Hashing It Out
Hashing It Out

Episode 5 · 4 years ago

Hashing It Out #5: Zaki Manian

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

We had the pleasure of interviewing Zaki Manian, prolific engineer, Founder of SkuChain, Head of Tendermint Labs, Advisor on the Interchain Foundation, and Executive Directory of the Trusted IoT Alliance. Phew, that's a lot of hats. Zaki gives us a glimpse into what it's like designing a scalable, secure consensus protocol. We speak to him about the philosophy behind scaling solutions, the differences in approach to consensus mechanisms, the role of blockchain as the world grows accustom to trust, and get a really solid look into the history of the blockchain space that led to where we are today.

...into its work. Quick note before we start the show. For Episode Five, we decided to try and publish hashing it out through the Bitcoin podcast network, Fire Hose, of all network shows that you normally subscribe to. So if you're hearing this for the first time, this is episode five of hashing it out, and if you'd like to continue listening to a show like this, please search us through Itunes, spotify, whatever podcasting af you're listening to subscribe to this show as well, because we're trying to see what type of growth we can get outside of the Bitcoin podcast network fire hose. A little bit different on the back end, saying great quality content. Enjoy. Welcome to hashing it out, a podcast where we talked to the tech innovators behind blocked in infrastructure and decentralized networks. We dive into the weeds to get at why and how people build this technology the problems they face along the way. Come listen and learn from the best in the business so you can join their ranks. All right, episode number five. Today I'm also joined with our trusteed Co Hosts Collin. Say what's up? What's up? Hey, hey, Hey, all right, Colin, and then our guest today, is Zachy mannion and overall Badass and the cryptocurrency blockchain space. You want to give us a quick introduction as to where you come from, what you do and why you're here? Yeah, so I've been in the Blockchans, Mistral right now, a long time. I sort of started getting interested sort of late two thousand and thirteen. I co founded a company in the sort of it was like focus more on sort of the enterprise space, called skew chain. Back in two thousand and fourteen. I started a consortium with like boss and Cisco and a number of other players in two thousand and seventeen and sort of shifted my focus in two thousand and seventeen to trust it out of t allions. I've been working with J Kwon and Ethan on tenderment and and Cosmos. Essentially, like I met Jay and spend reviewed the tenderment paper, I think before like before the original tendrement paper had come out, and reviewed it with him. We've been friends for a really long time trying to figure out, you know, how to how to get tenderment going, and so recently I've been I came on board with tenderment as head of tenderment labs, which is which is sort of like our sort of building new business models. I kind of view Cosmos as kind of like the first product where we have product market fit for Tenderman, but I think we're going to have lots of other products that we can build as a as a as a company and you know, I'm just really excited about getting the causemos main ne Lie. I think it is. I think Cosmos is going to sort of break people's brains a little bit about what were what what block chains will look like over the course of two thousand and eighteen and two thousand and nineteen. At my in my interest is always been at like the infrastructure layer, but in along the ways. You know, nobody was willing to fund the infrastructure layer until very recently and sort of ladder half of two thousand and seventeen is like when funding not available, and I'm just sort of interested in working for the next five or ten years in the infrastructure layer of you know, blockchain technology in the broadest step scope, to trying to build something that is truly awesome in terms of its power, as a pretty clear vision about where we're trying to go, and I'm just it's all about trying to like work with the entire open source blot chain community to make that vision reality. Yeah, and I'd really like you to get to that vision, but I think there's some building blocks to get there. So you've got, you just had, a lot of amazing accomplishments and things you're working on, and I'm it's like Superprossi. Its like from scow chain, which is a supply chain manage at attempted supply chain management, I guess, asset and track and trace to the trust I tiot alliance, which is trying to create a trust networks through Internet things technology, which of course, be high volume transactions, I would assume, or at least a number of devices significantly on a scale that we're not used to sing at this at this juncture. And if watching that works, scalability for Iot is scalability is probably the number one biggest challenge. So I have a general statement like...

...so my current my current statement is is like the blockchains we have today are useless in the sense that, like a blockchain, blockchains need booth, scalability and privacy in order to in order to be useful. And we have we have a lot of work to do on scalability side and a lot of work to do in the privacy side. It's a as a hundred percent clear to me how to build scalable private blockchains. It has like a massive amount of work together. Yeah, totally, and Cosmos is trying to do with that a net work correct, causemos is is. So you know, we've had the advantage in cosmos. Can you explain what? Before we get into that too much, maybe we can explain to the general audience a little bit more about Cosmos and tenderment and how the two marry together there and basically what is tender man and what is Cosmos and why are we building them? Yeah, so you know what. So it's a great question. So we've had the advantage because, so I remember back in two thousand and fourteen, Jake quon was like there is going to be a world where there are going to thousands of public blockchains, and at that point I kind of was like, okay, J I'm not really sure what you're getting at and I don't really understand and and that kind of like just was to me like how right Jay was, and I'll get to the context about why he was right on this and it's just always been a right really like powerful like memory and life experience about like how visionary Jay is in terms of this space. So really like what tenderment was. So tenderment, or to take tenrement, usually means a couple of things. tenderment is sometimes what we call the the company that is is been contracted by the Inner Change Foundation to build cosmos. If the company Jay started back in two thousand and fourteen and also goes by the name all things, Jay's history as a poker players sort of reflected it in the name. And Yeah, and Jay has been all in on blockchain scale ability since two thousand and fourteen, long before anyone else. So what Jay really is? One of the there are really two people who sort of back in two thousand and fourteen, discovered the connection between an academic field of Byzantine fault or consensus and the blockchain setting and they realized that really what we were doing with proof of work was a sort of a reinterpretation of a lot of that academic research and that that that there was sort of a deep vein of technology and ideas that we're sitting in thirty years of academic research that could be sort of mind for new ideas of how to work in the consensus space. And so, to the know, there's probably a few other people that basically dominic and Jay were really the early pioneers in this space. COMINIC Williams. Yeah, Williams of diffinity. Yeah, and you see that really reflected in it. And like look, J wanted to what Jay wanted to do a tenerament was really just sort of like the figure out the details of how do you apply like this field of research. So he really went back to what was one of the first, first academic, sort of successful research sort of results in the field of distributed the APPs, p vaults are. It's an algorithm called dilsh and what he did is figured out how do you adapt dls to the blockchain seting like deals like this, though, the way Disney involved our arts consensus was sort of conceived was not in the sort of like replicated wall, replicated state machine setting that we actually need for blockchains. And so jay started working on like how do I actually create what a modern, production, ready sort of viable engineer collect from an engineering point of view, implementation of DLS, you know, blockchain setting, and he also sort of like he he achieved as a massive simplification of the Algorithm, because all up until Tenderman, all...

