Baseline Protocol The Baseline Show - Office Hours, 30 Mar 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: The Baseline Show: Office Hours

Description

The weekly office hours for the Baseline Protocol open source community, Wednesdays at noon in the US-Eastern timezone. And don't miss the show on Thursdays at 8pm in the Indian (IST) timezone (11am US Eastern).
Learn more at https://baseline-protocol.org.

A

A

A

Emp thing you turn that on and there we are right: gotcha, hey everybody. um I think we're already live so.

A

uh Hi this is john wilpert, we're here on the baseline show, uh uh as as always every wednesday at noon um and I'd like to to thank y'all bitton as our our new uh uh guy for setting these uh the show up and um um yeah sorry for the a little bit late, we had a couple of technical glitches there, but it's good to see you all.

A

Yeah bitton we've got sono patel mark rims, uh keith salsman, charles todd, mark cattle, samurai kishore, the illustrious uh diego van van guerris, las guerres, uh um andres, freund and jack wiring. It's good to see everybody. Today, um it's a very good day for baselining um we're gonna get into a lot of stuff uh sonal. I think uh you've got some updates and announcements to do and and we can get the show on the road.

B

Awesome, thank you. So we'll have a pretty informal agenda today, similar to some of our old shows, but those always were a big hit just to have some conversations as an open office hours here, but we'll start out with seeing some code we'll get some updates from the community depending on who who joins us and who wants to share um and then we'll also discuss our devconnect amster based event.

B

That is coming up in about three weeks and we have some exciting updates there and a lot of traction for that event, and part of that will be going through some of the blips that were submitted by the community and fleshing out the viability of that work and finalizing our list for the cordovs and new cordovs to start working on, but just to start us off, I'm going to hand over to keith salzman one of our core devs here who's going to walk us through some of the blip 6 monolithic test, suite work that was previously done and this test driven development work is going to lead into the simple reference implementation.

B

That is one of the highest priorities for our 2022 roadmap that was published so he's going to kind of walk us through how that work lays the groundwork for the upcoming 22 2022 efforts over to you, keith.

C

Thank you very much sono. uh Let me know if you guys can see my screen.

D

C

I can see it all right.

D

C

Thanks so I think one of the main things we've noticed kind of over time since, especially since I've uh joined the mesh, is that whenever we have new people come in, we just had somebody the other day in chat.

C

You know, say you know how how do I get started uh base signing you know I, I kind of looked the docs. Maybe I've taken a peek at the standards. uh You know I'm kind of I'm a little lost at. uh Where do I go from here? How do I really wrap my mind around baseline and in fact really, this was my own personal experience.

C

uh You know when you first get introduced to to baseline is the amount of knowledge you need to kind of get over that hump to create that mental image. In your mind of you know, what is it in its entirety? What does it do? uh It's it's a lot.

A

This is code you're, showing code. You.

D

Can't show code without you know what that.

A

Turn around again uh go don't lie. Thank you. uh We had to do code, don't lie so keith. uh Oh man, that that's that's! That's on you. You should never show code without doing code. Don't lie! Oh.

C

Yeah, that's my thought. I take a full responsibility. Actually I think it's joao. I blame you all for that. One yeah.

D

C

The new hat guy.

D

Where's the code we'll improve next time.

A

All right go on sorry about that.

C

All right so uh yeah today we're going over kind of what the blip six team did. They they laid the groundwork. This is the bpi monolith test suite and so what this does?

C

It kind of really lays the groundwork for a test driven development of what we're calling the sri or the simple reference implementation, and I was leading into that earlier with saying you know it's kind of hard to wrap your mind around what baseline is when you first get introduced it if you're an advanced, baseliner right with a baseline protocol- and you know everything- that's going on and you're trying to do your own implementation.

C

You know, maybe this file folder isn't for you. Maybe you want to look at battleship for your i1 bri 2, there's plenty of examples out there right, but if you're new to baseline- and you want to kind of wrap your mind around things- you know first, things first go through read the standard. I know it's a little difficult to get through it all in one go, but you know try to read through look at some good diagrams.

C

There go through the docs, read the docs and then on top of that, we're trying to create this simple reference implementation, a place where you can go to and run and see. Okay, I I can simply see at least like one baseline interaction between two counterparties.

