Wanzi Xiongwen | Interview with Boka founder, deep understanding of Poca and Gavin wood

This article by Laura Shin interviews Parity CEO Jutta Steiner and Polkadot founder Gavin wood

Introduced at the end of this year, Polkadot, how it intends to address scalability, interoperability and security, when developers choose to build a dapp, choose whether to build a parallel chain on the Ethereum or on Polkadot. We also discussed their other product Substrate, which allows developers to easily customize the blockchain and the competition between Ethereum and Polkadot. In addition, we discussed the funds frozen by Parity and other encryption teams, and why Jutta and Gavin believe that the community should be upgraded in a way that unlocks funds.

This article was translated by William Coin Circle, Original: https://unchainedpodcast.com/paritys-jutta-steiner-and-gavin-wood-on-polkadot-substrate-and-the-frozen-funds/

This article is intended to help you get a deeper understanding of Poca, Parity and Gavin Wood.

host:

Hello everyone! Welcome to Unchained, all your no-hype encryption resources. I am the host Laura Shin. Today's guests are Jutta Steiner, co-founder and CEO of Parity, and Gavin Wood, co-founder and CEO of Parity. Welcome two. How do each of you participate in the encrypted world? Gavin, you should answer first, because I think your participation should be earlier than Jutta.

Gavin:

I think it was early 2013, when I sat on the bed reading an article in the newspaper in this crazy place in Berlin, this guy had a bar on the street in Berlin, and he talked about how to anti-establish, there are many artists, squatter residents This is a foreign scene from my point of view, I live in the suburbs of Leeds, and he talks about how many businesses switch, or make it look like at least how many businesses switch to each other's bits The means of payment of coins, I think this is legal and see how the world works. At about the same time, the Silk Road (dark net trading site) also collected some infamous-ity, but this is another connection, tor, encryption, bitcoin, and together they make me think there may be some potential Social change happened here, so I investigated it further and I met someone who is also called Amir Taaki in this article.

I went to London to see him, just wanted to chat with him, figure out what happened here, and then one thing went on to another. I met a group of people and eventually met Vitalik. I started working on Ethereum. He published a white paper proposing that if you like, a reflection on blockchain or bitcoin, this is bitcoin, there is no real block. Chain, I think this will be a very interesting way to understand the technology while, in a sense, a deeper understanding, what kind of impact may be on the society as a whole, this is in December 2013, I set out Coded Ethereum, basically, things are going fast from there for me, going to Miami and the space for everyone else in the January meeting, in February we mainly launched the original proof of Ethereum that I wrote something, I mean, a lot of crazy stuff.

host:

Yes. Seriously, I mean, your story is obviously very important in etheric space. So Jutta, what about you?

Jutta:

I was only in contact with Gavin a few months after I contacted the world of encryption, and in May 2014, almost five years ago, I started to participate. From a different perspective, mainly through personal leadership, I think, I am more concerned about Snowden's revelation, how our lives work online privacy, what happened to my data, so I am researching , like, what's the latest tool to share personal data encryption, and find online discussion people guessing how to use Ethereum in this case, make me interested, I think I first saw Maidsafe and then some links after I found myself in Reddit, people talk about Ethereum, and then see Gavin's bitcoin meeting in Berlin, so I went there, which is more interesting to people I know.

host:

So, as we mentioned before, Bitcoin is the most important before Ethereum, so why are you so fascinated by Ethereum itself?

Jutta:

For me, it's really like how to re-architect the network. I think Gavin has some ideas and crystals in the Washington Post. He wrote about Web3 and how to build a complete peer-to-peer network stack to solve many problems. These days we saw this, it really made me resonate.

Gavin:

Yes. When I came to this space, I thought I saw Bitcoin before 2013, but I think it is a grotesque idea, this currency, without any practical meaning, I think there may be some legitimate utility in technology cover up Bitcoin. When Ethereum appeared, I could see that this was an improvement, but I can't really understand what the real consequences are, and if you go back to the original proposal, Vitalik was in the end of 2013, this is really a more programmable version of Bitcoin, But there is nothing, you know, in how it is pushed fundamentally different, it is still a very pure blockchain solution. The idea is that you have money, their idea is that you can attach rules to money, but the main difference in sorting is that these rules may be Turing complete, this is all true communication about why Ethereum is different bitcoin Around this Turing complete concept.

host:

Because I am not a technician, I have heard that Turing is complete, but what does this mean?

Gavin:

Essentially, it means that you can express any set of rules or business logic you want, so Turing integrity is just a way to say that a particular language can basically express any kind we can think of. concept.

Jutta:

This is the difference between Bitcoin and the computer. The former is a calculator that can do something specific, and the latter can basically do anything.

Gavin:

correct. So, when we are going to write Ethereum, I remember a thought in January 2014, my understanding, while Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, and some other projects really want to be crypto finance, you know, introduce financial contracts, etc., I Understand the real practical effect of Ethereum is to become a system of encryption, and more derivatives for the society as a whole, as time goes by, it becomes more and more obvious, Ethereum really has it The utility, which really needs other techniques to work together, so it's just a broader problem, so with Bitcoin, the general idea of ​​blockchain is to reduce trust between participants, so when we go to do one In social affairs, usually if we go to the store to buy some bananas and we pay by credit card, it involves the issue of trust? Seriously, we must trust the credit card, we must trust the machine to do the credit card, we must trust the bank to handle the transfer, we Must believe in receiving banks to handle their end, we have to believe any, if there? Any label on the banana says, hey, this banana comes from Brazil, then we have to believe Put the label, the trademark label we must trust, we must trust the owner of the banana to sell, have not left, or they are bad, you know, there is no bad pesticide use, such examples are too numerous to enumerate, we believe that many people are in us The everyday life, and the concept of blockchain, is to reduce so much trust, but it only works so far, blockchain is only part of the answer.