...of the like, well, these these bt algorithms that existed as research projects, none of them were ever in production use and definitely never in production new someone's strangers on the Internet. So there was this huge need to Jay started. So Jay built all of this and in two thousand and fourteen, so like in twenty four, team he had like the tenement protocol and at that point in time I wasn't really an expert on VAT consensus. I probably learned most of the things I know about consensus from Jay, but the reason I sort of believed it worked is he was like he would. He would break all everybody else's sort of naive, more naive ideas on consessions and explain any why they wouldn't work. And that's always a good a good sign in security and distributed systems that you know what you're doing is when you can break other people's stuff. Yes, it is so this. So back in twenty four, I know. And then I kind of described this like two year period where there were lots of experiments and sort of various commercial products and you know, commercial experiences with with look in the in the kinds of blockchain, but people were trying to where, the where, the where there was market demand for blockchain kind of things. The properties of tenderment, of a bunch of mutually adversarial or non cooperative parties sort of running a blockchain over the public internet. There's just not a lot of appetite for that. And spoo then in two thousand and sixteen, on sort of the spring and summer of two thousand and sixteen to eat them, came on board with tenment in Wy two thousand and fifteen. I'm still primarily focused on skew chains. At that time, e skew chain was doing like a bunch of banking POSC's, etc. We were we were looking at and we saw in two thousand and sixteen we were like, you know, I think tokens are going to be a thing. Like you're like, we kind of noticed that. Like so these like token things seem people see to be into them and we're like, well, okay, so people. So we've been looking at we, you know, Jay and even and I had been looking at blockchain scalability as sort of almost like a hobby for twenty p spur for for two years at that point and we're like what we know? We know that these systems don't scale. Like we were there when the theium was being designed. Your line. Okay, this like like there was an explicit sort of rejectionable lot of the really important ideas in terms of scalability. At that point. There was kind of been why's actually, Um, it was really hard to prioritize scalability back then. You know, bitcoin blocks weren't full. Everybody was like, we don't even know what the stuff is useful for, so why? Why in Invest In scaling it? Well, not only that, but like sometimes just getting something out is enough to start in and a thing to happen, a move right, you know, and they did. They just got something out. It didn't lose steam, it just got out. And there's a lot of problems with like the EBM and stuff. I think it's out there, we can use it, so that's good. There are there's there are certain set of design decisions back then that, like, I deeply regret. I also kind of deeply regret not yelling harder about it, like it's on me as much as anyone else because because, honestly, I didn't think, if you're in, was going to work. I thought there m with the thing that failed and the thing that came after it was the one, the thing that was to succeed. That was my bet, and I you really got to hand it to what the EPI and engineering team pulled off in two thousand and sixteen. Absolutely forgetting to a stable public network is just any also, we I think we also have to thank whoever that anonymous person is who spent thousands of dollars a day and all of two thousand and sixteen briefing the network showed a problem. That's without that, without that person, we really would not have had the ability to do what happened with the theory in terms of the whole like actually starting to use the stuff in two thousand and seventeen. So anyways, yeah, I mean I think that that that hero is under appreciate it. I also suspect that hero was desperately trying to demons trait that thetherium was never going to work, and very much did. The auto, the Batman of...

...a serium, if you will. Yeah, well, I could joke. So let me just finish with the Cosmos Story. Is the essence of the COSMO story was realized. The reason why you want a world that enables thousands of blockchains, why that world is exciting, is that it's the barrier. You know, you go back to the original side chains white paper, that the block stream came out with their life. As long as the barrier to innovation is hard working, i. just an existing distributed network, innovation is going to be really slow. What you really want is a world where you can innovate on top of block chains and innovate on top of the protocol, where the virtual machine layer, etc. In a very fast, loose way. And what so tenderment was the consensus layer of a world of a thousand of thousands of blockchains. But what we realized and why we decided to build cosmos is that we realize that if, every time you spin up a new blockchain, you have to go out to like the world of all the liquidity providers, the exchanges, the DEXES, and get them to connect to your new blockchain and again, that's like a huge barrier innovation. And what the hub is basically saying is we'll give you tender men, will give you the Cosmos s dk for building your blockchain and will also use what we call id see, like this inner blockchain channel, so that objects, like objects in the computer science sense of the term objects, but now you think the simplest object is a token, to tokens can flow between these new blockchains. So the exchanges and everybody, all the liquidity providers, only need to connect to the hub and they get access to this like rich world of innovative new assets and applications. So it's definitely a really crazy thing that we're building at. Definitely I think orange, if it works, is really going to sort of break people's brains in terms of what blockchains will look like in two thousand and eighteen, two thousand and nineteen, two thousand and twenty, and that's just kind of like step one to unwalking like an entire new world of innovation. So yeah, I think we know in many ways we kind of have been, have been a huge benefit of in terms of timing, because it does take years. I think one of the things that people don't fully appreciate out there is just how long it takes between pro ideas and engineer. Yeah, the engineering here is really hard, yeah, but just it's some of the hardest engineering that exists in the world and and everybody. Well, there's no margin for hair. I wouldn't you know. It's not. It's not that bad, but it's truly complex systems engineer, and it's it's complex systems engineering at the utter frontier of everything and we don't have we're just in the process of starting to put in abstraction layers, etc. Into that engineer is. I think that the sentiment of blockchain is a bit maybe passed where it's supposed to be in terms of where we are in terms of like technology, and what you're saying is that these are very, very complex problems and we're just now finding ways to abstract on top of them, but we haven't really quite figured out the base layer yet still, because we don't know how the very fundamental foundation it looks like. In terms of what a blockchain network looks like. We're like cosmos. Is Cosmos and tender mint are one answer or one part of the answer, where you have the thereum being one part of the answer, and how these things interconnect and move assets across them still as yet to be found out. And so to really look and make a comment on the layers that are going to be built on top of it is really, really hard to do and that's kind of where we are as a whole right now, which people don't quite understand. I am I getting that right? Yeah, I think people. People don't. I think the thing that is appreciated the least is the value of clean interfaces between things, and that is probably the core engineering values of cosmos. Is We are trying to make interfaces between systems so that two systems on this each each side of the interface can evolve sort of independently, like if you look at the way the Internet is built. You know TCID was. This was this very clean interface between how two different computers send messages to each other and it allows for an enormous amount of innovation on top of and independent like never terms of operating systems, etc.

As long as everything was willing to speak to CPIP. We in in Tenement we've come up with a number of like we have vc is as a primitive like that. We have what we call the ABCI interface, which is the interface between our consensus layer and our application layer, and we're just at the beginning of sort of fleshing out what these interfaces it are and then building the various components around the different sizes of those interfaces. But if you look at, like essentially all of the work that I've done in the last maybe year, eighteen months, it's been very focused at this interface layer and I think that's going to be it's like a key piece that has to be built up. So there's a there's a problem here, maybe not a problem, but maybe a road block to piece Aga into the entire community, because you're not the only one working on this. If theorium is trying to do the same thing by becoming the bass layer and having smart contracts be the interfaces to other off chain networks, the hub is kind of doing something similar for Cosmos, and you have other platforms like, you know, the quote Unquote Etherium Killers, like eos and definity and things like that, but are also trying to become this platform and reality, I feel like there's going to be these are equivalent to the various intranets or internets that existed before we made the one internet that connected them all. How we going to do that? Because we have to find a way to marry all of these things together so you can have a, you know, one standard to build on top. Otherwise it's just you know, what are we doing? Yeah, so kind of you know, there's always the you know, history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes. Yeah, world, and you know, before we ended up where we are today, where we basically three operating systems for the interrogrammers. Basically have two APIS. Almost it's getting to the point where there's just one API because as as windows eats more and more of the UNIX API surface area, it all just kind of becoming one. But, like you know, in many ways a lot of this stuff looks like like the S and s operating system work. That or yes, and I would say I expect and like its cential with blockchains, are is. They are operating systems. They have there. They sort of sit in this weird place between an operating system in a database and there. You know, that's what they look like. They're just a weird setting to run program like. The Way I think about this is, so what what actually we're trying to do, and what what bitcoin really demonstrated was that there's this there's a huge economic there's unexpected economic implications to having a secure computer be available. What I mean is bio superior computers, a secure a computer that is almost implausibly expensive to compromise its behavior, to like alter its behavior. So that's why I think about the Bigcoin blotching and new theory of blotching. Is there a computer that runs across thousands and thousands of physical computers and you pay and computation is incredibly slow and it has this unique, this really powerful property where it is mind bogglingly expensive, like it would cost tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to change the the executing of the execution of even like a single instruction on these computers. And that level of fault tolerance and fault and resilience. It just never existed before, and so so we're creating operating systems that now that can take advantage of and like expose this property of secure computation to the world, and that's sort of what the smart contract platform wars are is like how that should be done and what form it should be done. And one of the things that I would want, what I would one of the things I really like about cosmos versus almost every other project in the space is almost every other project in the space is conceived as a monolith in the sense that, like everything, everything is connected to everything else, from the smart contract layer down to the consensus layer. Everything is is connected together in the way almost everyone else is building these things. I mean cosmos were really about, okay, these are like discrete pieces and like you should be other mix and match. So can you differentiate a little of that? So that's actually still sounds a lot like similar to,...

