Will it be possible to develop for Native Token in the meantime and update whenever the work on it is picked up again by the team?
If one of the reasons erc20 is chosen is to protect developers, what will that change later, that convinces you the work on native token can start again?
I read it as âwe can pay for uploads using any token, but for using that token we have to pay with Native Tokenâ
And to use erc20 youâll need ETH Gas, horrifying vision!
Will there be API for that? This would need a fork of node software, that will accept the new token as a payment. yes? Probably questions for a future, as you already said.
None of existing half-centralized projects has good reputation in my opinion.
Not in the âfor everyoneâ scenario, where nodes-at-home earn tokens only to use the network. In that case we do not need to transfer the money outside. But we need to have apps and usecases for that. Neglecting app devs is a shot in the foot in this scenario.
Itâs significant for me how much of "we"s changed to "they"s lately. Perhaps because the likes of this:
Which is certainly not putting community on an important place in the project. I understand people, who decide time spent here on debates is a wasted time.
In terms of making the technical ability into a currency then it needs, wallets, exchanges etc. but also a reason to be. Thatâs where app devs can create those reasons to be and I hope surprise us all.
Itâs not my believe, itâs a fact. If you want a neutral source, here is what ChatGPT has to say about it:
Is PoS More Prone to Censorship Attacks?
Yes, PoS is often considered more prone to censorship attacks than PoW. The reasons include:
Centralization Risk: Validators in PoS systems could become more centralized (e.g., through staking pools or exchanges), making it easier for a small number of entities to comply with or enforce censorship.
Lower Entry Costs: Since PoS doesnât require energy-intensive mining, attackers might find it cheaper to gain significant control over the network by acquiring and staking a large portion of the coins.
Regulatory Pressure: Entities controlling large stakes may be legally pressured to censor transactions, especially if they are companies (e.g., exchanges) subject to regulatory oversight.
Iâm on page âLaunch Planning: Community Update - Development / Updates - Autonomi Forum (Safe)â with âIs PoS More Prone to Censorship Attacks?â selected.
.
Please summarize the selection using precise and concise language. Use headers
Mitigation Strategies
Decentralization: Promoting decentralization in both PoW and PoS networks can help mitigate censorship risks.
Diversity: Ensuring diversity among validators and miners can reduce the concentration of power and influence.
Economic incentives: Designing economic incentives that discourage censorship and reward honest behavior can help protect against attacks.
Gemini just tends to avoid conflicts and gives a pragmatic answer. But if you ask for a definite answer it comes to the same conclusion: https://gemini.google.com/share/9020730e83eb
Given how much is at stake with SAFE - given the sensible data that might get stored on it we should not compromise on security and cencorship resistance and opt for the best solution - not the fastest available.
Could we imporve on comms, of course. And Iâm sad that people feel this way⌠But I think it is a unfair to characterise it as ingnoring community voices, espcially many of the significant changes are directly because of community input since the white paper, and concerns and ideas expressed WRT to the launch timetable⌠but all wrapped up in a plan that is in the realm of the achievable.
All Good. Below is a long term UTXO L2 technology consideration for the Maidsafe, @dirvine and supporting community development long term effort, just emerging.
Imo likely worth a glance, to at least help with the design of ANT Autonomi Network Token âpost ERC 20 token phaseâ. Itâs fresh off the substack of Dan Held, chief BTC cheerleader on Linkedin as well as on other social media⌠Its SpiderChain fully distributed L2 âwith the singular goal of supporting a decentralized financial system running on Bitcoin.â
Have a look when you have time, its not of course urgentâŚ
for the record the OGs behind Spiderchain below. ( Held doing some self promotion as well. )
Lead Investors of Botanix Labs
Based on the provided search results, the lead investors funding Botanix Labs include:
UTXO Management
Polychain Capital
Valor Equity Partners
Andrew Kang
Dan Held
Dovey Wan
Eric Wall
These investors participated in Botanix Labsâ $11.5 million funding round, with UTXO Management, Polychain Capital, and Valor Equity Partners being prominent investors. The exact breakdown of the funding round is not specified, but these entities are listed as lead investors.
Based on the provided search results, here are the primary differentiated capabilities of Botanix Labâs Layer 2 blockchain SpiderChain versus Bitcoinâs Layer 1 blockchain:
Compatibility and Interoperability: * SpiderChain is designed to be compatible with Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) layers, allowing for seamless integration with Ethereum-based applications and smart contracts. * Bitcoin Layer 1 blockchain, on the other hand, has its own native scripting language and does not natively support EVM-based smart contracts.
