Sept. 30, 2021

Building a Blockchain Community

Utsav Jaiswal talks to Mitja Goroshevsky, Free TON's CTO, and Ben Sunderland, Free TON's Senior Community Manager, about building Free TON. 🪜
On this episode of The HackerNoon Podcast:
How was Free TON launched? (03:34) 🥳
Is your blockchain technology wo...

Utsav Jaiswal talks to Mitja Goroshevsky, Free TON's CTO, and Ben Sunderland, Free TON's Senior Community Manager, about building Free TON. 🪜

On this episode of The HackerNoon Podcast:

  • How was Free TON launched? (03:34) 🥳
  • Is your blockchain technology working for you or against you? (13:43) 🙊
  • How does Ben position Free TON against Blockchains like Bitcoin, Ethtereum, etc? (23:52) ⛓
  • Mitja talks about gossip-based blockchains (33:36) 🏔
  • Where does the TON Crystal get processed? (42:02) ⚙️

Connect with Mitja and Ben:


[00:00:00] Utsav: Then the recording. So hello and welcome to the hacker noon podcast. hackathons, blockchain editor. And today I have the team from Freetown. These are the guys with the claims of being the fastest blockchain in the. As of today, it's 63,000 transactions per second. And representing the B. I have Benjamin Bateman, who is one of my favorite podcasts that was hands down.

I might be biased, but that's where I am. I am like, come and check it out. If you guys have it's fun. He is also the community's busy body, a self acclaimed busy body, although he's very nice to speak to. And I also have Mitchell SSP. Got a Shefsky I'm sorry. And the, he is the CTO at Don labs and he has been leading the development team that has led to this breakthrough without further ado.

I'd like to pass the Mike back to me and tell us about what she has been doing since the inception of the blockchain and how it evolved into something that is now called.

[00:01:09] Mitja: Yeah, thanks. Yeah. Just to to start about the evolution of this, of the town, just to get past that point really. And it goes like that.

So there was a ton project by telegram, which got sued by sec for alleged, getting money from investors and and I think of blockchain. I dunno. So sec thought it's a security or something, despite the fact that they think it was the security exemption and there were lawyers around telephony really.

Hey all this shit, which never showed anyone to be sued by sec, as we all know. So on certain points in this in this lawsuit, we meaning the community which was formed around town at that time, like stone labs was doing three years of research about Dante technology and based on like papers from telegram and.

Network community people who were doing projects around on like for several months at that point. And and we have participated in this in drafting some responses to SCC as a community. Like I, I lead the draft of the, of their response to their technical experts and so on and so forth button. And we've had a lawyer who helped us, like just navigate through this process?

Demographic was a great guy. Great friends. And on certain point we realized that it's not going to end a good, it just not going to happen. The sec would never allow the, the original tone until. Because of the right, because of, yeah, because of all that,

it's really just, because of the money that telegram raised and not in the proper way by by the, by what sec is thinking or we're thinking and what we said, then the community said we don't have anything to do with this money. We didn't raise any money. We didn't like. Participate in any ICU or anything like that.

So whatever sec is doing with thorn, like why it should affect us? Why likes SCC doesn't Sue us? So we started to discuss that within the community, like what we want to do and. We only disagreed on the way to do that, basically. But there were forming like several groups that wanted to launch it.

And we said okay, we disagree on the way to launch it. But we want to launch it and that was the consensus. And then. I have drafted the first declaration of decentralization texts and then people join the into to draft on top of that. And there was a community building around that that I of launching like Freetown and some validators brought other validators from different networks, like peer to peer work, like lemme shook brought some people from cosmos community and so on.

And and they all said yeah, you probably doing right thing. It's interesting, like after we launched, even with Alec actually said, I can tweet that it's very interesting experiment in decentralization, because yeah. So what is the project or the founders got sued by Assisi, but there is an open-source code and we can use that.

And there were people who developed on top of that, some other open source code. So who, who would prevent us from. So that's how Freetown was launched and that there's became a center of research around on technology and which, which then evolved into what we have now.

Like I published the version, like a draft of white paper or Frito on several weeks ago, it's publicly available on their own. It's open for comments. There will be a final version, like probably. Out and days or whatever but, and it describes like the evolution of the technology and how far we got from the original kind of research that telegram did, which was really like an MVP level research.

And what. Primarily like the resource that was going inside Tom labs and the result of that research, as you all know right now, brought to this results that we have today. So that's more or less.

[00:05:06] Utsav: Got it. Got it. And I remember speaking to you earlier, when you were mentioning about proof of finality.