I would say, the plasma effort. Can you maybe differentiate that for me? Cosmos working with plasma, that they are on the plasma is working with plasma, I think. When I you know, the plasma white paper, original plasma white differ, has a lot of clause in it. I'm talk to Jos about this a number of times. I call them out so that I can know what are those two? I mean it's just like it's a it's a bit of a mashup of it's sort of presents a lot of ideas as if they were are like one coherent thing, when they're really just a lot of different independent ideas. So I'd say in the communication around plasma there isn't a really good there isn't a really good we don't do a good job of being like this is the problem and this is the solution to that problem and what plasma sort of imagines that there would be like side chain or a sub change consensus layer that would be present in plasma implementation. And okay, what's looks like? Zoom out. Yeah, and I can't talk about the design space, okay, which is like in many ways, cosmos and plasma are are two approaches to solving problems in design space and they're very complimentary because of the fact that they're kind of trying there. Like like plasma approaches the problem of how to build communicating, fault tolerant application specific chains in one way. COGNO's works on it another way. So they're basically a bunch of primitives that enabled scalable blockchains. So one of those primitives is consensus. So tenderment is an approach that consensus. CAPP, I think key, is a tender man inspired the purs that consensus. Casper, CDC Blacks Casper is a tender man inspired perfect sensus. Threshold relay is a different set of tradeoffs in that space. That's where you want, where they kind of so, like tenderment, relies mostly on correct distributed systems thinking but has like a lot of messaging in like requires a lot of messaging overhead, which keeps that the validator pool needs to be in the orders of hundreds passper relaxes some of the the Casper approaches that the talt and bladder taking are about relaxing some of the disc like distributed systems constraints and relying more on pryctoeconomics and just being like hmm, at some point the computers in the system are not going to have certainty about what they're supposed to do next, but they're going to have sort of an inbuilt in economic risk model and they're going to locally reason about what is the best, like wease risky choice, sort of maximum risk for work choice that they can make the about, you know what, what block, what forks of the chain to build on? If I could stop you there, there's actually a really interesting point to that that I think is unique to the theium echos ecosystem right now in that etherium has value and without value you can't propose that kind of model. They needed to go from proof of work in order to go to proof of steake. So you can't just jump right into that kind of kind of system. Indeed, so so get follow can glad and have a have a stronger preference for exploring the for relying very heavily on economics to drive consensus and then, in threshold reway, special relay is mostly exploring the the the space of relying more heavily on on sort of somewhat advanced tryptographic primitives to drive consensus. So it's like trement is exploring the space of how bar can you go with while relying the least on cryptography and crypto economics so you can weigh your crpe economics and afterwards like with slashing and stuff like that, but you don't rely on it for the very essence of coming to consensus. The Casper efforts are mostly focused on we're on exploring the space where you don't need novel cryptography but you Willer the messaging overhead because of this idea of the that the Nash Elibrium of the Economic Model will drive consensus. And then special relay is really an exploration of what happens if we don't rely and for the economics as much and don't rely on just on distrited systems as much, but instead relying photography to drive sucessors. If I can kind of recap that in a kind of a different way. I feel like I want to, I...

...want to get to make sure that I get understanding of what you just said and it drives with how I currently understand things, and that is Casper, or, you know, the proof of state mechanism for the future etherium, is relying on human greed to drive consensus, or cute human self interest and optimization to drive consensus. You have cosmos, relying on the actual algorithm outside of human greed to drive consensus, and then you have something like deffinity, which is derived on novel Cryptography, to drive consensus, which takes both of those two things out of the situation. Is that right? Yeah, that's that's that's kind of how I can see these different systems. Okay, one of the limits of each each one of them. What are the plot pros and cons? So I think a lot of people are kind of more familiar with the game space, but from the cosmos and the diffinity space, like threshold relay space, what is the what is what is the problem? Considus one of the limits on these. What is what are we sacrificing to implement each one? So here's what I would say, Tenderman historied out to be a very practical system to build from an engineering point of view, which is kind of like why we have main extort tender image right now, or we have test. It's for tenderment that we've run with strangers and they stay up and they were and we can keep bug them when they get when they go when they go wrong. And so as an engineer you're like, okay, like tenderment, you know. So you know, my attraction to tenderment is, on one hand, like I see it, the feel of all of these ideas, but I'm like we're you know, you know, in a world where the I know block chains will be driven for work by shipping stuff, the tenderment approach seems to me to be the best starting point from an engineering standpoint. On the other hand, like I've spent the last five years learning enormous amount of photography and like the sort of more crypto heavy side of things that that the threshold relay represents feels a lot more state of the art. But like e's a bit of an has its head significant engineering challenges because jet because like the field of like doing photography in engineering. So if you look at like what photography we actually mostly use over the Internet today. It's all basically stuff that was invented in the S. it's heavily vetted, is what you're saying. Well, it's just more like like we invented this crytography in the S. we're sort of beer, sort of migrating more to a slightly more modern photography that is invented in the in the in the to be post two thousand, with on elliptic curve, based if the element and elliptic curve, signatures. But even the primitives of signatures and and Qy agreement are one thousand nine hundred and seventy seven primitives. You know, if you helm in are like very, very early in the Fi and it's taken a long time to get the level of understanding of how do you actually deploy those in a complex distributed system that now I don't necessarily think that that means that social relay is bad or going to take a long time, because in general, cryptography as a field has matured enormously and so it is easier to deploy more advanced crypto and more we sort of researching crypt like the pathway from research to deployed engineering systems is getting shorter. We're also have new incentives to do it. I mean that the blockchain space basically gave cryptographers a new world to play in. Yeah, gives them an incentive to develop a new applicable cryptography. But you know, like we're, we're also be tenderman doing a lot of research about essentially tenderment, to point out, which will probably involve more advanced photography and tenderment. One point I was and diffinity is hired the people that you would want to hire if you were going to deploy a bunch of novel Crypto into a distributed system, like they private, the people who would know how to do that. Um, and I then lend you think about a top like automated economic agents, like the complexity of like the bitcoin mining protocol and like the software that the complexity of going all the way to fully to glass task for in terms of the ability of the of the system to reason about its own economic self interest. Because, yes, like what drives consensus is that the humans operating nodes in castor CBC wants to optimize their wealth and that prevents the system from sort of falling apart. Or like having a degenerate, equal urban. But some engineers have to actually convert that entire thought process...