Part of the other answer is to make sure that there is a blockchain behind an effective communication mechanism, or a blockchain on one side, let us get information, maybe blockchain references, but we can't be sure that it's true, so the blockchain Not very good at storing a lot of information, publishing information, or letting people communicate with each other, so there are additional technologies still in the encryption ecosystem, but they need to create an obligation to make the blockchain fulfill as an encryption decentralization. A reliable legal system basically allows people to communicate in a way that they don't need any extra sender trust. If I want to talk to anyone, for example, email or Facebook, then I have to trust Mark Zuckerberg or Brin and Larry, don't look at what I want to talk to her, don't change the news, or make sure they deliver on time, all that's left, so this is about trying to build a blockchain. Generally for me, space for me Is trying to build a whole new set of technologies that can replace the way we do things and allow trust.

Jutta:

I think my view of trust is a bit different now. I have to believe more granules, so when I think, we are on Facebook, like, I may believe in Google, they have good operations and can do calculations very fast, but I don't believe they really care about me. Personal data and the ability to make all of these different things, and to some extent, these companies do more transparent and fine-grained access and traceability to me, I hope we can deliver.

host:

Yes. I have been thinking, I don't even know it,,, then we don't trust, and then we believe in technology, but because we still believe in something, but in your case, you know how this technology works. Maybe I believe you will use the word trust, but in my case, I really don't know, you know, like, I can't check the code.

Gavin:

So, the main thing is that you can, even if you can't check the code, you can find a person, you can go out, you can put an ad, you can contact your brother-in-law's spouse, but you can find a person you trust In a way, let them check your code, like an expert person, or you can pay for multiple experts, no one has a common interest, and let them check the code, in principle, the avenue is open to you, In an open and transparent system. In a closed and opaque system, it will never be open to you, just like a traditional Silicon Valley startup, where you know that the system's operations and internal operations are tightly protected.

host:

Yes. On the other hand, the same is true of Wall Street institutions. In fact, the other thing I want to ask is that when you describe the vision you have, you say that there are other entities in this decentralized legal system. For example, other entities you are considering have What examples?

Gavin:

The main aspect of this decentralized economy that I have proposed, in addition to the encrypted legal system, is a way of publishing information in an encrypted and secure manner.

Gavin:

Will this be like oracle?

Gavin:

This is basically a bit like BitTorrent, a way to push information to the cloud.

host:

Ok. But you don't have to verify it.

Gavin:

But it doesn't have to be verified, but it's sure to make sure that if you download some information, you think you have digested, so you are given a critical message, be sure that you get the exact information that corresponds to what you want, and not ours. Currently, if I want some information, I don't know, a website, I can go to my website and a URL, so I like it, some people say that there is a URL here to read this news, then I can put the URL to Google Chrome, it will go to download news articles, but I am not sure it is the same news article anyone reading. Now, most of the time, but if I live in an authoritarian state and have more control over the media, then what about me? Get guaranteed so determined, our ability, if anyone gives me a special key, we call It's a hash or a digest, then I get any information, I can make sure this is a digest of this information, a summary of the news article that exactly matches this short hash or the digest that anyone gave me, so I can be sure that I read The same content.

host:

Ok. Is this a bit like IPFS?

Gavin:

Completely correct. IPFS appeared after BitTorrent, but it solved at least a very similar problem with a part of IPFS, and then another problem was a means of communication between two or more parties. This can be seen as somewhere between instant messaging, so the ability to send a message and then send it to someone else's computer in time can also be seen as a way you can post a message on the bulletin board if people know Their theme is to look for, your message is mentioned, then they will get your message, can see more like Twitter, right, so you use a tag and the person below the tag can see your message, so it's enough Something can be used for all of these use cases with different types of communication, but also password security again, get a certain guarantee that you get guaranteed, if they don't know the topic, they can't read the information if they don't know it's message they I don't know if it ever existed, if I send a message, I say this is me, then who reads I know who this is definitely written, once again, you don't get these traditional platforms, because if you post on Facebook A message, Facebook tells people that you post it, if, you know, Mark Zuckerberg spent a bad day, he really doesn't like you, he wants you to post you actually didn't send it And then he is completely ok to enter the server and insert messages claiming messages from you, but it's not like this, of course, he won't do that, but hackers may do that, if they want, they might let you Life has become a bit annoying.

host:

Oh yes. Yes. This has happened a lot in non-encrypted and encrypted spaces. So, your ideas are actually similar, or at least consistent, you are all working with Ethereum, and then you left at the end of 2015 to start Parity. What is the motivation for doing this? What does Parity do?

Gavin:

So, there are many reasons for the incident, but the potential big one is the Ethereum project, when it was launched, it is in a sense, as for version 1, to a certain degree of maturity, so it was built and is now open There is no clear governance how to change and not, unlike a normal startup, which is based on a no foundation, and again, there is a really clear roadmap or implementation, how to promote it, because of course, Ethereum is a The agreement, the Ethereum Foundation has no direct control, so we think, at least for me, I want to go out and build, carry out construction, build more things, I think in a sense the Foundation is doing the right place Part of the reason is that you know that as a foundation, this is limited to what it can do, whether it is resources, and sorting tasks and goals, so it feels a fairly reasonable thing to keep good relations, but work in a private The entity is in the same ecosystem, so I didn't see it as leaving Ethereum, I think it's just a way to set up an entity, and we can really provide as much value as possible in the ecosystem.

host:

Yes. You continue to work on Ethereum because you not only created the Parity Ethereum client, but also worked with other blockchains to do something for Zcash and developed some consumer-oriented products…

Jutta:

I think that for me, this is true, I mean, my work part is still in some applications, like using Ethereum and supply chain projects called origin or origin, I really realize that this is not like, Although like the first version, not yet, so you can use it, I think there are a lot of low levels that need to be done, and how to see the correct way of doing this, we are committed to basically, building blockchain technology, let People can use it.

host:

Yes. This is the perfect continuation of the next big event. You will be launching Polkadot later this year, which is a new deal. How did you think about Poca, what problem do you want to solve with it?

Gavin:

Polkadot's idea back to the end of 2014, early 2015, I wrote a small article called chain fibers, I think this is in Ethereum / wiki and the idea is to propose an extension Ethereum, so now called fragmentation An earlier version might be called Ethereum 2.0, and for a year and a half it was not known that Parity existed. We want to keep in line with Ethereum's direction and technical basis, specifications, etc. They are launched, but as time goes by, we think, um, you know, we are trapped here, don't play with our thumbs, but you know We really want to develop our cool stuff, we don't want the world to go too far without us, so let's start thinking about how we can do something cool, so I go back to Chian Fibers, okay, This is a bit similar to the actual Ethereum 2.0, so I want to do it because you know that I prefer to just keep in line with the Ethereum protocol itself, but maybe we can create something from satisfying a different task, I am in San Francisco, a founding Developer Marick, chat, if the things we have to do are shards or can be parallel, this will be the easiest way we can press this, how can we deliver as soon as possible, because you know, we don't want to use 3, 4, In order to achieve this in 5 years, we removed all the things from Chian Fibers, and we simplified the problem as much as possible.

I will give you an example of how to make it simpler, in Ethereum, Chian Fibers, the idea is a personal smart contract, they want to access another smart contract, if they want to like, spend some tokens, for example, then the message Synchronization will happen, which means it happens immediately, so they will find out all at the same time, this is not to say that it happens after a few seconds or a few minutes, a lot of things are difficult to synchronize, because if you have, you make a system available The way to expand is that you take it, you divide and conquer, you break up the problem, smart contracts, on many different computers, you let them execute them at the same time, allowing you to perform more, just like putting a workload between many managers, Factory workers, so that each independent workload and back to assemble the finished product, much faster, if one is just doing everything for themselves, but the problem is that if these people's work involves several communication with each other, then it becomes more difficult, Because they are busy working in their own corners, yes, they can't talk easily, so what we do, we are very simple, in fact, they can talk to each other, they are busy working in their own corners, They can only talk to each other all the messages of the root causes of the last day, so we have a very simple memo system, which simplifies a lot, which made the agreement, we believe we can develop in the next 18-24 months.

Now, we realize that soon after, why do we bother all these workers, when they go to different corners, do their work, why do we insist on the same work of these workers, why do we insist that there is only one type of work, perform Ethereum smart contract Why don't we let these workers perform any type of work, so we can have each of them have their own major work, so maybe a doctor, another may be a lawyer, another may be a postman, another Probably a bank teller, then they can all get together and chat with each other at the end of the day in the memo system, but most of the time they will do personal, domain-specific activity workloads, which is where Polkadot comes from. Polkadot comes from my thoughts above. Well, when we talk about extensibility, we don't have to extend an agreement, a blockchain, we can have many different kinds of blockchains connected together, in each Domain-specific professions, but still able to chat with each other, and share the same security with criticality. Of course, you can have many different blockchains, each doing their own thing, we have bitcoin to do cryptocurrency, we also There are opaque privacy encryption transaction currencies that Zcash does, we have Ethereum to do smart contracts, there are many different blockchains, each fulfilling specific goals in the independent domain, but the problem is that each of them needs to be independent and safe to work, Basically, proof of work, blockchain, bitcoin and Ethereum, etc. It wastes a lot of computing power by letting people spend money, so they spend money in China (here most of the miners come from China) basically keep a small The corners are very warm and obviously not a good idea, for many reasons, the main thing is that different individual blockchains each need to increase calories because they want to make themselves more secure All because they can't share other blockchain security.

If I post a blockchain, I can't share Bitcoin security unless I can convince all bitcoin miners to mine in my company. The PoS problem is the same, so this is a new blockchain. The way, but it still suffers from the same problem, you can't easily share security. If you want to add a new PoS blockchain, you also have to find a lot of capital, a lot of money, you can sit in your blockchain and insist that it is effective because they create new blocks and handle more The deal, in fact, is a very important new thing for Polkadot, which allows for many different blockchains, but it allows them to be secure so they can share, by creating more utility and injecting more money into the financial system They all get extra security.

host:

So, it sounds like I have three main problems to solve, scalability, operability, and then security, which is basically like reducing startup costs, just as DropBox can do now. On the same day, startups will have to start their own servers and similar things, as listeners, a bit like the technical way this happens, and tell me if I get any of this error, here the relay chain is like a day everyone At the end of the communication chat, then the parallel chain is like a doctor, a lawyer, or a banker you talk about, and then the bridge is where you bridge them so that they can interoperate in this system. Is this correct?

Gavin:

Yes. That's right.

host:

So how do these blockchains talk to each other, because as far as I know, I think you can trade smart contracts in Ethereum and call Tezos contracts, or you can trade Zcash like Ethereum, but does that mean you have to Writing instructions for every possible permutation in chained communication, or is there a way to do this literally, it seems that there is a lot of work every time you add a new paradigm, for example, you have to write 50 Different instructions to explain how to talk to all other links.