I find out, I found that found it to be quite fascinating. Like when you mentioned that in the case of roll-ups like the cost of proof of finality happens way down the line, there can be. After 28 days of the transaction being done, you'll get the notification that it has been rolled back. And now you don't actually have the money and on the freed on blockchain, the proof of finality.

Pretty fast. It's the second. If I'm not wrong, you guys have a 600, 3000, like PBS that has been calculated. So how do you like get them? What is the kind of expertise that you need? Why couldn't a terrarium, do it, like, why is the Bitcoin. Like what seven transactions per second. Why is like the newer blockchains, the ones that are building it when the biggest case that these Ethereums of the world have is that they have the most levels.

If they have the most developers by on the foster. In your opinion.

[00:06:16] Mitja: Sure. There are several questions in one that you composed. So I will start from the end, like why many developers can to build something that the small team can you have the advanced for every week or something we're in the big company acquiring some startup, right?

So it doesn't prevent like the apple has Google has tens of thousands of engineers, maybe a hundred thousand engineers. And then the startup with five engineers, which. Something that Google couldn't build it's happening all the time. And I even don't want to answer that. It's it's a law of I dunno if innovation, right?

Innovator's dilemma, great book by Christians. And you can read it, so why big corporations cannot do cannot innovate what prevents them from it? So like the theory is that is of course as any other established project is in a way subject to its own problems.

Like it's all inherited 51 so it, the Ethereum cannot move as fast. The theorem cannot change design as fast. The theory on engineering kind of execution because of the way they do the engineering is very limited, meaning that they cannot produce results in time. And we know that it's already a kind of a community joke right around that.

And and some we have an engineering competition going on, it's why Intel produce like the best processor at time, right? Y it's 3 86 architecture is the winning architecture today and not some other. 'cause. Yeah, because they're like power PC, for example, because there were a competition of engineering and they were great engineers here and there and someone as simple as that.

So their design was like, there. Requirement's probably were put correct way the balance of the engineering, compromises that you make all the time and engineering of course was like just the correct compromises and someone did the incorrect compromise. Someone thought that something, something is more important than the other end in the end.

It's apparently it's not important at all. It is just these things. It's just a low level of evolution of engineering. So I think this is the this is the answer. Why I don't, I cannot add probably we had the right design and we have the right design because we, from the beginning thought again, we started late in a way if you think about when Probably the point of time when you can do decisions are important.

And the lack of heritage that you have, if you have a community which expects certain things from your versus the thing, that community that don't expect anything from you, except for for example, results in the USA, like we want to build a fast as blockchain. Ethereum never said we wanted to build the fastest blockchain, know how they will do that.

If you even don't put it as a goal, like how it will end up being the fastest books, and there are only, I think three teams in the world who actually said we wanted to be the fastest blockchain and that these three teams are salon near and us. If you think of all the other products, it's like, they put something else like Cardona when they like, when they wanted to build their blockchain.

Like their goal was to build like the most scientifically. Correct. I don't know if it's correct by construction, whatever. Yeah. And the fact that finality in karaganda is 30 seconds. It's just. What did you expect? So when they, when the core projects like Cardona was putting their requirements, what they had in mind was like 13 seconds of Ethereum, or 10 minutes of Bitcoin.

We want to build something with a smart contract capabilities, but less than Bitcoin finality. That's a goal. And what you get. So at two seconds, find out, let's see what our goal was to build the finality, which is comparable to when you hit the Facebook page and reload, as you can see, this is quite different kind of goal definition, and then goal in that goal definition, your design choices will be quite differently like mate, right?

The you cannot anymore have the best for a choice finality, blah, blah, blah. Simply because it will take you enormous amount of time. Like it will take you a second send seconds on top and you just cannot have that choice. You need another. Got it. You need to think I would do that.

And that's it. If you in, and of course it's not something impossible to do, but if you think about scalability, if you think about fast finality and scalability, and you also say my constraint, because my constraint was always, we want to be layer one blockchain, meaning I don't agree. What happened with why we have layer two?

We have layer two idea, not because it's the greatest idea of all times. Not at all. This is probably one of the worst ideas of all time, but this is the only, but this is the only way for the theory to somehow tackle the problem of the gas price of the throughput and so on and so forth.

Like they cannot do it otherwise because they don't have this blockchain on layer. One that can capable of doing that. It's not that they wants to have layer two, so nobody. The right mind wants to have a layer, two solution or a layer, two layer, three layer four, whatever, when you stop,

[00:11:12] Ben: sorry. Can I make an analogy which will maybe show my age a bit?