...into a procedure for like looking at a bunch of cryptographic evidence that are coming in on messages and then making decisions about what messages to send. And the CDC state machine like is terror windly complicated. The tenderman state machine is already kind of a nightmare debug. I mean I can give you an example, like we've been seeing on the test nets that, for some reason, if the test that halts, if you then so like at a third of the vote, entire goes off in the test. That's your talk, because that's the property that you would expect them any asynchronously saved. Be A keepventsis empower doslve, but it helps. So that's that's expected. What's unexpected is that when we bring a two thirds on two thous plus one online, it sometimes takes like an hour for the network to reach to the to like actually start generating the box, and we're not actually sure why why that is, and it's sort of a it's like a bit of an ongoing mystery. So imagine that like a leader election issue or something. Or we don't actually know it's like like we're a bunch of engineers and we're staring at logs trying to figure it out. So how can I help you? How could somebody's outside kind of maybe mine this data and actually try and help that product that, yeah, like we produced, like it's pretty it's pretty cool to reproduce it. It's sort of a pain in the ass because you actually to take a tenderment now, like set up like a four node tenderment network, bring two notes down. We've them down for like every two notes up and lead two notes down for a couple of hours and then bring or set up a four no tenderment network, take two those down and then bring up one of the notes that you took down and then see what happens and like just getting more log data from that would be hugely helpful. But what I'm trying to explain is more like these things, like the edge cases on these engineering systems are pretty hairy to think about and like Jay and Eaton and Anton and Zarcos, who are kind of all of our consensus expert inside the team, have like the entire tenderment state machine like in their head and it's it's it's a complicated state machine, but it's pretty well, pretty heavily specified, and it's been and people have been been debugging. We have a lot of experience debugging it. So, no, I've no doubt that we will figure out this problem. I'm just saying, like you imagine if debugging the same kind of problem in definity requires not only understanding the districted system state machine, but also, like trying to figure out, like what's going on in various pieces of advanced cryptography as potential sources of the problem? And if you look a cast for you're like, do we implement the economic reason economic logic incorrectly so that, like, we end up in a degenerate equibrium where no one has any has a strong, economic, insensitive advanced the system, even though, like, we know from our correctness proofs that, like, if we had implemented the software correctly, that like these that we wouldn't enter into this degenerate equibrium and then define that bug. So basically, my sense of a lot of these things is just like implementation maturity. Implementation Engineering is a lot of work. Is is sort of at least in order and managing you harder than protocol design and tenderment was like a good balance between like a good protocol and a thing that can be implemented and be bugged and manage in the real world. And it's going to be like I think everything, all the other approaches are really cool. I think it's going to be a lot of hard work figuring out how you build tools that actually allow you didn't run these systems in the real world, just like we had to build a lot of tools that help us understand how to run tenderment in the real world. And as we get to more real world deployments, with Cosmos Change launching now, it's going to get fun. You know, when you're when you're testing in an enterprise deployment or your own small world and you can get everyone on the phone. If the network goes down, you never test the condition of what happened at the network goes down for five hours and then wants to come back up and we never saw but like now that we you run with our validat or community test nets all the time, we are seeing these educations that like, we just didn't superplot. Yeah, I'm curious because, based on what you just said, as a young developer getting in the space for those who are listening, who are young developers trying to get into the space, what should they focus on in...

...order to try and contribute to problems like this, because they are such hard engineering problems? Mean, yeah, of course the most naive way is to basically take crypto zombies, they're not a program, smart contracts and start diving into decentralized application development. That's the, in my opinion, easiest way from a developer who's nascent to this space to jump in and do something. But if we're really going to move forward with the entire space as a whole, there needs to be some way for people to start learning things so they can contribute to problems. Like you just so it's sure, it's sort of. It's a really interesting question that I like struggle with. It like impacts, like you know, we do a lot of work with the blockchain of Berkeley kids, which are most of like a giant tribe of undergrads, the TV's that are like a trying yeah, there's a great gats, a great yeah, we hired one of their founders. You got to convince him to drop out of Berkeley and he's study is a great example of go of someone going from like essentially almost no experience to being able to contribute at the protocol development where like really from zero to D and Sixty totably the fastest ramp up I've ever seen. I've seen so far. I also forget that, like except it sort of he's so strong in the protocol design staff that like you kind of forget that, because he's also has like almost no programming experience and often doesn't know anything about photography. So it's fun. My recommend like this is the layer, if you want to build a career in this stuff, where you kind of have to like we're where there's going to be enduring value if you want to make yourself. You know, right now, solidity development and secure solidity development, it's steers more contract development is super expensive, and so people who can do it are sort of able to make like a reasonable amount of money. You know, it's a pretty profitable place to play because, like my estimateted that like deploying like two thousand lines of Solidity Code on the exterium meet securely is like half a million dollars right now, and I don't expect that to be true much longer. I expect that to start becoming like an order of magnitude cheaper over the course of the next year, year and a half for a variety of reasons and so, but like understanding how these like distributed systems work and how to debug them and how it works with them. So you know, if you want to learn, I would almost be like the only the reason I would say, come play with tenderment and start building and start learning that it built up on other tenderment. So one hand I'm like pushing the company, pushing the company the line, but I've also seen the real advance. Like it's a it's a real practical system that you can learn. It's like a thing that works. So if you change it and it doesn't work anymore, you can think. You can think about like why did my change break it? It's a lot harder when you're working at the green field system to ASER. TENDERMENT is no longer agreen file system and it's it. We're really actually inviting people being to start playing with it. My favorite thing about Tenerement, and like the fact that it works, is that like literally we tend to find out that that people had people have our building on top of us when they publish a blond person. They're like, we use tenderment like big change he needed. There's a bunch of other projects in the pipeline where we like like weak up in the morning and they're like, oh, there's another blog post of a big, high profile project that just like yeah, we built on top of tenderment because apparently we have a new partnership. Well, maybe we talked about how we could help them, but like right now it's just like they're building on top of it because they need a thing. That solved the bunch of strangers run a shared computer over the Internet problems and it really isn't anything us. All right, I have a I have a different, maybe alternate question of where these things fitted, because personally, I feel that, like most of the open blockchain space has been developed to solve problems that are needed for completely trusts in a completely trustless environment, which don't necessarily lend themselves well to private cons like private enterprise level constraints. If you're trying to deploy enterprise level blockchains, you don't have a lot of the problems that you have with, you know, creating an open, do democratic money, which is what most people associate with blockchain based applications. So how does is this temperament find itself being more available to enterprise sem trusted environments, whereas other open blockchain spaces are solving problems for completely trustless environments,...

...for are, you know, composedtely trustless. I don't like you, I don't need to like you. Like. How does that work out? Is there is there an optimization for what tenderman does, tenderments Cosmos does, versus other implementations? is an area that, even within tenderment, we do not have to be on in terms of just like this. It's a philosophical because because we all agree that tendrement yeah good. So the first question is really, do you need busine? So do you need Byzantine Vault tolerance in an enterprise setting? And so far most of the answers are no. And you get such a benefit in terms of running a very simple algorithm at very high throughput from giving a fault tolerance and only going through a regime where you can detech and halt on faults rather than try to operate on faults. What tenderment is really optimized for the world of a smallish number of entities are economically incentivized to run a program collectively over the infect and that that program is a book. You know, is a blockchain, but it can be any sort of blockchain application. The question is, then, is tenderment of good consensus for democratic money, and I think there's there's something of an open question about like what the optimal consensus is for democratic money. I think a lot of the reason why dominant and and lad and Tall I kind of explore directions that are like make different tradeoffs, as they have different views on this. Our and you know, bram working on Chia has different views on this. The CADENNA team working on chain web has different views on this. Like we kind of one of the things that we wanted to do, we did very clearly with the with the with the design of Cosmos, is we actually sort of implicitly acknowledge that we're not sure that this is the right consensus for democratic money, because we didn't ship a cryptocurrency in the cosmos. We are that we are bringing assets from existing for their currencies and we and the atom tooken is merely a security staking tooken, of which there will be many in the future as other tenement change from get spaun up and that it sort of provide that security where. So yeah, I think the question of what is the right consensus technology for the future of democratic money is is unclear. But I do know that for people who want to run secure applications in a ball chain setting, like dapps, essentially the property of a bunch of like a fault accountable, a fault attributable environment where thousands, we were a couple of hundred network functionaries are running and application and if you know their security is compromising any way, we can completely attribute who failed to folve is like a really powerful primitive for building a sort of scalable secure application world and sort of like the protocol of what is the ideal protocol of secure distributed money. Like luckily the funding environment today is sufficiently rich that we're trying like fifteen different approaches and we'll see in like five years which one seems to be good. Man, I could go in very many different directions. I've been doing this for five years and I've been like deep in the technical leads on a lot of projects for five years that I have I know a lot of things and it's a lot of it's sort of this ongoing challenge of like how do you actually communicate and expand the base of people who know those things in a expedition's way? And like I don't want to spend, I don't have time spend all my time like educating people because, like, I have shit to do right right. This is the point of this podcast. I mean that's that's the whole charter. What we're trying to do is is hash out some of the problems that exists and what people are doing to solve them. You've gone over a significant amount of underlying fundamental problems in the blockchain space and the different projects that are trying to solve them and what they're running up against and where they may be successful. So that helps people in general, but I mean it's just it's good information to try and get a handle on the current state of things and why...

...we're not super adoptive already is because there's a shitload of really fundamentally difficult engineering problems that exist, despite what yeah, you know, you know. I think what's what's the people are like. People people don't realize, is to work on these fundamental engineering problems. There was essentially no funding available from you know, so, like you know, tenament was self funded by J for a long time. There was. There was, you know, block stream that raised money to do some stuff in this space. You know, Ze cash raised a little bit of money, but it like the fundamental engineering there, if you weren't building an exchange or something else, but doesn't really that has nothing to do with this layer of the system. There was essentially no funding available until summer of two thousand and sixteen. So we're about a year into a significant amount of funding and we're just starting to pull like new talent into the space, like bringing you talent in, on boarding them up, Skilling them to really understand what all was going on and then, and like you know, the the talent pool is just starting to realize okay, this like isn't some weird flash in the pan where like there's just like we hear about these like hundreds of millions of dollars are being raised and then cook the currency prices crash and it turns out not being has any money. We people are starting to realize that there's something here that's permanent and the talent is starting to shift over and like the world of people who are doing the kind of work that I've been doing for the last couple of years is growing very quickly. So really optimistic about like where we are a year from now, two years from now, three years from now. We just kind of have to like keep running in the direction that we're running and at the end we're going to have something really awesome and amazing for the human for humanity. But it's also really you. You frequently have to step back from like the what token like is the future. Cardano is the future US most is the future Eos, and I realize that we're all just writing open source software. We're all moving fundamental engineering fields in photography, industry, systems and crypto economics forward. Everything is going to be open source and at the end there's going to be something like there's going to be winners and users along the way, but the end, the end product five to ten years now, is going to be amazed, and that that's the thing I'm excited about more than any like to be the project of the moment or you know what, choking has appreciated the most of the last week. So I'm going to ask you a question that I asked pretty much everybody who comes on here. I think I might not have asked well on the last show, but it's so. It's sort of a philosophical question on the design of these blockchain architectures and stuff. It is you mentioned like it's going to be thousands of blockchains, but is there going to be one blockchain which kind of acts as the central source of truth? And it sounds like you got this concept of a hub from Cosmos which we kind of function. Is that, I would assume, but sounds like hubs can stick. Go on, see many hubs. You know. My question is, is there going to be one central Oracle of truth in these blockchain systems, do you feel or are they're just going to be this mismassive different truth mechanisms which can exchange value and you can verify that value on that individual truth mechanism, but as no context in the others? That is like that's like. That is like a big metaphilosophical question and I think that so all of the answers that I've seen from it have more to do with people's prior to amendments and their fundraising model then like a genuine attraction to addressing that assystem. So when Cosmos we do not anticipate wes not design into the system and we do not believe it is necessary for there to be one route chain that wives them all. We think a sort of an ad hoc world is going to be is going to be pretty good for most people. I can see advantages to that route layer of security, especially if there is one, especially if a blockchain based system and its native assets become the dominant liquidity rail for the world. And I think the thing that you're trying to build, when you're trying to build that, is very different than the thing that we're trying to build the cosmos, and so, like, I'm all, I'm on board for for for trying to build that. The other thing, the sort of liquidity rail and security rail for this is like sort of root system for...

...the entire world. It'll be really I think it's going to be interesting to see what happens in that system. But I think short term, I would rather short term. I think causmos is as an easier thing to build. I think cosmos and plasma chains are pretty complimentary to each other. I think, depending on what sort of starts to work, will probably, you know, cosmos and plasma kind of merge and become very similar ideas in many ways. The plasma obviously positions at you're in as that root chain, and the Cosmos especially conceived the causemos. It wasn't like we can see the Plasmos in some of two thousand and sixteen, like your even network would go down and like every day, we were we were. We weren't willing to bet on the security of anyone network at that point in time and plasma is very much of that. And then we'll see what the market wants. We're just all kind of could it? Could you create a cosmos network as a plasma chain underneath the root? I think so. They're not even, you said, a complementary like they I mean I've seen people who there's actually a nerd module for connecting a sequel database as a plasma kind of chain, like a steaks stake. I'm not sure how that works. I have looked into the details of it, but I know that there's interesting setting up Costa streams is being sort of like operating some have the steak mechanism apply to the transactions on that. So I you know. I mean plasma allows for a lot of people to connect to a root chain, which is to me extremely compelling. Yeah, but there's also the Polka dot group and, like all these other the wh are just trying to creek is Internet of blockchains, which is, you know, hard for me to kind of define right now. And I see, I mean polk is is just a Polka dot is a sharved. So here's like an interesting, those out local question and design of blockchains that I have been trying to actually figure out. How is a Polka Dot Parro chain written with built in using a ladds and state machine on top of their substrate API, COSMOS SDK application running up an independent tenderment consensus and Primia definity actor model smart contract running on top of the botching nervous system, different in any fundamental ways? I don't think that they are. Like I think the line between a DAPP and or like a smart contract and a blockchain application are probably when a furium was created, it wasn't really clear whether or not what the market demand was for, whether it was market demand this for programmable money or the market demand was for secure application platforms. I think it's becoming increasingly clear that there's market demain for both applications. But the technical architecture or a boat applications should probably be different, and so cosmos polk it on and difinity. You know, always say Martin Beasley's work, and diffinity seem to be like really trying to like figure out what that distributed application space looks like. And basically the programmable money space should probably stop at like the PLASMO rout chain contract is being the most complicated thing you want. At the programmable money. I feel like the design of these systems should be completely agnostic so that the market can demand what it once from the system, because if you if you put in rules of the base layer that can strain you to what is capable everything on top of it, then you basically constrain that system to whatever that think is allowed to do at but so the question is, do we end up in a future where we have a bunch of networks that are single purpose or like maybe constrained to a certain ideology of what it's supposed to do, or can we build systems that are general enough to do all of the things at once? It's like you know you can have if they're going to be both this decentralized trust layer for applications or and also programmable money or do we just have kind of things highly specialized to be finally tuned to do a single thing and we interact between them? So we have maybe bitcoin be the money, while, if they're um can be this decentralized application, or we have this network of networks that do all of these things? I don't know, like I totally understand what I'm trying to ask there, and I'm skeptical of the idea of to do everything that I'm pretty I'm skeptical about will be a thing...