Scalability: * SpiderChain is a Layer 2 protocol, which means it uses the underlying Bitcoin Layer 1 blockchain for network and security infrastructure but is more flexible in scaling transaction processing and overall throughput. * Bitcoin Layer 1 blockchain has inherent limitations in terms of scalability, relying on solutions like the Lightning Network for off-chain transactions.
Smart Contract Capabilities: * SpiderChain utilizes the accounts-based model, similar to Ethereum, allowing for the execution of complex smart contracts. * Bitcoin Layer 1 blockchain uses the UTXO (Unspent Transaction Output) model, which is less suitable for complex smart contracts.
Decentralization and Security: * Both SpiderChain and Bitcoin Layer 1 blockchain inherit decentralization properties, with SpiderChainâs synthetic bitcoin pegged to one bitcoin on the base layer, ensuring immutability, decentralization, and security. * However, SpiderChainâs Orchestrator nodes play a central role in creating new blocks, validating transactions, and minting/burning synthetic bitcoin, which may introduce some centralization risk.
Bridge and Peg: * SpiderChain features a two-way peg bridge, enabling users to âmoveâ BTC back and forth between Botanix and Bitcoin, allowing for cross-chain liquidity and interoperability.
These differentiated capabilities position SpiderChain as a more flexible and scalable solution for executing smart contracts and enabling interoperability with Ethereum-based applications, while maintaining the security and decentralization properties of the Bitcoin Layer 1 blockchain.
If uploading anything will be a huge PITA like neo says, any app based on user generated content is going to be dead on arrival. Making bad apps that would hypothetically be good if there were a native token, doesnât seem like a surefire plan.
One of the first app ideas I had was a tag-based image archive with user uploaded images. Neo has said that uploading lots of smallish files will be untenable with the network token for average people. So either heâs wrong or that idea isnât going to work. I imagine thereâs many similar use-cases that wont either.
So I am back to a state of confusion regarding if the will of the project is to open the storage payment to nodes for competition, or keep it strictly to the currencies that the MAID / eMAID is a proxy for?
Can I get a clear, definitive answer to this? @dirvine@Bux
Iâd like to give you a little hope though, by pointing you towards other projects (Filecoin, Arweave etc) and the various different solutiuons, apps and ecosystems built around them â and they have far more complex data onboarding situations.
For developers, you could see it an opportunity too. I hope the upcoming builders program will shed some light on that too.
The network will launch with a single token to pay for storage. That token will be paid to node operators!
Thatâs it. The future will have many different things, there is a transactions data type, but The network will launch with a single token to pay for storage. That token will be paid to node operators!
I hope thatâs clear, I cannot think how to be more clear. Sorry for any confusion folk have about this, but The network will launch with a single token to pay for storage. That token will be paid to node operators!
The network will launch with a single token to pay for storage. That token will be paid to node operators!
The network will launch with a single token to pay for storage. That token will be paid to node operators!
The network will launch with a single token to pay for storage. That token will be paid to node operators!
The world gets more and more complex by the day it seems, with human attention span even coming into the equation. The longer it takes for all the pieces to come together, the more the need for solutions like this, for tech and brains alike. Maybe the pieces only ever come together when all working parts are in order; so other projects have been waiting for [Autonomi] while building their own, and we need them just as much as we need us, or rather we all just are. It also just seems like âa roadmap was created,â and thereafter the goal has been to stick to it as much as possible, âcompromisesâ and all; otherwise there would be no roadmap, and there would be more delays. This is the current situation that has been created. The network will launch with a single token to pay for storage. That token will be paid to node operators!
Can you think of a blockchain among the 2 million different projects where you can pay with 2 or more currencies to the node operators?
What happens is just the code forks, I know the human brain prefers to think of 1 network, but the probability of Autonomi succeeding and not having duplicates is close to 0âŚ
What is unclear to me is what transactions data type means?
Is it something that basically anyone can use to create a transaction that works on the same base level as the native currency? Does it enable for example a process where anyone can create a currency that could be used to pay for storage, if node operators decide to accept it as a payment?
Iâm on page âLaunch Planning: Community Update - Development / Updates - Autonomi Forum (Safe)â with âIs PoS More Prone to Censorship Attacks?â selected.