I don't know if anybody ever used to own a mega drive back in the day with the cartridge machines, the mega drive to game systems. But when all the game systems we're moving towards CD ROMs because of the increased memory capacity, a mega drive released something called the 32 X, which was supposed to be a revolution.

And it was like a CD rom drive, which had a cartridge slot in the bottom, which you had sloughed into your old mega drive to make your mega drive, then run the CD rom games. And this to me is very analogous with layer two solutions. Just wait for the PlayStation guy.

[00:11:52] Mitja: Very nice analogy. And then Reagan then use the whole logic. Then it becomes like this. We have this huge community. We have this blockchain, which sucks as a design. Then we stack on top. There's all these solutions that patches this holes on the prominently. We are fine. Then we'll know you are not because in the end, like the best processor will win.

In the design period, we are in the technology guys space. We are not in some kind of, this is technology in technology. Like the best technology wins, period. It will take them. It might take some time if there is not sustainable, there are some companies who die. On the way to bring the best technology to the market.

Yes. That's happened to a lot that you have the best technology, but you die because you don't have enough resources to put it to the market. But if you do have it, if you do have resources, if you do have a sustainable kind of like business wise in their respect and our respect, like the community with the freedom community where they're like it should be sustainable of course, to bring this to the market.

And yeah, it will take some. But in the end, I just don't see. I just don't see how that can lose, frankly speaking. I do believe in that design and the w I never said that bluntly like that before, because I always want I want to talk like an engineer and not like a marketing. And when you say like, when you ask marketing guys who they always say, oh, we have the fastest blockchain and they have the fastest, and these guys cause the fastest and whatever blockchain they have.

And then I always like, okay, so show me some results and show me some technical stuff. So show me like, what do you can show? And so before we could show. I didn't want to come here or anywhere and say we have the, like the best technology as designed now. I can't. And that's why, like I wanted I press this.

This is completely if this is completely useless exercise, and it took six months and about $2 million to do that. Like it's insanely stupid. But if you think about that, What Elon Musk was doing when they put the sun man rockets and then breaking it up in the atmosphere and the stratosphere, and then trying to in the atmosphere and then trying to, lend them back in the, this model Sunday, on the boats, like motors on land, the boat, lend them more, the useless mater on the boats.

Like this is an exercise that probably they spent billions of dollars do with trying to make that. Why did they do that? Because in the. If you want a NASA contract, you need to show that you can actually do that. So we need, we want, I wanted to show the, our goal was like to show to the world that this design really wins.

It really wins. It can scale. And now we have this results. We can. Th that it scales. We can prove that actual now of course, and it's not the end, like 62, whatever 45 on the open entry and 45 K it was like the TPS on the distributed data centers. But the point is not that the point is that it can scale even throw that were any further you want.

Like we can, because we worked for the configuration of 20 work chains, which would be like 20. And 32 threats basically so we that's a think of that as a, like a processor, the processor design, like it's think of the threads and the course of the processor. So we had 10 cores 32 threads stage and a weight, but we can actually configure this process to run on hundreds of course, and just scales.

Of course, there is some limits to the internet capacity, blah, blah, blah, but really in reality, The traffic that we are producing is I don't know, maybe five to 10 times less than for example, Selana traffic combustion, and there's just laws of physics. You cannot go around that. You can't, whatever you do, you cannot do that.

Otherwise, it's very simple. That's it

[00:15:47] Utsav: I'll have to bring in Ben into this. I was going

[00:15:50] Ben: to say to jump in with another analogy is it's a very basic one. Not quite as good as my mega drive analogy, but it's very much like building houses, building blockchains. Isn't it. Again, Nathan rim. Can't do what freedom does because it has, the foundations that Ethereum laid all those years back, it has this space and it has to grow out of it.

Whereas like me just says, yeah, but the minute the 63, 60 4,000 transactions per section, but second ease just essentially what has been built on top of the foundations as a proof of construct using this design. Let me just say. The actual scale of how tall the building, the blockchain can get with SES, it's pretty, pretty inconceivable by today's standards.

I think,

[00:16:34] Utsav: I was thinking of this byline, like retail was speaking well, it's like building the fastest blockchain, the Lester Stober, this thing that I did.

[00:16:47] Mitja: Yeah,

[00:16:47] Ben: you can tell he's not a marketing going on

six months doing this. It was stupid. Now I know you didn't say that

[00:16:57] Mitja: right here. Believe me or not, but the, actually the point about. Bart is less interesting about frequent design and my perspective, like this is the flashy thing. This is like going to stratosphere thing, but but in fact, much more fascinating things are in the.

