w3tester pfp

w3tester

@w3tester

428 Following
236 Followers
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
It is not so much space here for a signed message in Farcaster. === Valid Sign from Valid One === signer:0xEC363A8EFaB7d63787AE7F4C490C8632EeB02c56, sig:0xd203c9989ce2e969490812e50c3a75f4c6caca5e6e5c81a1133ac26a83b47bb727e938251a113e8564f850bf15b02beecb1d7b6b9ee345d63a58ba4081493bef00
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
Welcome to the world of Valid One! === Valid Sign from Valid One === signer:0x03b3ad2a718a073255cd4eb5f0e7470352f7d0fd23d9d344c8708c1c90828e6e6b, sig:0x1269452ff56ca174b7552adc61ef02861ee7cdcd77ee5c5b293cbc10017b9d1b0b5791f956f5dc9852e1c37c4b3daf7375fe51bded2a06668f231508ab1572f800
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
The website owner or a hacker, can modify the codes to alter the contents you see or plant malicious code in there to steal your fund. And, there is nothing you can do about it. So to achieve "end-to-end trust", a Dapp must also contain an immutable front-end. Failing to do so makes it Web2.5, at best.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
The smart contract can be considered trustless as it runs on a blockchain. But the front-end website is obviously the vulnerability here as it is just centralized codes hosted in a private server.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
A Web3 Dapp typically has two parts, a smart contract running on the blockchain and a front-end interface that interacts with its users. For the system to be considered trustworthy, both elements must operate in a trustless manner.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
My thoughts on "end-to-end trust". Let's first see an analog: In a series circuit containing two switches, both must be closed to illuminate the bulb. Similarly, to establish trust on the Internet, every intermediary step must be trustworthy to guarantee the integrity of the final outcome.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
Link to the article: https://zcloaknetwork.medium.com/a-chain-abstraction-based-zk-coprocessor-by-zcloak-network-aa86c42a9dec
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
🔍Introducing latest work from @zCloakNetwork —chain abstraction based ZK coprocessor🎉 1️⃣Verify once, prove everywhere 2️⃣Ultra-low cost/latency for multichain use 3️⃣Based on Polygon Miden, built on #ICP
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ciniz pfp
ciniz
@ciniz
testing something. no tip required like and recast (must be following) early ; 8,888
540 replies
1141 recasts
1407 reactions
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
From the perspective of user experience and cognition, the friendliness of the three systems mentioned above increases progressively, which also reflects the development trajectory of the industry.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
The public key for this digital signature corresponds to the public key of a certain "smart contract" on ICP (ICP's smart contract, the canister, has the capability to sign any information with threshold ECDSA).
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
3. ICP (Internet Computer Protocol), which provides facts, consensus, and easily obtainable cognition. To obtain any computational result on the blockchain with certainty, one does not need to run any nodes or trust any intermediaries—they simply verify a digital signature.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
2. Public blockchains like Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana, which provide facts and consensus but do not offer easily obtainable cognition. To attain cognition, users must either run a full node themselves or trust those who do so (e.g. RPC service). A slight upgrade from full nodes are light nodes and zk coprocessors.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
1. Systems like Ordinals, Arweave AO, and Bitcoin RGB, which provide facts but do not offer consensus. To achieve consensus, users must figure it out by themselves (by running their own off-chain indexer, resolving disagreements among multiple indexers, etc.).
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
Following this line of thought, I believe that the various "blockchain systems" widely discussed recently can generally be categorized into three types (based on their features):
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
I guess for the majority of ordinary users, what they care most about is simple and easily obtained cognition (What is my account balance? Was this transaction successful?).
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
There is a hierarchical relationship among these three: facts determine consensus, and consensus determines cognition; consensus stems from the computation of facts, while cognition comes from the transmission and perception of consensus.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
"Consensus" refers to the ability to compute based on the immutable data on the blockchain (state transition) and obtain results (such as transferring funds or executing smart contracts). "Cognition" denotes the ability for the outcomes of the blockchain's computation to be obtained and perceived by common users.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
The services that blockchain systems can provide to users can be divided into three levels: fact, consensus, and cognition. By "fact," we mean the ability for anyone to write immutable data onto the blockchain (i.e., to make a transaction).
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
w3tester pfp
w3tester
@w3tester
Recently, I've delved into discussions about public blockchain technology and would like to document my learning outcomes.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction