L 0 K 1 on Nostr: When Do Kwon's idiotic "algorithmic stablecoin" racket fell apart last year, I was in ...
When Do Kwon's idiotic "algorithmic stablecoin" racket fell apart last year, I was in the process of getting a job writing tooling for making it easier to scaffold APIs for the Cosmos/Tendermint system.
I think it's a generally useful concept, but my opinion now is that federated/stake blockchains are not the best solution for applications, but the Cosmos inter-chain model is still better than the monolith of Ethereum. It is so very close to RGB style L3 systems, if you remove the internal token issuance.
If it was shifted to be an L3 on top of something like RGB, that would be something I could have some serious zeal towards, and being a moderately practised software architect, I can see how the work I do making Ignite better will apply nearly transparently to an L3 platform, eliminating the latency, the circularity problem of staking and consensus being broken when an external system controls issuance.
It was my opinion from quite early on that proof of stake in general had this problem, and it was vividly played out with Dan Larimer's Steem forum blockchain project. Early adopters basically allocated themselves such a large amount of the supply that malicious actors within the group used their power as a club against those who did not fall into line on the Cult of Larimer, that of course was giving so much power to, most notably, a troll who named himself after a certain old Democrat politician who is popular with young people.
If they hire me, I will be primarily working on making it easy to spin up applications, designing the APIs, mainly, and from this basis it is just a back-end part to swap out to target a different platform, whether it be centralised, distributed, using RAFT or Paxos or similar (Tendermint is derivative of Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance), or made into an L3 on top of a state channel system.
I have another role that is in process too, a distributed validator system for improving reliability and avoiding slashing on Ethereum, and I can see how this kind of protocol has some applicability to this kind of application platform. Specifically, I already started to design a causality determination system that uses small, randomly distributed but proximal nodes to rapidly agree on event sequence as users push transactions into the system.
Such a causality discovery protocol is so very close to what the distributed validator system will need to function.
So, yeah, two roles in process of application, and both of them I see ways that the work won't be wasted on scammy garbage if I do my architecting part right, keeping the coupling loose and make it easy to translate the protocols to different back ends.
I need to keep searching, still, it's not guaranteed I will win either of them, though my chances are good. But in both cases I can work on things that are concretely directed at protocols that I perceive to be flawed, if I keep in mind the idea of making them retargetable for other, better protocols.
I think it's a generally useful concept, but my opinion now is that federated/stake blockchains are not the best solution for applications, but the Cosmos inter-chain model is still better than the monolith of Ethereum. It is so very close to RGB style L3 systems, if you remove the internal token issuance.
If it was shifted to be an L3 on top of something like RGB, that would be something I could have some serious zeal towards, and being a moderately practised software architect, I can see how the work I do making Ignite better will apply nearly transparently to an L3 platform, eliminating the latency, the circularity problem of staking and consensus being broken when an external system controls issuance.
It was my opinion from quite early on that proof of stake in general had this problem, and it was vividly played out with Dan Larimer's Steem forum blockchain project. Early adopters basically allocated themselves such a large amount of the supply that malicious actors within the group used their power as a club against those who did not fall into line on the Cult of Larimer, that of course was giving so much power to, most notably, a troll who named himself after a certain old Democrat politician who is popular with young people.
If they hire me, I will be primarily working on making it easy to spin up applications, designing the APIs, mainly, and from this basis it is just a back-end part to swap out to target a different platform, whether it be centralised, distributed, using RAFT or Paxos or similar (Tendermint is derivative of Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance), or made into an L3 on top of a state channel system.
I have another role that is in process too, a distributed validator system for improving reliability and avoiding slashing on Ethereum, and I can see how this kind of protocol has some applicability to this kind of application platform. Specifically, I already started to design a causality determination system that uses small, randomly distributed but proximal nodes to rapidly agree on event sequence as users push transactions into the system.
Such a causality discovery protocol is so very close to what the distributed validator system will need to function.
So, yeah, two roles in process of application, and both of them I see ways that the work won't be wasted on scammy garbage if I do my architecting part right, keeping the coupling loose and make it easy to translate the protocols to different back ends.
I need to keep searching, still, it's not guaranteed I will win either of them, though my chances are good. But in both cases I can work on things that are concretely directed at protocols that I perceive to be flawed, if I keep in mind the idea of making them retargetable for other, better protocols.