Like in the, what we call town operating system design in programming language, just a kind of innovation staff in the, what we call distributed programming, like distributed programming for me is way more important than innovation and a blockchain design. Then like multithreading and multi sharding because it allows you to create really distributed smart contracts and not the smart contracts that they, that you built right now.

And. Cause if you think of, just give you an example of 10 seconds example, because I know that probably not all, not everyone is programming here. So like in Ethereum, if you want to build a, I dunno, and I talk in contract, you create a huge basically app, think of that as an Excel table.

I don't know. And the, in this table you put someone's wallet address or public key versus like amount of toxins. And of course, as you can understand, like Excel table, even Excel table and your local computer cannot scale up to like more than like whatever, yeah, exactly. So that's exactly the thing that's happened in theory, on smart contracts, which are using like cash maps and so on.

And if you think about the whole design of the blockchain, like from the perspective of it being a database you put tables inside the tables, like you put databases inside the cell for databases, you it's bad. Design is you don't, if you think of that as a design of a, of like a database then from the database design standpoint, it really sucks, but you don't build databases like.

And if you want a program like that, like it's really bad programming. It's really not, not scalable it's it leads to all kinds of Some core contracts, unbalanced basically think like you have a lot of dollars

[00:19:02] Utsav: get over here. Like how did we end up over here?

Like some of the smartest people on the world.

[00:19:08] Mitja: It's very simple because it's very simple because it's a nice.

It's just naive. You, it's fine for the first iteration of the system. It's totally fine. Now, how do we do that? That would just stack up there and that's it works like, yeah, we're stuck. We're stuck a table, a hash. My bin became the block and it works right. What's the problem. But it really worked for years.

It works now even it's bad design it not scalable, but then you will think about. But the problem is that you cannot really think about something. You need another database. And that's why we have many databases today, wrecking database space, because there's someone comes with a better design for optimized, for something like, I don't know, timetable, timescale databases, and some other stuff that are optimized for certain things.

And this totally. The problem here is that again, you have a huge community about it around the blockchain that, doesn't scale doesn't produce enough, plenty of fast finality times as this layers on layers as a purchase. And then also has this bad programming kind of capital concept.

Yeah, a lot of people using that for sure.

[00:20:26] Utsav: Smart contract easiest to if I am somebody who is new and I find out, okay, solidarity has all of these frameworks, if I need. Yeah. T 20 token, I just need to change three numbers

[00:20:39] Mitja: on one line. Exactly.

[00:20:40] Utsav: Exactly. Why would I go like anywhere else? But that brings me to this marketing question and I want to pass it on to Ben because he has a better market for it.

And then I'll be ready. How do you. Positioned Freetown us like every blockchain that you see out that has some value proposition, right? Bitcoin decentralized gold, or let's say the net money, magic money, paleo super complex. Solana. I don't know.

how do you what is that one word that you would want to use for freedom?

[00:21:22] Ben: I'll be honest with you. Only you came on board with tun labs, the company behind me free to launching it, obviously a little bit, like you said, than some of the other goalies through the big June network, merger and acquisition process.

And. I racked my brain for quite a long time on this question specifically, if Bitcoin is digital gold to them, Wally's Friesen. And the problem is that no one can actually in the same way, like no one officially ever titled Bitcoin digital gold. Evolved into this Monica with time and usage and to try and naturally brand free turn or to try and give it some label on Monica.

The more we try to push that everyone gets to decide what free turn is and what it's for. We can't get the community to use any one logo. Yeah. We can't have one centralized websites. That's not the way you decentralization works, unfortunately. We can try and push in certain directions, but to give my own personal opinion what freedom really is it's decentralized opportunity, a theory put in place the, and again, I'm not a programmer the touring complete programming side of things, so it moves.

Digital cryptocurrency and blockchain past just transactions side of things around it, all these FL statements, what frees and does ease again, getting dive eight opens that gateway of possibilities. Into the realms of if Arion was the equivalent of the Turing machine than Freetown is going to be the equivalent of all UBM or, windows eats, it's an operating system.

It can do things that well, no other blockchain will be able to do. And conceivably. Most of us probably haven't even thought what we'll be doing in five years, 10 years from now. Like you just go look at the partnerships we working with today, and I'm sure meteor could tell you much more about this than me, but personally, I'm very excited about the work world chess doing and using the blockchain.

