back into play

Message 33487375



To: maceng2 who wrote (178323)9/15/2021 4:33:39 PM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217592
 
am up early to get ready a draft pitch presentation done to 'wow' my partners within 10-minutes of unveiling geewhizbangohwhoawee presentation, to get the more creative thought flows going, to then finalise and present to two could-be-client-partners in a JV to do something in Asia using an client-internal draft-pick team and interact with a bunch of external parties, in a phased (of something) approach, to achieve an economic result, in a risk-mitigated way.

The pitch coincidentally features tokens, again.

The pitch ought to happen before year-end. It shall happen, the pitch moment. Issue is what to say in the first 3-minutes, and then the next 10-minutes. We know what to do for the first 27-months.

Normally it all would be simply a consulting project, and billing time. We the boyz are instead saying, 'we are your minority partners as well as consultant, so we share risk'. True, we share their risk with our time, effort, network and plan, and execution get-up-and-go.

I have not done a pitch since long ago (2015?). Recent earlier success with the financial group that was done causally was a pitch, and might be the biggest and easiest pitch I had ever done, a few pages of powerpoint, now in process to result in a deal where we of the thread might all benefit, through staking, and through improved processes that remake an industry sector.

Continuing on, again by contact of old client's dropped people, I found an unexpected angle that partly but importantly matters to solving a real world Asia expansion challenge of a consumer company. So the draft pitch is done with two objectives in mind, to get a JV schema going, and at worst to add ommmmnnnph to a crypto schema even in the absence of more direct gain.

Strangely, crypto gets novices in charge of real world problems unusually excited and particularly brave to experiment, as the crypto league people are willing to work for free, at the first go, for quick win, as demo, and work as partners with shin in the game going forward.

Like, say the magic 'crypto' word, and doors open to all manner of pitches, it seems, and at least folks want to listen to learn if all smoke, or mirrors, and no beef.

I think crypto is more than cyber money borne of the metaverse, and whilst bitcoin might be digital-gold but still not actual gold, even as bitcoin had been and might still turn out to be better-gold, utility coins can be copper, aluminium, uranium, ... rare earths, all stuff that makes the universe go go go.

"crypto shall force-change your industry" as calling card opens doors.

bloomberg.com

Ray Dalio Says ‘Cash Is Trash’ and Makes the Case for Crypto
Donald Moore
16 September 2021, 00:21 GMT+8
Follow @crypto Twitter for the latest news.

Ray Dalio warned that investors shouldn’t become too reliant on cash and that while he owns some Bitcoin there’s a danger that governments could destroy the crypto market.

“First, know cash is trash, so don’t keep it in cash,” Dalio, the founder of $150 billion Bridgewater Associates, told CNBC Wednesday.

Dalio, 72, who has a $15.6 billion fortune, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, said he has some money invested in Bitcoin, but it’s a small percentage of his investment in gold, which in turn is a small percentage of his other assets.

The hedge fund billionaire said that governments don’t want cryptocurrency to succeed, but that doesn’t mean investors shouldn’t diversify.

Bitcoin, the largest digital currency, has jumped more than 60% this year, but has come under increased scrutiny from regulators concerned about how retail investors are engaged with cryptocurrencies.

“At the end of the day if it’s really successful, they’ll kill it,” Dalio said. “But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a place.”

Later in the day at the SALT conference in New York, Dalio cast doubt on the prediction earlier this week by Ark Investment Management’s Cathie Wood that Bitcoin will increase 10-fold in five years, saying that “doesn’t make sense to me.”

Bridgewater’s Pure Alpha II hedge fund has gained 1.4% this year through August. The firm manages $105 billion in hedge fund assets.

(Updates with SALT conference in penultimate paragraph, hedge fund performance in last.)

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.
LEARN MORE



To: maceng2 who wrote (178323)9/16/2021 10:16:16 PM
From: TobagoJack1 Recommendation

Recommended By
maceng2

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217592
 
<<Cryptos>> can do good ...

economist.com



The beguiling promise of decentralised finance

And its many perils

Sep 18th 2021

THE SCEPTICS have plenty of fodder. The earliest adopters of bitcoin, the original cryptocurrency, used it to buy drugs, while cyber-hackers now demand their ransom in it. Hundreds of millions of dollars of ether, another digital money, were stolen this year after hackers found a bug in some code. Many “believers” are in reality trying to get rich quick from the global mania that has seen the value of cryptoassets reach $2.2trn. Others are freakishly devoted. The entrepreneur who announced in June that El Salvador was adopting bitcoin as an official currency sobbed on stage, claiming it would save the nation.