...that is economically efficient to maintain. I think that there I think there's there's going to be an enormous amount of value to specialization and there's going to be an enormous amount of value to specialization and interoperability, and I if you, if you think that there's like a fundamental bet that is like sort of at the root of the of the cosmost team's ideology about the world. It's that if that specialization and interoperability is is this is the key to the is the way these systems will be built in the future, rather than here is the general purpose do everything system, because man, the general purpose do everything system is complicated like what people like, like Oh, like we have transactions and they manipulate a mercle tree of state, is actually like ten percent of what the system that we need five years from now to be able to do. Like the system that we need five years and that for now needs to be able like have, like support computations in jour knowledge that like the turns yourn off prooves, computations that are run on secure on page, computations that are run intocure multiparty computation. We need to be able to support like economic punishments and availability prooves and fraud prooves from a variety of different systems. And it's you know, you're going to have various kinds of state machines that run on top of this stuff, running like probably a fairly rapidly evolving sort of kind of cryptographic primitives. And I think the lesson has been like, like, Bitcoin is clearly too inflexible to really do any of this stuff, even a theory. And for all its flexibility has enabled an enormous amount of innovation. But even if hereims flexibility is and like the more you go down the road of okay, so so if you're you know, Bitcoin wasn't flexible enough. So we invented a theory. Hearings not flexible enough, so we're going to make another things even more flexible. Essentially, you get this, you get to these systems that are so complicated that no one like. How do you like, how do you practically manage them and build them? Where is if there are interoperating system that can focus on different core strengths, we can get to a world. We can get to a world where like all of the stuff works. Yeah, well, so I was wanting to you can tell me, like tell me a little more about the trust Diet Alliance? What kind of stuff here and countering there, and what kind of, you know, problems you're trying to tackle with that particular group? So what's like to go to like the so I really I've seen anon like ever, expanding, like there's a huge amount of enthusiasm and interest and possibility in the intersection of Iot and block chains and use cases are we're starting to get a sense of it. It's, you know, secure edge computing, like being able to use it, you know, for for devices that are deployed in the field in order to access reached like from flight, resources like power and bandwidth, access, compute score their data, etc. In non sort of cloud based environment. It's about like securing and authenticating devices as they come into the system. I think there's going to be a huge amount of interest in sort of backing assets that are existing on public block chains. We had with a physical twin of that assets. So whether it's like the prototypical barrel oil or Google of bars, or for other kind of blockchain traded asset like. I think I'm expecting to see a very rich world emerge of RSTRC seven twenty one assets are eip seven twenty one assets like unfundable Tokens, that backed box that I like, have a physical twin in the world and there's a data the there's like there's a there's a key pair that sort of represents the state of that data coming out of that thing. It's not like of just pictures of cats. Yeah, I think that's the that's the it's going to be huge, a huge and rich market and a very important layer of the system. The reason we have an alliance is, I would there's there's a lot of duplicative work that is going on in the Iot blockchain space and that duplicative work has...

...the as at its core. Like you kind of were to break down maybe the last four years of Ioke blockchain projects, it all really just comes down to a bunch of all the companies in the space exploring integration patterns together so sort of independently, and almost all of them came to the same conclusions. Like it's not like we guys twenty companies exploring twenty different ways of integrating or maybe they explored fifty or a hundred different ways in the Iot device and a blockchain to be integrated with each other, but it probably pretty it all came into the same way, four or five answers, and so that was the reason, you know, and we came together as a community and published the trust stategy of line architecture that sort of encompasses that. But my goal, the alliance has banned, you know, just in terms of like the theme of trying to build infrastructure and we'll see how we're trying to see how far we can get in this, but it's the aliance is very much like an expect it's like it's kind of like this crazy experiment in not driving a thing with a strong profit Loado, like instead trying to get all of these individual companies are various scales that are all written by their own profit. What is to stop duplicating each other's work and try to build on top of each other's work so that we can get to scale faster. But it's what a scale mean for you, like what is what is? What is world demands going to look like with an at world and blockchain? Like what would are we? Do you measured in transaction volume or what do you what do you actually measured in? Most of care about, like numbers of devices connected to block chains. Is probably the number that I'm thinking about. Like what is to scale actually kind of mean? What to scale actually means is really actually like so, the the digital money application, like the digital goal, application of blockchains and application that exists at scale dollars and to value your number of market participants. Richness of ecosystems completely exists. The pro the secure programmable Internet platform, Internet application platform, is also a thing that exists in boxing. What I would say is is, with Iot, we're not at scale yet because that market category has not gotten out of the Rd phase and there are so many moving pieces from like how do you support secure keys? How do you deal with the scalability challenges of actually having IOT transaction volume. How do you deal with the fact that, like, you can't run a blotching full note on an Iot device? How do you integrate the legacy systems? There is all these significant technical challenges that are not just similar from the kinds of technical challenges that we saw in the kinds of blockchain applications that I've mentioned before. Have like reach scale. My concern is really that all, like my concern in the space is that without more cooperation. But it's actually it's like it's not in the interests of it's like and it's somewhat antagonistic to the fundamental interest of the startup company. is in the you know, the protocols that have been launched in the space to actually truly cooperate with each other. So I'm like I'm writing their natural tendencies to an extent, but but I'm trying to convince them that there is the better world on the other side if you work together. But it's like they're all struggling. Every every player in the space is like trying to competitively differentiate each other than everyone else. Can't do that with blockchain and that defeats the whole purpose. So the kind of all right, go ahead, this is the this is not this is not a new issue blockchain space. And this is, I think, summed up by a conversation that I've heard, I think a year, maybe year and a half ago, between all of the storage plays in the space. And it comes down to standards, right. It's like, in order for you to grow, especially in a when you have ultim implanted multiple implementations of the same kind of core idea, you need a standard which can be built with which infrastructre can be built upon, the reason why we have such a massive ecosystem in tokens is that there came out with the arc twenty standard which you could build, which you could allow people to build something that Inter operates to each other and you can build ex changes that then moves throughout. The reason why maybe you see this f future in the ere seven hundred and twenty one, the non fungible token stuff, is because, one, there's a use case,...