We've got human ventures who are doing some really exciting and threat. After I tried so hard to say that word first. So some some charitable works or the stuff human venture doing, which I'm a part of. And we recently just received a UK innovation grant to forward this here in my country.

Please it's mind blowing, in these, this kind of real time finality for free to unease some parallel world only think, and I'm not a programmer. I'm not a dev. So when I came to Frito and now I'd been in crypto a few years, but I'd never used a bloody multisig wallet. I'd never created my own coin.

I'd never interacted directly with smart contracts to do X, Y, and Zed, and the learning curve. Isn't, it's all interface friendly. It's user-friendly it's. It's built from the ground up, without that naivety of not really knowing where the whole industry is going let me just add when Ethereum was built, it was an experiment.

No one knew what his area, if anyone ever does said to it sound like I built this thing And then in about 3, 4, 5 years time, we're going to, we'll use it to launch these crazy tokens and launch businesses and ICO's, and I know Aaron, you're going to be responsible for, this crazy boom. It had gone that, wasn't what I was trying to build.

Sorry, guys. Yeah. Sorry. Very long answer to a short question. If you were just looking for yeah. Digital this, but no, it's decentralized opportunity. There's only say say there's never been an ICO. Anyone can come get involved, like ID I'm a plancha and I'm heavily involved and yeah,

[00:24:55] Utsav: those who are not in Britain, what does the word mean?

[00:24:59] Ben: It's just someone who isn't ashamed to say, they're a bit of an idiot. I'm very open with my shortcomings. Yeah. I know what I know. And I don't know anything else.

[00:25:10] Utsav: Gotcha. Let's get back to me like white line answers, right? It could be already fun. Exercise media. I will give you a name of a blockchain and you have to tell me, like, how is the FreeTime blockchain, different romaine.

Sure let's start with the, oh, very simple one. Bitcoin.

[00:25:30] Mitja: It'd be the coin. Doesn't have the extensive smart contract capabilities, of course. And it's very slow and it's proof of work and it has you, you take so, model eight model instead of accounting model. So there are like it's very hard to say.

What is the different, like it's because it's different in everything for last, there are less similarities, like you'll have blocks and and and the world that's about it. And I'll go records

[00:26:01] Utsav: into the block algo, right to the other end. What is the difference between freedom and

[00:26:07] Mitja:, is a multi chain design free-time we have worked chains, they have bar chains, but all the rest is pretty much different because it's not a homogenous system.

It has It now patches the design to allow for things that freedom has, like from the beginning, for example, like inter blockchain messages and stuff like that, it it also doesn't have the same. Like the system is completely you want to launch it. It's like a private blockchain which, which like the production is like kind of private blockchain which does have some currencies to the to the, whatever beacon chain really.

I don't remember how they call it.

I don't remember. What's the name?

thanks. Thanks. Bye. Yeah. Yeah and because of that, in this design was not, I don't think. Again, Don for the same reasons like we did. And of course they don't have multi threading. It's again it's quite naive. I think, approach and architecture to the problem of scalability and multi chain kind of solutions of scalability, the what, the, how what would you do if you wanted to create adjustable to a solution for the scalability?

You get, you could do something like polka dots but it's just not enough. It's not a good design. If you think about all the aspects of respond before.

[00:27:33] Utsav: Gotcha.

[00:27:35] Mitja: And it's going to say, it's not, it's also not hands to ant. Like again, It's not always, what does that mean? It means that it's still, it still relies on the web three, for example, and web three by itself is a problematic approach to the user interface and the, to the blockchain, because lab three is an actually another layer because it brings the web as a layer to the interaction between the user and the.

And for example, so it's just, it just a solution to a very particular problem of scalability in this way and the equate. My, so I think if you look at the Freetown design is way more than complete and to and get sought through from the standpoint of all the requirements that we expect from distributed operating system.

I cannot put a more, I dunno,

[00:28:33] Utsav: it's quite interesting, right? Because the points that you bring up are what as you also rightly said, architectural differences, I basically skimmed over what polka-dotted is in some of these blogs and most of their productions, like moon Bema, plasm, their claim to famous. I allow you to bring your Ethereum smart contracts or EVM supporters, like what they basically said they have.

Let's start with that. If that's your claim, then why are people going to use it? You brought these points up very wonderfully. Like probably these are the things that the developers need to take care of. The next block team that I wanted to go. Where is a bit out there avalanche.

[00:29:20] Mitja: Yeah avalanche is interesting one.

