I think it's time for a short update around our progress on coordicide:
A few weeks ago we merged the refactored consensus code base and we have been running it in an internal testnet since then.
After fixing a lot of bugs, the node looks increasingly stable (we also found ...
... the memory leak that we were fighting with for almost 2 weeks - people who closely follow the development process on github will know what I mean).
The only remaining thing for the prototype to be feature complete in a first MVP version (apart from getting rid of ...
... possible remaining bugs) is the chain switching, which allows nodes to automatically recover after i.e. having being eclipsed / in a minority partition.
Me and Andrea started working on this 2 weeks ago but we had to pause and first change the way we manage state to ...
... simplify the necessary logic for the switch. Everything else is already working - snapshots, commitments, pruning, and so on.
We will most probably finish the state refactor in the coming days and then start to work on this very last building block but since christmas is ...
... approaching fast, and people have to take their remaining vacations before the end of the year, we will most probably start to run thin, soon.
I am officially already on vacation as well but since there isn't much sunlight and it's pretty cold - I am coding anyway.
There is still some old code that needs to be cleaned up even after finishing the MVP, but we are mostly talking about performance optimizations like adding a caching layer in the ledger and so on (which currently operates 100% on disk) but this can be done after everything ...
... is stable.
So TL;DR: We are getting really close now but since bugs take some time to find / fix and christmas is close, it's a bit hard to predict how much we will be able to progress in the coming days and weeks.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Move is the first virtual machine since the EVM to be adopted by a growing number of independent L1 projects.
What makes it so special and why is it destined to replace the EVM as the de-facto standard for smart contracts in the crypto-space?
Are you ready? Let's dig in!🧵
1. Move is the first VM that leverages "linear logic" (the logic of quantum information theory) to model a "virtual universe of digital assets" that is governed by conservation laws and that enforces that assets can never be duplicated or lost directly on the "language level".
2. In most other VMs, smart contract security relies heavily on developers following best practices.
One slip-up in managing token approvals or re-entrancy guards and user funds are at risk - even years after using a compromised contract and when keeping funds in a cold-wallet.
So it's finally time for part 2 of the update, in which I will explain how the reactive package allows us to merge metadata and logic to eliminate the problems discussed in the previous thread by getting rid of our 'external propagation logic'.
I will split the thread into several different segments to make it easier to associate the attached pictures with their respective text.
Since we plan to create blocks that act like 'interacting cells', we first need to create a mechanism that allows them to communicate.
For this purpose, we mimic the function of a 'receptor', which is a chemical structure on the membrane of cells that can bind to so-called 'ligands' to release a 'messenger'.
@Plinz I personally think that modeling multiway systems as rewrite systems that operate on a global continuous vector of data is a bit non-intuitive (and also pretty inefficient in code as you have to essentially duplicate the entire vector for each branch that you spawn).
In the ...
@Plinz ... context of Wolframs work, I even think that it leads to questionable conclusions like the proposal to explain the wave function collapse as a Knuth–Bendix completion of the multiway graph, which fails to explain things like Schrödingers Cat where different quantum states ...
@Plinz ... can lead to vastly different macroscopic outcomes.
A slightly different take on causal multiway systems that is also closer to the way we perceive the world is to model them as an evolution of "interacting substates / particles", rather than a continuous sequence of symbols.
I have lately received a number of messages, asking about the security of IOTA's new consensus mechanism in situations like network splits.
Since these questions seem to originate in factually wrong statements of a critic, I want to answer this question publicly.
(1/20)🧵👇
To understand how IOTA handles this type of situation, we first need to understand what a network split is.
It is a situation where the network is split into two (or more) disconnected partitions where each partition can only see their respective set of issued messages.
(2/20)
Most splits are the result of faulty network infrastructure causing temporary interruptions of connectivity.
Redundant hardware and connections have made large-scale network splits increasingly rare but smaller, locally confined partitions are still relatively common.
Apart from a lot of references to other papers, it contains only very hand wavy statements. I don't think they name a single concrete algorithm in the entire document.
@durerus@Conste11ation@Vrom14286662 It was promised that they would release updated papers and information, that would answer some of the questions I had, but I think this was delayed.
I wouldn't rule out that they work on something legit and I would give them the benefit of the doubt but everything that I ...
@DesheShai I would argue that the 50% attack resilience you mentioned is not the result of PoW but the result of how Satoshis voting mechanism does not operate in rounds where you have to "prematurely" finalize decisions. This allows actors to continuously adjust their opinion and ...
@DesheShai ... ultimately converge to all add weight to the same winning outcome.
If you operate in rounds (like all contemporary BFT style consensus mechanisms) and declare a decision to be final once you have reached 67% of the weight (to move on to the next round), then an attacker ...
@DesheShai ... that controls >1/3rd (i.e 34%) could switch the outcome of the voting which leads to the lowered security threshold in each round (waiting for more weight would challenge liveness).
If you do however never finalize decisions and allow actors to converge post-reaching a ...