C

Now it may not be what uh you know what you'll see in the real world right- um and this is true for a lot of more complicated tools you see with either zkp's or something else when you go in the first one you see, although it has the same core principles as uh you know, a more complicated real-life example that you know it's not one that you could really apply between multiple business parties or it's a scaled-down version to help you wrap your mind around and that's what the monolith the testing monolith aims to do right.

C

uh So just a little background about that as you're. Looking at the code here, you already noticed within the uh the bpi mono test suite we have the bpi. We already have some kind of notorious components: you've seen in baseline identity, messaging storage, the work group and so on and so forth. If you go to the bottom here, if you're getting new to baseline you've read to the standard, you read to the docs, go to the bottom here, and click on test you'll be brought to this file right. So in test driven development.

C

This is kind of where we started right. We looked at it and we said okay, you know at the very simplest level, what are the steps in kind of creating that bpi instance and the steps in uh in this case a simple order between two counterparties which again you know we want to emphasize it in the you know, synchronizing, uh multi-party interaction, really baseline is going to be more complicated, three or more parties, but this is more of our educational tool. Get people ramped up, so we see here. Okay, let's say we're: making a bpi.

C

uh We've created a bpi instance, a baseline protocol instance, and we want to ask ourselves what do we expect to be true about that instance, and this is what the blip team did. They said. What do we expect to be true about that instance?

C

What's some minimal set of data uh that we know will be true in this case uh you know the the id the name product ids within that bpi, because we're talking about ordering an item between two entities, um you know what what is that product equal to you know what should orders be there? What proof should be there right at the very beginning right now?

C

um What this really helps us in doing is that, let's imagine as we move into the future and we actually start implementing- uh you know in different epics, these different portions of uh the bpi of our baseline, simple reference implementation, identity messaging.

C

Well, then, when we run those components and we run the actual base signing of the order between the two parties, we'll already have all the we expect uh in a particular situation. So if it's just setting up the bpi, we'll already have okay, this is what I expect to be true of it right and this this test suite the test. Horn itself will be another building block that you can kind of uh pull out and even apply to other implementations.

C

To say. Can I link this in to my new implementation? Run the test and see when the bpi is created are all these things true, and this is just the very simple beginning as we roll through. We see okay well, given that we've instantiated bpi and we add a work group, so we add a work group.

C

So what we expect to be true about the work group right and we have all these expectations and then it goes on and on and on, and we can look through at a couple of them, but so that's just kind of like the very basics of the test, driven development and how that's going to drive um other implementations.

C

Specifically this the simple reference one to get people off the ground here. uh So let's take a look at a more complicated uh one. uh Does anybody have any questions so far? Anybody in the group I see some- I saw some unmutings, no okay, all right so keep going.

A

I love this. This is I mean this is I I wish every baseline show was had a segment with uh with one of you all. You know going through stuff like this um and so keith. uh Thanks for for for doing this, keep going.

C

Yeah, no problem, of course, um so as you can see here uh in in the development of this, you know this is in reality far from real implementation. Why is that? Well, you know we have all those packages over here within a single folder. You know: are these things exactly doing what you'd expect the baseline implementation to do? Well, when you first create them, uh we will just be creating uh like mocks right.

C

So, for example, if we actually look into the you know what is a vpi instance here, what is it doing? What does it contain? What has these components, but these components themselves are stored within their own folders here and when you get to a point where, uh let's say one of them has to provide something that would be done if we decide to implement with zkp's or with a ccsm uh like providing a you know like a proof that would be unchained that that proof, right now in its implementation, is just made through.

C

uh You know typescript mocking uh deep, strict, equalities and like a merkle.js, so the idea behind that is that we go from the bottom up from the test right then, when we're looking at the test itself, we say: okay, what do I need the bpi to do right now, just to fulfill these expectations?

C

I don't need to go straight to a full bpi, yet I just needed to be able to fulfill these expectations here and that kind of leads you in your development, it's being driven by the test itself. It's saying, okay, I needed to be able to have this id to have a name to have these product links ids, so we make that part or the part was made in within blip16, and then we go to the next test, which is the addition of all right.

C

Well now the dpi needs to be able to handle a work group. You need to be able to add a work group and add in some parameters for that work group, like a name and id the work, steps that work group is going to contain.