But their claims is just. It's a ghost based blockchain, basically. What does that

[00:29:29] Utsav: mean? Explain that to us

[00:29:31] Mitja: please. The gossip is just the, it's just a sort of protocol, a group of protocols where one knots at something to another notes of something to a third note, and that's a kind of.

Goals around the network until everyone, which is the consensus and the avalanche is using like this this finding algorithm about the coloring that their response. I don't want to go into that doesn't matter. You can read about that, but the point of that is. Avalanche claim certain things like numbers that are just not well at how to put that.

I wouldn't go if this claim but yeah, it's like not

[00:30:05] Ben: probably be a little more sensitive than no. I was in my post myself. Any other lunch friends when I wrote about it, to be honest.

[00:30:12] Mitja: It just, from my perspective, Like you cannot go against the laws of physics again. And if you rely on bus, if we like we have a broadcast protocol, which is, which has like almost the gossip protocol, we know exactly the propagation times and the problems of has with the, with in terms of like propagation times and so on and so forth.

Reaching consensus with this with acceptable finality and kind of acceptable guarantees, I would say a is. Problematic. And I just don't think that I'm not just, I don't think we actually did some counting. Pasha, I think paddle is, was actually doing that four on avalanche numbers and the approach and, our numbers shows.


[00:30:59] Pavel: it's not the both numbers. I will launch a different architecture for the blockchain. Th the secret is a graph which means that your transaction can be regarded. So just, different nodes can think that you're not. Recorded it wrongly. And then you can see that when they get some information about those actually recorded in one load that, that the court record will be changed.

Some sometime in the future. The funny part about that design is that imagine you submitted like a thousand conflicting transactions. We have $1 and you sent that $1 to I filed them different accounts and each transaction is fine. You sign it. The property was your key and you sent those nodes and all those nuts will process and record those transactions as a pilot because they are valid.

Yes. Yes. For real, because the system design of not blockchain not blockchain architecture, what they claim that, but at some point when those transactions, but when subsequent transactions who propagated over different modes, they will somehow decide where's the majority of So there will be some, at some point, the majority of not will think what transaction is correct, but what all north in that the chain had recorded different transactions, how they how they can find what is the majority, how the like a thousand and first nod should decide one, which of those solvent transactions either get.


[00:32:40] Utsav: interesting question.

[00:32:44] Pavel: Yes, that's. The finding is the find the story is that this exactly why Salama has it's a protocol called proof of history, because that is exactly what they're approving, which transactions was deleted the first. So they solve the problem of completing transactions sent to different modes and collated by different modes or.

That's what the thought the problem with that is that they solve problem, which do not exist. That's the part about the design, because they've got the proof history and they can sort transactions, but there, because they thought how to improve Bitcoin. But if you solve a different problem set in the beginning, you can do not have.

Problem in the beginning because you, if you do not mix those actions, which means you can all on the one, not to call it, that does action related to a specific account, then you don't need to sort it later

[00:33:46] Utsav: on centralization.

[00:33:51] Mitja: No, it's not about, it's not about centralization. It's actually about the agreement on something, right?

Because you don't have a mechanism on the grip. You do have a mechanism on the agreement, but this mechanism of agreement is laid down in, in time. And then you have another problem, which is a problem of time. But if you have a design where you have, like you solve this problem from the beginning, you don't have it actually.

Have, for example, if you have a BFT consensus, BFC concern solves this problem, because it chooses the leader, which collates the block propo basically proposes the transaction to the rest of the notes. If you don't have it, then you have a problem of this synchronization between the notes, which takes.

[00:34:29] Pavel: Good job compared to you because in the Ft you can have one block in five seconds and fell on a sorting. Having that mechanism, how to short transactions have two blocks per second, but they still have that potential conflicting transaction, some blocks to shore and in our work chain we don't have that conflict from the beginning.

That's why we can have. Blocks

[00:34:53] Utsav: per second

[00:34:57] Pavel: in one worksheet and we can have my worksheets. We're hoping pedal.

[00:35:01] Utsav: Gotcha. Gotcha. But I would also want you to make it easier to understand for those who have no idea what you just said. I

[00:35:10] Ben: think that's my job. I think that's where I step in with another bad analogy.

No, please

[00:35:14] Utsav: do that. I don't have,

[00:35:18] Pavel: oh yeah. I have an illegitimate. Sorry. Yeah,

I think I have the best analogy, Cinderella sorting different type of grain,

the best in the world in sourcing type of grades. Yeah. But before she just mixing, so just don't do it. Don't mix those types of.