The crooks, fools and proselytisers are off-putting. Nevertheless, the rise of an ecosystem of financial services, known as decentralised finance, or “DeFi”, deserves sober consideration. It has the potential to rewire how the financial system works, with all the promise and perils that entails. The proliferation of innovation in DeFi is akin to the frenzy of invention in the early phase of the web. At a time when people live ever more of their lives online, the crypto-revolution could even remake the architecture of the digital economy.

DeFi is one of three tech trends disrupting finance. Tech “platform” firms are muscling in on payments and banks. Governments are launching digital currencies, or govcoins. DeFi offers an alternative path which aims to spread power, not concentrate it. To understand how, start with blockchains, vast networks of computers that keep an open, incorruptible common record and update it without the need for a central authority.

Bitcoin, the first big blockchain, created in 2009, is now a distraction. Instead, Ethereum, a blockchain network created in 2015, upon which most DeFi applications are built, is reaching critical mass. Its developers view finance as a juicy target. Conventional banking requires a huge infrastructure to maintain trust between strangers, from clearing houses and compliance to capital rules and courts. It is expensive and often captured by insiders: think of credit-card fees and bankers’ yachts. By contrast, transactions on a blockchain are trustworthy, cheap, transparent and quick—at least in theory.

Although the terminology is intimidating (fees are “gas”; the main currency is ether, and title deeds over digital assets are known as NFTs), the basic activities taking place on DeFi are familiar. These include trading on exchanges and issuing loans and taking deposits through self-executing agreements called smart contracts. One yardstick of activity is the value of digital instruments being used as collateral: from almost nothing in early 2018 it has reached $90bn. Another is the value of transactions that Ethereum is verifying. In the second quarter this reached $2.5trn, around the same sum as Visa processes and equivalent to a sixth of the activity on Nasdaq, a stock exchange.

The dream of a low-friction financial system is just the beginning. DeFi is spreading to more ambitious terrain. MetaMask, a DeFi wallet with more than 10m users acts as a digital identity. To enter a decentralised “metaverse”, a looking-glass world with shops run by its users, you link your wallet to a cartoonish avatar who roams around. These digital worlds will become the subject of intensifying competition as more spending shifts online. Big tech firms could impose huge taxes on these mini-economies: imagine Apple’s App Store charging fees, or Facebook selling your avatar’s intimate secrets. A better alternative might be decentralised networks that host applications and are run mutually by users. DeFi could provide payments and property rights.

Crypto-enthusiasts see a Utopia. But there is a long way to go before DeFi is as reliable as, say, JPMorgan Chase or PayPal. Some problems are prosaic. A common criticism is that blockchain platforms do not scale easily and that the computers they harness consume wasteful amounts of electricity. But Ethereum is a self-improvement machine. When it is in high demand the fees it charges for verification can climb, encouraging developers to work on minimising the intensity with which they use it. There will be new versions of Ethereum; other, better blockchains could one day replace it.

Yet DeFi also raises questions about how a virtual economy with its own norms interacts with the real world. One worry is the lack of an external anchor of value. Cryptocurrencies are no different from the dollar, in that they rely on people having a shared expectation of their utility. However, conventional money is also backed by states with a monopoly on force and central banks that are lenders of last resort. Without these, DeFi will be vulnerable to panics. Contract enforcement outside the virtual world is also a concern. A blockchain contract may say you own a house but only the police can enforce an eviction.

Governance and accountability in DeFi-land are rudimentary. A sequence of large irrevocable transactions that humans cannot override could be dangerous, especially as coding errors are inevitable. Money-laundering has thrived in the ungoverned grey zone of services lying between Ethereum and the banking system. Despite the claims of decentralisation, some programmers and app owners hold disproportionate sway over the DeFi system. And a malign actor could even gain control over a majority of the computers that run a blockchain.

Alice’s adventures in DeFi-land
Digital libertarians would prefer that DeFi remain autonomous—imperfect but pure. Yet to succeed it must integrate with the conventional financial and legal systems, as Gary Gensler, a crypto-expert who is America’s financial watchdog, has outlined. Many DeFi applications are run by decentralised organisations which vote on some issues; these bodies should become subject to laws and regulations. The Bank for International Settlements, a club for central banks, has suggested that govcoins might be used in DeFi apps, providing stability.

Finance is entering a new era in which the three novel but flawed visions of tech platforms, big government and DeFi will compete and intermingle. Each embodies a technical architecture and an ideology about how the economy should be run. As with the internet in the 1990s, no one knows where the revolution will end. But it stands to transform how money works and, as it does so, the entire digital world. ¦

For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, business and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly newsletter.

This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "Down the rabbit hole"