C

So let's go ahead and let's go ahead and let's, let's actually just make that as it is right, let's create a workgroup component that is able to handle these things, the name and id. um You know some getter and setter functions for you know possible, mock functionality and then work steps themselves once that's done and it as long as it fulfills the expectations of the test and we move on to the next part. Okay, what's the next step, we get a bpi instance. We get. uh You know a work group component.

C

You can um add work groups themselves. Well, now that we have a workflow component, we need to put something in that work group right. We need a work step right, so we go in and add a network for the workstep, or I keep saying we we again blip 16, which is theme I was a part of, but there's many portions of this code that wasn't developed by me. So let me give the shout outs to all the you know agnes dawi, uh and they were part of lipsticks. Originally so anyways we go on.

C

Okay, we need to make a uh you know. Given a newly created work group, so we're assuming we've created a work group, we have alice, creates a work step and the work step is going to be added into that work group and it's visible in the work step for a given work group. So that's the next part of the test and say: okay, we first write out what are the expectations of this right?

C

Well, we want the work group, the work steps length. We expect it to be equal to one we're, only adding a single work step. The next simplest implementation.

C

And then uh you know what else do we need to be equal to? Well, if we, if we grab out the exchange, orders work step uh a collection, the first one in the index index 0 will actually be equal to the work step that was actually returned when we created it right and we instantiated that work step so again, just grabbing. You know what are those expectations when you're adding a work step into a work group, writing those expectations out and then going based off of those saying: hey, let's write the code.

C

What is a work step right? What does a works step need to be able to do, but just for this base functionality stuff may be added to the workstep later for sure right. So in this case, we need to be able to instantiate it. We need to be able to set some business logic that that work step is going to execute.

C

So you need to be able to say, okay well, this work step has this particular logic. It's going to execute in this fashion between the two counterparties, in this case, it's to add an order.

C

We need to be able to add that actually into the work step and then add that work step into the uh you know the work group itself to be executed later on right, so we're not actually even executing the work step right, we're taking next step at a time, so the next part of the test. Okay, given that we've prepared the work group, the work step well before we can even execute the work step, we need another party right, so we're going to say, alice invites bob when we go on and uh we.

A

Go on in that same.

C

Manner right letting the test and the expectations of the tests that are based on the standard which, let me tell you it's not an easy read. Thank you, andres, but really good stuff comes in yeah. This is where it comes. Where I'm saying or you need to read the standard. But then, when you come back to doing an implementation.

A

When you come back to life after reading.

C

If, if you come back to life now, when you come back from the standard you're like okay, well, I read the standard, that's great and all those things I understood, but it's hard to put it into kind of a you know this. This circumstantial implementation that I'm trying to imagine in my mind, so you want to have the standard side by side and that's what we did as we were developing this. Well, let's say when you add a work step, what what are the things you know based on the standard that we we need right.

C

um There are some some kind of caveats here right that it in being the kind of simple or what will be developed into the simplest reference. Implementation is that there is part of the standard that talks about, and we've discussed this before. Andreas has made us very aware of this about the bpi interoperability right. So once we change this uh in the next few months into that simple reference implementation that people can go in and run and see the transaction between the two parties.

C

The next step would be be to create that simplest reference implementation uh that actually has the bpi interoperability kind of an extension of this right. So it is mainly an educational tool for those who are trying to get in the baseline. The thing that we feel like is missing the most.

C

If you're, if you're an advanced baseliner, you know the baseline protocol again, there's there's plenty of tools, great tools available to you that I'm sure that uh john andres, everybody can talk about at length to actually baseline and part of it are in the baseline reaper here as well. If you're new to baseline you're, trying to wrap your mind around it, read through the standard go to the docs, look at the monolith test suite and try to follow and say: okay, you know what were they doing here? Where did they find this from the standard?

C

Why is it that they've done it this way? It's not perfect for sure. It's actively currently being worked on and implementing um the zero knowledge circuits right now and you know a ccsm as well. um So, if you have questions then come to us too, but hey, why was it done this way right?

C

We had a guy in chat the other day, just feeling lost like how do I even get started? This is how you get started, the standard, the docs and this together reading through asking yourself. Why is it done this way coming to us in chat? Why is it done this way?