[00:35:49] Mitja: Sorted grades, then you put it all in one place and started to sort that again, like why do you do that?

[00:35:56] Utsav: Exactly. She does that, right.

[00:36:00] Ben: She needs a policy trick, pony tricks. Look at all these grains I can source. Exactly. I like your analogy better than mine pothole. So you win that one, but.

[00:36:12] Utsav: What like what I want to know for the people, not in the know is that let's say I have a Todd, Kristen, and I want to send it to Ben.

I have Don self-police. Ben has one too. What happens as soon as I hit the setback, where does my like Dawn Preston get processed? And where does that end up at the reasonable. Officers that maybe at least few people in my timing now know what happens with my Bitcoin. When I send it, it goes to, oh Ben pool.

There is some contents as proof of book, and then it ends up like with the UTX. I'd like whatnot. How does that happen on FreeTime? Because your consensus as their friend, you have a chance to basically make things faster and scalable. So break it down. But us, from this perspective, nobody knows how that works out.

[00:37:08] Mitja: No problem. So you send a message. If you use like external message, you send a message to a smart contract because I'm free to on everything is smart contract and you send a message. I will explain. I'll explain when you said it's a full note. Yeah. Let's go

[00:37:24] Utsav: back

[00:37:27] Mitja: please. Yeah. So the full nodes, which gets your external messages, it's transmitting this external message to.

The worksheet, which processes your address and from that work chain actually goes to the threads that processes your address, because your address which is the namespace of the contract in the blockchain, it's sliced like Charlotte. A particular set of validators.

And we know we can calculate this validators where they are. So you send the message to this validators and this validators then between themselves, they're on the BFT algorithm, a consensus algorithm, but that's not the point. So they run the BFT. So they know who the leader who collator is. So the collator, which collates the blocks, get this message edit.

And now the BFT consensus starts to work and they agree on this blog. And then they send this block to the master chain. But the thing is that in parallel to web to that, and that is what is explained in that. In the current white paper and it's not at all in the original design is that this block candidates is also propagates to the network, to the old worksheet, to not the whole network, but to the workshop that's important.

And then there are some funny algorithms of choosing a verifiers, which were, which basically, because in the workshop, every validator has the same data. They don't process the same data, but they have. So the multi-thread multithreading is the following. So you have all the notes, all the validators in the worksheet cause the same data, but they only process transactions for a certain subset of accounts on that date.

Great. And within this processing, like you have a BFT, but then also there are some other, no. Not in the BFT consensus, which verifies that actually the block is correct. And they sent proofs of this to the, also to the master Shane validators. Now, because of this, they actually, you can have a finality which is faster then you don't need actually to wait until the block is confirmed on the master chain.

But think of that. If you have think of that in in, I dunno, polka dot, you have a production punishing concerns. You have a production block, then you have a Polish engine section, but you don't need to wait until that finalize into the relay chain. You basically, because of this algo consensus algorithm.

It makes up several concerns. Algorithms actually, you can rely on certain amount, certain assumptions of correctness within the work chain itself and say, okay, I'm fine. This transaction in flight is final. . Actually because we are proving in a white paper and I think there will be a separate paper on that, that this concerns us enhanced TFT, or think of that as two consensus as one profess the security guarantees, which are more than what that of a Bitcoin actually, you don't even need to wait until the whole consensus part because the collator, which collates the block has so low probability of.

Then it actually will never well because his ability of cheating is so low, like for the ability of him to innate to go unpunished for the transaction, for the wrong transaction. And the block is such that he will never do that.

And so basically when the block has. You can say, it's fine. And in that respect, because we also have reliable external message protocol, which basically guarantees that once collator says it's okay, I'm I'm including that on the block you don't even need for the block itself.

Got just enough for a collator to say, I'm fine. I will include that. I'm actually including that on the block right now, you can find a light. Of course, if you transfer like a billion dollar, you would probably wait few seconds for the master chain log just to be right and completely sure. But if you are, but if you're transferring just Utahns, believe me, you can have a finality of 200 minutes.


[00:41:32] Ben: Yeah, I've literally done this in real life where some of my less savvy crypto friends where, you can get them to download the app. You touch phones together. And by the time you pulled your phone away, the is done. I get to try and add a bit more of a basic kind of a explanation. Those people out there like me who know struggled to keep up with giga geniusly it's like me.

The finality is it's not actually as complicated as it sounds. I'd like to think of it like monopoly. Everyone's played it. You have bang carers in your favor in that game. Unfortunately in real life, most bang carers aren't in your favor. All finality

[00:42:07] Mitja: means

[00:42:09] Ben: all finality means is they can no longer be an error set points.

