Ethereum hello i went to china to do new new blockchain thank you enjoy your house i love you neo
Today we shift our focus to one of the more widely talked about cryptocurrencies over the past couple of months AntShares NEO! Ethereum hello i went to china to do new new blockchain thank you enjoy your house i love you neo month June NEO held a conference to announce some exciting news:. Whether or not the name change was necessary, the rest of the events listed above are steps in the right direction. The comparison is due to the major hype and expectations attached to it when comparing it to the relatively established Ethereum ecosystem which has 3 years of progress already attached to it.
There are certainly similarities to Ethereum and it is an easy way to think about NEO, but there are subtle differences that set the two apart in how they handle blockchain logistics. Here is exactly what their whitepaper states:.
Antshares is a decentralized and distributed ledger protocol that digitalizes real-world assets into digital ones, enabling registration, depository, transfer, trading, clearing and settlement via a peer-to-peer network. Antshares uses e-contracts to keep record transfers of digital assets. The mission of the Antshares is about digital assets for everyone. Bitcoin wants to create a financial system parallel to the existing ones, whereas Antshares is about building a financial system bridging the real-world assets.
Again, this is similar to Ethereum, but Ethereum's whitepaper focuses on being an abstract, foundational layer for other projects to build their DAPPS on top of. Similar to an Operating System or Coding language, it abstracts away most of the work required to build and deploy on top of a blockchain.
Whereas NEOs focus is on asset management and exchange. While the health of the NEO ecosystem will certainly rely on other products being deployed on top of it, this is an interesting focus that I believe will gain adoption within the Chinese government so that it meets their strict requirements, but more on that later.
By arguing that shares NEO are NOT a digital currency, merely a blockchain protocol, NEO eliminates currency-related legal issues,excluding it from the definition of a digital currency.
I am no authority in Chinese sentiment or law I know next to nothing about itbut it seems obvious that the government sees digital currency as a threat, specifically Bitcoin. NEO has been designed to work around these threats and fit into an approved government structure. NEO also claims that if you lose your private keys, there is an asset-retrieval mechanism in place to reclaim the assets belonging to the particular address without help from a 3rd party.
Thus, the transfer on Antshares is conducted in the form the e-contracts. In most cases, the transfer of assets requires the digital signatures signed with the private keys from both the sender and the receiver. In certain cases, an extra signature from the issuer of the asset is required. Recording transfers of assets on the Antshares is merely an onchain solution of the transfer of offchain assets. There are no new legal relationships that parties could enter into, so unlike the tokenization, flaws in laws are eliminated.
With most ERC 20 tokens the receiving address has no say in the transaction. This could lead to unintended consequences and unwanted asset transfers. NEO is looking to solve this problem so that entities do not unknowingly or unwillingly enter into a contract or asset they do not want.
Real-world identity information is fundamental to confirm rights on real-world assets. In most circumstances, legally binding contracts require signature with autonyms as well. While this authentication step is optional, when it is required NEO proposes that users apply for a digital certificate from a certificate authority. NEOs mission is "digital assets for everyone" so designing a system that is simple for people to use is of the utmost importance.
Documentation regarding Bookkeeping Nodes is very minimal and the following topics need clarification. For those interested in contributing resources to the network can't guarantee any reward yetthis Reddit post is a good place to start for a Windows deployment. I am sure this comes as a surprise to most out there and probably leaves many of you scratching your heads as to WTF all those words mean or why you care. Byzantine Fault Tolerance at its core is a fundamental problem of distributed computing.
How do distributed nodes, who know nothing about one another and receive information at different times and in different states, come to a Ethereum hello i went to china to do new new blockchain thank you enjoy your house i love you neo An example of how this works in the real world is with Clock Synchronization and time drift. Every non-atomic clock in the world has a slightly different mechanism for keeping track of time and thus over time has a differing level of precision.
This is true for wristwatches mechanical, quartz, and digital as well as computers. When you notice that your watch or clock does not match others, you typically check with a trusted or official source unless you have an atomic clock handy to adjust your time to fall in line with this trusted source.
Computers are able to accomplish this by deploying an NTP daemon or service that is in constant communication with trusted NTP hosts adjusting the system time accordingly slowing down the system clock if ahead and speeding it up if behind.
For distributed systems, time drift can be a nightmare and can cause cascading outages or various inconsistencies that are complicated to detect. In much the same way, if transactions or assets in NEOs case are received by Node 1 in a particular order A,D,C,B and Node 2 receives transactions in a different order B,C,D,Ahow do you determine which Node is correct and how do you defend against an incorrect sequence affecting the other nodes in the system?
The delegated piece to this title is key and should sound familiar to the watch analogy of going back to a trusted source. I could keep trying to get this point across using analogies or examples, but I think ethereum hello i went to china to do new new blockchain thank you enjoy your house i love you neo following infographic will help drive home how this works credit goes to Altoros blog:.
If you are interested in more technical diagrams on this topic you can also reference the Hyperledger Fabric documentation or check out presentations on SlideShare, particularly slides presented here. Professional Node Operators i. Each are given different controls in the voting process to determine election and approval.
In an article published by cryptoinsider. This system, proponents say, protects against forking events, radical changes to the implementation of a blockchain system that can undermine participant confidence.
Going back to the NEO whitepaper we also find the following proposal to determine what nodes are elected i. Should the One Man mode be considered post-event voting adding blocks thus to achieve consensus, the Joint mode is about pre-event decision to generate bookkeeping nodes with certainty. No post-event voting, no uncertainty. In a public blockchain, this kind of pre-set decision could be made with an onchain election. The elected bookkeeping nodes may perform joint-signature on every new block generated.
That is to say, in the post-event voting scenario, more confirmations, higher the probability, whereas in the pre-event decision mode, confirmation leads to the ideal simultaneous finality of a trade.
This is a logical argument for electing bookkeeping nodes, but later it appears to indicate that the ability to become a bookkeeping node requires identification and meeting a bar of technological capacity.
I may be reading too much into this statement since voting for bookkeeping nodes will clearly be affected by reputation, but I'm concerned having to meet a technological capacity will harm adoption by setting too high a barrier to entry. Logically, if one does not meet some level of knowledge their ability to maintain a node will show and reliability will fall, which would hurt their reputation and in turn hurt their chances of being elected as a bookkeeping node.
There also exists a possibility of a cartel pooling votes to gain bookkeeper nodes, so the voting mechanism needs to take this into account, but I will stop overanalyzing this here and save that for another day.
Long story short, the network will require trust, which is a good thing, but this raises the barrier to entry. Here is the snippet from the white paper. In the One Man mode, post-event voting adding blocks is about voting on the content of the block, not about the generator of the block, making it suitable for a public blockchain with no identity information.
However, in the One Man mode, the finality of a trade is rather weak, making it inappropriate for financial trading. On the other hand, the Joint mode introduces weak trust on the bookkeeping nodes, i. This requires identity authentication of the controlling parties of the bookkeeping node to some extent, for one thing, to judge on their reputation and technological capacity, for another thing, should the nodes do evil, cryptographic evidence will be available for investigations.
We could conclude that the One Man mode chooses Anonymity, and is trust-free on any node. But that comes with the price of consistency and finality. While the Joint mode is advantageous over consistency and finality, it requires nodes to authenticate themselves to achieve a weak trust from other nodes. We hope that this provides a good introduction into what NEO is trying to accomplish and how it will do so. Part 2 dives into the Economics and analysis of the NEO blockchain and is more focused towards traders of the currency and how the blockchain rewards will affect them.
Neo has closed the gap considerably and I truly believe with the nep5 tokens coming out one after another we're going to see Neo finally surpass Cardano ADA very soon. Well, up until the stuff about dBFT, at least. That stuff is too Byzantine for me! I saw you mention NEO's attempt at compliance with Chinese government. Do you have a more in depth opinion about it? Note this recent article, https: Hey Marcus, I read the link thanks for the heads up.
Personally I am hoping that the course of action that China is taking is a temporary measure until they have worked out a system that works for them, i. I believe that they are pretty positive when it comes to blockchain, its the effect that cryptocurrencies can have on the level of financial freedom that their population can have and therefore a higher level of general autonomy that scares the bejesus out of them.
I am probably completely wrong but only time will tell. Anyway thanks again Cheers J. Awesome post thanks so much for all the effort and for sharing your obviously deep insight. I am scratching the surface with regards to my understand on all things blockchain but posts such as this are steering me ethereum hello i went to china to do new new blockchain thank you enjoy your house i love you neo the right direction.
I have managed to grab a few Neo though not as many as I would like as from the little I know it seems to be very sound tech. I am very much looking forward to the updates that we may receive at the end of this month when the Developers Conference takes place. In the hope that you may give more of your insights after the conference I will follow and wait patiently.
But for now I am going to click on the link ethereum hello i went to china to do new new blockchain thank you enjoy your house i love you neo is in one of the replies below and then pop back to move onto part 2 of your look at Neo. Thanks again, cheers J. AntShares Today we shift our focus to one of the more widely talked about cryptocurrencies over the past couple of months AntShares NEO!