...but there's also a standard which you can build this infrastructure around and with the same situation of maybe scalability or supply chain management or whatever a thing you're talking about. There needs to be a standard in Iot. But like the role of an alliance is not to lead the market, it's to follow the market, if you like. We create an environment in ascent as, incentives and a playground where people can but, like, it's fascinating to me. Like it to me the business opportunity of standard of how a nft is linked to is linked to links of physical asset to a block chain atset and what the entire life cycle of provisioning all that stuff and what the value of coming together around that is. It's so obvious to me and like I'll continue to champion that inside the alliance. But the end of the day it's up to individual alliance and numbers just kind of figure out and do what's in their best interests and how they perceive their best interest. But I still I still feel like, a year into the alliance, it's going well from okay, like we're collaborating with each other and like the membership is growing and engagement is deepening. I would really like to see and I would love to see like a singular focus by a bunch of companies, but how to go to market around a standard emerged, and that has yet like her, and so I'm still waiting for it. And it will definitely it will definitely come. You know, the the point of the alliance was to choose to try this experiment, is to try the experiment of trying to get these companies to converge and cooperate with each other. But really, you know, there's all these market forces that also to pull them in all of these other directions. Well, let's let's maybe possibly, if I can get you to try and put on your thinker's Cap, how if you were to ruminate what a standard for Iot devices even look like? What would be, I like, at least one or two primary necessities for a standard to what do you from the alliance like what this actually work like? It would it would be a stick, like it would be standards or what the like? What the hardware that sourts keys are looks like, what the provisioning process for those keys into the hard world of site and then how data is is is and like where you go to look up whether or not when a device shows up, like like think about this question, like I am a gold bar are that I want to be able to trade that, like I want to know is it a vault somewhere and if it's a in that ball, I can trade the token, tokenized identity of that gold black. Okay, that's what you want to to the life cycle of that is. How did the key get like? How did this particular keypair get associated with that gold bar having a stick a process for doing that, then a process but which says, okay, now, anyone who holds that token, this is where they go and look up to make sure that they've got the access to the audit blow. That products compelling evidence that that Gold Bar is still in the bolt. And then how would that data signed and distributed and where's its store and and that would be like a minimum, biable standard for doing it. And the question is always been like do we invent that standard inside of the commune side of the Alliance? And my suspicion is is that, like I we even if he invented a standard in the alliance and advocated for it, market adoption would not be there. I think that the market at like, markets have to converge. Like you know, people, a lot of us, act like the arc twenty was like the first token standard, but remember, counterparty tokens existed before. You see twenty tokens like like we went through so many iterations of token of tokens on block chains, from polared coins to counterparty token, until the market convergence happened, and I wouldn't necessarily suggest that it was like it was just the fact that the talt like went out and said here's The arc twenty standard that it happens. I think the tallest certainly helps, but certainly helps. I mean the tall it is also sort of very market responsive. He was like, Oh, like the tell it lives on an airplane and talks to hundreds of people a day or, you know, hundreds of people a month. And probably it was like, Oh, I see this common I see the common pattern...

...of what everyone is trying to do. What if I just like kind of like simplify it down, like with the iokey space? It's a similar kind of thing. It's like I want the alliance to exist because I'm hoping to accelerate that process when the market is ready for it. Of Why do we adopted? Standards Emerging, but the market has to be ready for it. And it's like timing, that question has always been like a super hard thing for me to answer, like whether or not the timing was right. And so you know this on the whole has been like a low risk way for us to like on this experiment and if the and like the experiment is ongoing and we'll see what will see what happens, but it's hard for me to tell, like I would log for that's I think would be a huge market of Celer if that standard where the emerge that light, but it has to be the moment of start it. Like think about all the things that has to happen. Like startup companies actually have to produce hardware devices that can be attached to physical goods at scale. Exchanges have to support the data standard likes this enormous market convergence that has to to be driven and occur. And I would say, and many, you know, not all of the companies and most of the type, it's, you know, subset of companies in the aliance care about that. A lot of the companies in the aliance are also pushing some of their own agendas in their own protocols and around visions, and so it's going. It's a messy process to the the alliance is kind of like a place for that messy process to take place and hopefully, hopefully, something to emerge out of it. That will, that will allow the ITT Blotcha in space to truly get to escape games. That's a that's a pretty awesome, awesome goal. I think that's going to going to be great when an everything starts panying out. I rely do you feel like that ECO system is necessary? You know, it's definitely happens, it's definitely necessary, it's definitely super important. It's it's you know, I think a lot of people have you know, there's like you know, people have talked about should the alliance just like issue would token and raise a bunch of money and go it and drive its own approach? And, like I'm I reject all of that. I'm learning. I'm really in the position of ideally, I'd like you all to just start to talk to each other, everybody's working in this space, to talk to each other more and hopefully discover for yourselves that your incentives are alive. Yeah, I think it's funny too, that the token itself is kind of just side note here. Like you know, when they first came out I think they had some sort of a level legitimacy. Now legitimacy, but now it's kind of when I hear token, my my alarms immediately go up like there's this is something else. You know, why are you incentivizing this? Like what is going on? So I think it's great that you're staying away from that and just focusing on like, look, this is a social contract. We are all working together to build something that is going to benefit the world and actually benefit you know each other, so let's just get in the same room. I think it's great that you're taking that approach. Very Watch yeah, that's my approach for the alliance. I think everybody is like everyone is trying to be like there's a lot of little pressures in the alliance that are life go out and drive action from the alliance, and I'm like that is the wrong use of the MEDA megathone. The right use of the megathone is to wait for that market to discover it's like discover what it wants to be. Like. There's a reason why we structure this thing very differently from both enterprise of Theory and Alliance and Hyper Ledger, like both of those structures are very type, different intensives and in different spatecifics, and none of them were right for that intersection of Pot inductions. So, speaking of hyper ledgers. You wrote a blog about and two thousand and sixteen regarding the kind of like the idea of hyper ledger is going in the right direction. Are you still feeling that that, or just like what they thought, what you thought they wanted to be, was the right direction, but they ended up not going there, or is there still place for them? Um, so what hyper ledger is right now? So there's two there's two questions about like what hyper ledger is right one is the question is what of what faverage is? Which is it? which is sort of the this is is kind of the flagship IDM that hyper ledger projects, and then there's overall hyper ledger thing. The biggest thing that I would observe is the center of gravity in this in this space is going to is shifting, like has shifted clearly...

...and probably permanently from in our private box chains to public boxes, and I don't necessarily think that that is and well, I was I've always been hopeful that that would occur. It happened maybe like it like what I what happened in two thousand and seventeen in terms of like the center of gravity shifting to a public box chains. I thought was maybe another three to five years in the future. When I was sitting there in two thousand and sixteen, like it was it was. It's sort of been shocking how fast that movement has occurred. And so while I think the enterprise blockchains have are useful and have technical merit and and one of the big things that I would observe about all public blockchain technology today is the other big thing that's going on in public block chain technology today is none of those systems are remotely enterprise ready. In the work of making them enterprise ready is what is is immense and almost know and none of the companies that are funded like essentially the only people who've ever built an enterprise ready public blockchain in the space are ripple and it's a very narrow use case that for which they have achieved enterprise ready solution. So, like general purpose at enterprise readiness for blockchain platforms is a thing that is very good to be solved by traditional Enterprise Technology vendors and hyper ledger is a really great place for them to to work together there on that all what I I think it's obvious to me that's like that the scent that the son of the blockchain solar system is going to be public blockchains and that the outer that the orbiting bodies of that Sun are going to be various flavors of private block chains and enterprise ready connecting components to connect enterprise systems to public bell chains and to private buckchains if you're connected to public bull chains. And so I think that as hype. I think of the necessity of hyper ledger will exist, but will come, will become inextrably more drawn around what's happening in the public blockchain space and I think to a large extent everyone accepts that. I think when when I was writing in two thousand and sixteen, it was just like the only technology that like remotely had a path to enterprise readiness in the space was fabric, and it was kind of like, well, I want to I want to shift, you know, these solutions today. What else am I going to be used? Fabric is still by far the most enterprise ready solution. But fabric, fabric was architectured in a world for a world with where this public blockchain fundable asset components. It was not as primary and somehow that tension has to be resolved and that whether it's adapting technology from like that's being fabric already to a world of public blockchains. Like I been star I've been working together perhaps or other collaborations that might happen. There's a surprising number of you probably like. I think it's for people who aren't sort of in the space. There are a lot of new enterprise blockchain platforms that are going to launch in this year, more than you would suspect. He named a few of them. Well, so I've India's that cover a bunch of them. So I can't really talk about them. I can, I know that Oracle is run, and I know this completely out of Dan so I can talk about it. Is Oracle is launching their own sort of flavor of fabric this year, which will be interesting. But there's a lot of actually get Ovo vm where launching one, and there are others that are coming, and so I'm I really want big enterprise vendors to come into the space. I think that's like just like I think there's certain things that were just like really ill suited to do, even as an extremely well undid sort of blockchain start up kind of thing on the enterprise side, which not we're ill suited to solve these problems, and so it will be really helpful to have more enterprise blockchain vendors come in. But I think that future enterprise blockchain platforms really need very clear answers about how they intend to interoperate the public auctions because clearly because there's just so much innovation that's already kind of locked in, like the money has been raised. Even if chuper currency crisis cush today, enough risk mitigation is enough. Diversification has happened in enough of those projects that and I don't expect currency prisis to crash any time in the nearest future. White and by crash we're...