Gavin:

Yes. I mean, most of Polkadot's features are to provide this type of housing for the new blockchain. In other words, Polkadot far surpasses typical smart contracts by promoting what we call very complex logic. We do allow bridges that must basically be lightweight clients, so they must be at least very complex logical parts, rather than syncing to various external chains, whether Tezos, Ethereum or Zcash, or whatever, we allow these light The customer actually sits in our consensus agreement, inside Polkadot, as one of the parallel chains, but I don't want to see that Boca's point of view is actually not a lot of bridges, we imagine the bridge, but we don't think that in order to connect all the districts Blockchain, hundreds of bridges, Polkadot will be more valuable as a test bed, as the execution round of many individual domain-specific projects, bringing their own logic and actually implementing the logic inside Polkadot instead of having a separate Blockchain and type of bridge.

Now, if the bridge is used to bridge an existing system, then the bridge component itself is somewhere in between. If you want, you can translate between standard messages in Polkadot. The message says, hey, you know, I have burned. With five Bitcoin tokens lost, you need to cast five Bitcoin tokens around you to ensure that all Bitcoin tokens in the system remain the same and the total number remains the same. These types of messages will be interpreted by the bridge, and the bridge will perform things such as unlocking bitcoin on the bitcoin chain, or transferring the bitcoin from anywhere else under the permission of the Polkadot verifier. It is said that holding this bitcoin wants it to go, so in essence, these messages are being translated by the bridge authority, so it is not that bitcoin must know what these messages are, but it is not because the information must first be clarified, hehe, It's going to bitcoin, then we need to send it, or if it will be sent to Ethereum, then we need to send it, the message is that there may actually be only one or two relatively small, for example, thin standards for these Type of message.

They don't need to be very complicated, because Polkadot guarantees that information will be delivered, or delivered once, and it will be delivered where needed, so you can get very, very powerful, economically powerful guarantees. The message, which means the message only needs to be a bit like, casting five bitcoins, because I burned five bitcoins around me. In addition, bridges, new branches may simply build these standards into them, but bridges must be transformed from Polkadot's standard (Polkadot local messaging) into something concrete action. An external blockchain, such as Bitcoin or Ethereum.

host:

Ok. But parallel chains, it sounds like even if it's just starting from the building, there are some standard ways they will communicate.

Gavin:

I will definitely have one or two standardized messages, just as soon after the release of Ethernet, we standardized the ERC 20 format for token contracts, so they will be similar to the protocol.

host:

Then, if security is one of the features they provide, why are there only 50 to 100 certifiers that are decentralized and secure enough?

Gavin:

So, that won't be, it's more like a launch, you know the fact that there won't be a lot of parallel chains at the time of release, the system takes time to build, so there is actually nothing needed on the first day. There are 1000 verifiers, but when the system fully reaches speed, the validator we designed is 1000 verifiers.

host:

Will this slow down block time or communication or something similar?

Gavin:

No. The good thing is that we have built a special new protocol mix, BABE and GRANDPA means it won't slow down, it's actually very intelligent management, it basically has adaptive final polarity, so you will hear about probabilities Some topics of summative and immediate finality, so the probability termination is basically non-terminal, so Bitcoin and Ethereum are examples of these. This is as new transactions increase, and as new trading volumes are added to the chain, you can never be absolutely certain that these transactions will remain there indefinitely, and the chances of the chain being returned are small, not those transactions. Other mutually exclusive transactions will be processed, which is what we call double spending. Now, new things, many things like this project, which is based on an ancient algorithm called PBFT, the practical Byzantine fault-tolerant sides have reached a consensus that these projects all claim to end in an instant, they mean what it is, once Since the block is produced, once the deal is laid out and published there, there is an economic guarantee, so you can be sure that someone will have to lose a million dollars or something else and these transactions will not be restored. The blocks will stay there forever, infinitely, they will never be moved back, and then some other transactions will replace them.

Now, the problem with instant termination is that you don't get any production through the connection block, so the creation of this block, the transaction and finalization, what you are doing is what you said, all parties need to finalize, This is a fairly complicated algorithm, so you need to, let's assume that you have 1000 validations, and you need two-thirds of these validations, so about 680, or whatever, come back and sort all the other with each communication , so they have to send a message to the other 680 validators and get a response, and then send another message, which must happen before the block is even released, right, not in a typical system, like bitcoin, it is A block of cells, you really just solved a small value problem, a very difficult one, but still a very small problem, it is easy to be identified, then you just publish it, that's it, nothing is more important than this It is. In these instant termination systems, it's actually not very real-time. Yes, all these protocols take a long time to bring them together, and actually consider what the next block will be because you are It is much easier to tie the end together, which is much more difficult than production. So the work we do with the hybrid algorithm is to separate the two things, so the production is still as fast as Ethereum or Bitcoin. It's easy, it's very simple, you just realize that someone is the right person to create the block at this time. , it's done, then it ends, if the network is in good condition, then it will follow it very quickly, even if it is instant termination, instant termination, it will follow it, but if the network conditions are not so good, the instant end is actually Never produce anything, it will only be a little behind, right, so there will be an extra, for example, the 10 or 50 block is almost certainly final, but not absolute, definitely the final, if you use It does a similar, small amount of trading, such as low-value trading, such as buying a cup of coffee, it really doesn't matter, you just believe it, but if you use it to transfer money, you know, $10 million, you want Make sure you have $100 million, then you let go of the cash suitcase, then your happy way is gone, then you will wait until 50 or any block, then In order to be guaranteed, so what we can do is increase the number of validators, so that we can further decentralize, which is very contrary to the fast termination route. The so-called instant termination route, you must keep the number of verifiers very small, because Without all of these people, you can't produce even blocks, basically, talk to each other, which can be problematic in some cases.