Last month June NEO held a conference to announce some exciting news: A collaboration with certificate authorities in China to map real-world assets using smart contracts A new patent for cross-chain distributed interoperability Their new startup partners Bancor, Agrello, Coindash, Nest Fund, and Binance, with more partner announcements to come Whether or not the name change was necessary, the rest of the events listed above are steps in the right direction. Here is exactly what their whitepaper states: There is also this statement sprinkled in amongst the whitepaper: Getting further into the focus of legalese, NEO very clearly states: Division of Labor NEOs mission is "digital assets for everyone" so designing a system that is simple for people to use is of the utmost importance.
Bookkeeping Nodes digital signatures are included in each block Full Nodes Run by service providers and store complete historical data as well as detect and relay transactions Users Light nodes or client access i. Voting process and cadence How often does this occur? How is each shareholder made aware of the options? Amount of collateral required to register I have seen references that point to the minimum amount of collateral being 1, NEO and this link tends to support this claim Definition of minimum technological abilities Is this even enforceable?
Announcing World Trade Francs: The Ethereum hello i went to china to do new new blockchain thank you enjoy your house i love you neo Ethereum Stablecoin 01st April, Ethereum scalability research and development subsidy programs 02nd January, Essentially, instead of having a fully public and uncontrolled network and state machine secured by cryptoeconomics eg.
Such systems have been a primary focus of interest from financial institutions, and have in part led to a backlash from those who see such developments as either compromising the whole point of decentralization or being a desperate act of dinosaurish middlemen trying to stay relevant or simply committing the crime of using a blockchain other than Bitcoin.
However, for those who are in this fight simply because they want to figure out how to best serve humanity, or even pursue the more modest goal of serving their customers, what are the practical differences between the two styles?
First, what exactly are the options at hand? To summarize, there are generally three categories of blockchain-like database applications:. In general, so far there has been little emphasis on the distinction between consortium blockchains and fully private blockchains, although it is important: However, to some degree there is good reason for the focus on consortium over private: In general, I would even argue that generalized zero-knowledge-proofs are, in the corporate financial world, greatly underhyped compared to private blockchains.
Given all of this, it may seem like private blockchains are unquestionably a better choice for institutions. However, even in an institutional context, public blockchains still have a lot of value, and in fact this value lies to a substantial degree in the philosophical virtues that advocates of public blockchains have been promoting all along, ethereum hello i went to china to do new new blockchain thank you enjoy your house i love you neo the chief of which are freedom, neutrality and openness.
The advantages of public blockchains generally fall into two major categories:. Note that by creating privately administered smart contracts on public blockchains, or cross-chain exchange layers between public and private blockchains, one can achieve many kinds of hybrid combinations of these properties. The solution that is optimal for a particular industry depends very heavily on what your exact industry is.
In some cases, public is clearly better; in others, some degree of private control is simply necessary. As is often the case in the real world, it depends. None of this explains how a private blockchain can emulate the greatest asset of the Blockchain, that ethereum hello i went to china to do new new blockchain thank you enjoy your house i love you neo immutability. With a consortium chain you have a number of entities whereby you trust the nature of consensus even if you think that maybe that one company are a little dodgy.
The advantages over a regular public chain are stated by Vitalik — cost, privacy, additional technical options. On top of that, consensus can allow transactions to be reversed where a fraudulent action occurred — not a technical violation but the vastly more common action of routine fraud involving human beings.
Similarly, court cases often move property — a court could require the consensus network to move an asset from Alice to Bob, whether or not Alice agrees. Also consider that a blockchain, even with limited data, is an open protocol among the participants at least meaning that they can keep their existing IT infrastructure and make minimal changes.
This will allow them to interact with other parties or their data on the blockchain, whether they know or trust them or not. The exception may be if the chain is handled by a single third party who contractually will not reverse transactions therefore the time stamped nature is conserved.
As an internal company auditing device, the third party could be the IT division. Consortium blockchains can bring with them countless uses and also avoid potential legal pitfalls regarding data privacy. Additionally, who manages the IT aspect, where are the chains hosted, who pays — is this a trade body project? I wonder though, if atomic cross chain transfers of the kind being developed by both Ciyam and Blocknet may end up mitigating some of the network effect mentioned in the final point?
I supposed you are more intelligent than that. As you say, if your problem is an inherent distrust of banks or govs then a private blockchain is, at most, of limited use not no use since the chain be read-only for the public. A private chain confers many advantages, some of which may even be a legal requirement due ethereum hello i went to china to do new new blockchain thank you enjoy your house i love you neo privacy or data protection regulations.
In computer security, the reality is that the strength of your encryption is highly unlikely to be your real problem as the best way to defeat encryption is to bypass it altogether. Similarly with blockchains, they can do something very powerful in a censorship resistant manner, but human beings and hackers are still everywhere, doing whatever they wish. The real progress is a slow process, sad but true. We have to devolve user states function more effectively to just dream about what would come up next.
This makes no sense. The use case for private blockchains is hardly currency issuance. The point is precisely that blockchains have explicit rules that cannot be changed at will and that this sort of thing has utility in all kinds of contexts, some warranting public blockchains and some warranting private blockchains.
Do not agree with your statement that private blockchains are completely useless. Obviously, this comes with a lot of challenges for each of the financial institutions.
One of them is how to manage and distribute access rights to those TTPs. Using a private blockchain would definitely be beneficial in that case as it not only guarantees that all participants are known higher trust but also creates and audit trail. Also, it would secure information through multi signature addresses. What I am saying is that there are indeed many use cases where a private blockchain is the preferred and more suitable solution.
As this cryptocash can be traded outside of the banking realm, it does allow for clearance and movement of cash in almost an instant as well as creating the potential for micro- and even nano-currency. Like or or not, quick and radical change is not likely to happen in the global finance system and currently, like it or not, banks are still considered trust agents by a large part of the population.
If we are going to change the system we have to use baby steps to avoid anarchy and change it from within. I wrote about a Polish company here is working this angle that is EU compliant and backed by two banks. I agree that there are multiple use cases for each scenario. The challenge is to determine what kind of blockchain best suits a business case that requires a level of decentralization.
With regard to internal auditing, the case for a blockchain has to stack up against a regular database and cryptography, and the overall internal mechanisms already in place. This relates to a case where the customer specifically rejected existing database approaches. Blockchains only solve one problem.
They are instruments of regulatory arbitrage. His age is correct. Most Bitcoiners are Banks wrote the book on it and also on ethereum hello i went to china to do new new blockchain thank you enjoy your house i love you neo capture look it up.
Banks are the masters of regulatory arbitrage, which is how I know they will end up back at BTC, because it is the only Blockchain that does regulatory arbitrage. They will learn this very quickly. That said, regulatory capture is not regulatory arbitrage. Capture has with it a high degree of risk. The closest we have seen are AirBnB and Uber. One can not simply declare that their blockchain is immutable or that it solves the BG problem.
These problems are problems solved through hard fighting. It was done by a man who likely dedicated his life to understanding it, and then humbly pushing out a bit of code that he thought might work. The hubris in declaring that your code does work is a great indication of where the Ethereum is intellectually.
Everyone agrees with you. In my humble opinion, Ethereum is far a better way to spend it. First of all, let me tell me you something. All the people that want to change the world for the better deserve respect. If you love the conventional wisdom, cool good for you, but we make the case to change the conventional wisdom and is pretty tough to fight bignumberlaw.
That said, I appreciate the empty assertion that Bitcoin is a double spend playground. Have you evidence for that? That would seem pretty important.
The cryptography community in Warsaw is rather active shall we say. But you can read more here. Why cant it meet compliance needs? Apologies for my naivete and ignorance. I see that the scalability paper is coming along nicely. And this is not an essential part of the cryptocurrency. We can use facebook or twitter accounts for the same purpose.
Valid arguments, this helps separated the concepts and demystify the threats and opportunities of both models. Good and timely post! However, when there is a dispute or law enforcement action the private blockchain information is accessible to designated observers. So the data is in the blockchian but as Vitalik said, the access is restricted to certain parties. We explain this in our whitepaper http: Yeah guys, I am glad to see that you have put already this in practice at GadgetCoin.
I fully agree, a ledger that expose the transaction information to the public is not usable for business purposes. When you write a smart contracts application that you know if going to run on every Ethereum node you must be very economical in the resources you consume and pay for them of course. You will be able to define the capacity of your nodes, and you will not be taking on the load of the rest of the network.
This gives a lot more freedom to create more complex smart contract applications. I think that while the private blockchain has an initial appeal for a consortium such as immutability, cheaper and timely auditing while maintaining more control the trade off though is security, I think we will find that the cost associated with securing a private blockchain will far outweigh the cost to secure a well established public blockchain.
Please, read your comments five years from now… Just some months ago, people wrote that Ethereum is a scam and never release any useful thing. We need different kinds of blockchains because the original Bitcoin was set up to work like the US political system, and not everybody likes that.
There are other use cases, starting with partnership between equals. Perla explains it very well. You cannot change the rules of a blockchain unless you have consensus.