C

E

Also, just to just to to to add here right, it's sort of like the standard is not an implementation guide. Right that that's the that's. That's one thing it's like: if you read the standard and you're looking for um a guide, how to implement it, that is not what a standard is with a capital. Not right. um You have freedom. You just need to make sure that your implementation meets the requirements of the standards, so you have different ways.

E

Many different ways how you can implement a certain thing like a work group or a work step, or something like that right. You just need to have a a a it's. It's it's it's testable and the standard tries to to to um specify um in as um a vague, yet concrete way as possible. Without you know, it's like it's like a predicating on a particular implementation. The the type of tests you need to you need to run. Sometimes it's very specific um and, and sometimes it is it is.

E

It is very, very vague, um and that has also to do in part with the criticality and also with with existing options that you can plug off the rack, and you just don't want to like you know you don't want to have to specify the you don't want to do the specification of like kafka again, no need right that that's what apache is for or or uh uh mqp.

E

So enough said.

A

Hey keith, you got more or is that where you want to stop it by the way we should um we should do so. We ought to carve these out, and uh you know I think what keith said was you know? How do you get started? This is how you get started and it ought to be like its own standalone video. We should cut that out and make it.

B

A

C

A

Let's be, let's have this, be the first thing on every baseline show and I'm going to just watch. Our hodler viewership go through the floor and the developer viewership, hopefully going through the roof, and that would be right. You know, given that baselining has very little to do with tokens. uh You know you would think that there would be tons and tons of developers on here, and that is the ultimate goal, and then you know the toddlers will do fine, uh as people make stuff that um it might have tokens involved.

E

Well, the hodlers can look at the the portion of the standard that talks about you know: value creation and value exchange.

A

Yeah no disrespect to hobblers they're, all good.

E

A

No that puzzled me why hot you know why why we had so many you know really token advocates following the baseline protocol. I'm, like you know it's a standards body right, ain't, no token here, man, but anyway, uh uh speaking of things that are made that um have a lot of financial value and keith. Are you done? I just want to be sure.

C

I mean I could go on, but I think I think for today's session yeah we're done and next time we can jump back in and get into.

A

The movie like and here and it's the lesson or something like that- I.

C

Need yeah, we need an ounce code like the code doesn't lie where's that one. Do you guys have that yet code didn't.

D

Just keep playing.

C

Okay, I'll stop sharing. Now, thank you guys for listening.

E

A

Job, thank you keith yeah. That was really good.

E

A

Be a professor um so um with that I think uh we have two. First of all, we should probably say you know when keith was talking about ccsm uh a notable thing, the eight you know the first, I think the first production mainnet ccsm launched this week. uh uh The base ledger mainnet is live. As I understand it. I think there that the base ledger team is heads down making sure it's robust and functioning.

A

So I I think, they're coming on the show next week, um but yeah we're hoping, but uh I think they're right now hard at work, making sure everything is uh um probably watching all the dials and wheels and buzzers, and uh but congratulations to them. So if you were trying to deploy um and and you needed a ccsm, a consensus, controlled state machine, that's what the standards call it standard calls it, and why do we call it that? Because you know technically it doesn't have to be a blockchain.

A

It doesn't have to be any particular blockchain. It needs to be andreas. Remind me, it needs to be a a common consensus. Controlled state machine that is acceptable to all participants in whatever work group is, uh is being put up right. That is correct right so and.

E

Depending on on on what you're doing with it, it needs to have uh um it needs to fulfill certain requirements, um which is the actual part of the standard. There is a whole standard for uh the ccsm.

A

Right, it's probably worth saying that uh that standard kind of it's pretty obvious that a ccsm, a good candidate for that is a public uh blockchain or a public l2.

E

Doesn't have to.

A

E

uh Yeah, so an l2 is is is no, it's is the ccsm is an l1, and if it's in, if it's in.

E

It needs to be anchored somewhere, it needs to be yeah. It has to be anchored to something right. So it's like it's like, so it's it's it. It's it's very clear and very well defined all the requirements that it needs to that it needs to to to um full fill, and that throws out about 90 percent of all chains, which is good.

A

Right now, interestingly, about base pledger, I think one of the things that kind of sold me on it and I am I'm pretty pro on it. But first of all I like the the team, you know the the you know bright, guys and folks they're, pretty practical and they've been doing this stuff for for it for 20 years.