If you say there will be thousands of verifiers, such as Ethereum 2, my goal is to use the same type of numbers ambiguously, 1 to 10,000 verifiers, so we further decentralize in Polkadot, although one The concept of nominees and nominees allows us to decentralize. If it is not a chain of computational maintenance, those who serve, at least the funds of the verifier, the nominee can nominate some verifiers to take action on their actions. Entrusted, yes, so they have some funds, they have some funds to support them, nominees, they are in a sense, a little, lend it to the verifier to get the block reward that the verifier will take, we get each An economic incentive to ensure that it becomes fair, and that marketers are too popular, verifiers will not accept expired funds that some other systems suffer.

host:

How does governance work on Polkadot?

Gavin:

Ok, we haven't finalized Polkadot's governance agreement, so everything I say here is, usually, it needs to be reviewed, and our research team needs to say that they are happy with it, but of course I can talk about it. What we have so far. So, in Polkadot, and the current proof of concept, if you want, we have a bicameral in some sense. On the one hand, we have a legislature, that is, a group of people, or a group of accounts, no matter what, economic entities, can pass new laws, so to speak, in the sense of Boca, this law has this super user management Permissions, used to change the chain's code, and may also change the storage aspect, changing the state of the chain. Now, changing the code of the chain may mean modifying the book, which may mean launching an upgrade, which may mean correcting the problem behavior of the previous book. Now, I mentioned that there are two houses, so the other is the concept of the board of directors, so the board can be regarded as the executive body within Polkadot, and the board receives some incentive actions, which can therefore lead the board to propose the legislature The proposal for voting, so in a sense, it is a bit like the British government owned by the Parliament. This is a house of about 650, at least public housing, of which about 650 people can pass the new law through a majority vote. Then the government, or the current executives of about 100 to 150 of these people, can generally make recommendations. The person who can control the ballot, especially the timetable for voting suggestions, is like that.

Although we have made some interesting adjustments, although the legislature is, I mentioned that this is a large referendum, so this is a referendum for token holders, so each holds a point in the Polkadot system. Tokens can, in principle, vote on the measure and weight the votes based on the number of tokens they hold, but they are also weighted according to the second thing they are willing to hold their tokens. Hold their Dot tokens, right, don't sell, don't move them elsewhere, so when the holders are more committed to the platform, they give up the option to remove themselves from the platform, they get bigger Voting rights. In addition, there is another interesting adjustment to the referendum system, that is, there is a period of time between the end of the voting and the voting formulation, assuming that it is of course passed, regardless of what the proposal proposes, there is a period of time to decide that it will be formulated and actually developed. , about two weeks, during which the people who voted to approve it are not allowed to move their tokens at all, so this is a minimum lock-up period two weeks before its promulgation, and within two weeks, vote against it People and those who don’t vote at all can move their tokens, they can say it, um, you know, we think this is a bad and terrible decision for the system, we will move everything out of the system. We have to sell, we have to go, maybe we will have a hard time to fork, who knows, which means alleviating things like this to vote for, because we are the token holder, Polkadot is ultimately made up of token voters Based on their weighted decision on the platform, we want to ensure that holders who are basically unable to come in by third parties buy a bunch and lend a bunch of tokens. Throw a specific proposal and then exit without paying any fees, we want to make sure that no one will borrow any tokens to these people in order to undermine the system proposed by the bad way.

host:

And, why did you decide this more activist, basically, in terms of chain governance, as we know, it’s like I know the Ethereum system actually decided, well, we’re going to chain, just like you Why did you decide to go in this direction?

Gavin:

I think governance is a matter of trust, so the way to solve currency trust with Bitcoin is to send tokens without having to trust banks or central currency issuers. Ethereum is trying to solve the trust of law, rights, counterparty risk, etc. I think governance is another problem. It is a process of trust. It is the trust of anyone who has power, or whoever, no matter which combination of participants, has collective power to change the system to do things that are not in the system. . In a sense of design, this is a question of trust. They will not act in a way that violates your wishes without giving you a chance to quit, or at least have some kind of statement that is proportional to your expectations, so it It is about the openness and transparency of how the system changes over time. Now the chain management is not true. Chain-breaking governance actually only says that we don't want to have a very transparent process. We don't want to have a way to ensure that the rights and obligations of the various participants in the system are clear. What we want to do is just to blur everything. Unclear, and now the policy is the current policy. Those who are basically responsible and holding cards and mastering power will only be a bit. We believe that the system should only continue to move forward, so I really saw chain governance because we I don't want to solve this problem because we are very satisfied with the problems.

I believe that chain governance is a means of addressing issues of transparency and openness in exactly the same way that smart contracts address the risks and openness of each other's risks and all other risks, and in exactly the same way that Bitcoin solves problems. Transparency and openness of money and the transfer of value through the Internet. In my opinion, the only question is whether we are smart enough to be able to design these rules, and these hard rules, through these rules, like Ethereum or Polcardo or any other system should be managed on the first day. I have no doubt that we will solve it over time. Just as we experiment, we will find out what is useful. The question is whether we can get more or less effective things or at least effective things on the first day. This is really a challenge for us.

host:

So, one thing I want to know is, if I am a developer, would it make more sense to build a dapp on Ethereum instead of building it as a parallel chain on Polkadot?