So the transaction can go through, but up until it's got finality, you can hypothetically still get that, that unfortunately, so you must give the money back.

[00:42:25] Utsav: Exactly. That is what I find very interesting in how like meetup or tickets that you can have finality, but then 200 milliseconds do we have examples or like hypothesis.

When a longer finality has led to problems are like men maybe in the real,

[00:42:45] Mitja: Just the user experience. And think of that. Also, if you have a composability contracts, like you have some defy protocol and you run like composable, I don't know what you put some collateral against some alone. And then you put this loan as a collateral and go to some loan and stuff like that.

Then you go to the, you exchange something for something like count transactions here. Think of that. And then. Okay. So how much time do you wait today to make all that happen? And also think of that as falling, if you have a low scale of ability and that's what the Ethereum has like you, then the gas price is just going parabolic.

Exactly. And here you'll have you hit the button. Boom. It's done. And then it costs. What else? What else, what do you want?

[00:43:30] Ben: Take your marketing tips in the background era. Isn't it he's Googling to markets.

[00:43:38] Utsav: I will tell you like what I want. So it's heavier because it is not so scalable. It gives me the possibility to take out flash loans. I don't know how to take out one year, but now I have this opportunity. Can you do that on.

[00:43:53] Mitja: No, because flash loans is a bug,

is the clock in the theory. So you exploited some bug and then you say, how can you do that in a system that works correctly?

[00:44:06] Utsav: Yeah, but,

[00:44:10] Mitja: but let me give you some good things. Like you can do that. By constructing a flesh loan, a smart contract.

Yeah. Do it. Do it by design, man. Come on. You want to give a flashlight? They do it by design. Just create a smart contract, which has a guarantee of execution on certain conditions and keep alone. What's your problem.

[00:44:32] Ben: It was all this stuff about the the poly chain defined hack the other week.

Wasn't there and. Again, I'm not wait while he's in these ways, but if you look into the details, it's actually not as technically complex. As as you would think to work your way around these problems, it's an inherent kind of designed

[00:44:50] Mitja: for.

And bugs leads to a security.

[00:45:02] Ben: We come back to the mega drive and why that never took off.

[00:45:07] Utsav: I'm sure I'm like market. I'd have to write a report to present why it's such a good design, but this is why it got made and sold. But yeah, go ahead and back to this meta. So when we talk about designs, right? So as Benjamin pointed out about this poly chain hoc on a poly network hoc, how it was explained was that designers are technologists, programmers.

They have this tendency, but chop a problem into smaller bits. So they make it more than. One person build space, one person bill stack, and then it's the job off like one other one other person to make sure to build all of them into one. This taking these blocks and converting that into a bigger machine is where the problems are because they think that all because all of them are doing good.

The other part will also do well, but it doesn't work out like that. The article said two positives sometimes make a negative. What are you guys think about that? What's your solution?

[00:46:17] Mitja: Yeah. Can you like, I didn't get can you rephrase?

[00:46:21] Utsav: I'll give you a bit,

[00:46:22] Mitja: no, it's.

[00:46:25] Utsav: No, it's my turn to give an analogy, right? Let's say that you are trying to build a car. So somebody builds the car with data, somebody builds and then somebody does the seat.

[00:46:34] Mitja: It doesn't work like this here on that point.

On that point, it doesn't work like that because before you build carbeurator, before we, before you'd be bought, or there are designers who build the design of that thing. And then they build the specifications for that thing. And only according to the specifications, someone can design an engine and copywriter or whatever.

Okay. So if you didn't do the design correctly, you may miss that you need a carburetor in the first place.

[00:46:56] Ben: The only part of the,

[00:46:58] Utsav: yeah, on that happy note though, I'd like to give it, I would like to call it a wrap. Thank you, mate. Pankey bent-over and unpack your Bible for joining us. Let's do that. Like somebody dying when you have another milestone audit, if you guys have an article span, I would be happy to chat to you guys about this or what I know what I gained.

Thank you for,

[00:47:19] Mitja: yeah. Thank you very much.

[00:47:21] Ben: Again. itself. No, I hope you don't mind me giving a shout out, but obviously you've been made a guest appearance on my very own podcast a couple of times. So you know what's doing these things with our little cross-promotion. If you're into cryptocurrency, check it out starring it's a myself and lots of other funny, interesting people making jokes about the weird world of crypto.

Thank you

[00:47:41] Mitja: again.