...not like based on where we are today, we would need it not to crash by like eighty percent, but but like by like ninety five percent, before you know the innovation funding kind of disappears. The cats out of the bag. The cat is out of the bag, and so there needs to be like I think innerprise platforms really need to have an eye to both how they answer the Enterprise Readiness Question but also probably answer the interoperability with public chains question. If you don't have to, you know public chains are now going to do are not doing. You know, I would say probably, like on the etherium side at least, consensus is kind of is the is kind of working on the enterprise readiness of the etherium staff in a serious way now and that they have the scale to essentially do this other than the other than what ripple is already accomplished and what what consensus is doing on the etherium side still like from the public, from public block games coming to enterprise, it's going to be. It's that's a pretty slow process and it's actually a lot easier for enterprise vendors to come to blockchain like prise enterprise block chains and from innervized B ck chains to public blockchains. Is that actually a lot more plausible path? I think the path that's going to end up being very important and that that said pathways. Basically, instead of, you know, completely generalizing and solving all the scaling solutions of a public block chain, you just create an API and your private blockchain to interface with what the public blockchains already doing. Yeah, and it has to be it has to have a notion of how those how you traverse truss boundary. Yeah, now that makes sense on both sides of that system. Yeah, a lot of the current solutions that are are being proposed. They get there about everybody having their own kind of like portal chain. What I would say about fabrics just like okay, sure, cut you off. The biggest sort of design flaw in the current iterations of fabric or pretty much anything in the hyper ledger world right now is that they only deal in the world of a single unified trust boundary today. Like, like what? What interoperability exists within fabric is only possible within everyone has the same notion of trust in each other inside that interoperable space. So you can run many but you can munch. You can have multiple different trust boundaries inside even a single fabric. blockchains through their channels architecture, but there's no interoperability that cross tush factories and in like that piece club, the enterprise reading this piece is going to be the seed all of this. Yeah, that's actually that's that's that's exactly the problems I was noticing with higher ledger. I think you put it way better than I did, so I appreciate that at a whole, clear some things up. Like I was saying, a lot of the problems I saw was that most of the architectures that are proposed for these consoortier chains. They require everybody to be on the same kind of chain. And you know, like you creative, everybody has their own node in their own network and it's all for this specific purpose, for the specific trust mechanism, for the specific this is the food industry chainer, this is the luxury chain or something like that. That sounds great and all, but unless you have some way of connecting that value to a bigger picture, I feel as though it's just too early stage to be of I mean, it will be tremendously valuable, but I think we still get along on account. I mean yeah, like parody. As a vendor is thinking about this, consensus of the vendor is thinking about this like connecting change across trountic crush boundaries is just what we do, attenderment. It's kind of like it's a core value of ours. I would you know, I'd like to see more from the enterprise side, and I think you will. There's things I know about the can't talk about that are coming down the pipe there, you know, and I think we also can like just acknowledge. But technically IDM was really from a technical point of view. I am as almost the really good player to interpret introduce an enterprise doctor and because they have that stutid systems expertise, they have the cryptography expertise. The biggest challenge with them is that they have too big of a consulting arm. But a lot of these problems you're not economically and stuff you're not cons like. Having a big consulting arm like economically disincentiviizes you from solving these problems because if you have a big consulting arm, you can and you don't produce a solution that's interoperable across trust boundaries, then you can sell the same solution to every trust stone, like to every piece of...

...the trust picture, whereas if you build an interoperable solution across trust boundaries, you actually are foregoing consulting revenue because you can't you don't get to set end up twenty or thirty different supply chain blockchains. You sent that you build one interoperable supply chain solution that works across trust bounties and everybody just connects to as a very interesting point that I'd think as lost on a lot of people in terms of that in the enterprise phase. Yeah, and you know, I little I worry a little bit about that with consensus as well. Like consensus is has has these consulting ish aspects of their insuntives, the company consensus, and it's really like I'm I'm I'd be really I'm excited to see potentially companies, enterprise companies, coming in the space that WHO consulting is not their strength, he's not professional services is not their strength, and really wants to wants to shit that platform layer. All right, so I think that's a that's a nice kind of full circle of a conversation. Why don't we wrap up this? was that you pretty much covered like essentially what I've been working on the last year is all of these things. Well, you're all run them up, Pan Dude, you, you, yeah, covering a lot of areas. Press us. Yeah, where can people find you the money? And on twitter is probably the twitter is a good place to keep an eye on me. It's actually funny, though. It's like it's kind to the point where, like I'm any political entanglements now. It's like you can't really talk on twitter anymore. Like like I'm not, you know, it's like I can't like I can't just like take down like a completely broken project on twitter anymore. It's just like disaster. I wish that you would. Oh Man, do I wish that you would. I would love twitter so much more people did more of that. Yeah, the closest I come now to like doing these like takedown the projects as I'm like in a bunch of DC water color telegram rooms and I'll just be like and I'll just slaughter something. But invite me place. It's hard for me to be with. But you get, you get, you get politically jingled in too many things and it becomes like it just it becomes wiser to have most conversations in private or in like at least somewhat restricted populations of people rather than just like through the megaphone to the entire world. All right, well, at the cost of prolonging this conversation, I need to dig in this a little further, because I have a serious problem with the current state of the public perspective of what blockchain is and the projects in them, and that there aren't enough people taking down projects that are that simply don't work, our scams or or are illegitimate and are misconceiving people, because there are quite a few of them, and if we don't have enough people with the prowess to take them down, they're going to continue to exist, which they shouldn't. Yeah, I mean, I certainly said that's one thing that I'm kind of feel good where we like. It's one thing that I'm kind of like at least feel a little bit better about, like how we're how like it's, you know, they're downsides to the investing space becoming more and more constranger credited investors, but at least to credited investors can pay people like me to to kind of like analyze projects and be like, well, what is the like? We have the has been being useful and successful and especially early in the technology and maturity and basically a fan of trying to like turn this over to professional investors as much as possible, just because, yeah, like there's so much money right now. That why, in general, it's too easy to get something that is questionable fund all right. Well, I'll tell you, like my personal fears, that you never know where something's going to wind up. It did some of these people, of all these projects get in for different reasons that you don't quite fully understand over the full scope on. So my big Fer's like I'm going to talk of a specific project. I mean this person action one to try to get into something legitimate. You'RE gonna have a lot of money. They might take it to those they might all right, that's a that's all the time we have today. That was outstanding. I appreciate come on the show and I look for the kind of watching the progress of all of the figure yeah, they get really picked. It a show. Thanks.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (128)