Jutta:

One thing, that's why we are here today, I think, one thing we're launching soon is Substrate, the framework we've been developing in order to build a blockchain, it's used in Polkadot, I think it's going into it and The best way to experiment, what you can do with it, you can also use it, for example, without the Polkadot framework, some people do it, but it is really a bunch of blockchains we learned from the build, let you It's easy to find your own ideas and use the network stack without having to build it yourself, so I think it's actually a very good time to start trying it out, even if it's still a bit undefined.

Gavin:

Yes. So, the difference between smart contracts and building your own dap chain, so Polkadot parallel chains are really designed to be fully mature blockchains, which means they do a very specific domain specific thing, and they do it well. They don't suffer from many restrictions on your smart contract system, so there is a concept. When I was at Ethereum, we were very happy to have this concept. It was a bit boasted from the roof. The smart contract system can do anything, you can Doing anything in a smart contract is true and complete, you can do whatever you want, but it is not. Although it is true and complete, it has a very, very special limitation. You know, I did mention this at the time, so I don't think I am one of the most serious criminals, but the limit is gas, yes, There is a concept of computing resources that this smart contract will never respect, right, if it runs out of gas then it will stop and everything will be restored, right, so when you write smart contracts, you have to be very careful not to use them. The gas is more than the allowed gas, which is necessarily the case. The smart contract system is a smart contract blockchain like Ethereum, which severely limits the user and severely limits the logic that can be manipulated by this gas concept. Gas itself becomes an economy, so users of smart contracts don't pay the operators of smart contracts, so if I release a smart contract, I won't automatically get paid when the user uses it, but the user smart contract pays the Ethereum miners. The Ethereum miners are those who make a profit.

This means that as a dapp, there are three people attending the party, when you really prefer there are only two, yes, you want yourself and your users, but Ethereum forces you to let the Ethereum miners join the party, yes, They will get everything you and your users are doing. We design it this way because you know, we want Ethereum tokens to be valuable, this is one of the ways you make it valuable, but the problem is that for dapps, it usually makes It's too expensive for anything, because you force your users to pay for every transaction they make with smart contracts, and most of the time, they not only have to pay for the Ethereum miners, but they also have to pay for any services. Your smart contract is also available, so everything becomes more expensive, in part because you have to pay for the existing Ethereum infrastructure to continue with its work. Now, if all you do is transfer funds, like bitcoin, then you know that this is only a small percentage anyway, no matter what they mine, the cost is basically higher than the existing use case, so it It looks good, but when it comes to smart contracts, it doesn't, you don't necessarily transfer money, you are like, I don't know, messing up CryptoKitties or something, suddenly these transaction fees, they look very high, especially when you try Give it to those who are used to having everything for free, because they are using Zuckerberg or Sergey Brin, Larry Page is a offering, so what we do at Polkadot, Polkadot offers Convenience, unlike smart contracts, it goes back to the two actor economies, you have your users, you have yourself, right, so when you propose a parallel chain, a dapp chain, anyway, then you You don't have to care about Polkadot miners, they work, but they don't cut your economy, your economy stays economic until you want to communicate with other parallel chains, then we To talk, you know, there may be a fee, because the Pollkadot guy is actually doing some work for you, they are passing your message, but as long as you stay inside, you don't have to pay any extra fees. There are no extra taxes, so the main difference between smart contracts and branches is really the concept, you can better control your internal economy, you don't have to allocate leak funds to that system to protect your logic, no matter How to do this, so we got it for free.

The difference now is, of course, the other side of the coin is that you have to pay in advance for one of the parallel chain slots, you pay for it by recharging the Dot, you get them at the end of it, but at some point the opportunity costs, right, you can't Sell ​​them and put the money in a high interest account, you have to hang them in the system and lock them there until your parallel chain is done, so it really provides a very different economic advice, which means Some systems, some dapps will be very happy to stick to the smart contract system, those dapps are those, you know, it's just a person, they want to introduce some interesting logic, they want users to basically pay for themselves, they just want to fire some Logic, we have finished, we left here, you use it as you wish, and you really want to optimize everything dapps, they want to build a real solution, they want to continue to interact with them because they are happy to come up with an initial Capital, because they will be able to fully control the economic relationship with users, so they can Initial capital, resulting in an internal economy.

Jutta:

I think the concept of economy shows that it is more than just a simple one, just like, they only need some simple chain logic, but more like a specific field, all bankers, or the like, so it does not have adaptive capabilities, At least in Polkadot we don't like layering chains before we don't see, for example, an app, a chain, a parallel chain, but a development protocol.

supporter:

Oh, this is very interesting. So there will be like a parallel chain, and then each will have a smart contract.

Gavin:

Yes. So, that's right. There will be some domain-specific sub-chains, but the domain will host smart contracts. There are other parallel chains, maybe just those that are hosting assets, so there is only one asset parallel chain, you can put any assets you want there and change them, but they don't handle any extra logic if You want extra logic, you can move assets to other places.

Jutta:

If you think about the current encryption economy, I think, like, there might be a chain like Zcash, a bitcoin like a blockchain, a smart contract like a chain, so this is what we will see first, and Not a specific application chain until the application gets very large, then they make sense to try to have their own parallel chain slots, because the overhead becomes too large.

host:

Ok. Yes. So this is my next question, for example, what is the future vision in many chains. This is just what you described, or is there anything else?

Jutta:

I mean, this is the next few years, until the system becomes more hierarchical, the idea will be similar in the future, the relay chain's relay chain is like expanding it and then it becomes, with more The development of the code base, just as it becomes easier to become a parallel chain, it may look finer and more depth-specific, but in the short term, it is more domain-oriented, as we will see.

host:

Row. You mentioned that you have built Substrate, which is a bit like a developer tool, which makes it easier for people to build things on Polkadot. As far as I know, what are the different customizable features that people can use?

