Namespace security  

  RSS

Matheus
(@matheus)
New Member
Joined:7 months  ago
Posts: 1
23/05/2018 7:52 pm  

From what I understand, rchain approaches sharding by dedicating a blockchain to each namespace. I am studying rchain as a platform for building a scalable voting system where pretty much all points of the scalability-safety-decentralization trilemma are critical.

Since namespaces are developer controlled, and since they operate on their own blockchain (is this understanding even right?) then doesn't that mean dapp developers must also take the time to do some marketing and persuade people to start validating this chain/namespace?

Where I am coming from: AFAIK, ethereum sharding will do periodic checkpoints such that each shard benefits from the security and scale of the whole network.

How does ethereum sharding compare to rchain sharding in this sense?

Thank you.


ReplyQuote
Mike Stay
(@stay)
Member Moderator
Joined:8 months  ago
Posts: 19
31/05/2018 9:13 pm  
Posted by: Matheus

From what I understand, rchain approaches sharding by dedicating a blockchain to each namespace.

The namespaces/sharding proposal has been in a constant state of flux since the start of the project. The current namespaces proposal works like this: Within the RChain network are lots of independent shards that aren't checking each others' work. If you have a problem that you need to split up into lots of pieces to be worked on independently, you give one piece of the problem to each of these independent shards to work on.

The shards form a network as follows: suppose we have shards S, T. There are special contracts running in shard S that the validators of S are paying special attention to. When one of those contracts receives a message, the validators of S use their secret keys to sign messages for a k-of-n contract in shard T. When enough validators from S have signed the contract in T, then the validators of T process that contract. In that way, we can think of S as a child of T. Using hashed time-locked contracts, we can move value around through a network of shards.

Within each shard, all the validators agree on who the other validators are; there's a complete list on the blockchain, and the original list is in the genesis block. Each validator serves at least one region. There is a complete lattice of "regional" namespaces over a set of regions; that is, if {A, B, C} is the set of regions, then {{}, {A}, {B}, {C}, {A∨B}, {A∨C}, {B∨C}, {A∨B∨C}} is the set of namespaces. The validators for a namespace are the validators from each of the regions in the join.

Within each regional namespace is a countably infinite collection of names, and these names can be grouped into "pattern" namespaces, which are finer than a regional namespace. Any name that matches a pattern is in the pattern namespace. It is only these latter pattern namespaces that developers can control.

I am studying rchain as a platform for building a scalable voting system where pretty much all points of the scalability-safety-decentralization trilemma are critical.

Since namespaces are developer controlled, and since they operate on their own blockchain (is this understanding even right?) then doesn't that mean dapp developers must also take the time to do some marketing and persuade people to start validating this chain/namespace?

No, the independent blockchain concept only applies at the level of shards, not at the level of regional or pattern namespaces.

Where I am coming from: AFAIK, ethereum sharding will do periodic checkpoints such that each shard benefits from the security and scale of the whole network.

How does ethereum sharding compare to rchain sharding in this sense?

Thank you.

 

Ethereum's proposal isn't very similar to RChain's, so it's hard to compare them.


ethanscott liked
ReplyQuote
ethanscott
(@ethanscott)
New Member
Joined:6 months  ago
Posts: 2
11/06/2018 6:41 am  

Thanks @Mike.

This helps me


ReplyQuote
  
Working

Please Login or Register