Jutta:

So you can use it as a tool to build your own new blockchain, completely independent of Polkadot, your own consensus, whatever it may be, or…

host:

Oh, sorry. I think this is just for Polkadot, but does it work for any blockchain?

Jutta:

No, this is for anything, so this is why we are going to do this and let people realize that this is not the case. Substrate and Polkadot are two different things in this sense, I mean, most people will Developing a parallel chain might use Substrate, but they are not obligated to do so. They can also be parallel chains without Substrate, but it is a useful tool in both directions.

Gavin:

So, we actually build Polkadot with Substrate, so not only Substrate will be used to create parallel chains on Polkadot, but the relay chain itself is also a Substrate chain, so this allows us to let the snake eat its tail and we turn and make The trunk chain itself becomes a chain, and we can classify it all and recursively.

host:

Yes. I heard you say, I don't remember what it is, a bit like, you just like food waste, when you are building it, you want to make sure the code, you know, the work is similar to completing more, I fully understand, just like I have this concept for Gavin, so another very cool thing is that I think it allows people to upgrade their network without a hard fork, so there are examples where you can use Substrate without a hard fork. Change the things that need a hard fork to do now?

Gavin:

Ok, basically you can do anything. The only thing you can't touch is the core underlying consensus mechanism, so most of the chains I expect will use the hybrid BABE and GRANDPA I mentioned earlier, but you can change things like the Staking algorithm, so you can say, right. Well, we want to change it from an authoritative certificate to a proof of equity, no problem. Suppose you want, you originally have a bitcoin chain, so you have this transaction output that we call unexpended, UTXO chain, which is a very basic currency chain, the initial use case of the blockchain, assuming you want To add a smart contract, of course, an upgrade can do this. Suppose you want to add governance to it, of course, the upgrade can do this. Suppose you want a smart contract chain, and you want to add an operation that allows you to perform zero-knowledge proof on a smart contract. Of course, you can do this. Suppose you want to use the Polkadot relay chain and assume zero knowledge, STARK or SNARKs personnel do this so we can explain that we can guarantee the correct chain of operations, rather than actually executing them, this is what we are now, so we let all The verifier performs some parallel chains instead of providing a short proof that they are being executed correctly. This is some of the latest research on zk-STARKs that looks a bit oriented. You know, Ethereum is also trying to study it, so suppose you want to Do, of course, we can upgrade without the need for hard forks, so basically, we can do anything, we can change the whole nature of the blockchain, we only need one transaction to complete.

host:

So, the other thing I want to make is just because it is there, the community seems to think that Polkadot and Ethereum 2.0 will be competitive, and even your staff Afri has shown and did write a tweet. In this way, they are competitive, do you agree?

Gavin:

No, Afri is an outspoken guy who likes to say what he thinks.

Jutta:

He also likes to be competitive.

Gavin:

And he really likes occasional arguments, he must say. So no, I mean, Afri speaks for herself, we have general rules in Parity, you know, don't say anything stupid, but you know, we won't ask you to drag the company line, your own People, you know, we believe that you will become wise, but no, this is not the emotion we agree with, I mean, I chatted with Vitalik in Singapore last week, you know, very clearly, we are on Polkadot and Most of Ethereum 2 has reached a consensus that different systems are really designed and adapted to different things, have different development timelines, and different ways of solving problems, so they are very different. Of course, in a sense, in a sense, every item that has tokens in space is a competitor, yes, there is a list of tokens, right. There is a market value, you know, you want your market value to be close to the peak, so of course there is a basic level of competition, but we see more competition, at least with no attempted projects and keep everything ourselves, we believe that competition is healthy Only part of the competition and part of the cooperation, as we mentioned in the chat in Singapore, we are studying very similar things, there is zero knowledge proof is one of them, some of them are another, and, you know, because We all take a completely open approach to development. We are in competition. We cooperate because we are going to use each other's ideas to promote the development of technology.

host:

Yes. I mean, from a technical point of view, they don't seem to be significantly competitive, but it does look like this, because Polkadot's operation is similar to the lower level, which may make Ethereum less important, this Yes, you know, I think this is the source of some fear.

Jutta:

And I think we have seen a similar idea. When Ethereum appears, people are like, oh, this is more general, will this make Bitcoin obsolete?

host:

But the other thing I want to ask is, what is dothereum, who is behind it? Do you guys have a relationship?

Gavin:

do not know.

Jutta :

we do not know.

host:

You do not know?

Jutta:

No.

Gavin:

No.

host:

I saw a theory on Twitter that is Afri, but you don't know?

Jutta:

do not know.

Gavin:

I didn't tell you anything, you know, I am interested to see what it is, but if you find out, please let me know.

host:

Ok. Yes. Not really investigated, but I think you will know, because you know, Dot, and so on. Let's talk about the frozen funds. It is possible to access them in the future. Why is this happening, what is your best reason?

Jutta:

I think the biggest satisfaction around this is in my mind, just like how mature people actually feel about this technology, and as some people think, oh, we have arrived, we should not change any The state of things, because people depend on, for example, how it works, and everyone else on the other side is saying, watching, and I think we are more in this regard, for example, it is still an immature technology, For example, they will be mistakes, we need methods and tools to fix them, if we don't, it is not a good reason for people to use this technology, which is why I still have confidence or like, Hopefully, we'll find some methods, especially the hard forks that recently included CREATE2, so you can think of it as if something like this exists at the time, then the chance of the bug slipping into the code is much lower, or Just like there is a way to recreate it, what is not, so I think, just like, peop le starts to realize how the virtual machine works and when Technical work, and it did not provide us with a safe way to create intelligent tools contract, so we developed these tools and they include, for example, if we had to have these tools, we should fix those errors are not there.

host:

Yes. I think, I think one argument against the restoration of funds is that this may lead to the split of the blockchain. You know, it is obvious that Ethereum classics and Ethereum have happened before. In fact, it has not had a huge impact. Ethereum, but they said that now, if this happens, then there will be two ERC 20 tokens and CryptoKitties. All games and daps will have two worlds, obviously, just like something DAI, you know, that's a big chunk of the Ethereum ecosystem now, which could ruin stability there, and it should be tied to the dollar. Anyway, is there a way to recover the money instead of the whole?

Jutta:

I mean, I don't think it's going to put every one, I mean, once again, it's like how much care you will have on the platform and how people will use it in the future, for example, we "find one No solution, this is sensible for people, so yes, and I think that the discussion we have seen is a consensus. As in principle, people think that the ownership of the token should be respected. This is a principle that should lead to reconstruction.

Gavin:

Yes. I mean, as you mentioned, the classics of Ethereum have gone a long way. You know, the Ethereum at the time was not empty, there were many smart contracts, many ongoing projects, yes, Very good, people choose one or another project, you know, if they choose Ethereum, then the Ethereum classic project deployment will become rotten and collapse, everyone forgets them, so I don't think This is a particularly prominent argument against doing anything. I think that if there is any, chain splitting may happen for various reasons. In the end, if the correct decision is a suggestion, you know that if you split in one direction or the other, this will not stop itself. I am not me. I think it should stop anyone, but I think, so the concept of this chain invariance, right, I think this is a bit paradox. I think that once you accept the chain you should be able to upgrade, or in a sense, by placing this difficulty bomb, basically by saying that the chain needs to be upgraded or upgraded, the chain invariance will disappear more or less. It will stop, we have already admitted that the blockchain must be mutable, yes, there must be a hard fork, because otherwise, its life expectancy is like, six months or a year or now, so it must be changed We have incorporated it into the agreement, the agreement must be upgraded, the agreement must be changed, the agreement must be variable, so the only real question is whether, by changing it, we have changed people’s expectations more or less, expecting this chain These funds should be consuming, or they should not be spent, who would expect them to consume, who would like them not to spend, what those are, and when this contract fails, what is the expectation of Ethereum? They are helpful.

Now, you can argue about one of these two ways, you can take that kind of absolutism, well, I hope that Ethereum can accurately interpret the code, and if the code has errors, then it should correctly explain the errors, Or you can take it, I think the more pragmaticist is more reasonable is that the contract is obviously a wallet, and obviously means that the funds can be consumed by these named people. Therefore, in the wallet, Ethereum should in principle be a constant Ethereum. The expectation is that the wallet should be able to spend money, and the funds should be spent on it, so I think you can’t really, I think one Absoluteists Once you say that the chain must be upgraded, and at that point, you only need to go, what expectations, I think that reasonable people come to the system will expect in this wallet, the funds should be spent.

Jutta:

I mean, like all the arguments that happened after that, I mean, so yes, what you said is basically, a camp is, oh, you should only upgrade the technology, basically, but the real What is the technical upgrade, for example, no, for example, every upgrade or change you make has some aspects, you give priority to others, maybe you prefer others, you need to always do, just like, it is always more than just technology I think the decision you make and the way to find a way to integrate these decisions are key, otherwise everything will be stagnant.

host:

Yes. In a sense, this is political. Actually going back to Gavin's point of view, it just reminds me, just like after the DAO incident, no one can figure out if it is actually called a hacker, because the code allows them, you know, it's like this interesting people Things that start using the word, then others are like, technically, because it doesn't break into anything like they, they are like what the contract allows them to do. Row. Well, as time goes by, we should end, but this is a wonderful conversation. Where can people learn more about you, Parity, Polkadot and Substrate?

Jutta:

Come to our website and follow the Twitter account.

host:

What website?

Jutta:

Parity.io.

host:

Twitter is?

Jutta:

Paritytech.

host:

Ok, thank you very much Unchained.

Gavin:

Thank you for your moderator.

References and sources:

Parity: https://www.parity.io

Jutta Steiner: https://twitter.com/jutta_steiner

Gavin Wood: https://twitter.com/gavofyork

Polkadot light paper: https://polkadot.network/Polkadot-lightpaper.pdf

Polkadot Wiki: http://wiki.polkadot.network/en/latest/

Gavin's 2014 blog post on Web 3: https://gavwood.com/dappsweb3.html

Gav's keynote on the journey to Web 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH1pEE0W3ugscalebility

Chain Fibers article in the Ethereum Wiki: https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Chain-Fibers-Redux

Web 3.0 vision:

Https://medium.com/@gavofyork/why-we-need-web-3-0-5da4f2bf95ab

More explanation of Polkadot, Substrate, Consensus, Governance, etc.: http://wiki.polkadot.network/en/latest/polkadot/learn/relevant-links/

Upgradeability without hard forks via Substrate

Https://medium.com/polkadot-network/never-fork-again-438c5e985cd8

Controversy around Afri Schoedon's tweet:

Https://breakermag.com/exclusive-afri-schoedon-on-his-contentious-split-from-ethereum/

Dothereum: https://twitter.com/dothereum?lang=en

Https://www.reddit.com/r/dothereum/

Gavin and Vitalik Buterin discussing competition between Ethereum and Polkadot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=vRqJK16t4-I

Why not to fork for the frozen funds:

Https://medium.com/@avsa/avoid-evil-twins-every-ethereum-app-pays-the-price-of-a-chain-split-e04c2a560ba8