A

I don't want to make it. I am not an evangelist for any product or service in baselining, so I want to stop short of you know some kind of weird endorsement. It's not my job and it creates problems, but I will say that I am honestly what I what I didn't like at first- and now I do like- is that it effectively is a permissioned um but public chain.

A

Usually I hate that idea, but the idea, but but when they added the programmatic uh uh requirement that all of those merkle roots are are then rooted onto the ethereum main net. I kind of went oh okay, that makes sense, and that would be more acceptable to enterprises, uh because it's permissioned and they can- you know the so that that help you know in a way. It's it's acting like an l2, even though it's really its own permission main net.

A

I I it took me a while to get around that, but I kind of like it now. What do you think andreas.

E

um uh Yeah, it's it for the for the for the basic baseline stuff. It's it's it's it's it's absolutely um um it's! Absolutely! It's! Absolutely usable um would be great if if, if, if the proofs could be could be proven, unchained.

A

Yeah, I almost I want base ledger in aztec. You know sometime this year to have a baby and uh you know yeah. I know we both want the zero knowledge stuff. I think, but I I I can't fault them for for going for the most basic.

F

A

Yeah, I mean that's a good starting spot and that's what their customers are perfectly.

E

Perfectly perfectly perfectly fine, there's there's there needs to be a lot more, um a lot more evolution in this in this space, also from the from the from the technical side, especially when you're talking about it's like again, the basic stuff right for for for what you would need. The basic um coordination under zero knowledge does not require anything but an anchor hash. That is that that can be resolved too right. It's an it's an anchor hash that can be resolved to the to the to the mercury.

A

And and why you do that, and I think what a lot of people missed is, and in fact even some of our friends on you know in the court of community, you know like we have a whole segment. You know what blip one is. Is you know where do you where? Where do you not need to use the place, the baseline approach- and you know it usually comes down to well?

A

If you only have two parties and all you're doing is confirming signatures hashtag, you know hashing signatures, then you don't really need it, um but I keep on I keep on. I think people forget that part of the baseline protocol uh is kind of fancy kafka right in or fancy kafka fancy key, not key value pair kafka right where you're signaling.

A

Somebody else that it's time to do something based on you know, dropping a proof and having them pub stub to it right and that that part, I think, is where you know having a ccsm even in a two-party thing right. Well, I guess even even without zero knowledge and say, hey look yep! We have this. You know we now have a consistency here. We have the correct event, you can go and do your thing um I think that's where base ledger can be useful, even without the zero knowledge stuff. Yet, oh.

E

I think what the what the the the the reason why I would say, even in a two-party system, uh um zero knowledge proof is is extremely useful is for the following.

E

Very simple reason: right is: I can stop everything before it goes through the gate, because if you give me a zero knowledge proof- and I generate the public inputs to the proof and then the proof from my version of the truth and if then that proof doesn't verify, I know you screwed up, which means I don't even want to talk to you until you're you're you're doing something right.

E

I'm like I don't even want to look at any any detail right, because the biggest problem that enterprises have is goes through the door and it's wrong, and then you and then the whole emailing and phone calling and wait. What is that? Why? Why is that number different?

E

And don't you have that product number and wait a second, it's like didn't you have that that the credit and then you're immediately at the line level detail and it costs you hours and hours and hours and in globally hundreds of billions of dollars in in in in lost productivity.

E

um Just because of that, if you can stop it at the door and say it's like you know what I'm not even gonna look at it because I know it's wrong. I don't know exactly what it's wrong. I just know it's wrong, so it's like go figure it out.

A

Yeah, that's one of the things I like about the the the uh I think it was ken circle uh did that the excel demo and their version of the excel that provided a version as well. They did it kind of they had a different take on it. I like attributes of both of them, but what I liked about the the consterical one um was. I think it was circle. Wasn't it so um it was a bunch of people, but um uh who who remind me who lives. I'm.

B

Smart people, yeah unibright and con circle.

A

Yeah what I liked about that one was that it was showing how if there was something wrong yeah there was something wrong with it was using it basically for versioning right, I was saying: hey look, you know this name, isn't right, I'm going to send it back and then it was using baselining to do that, and I thought it never really occurred to me to use it to to to to apply the baseline pattern to that particular issue.

A

Right so I mean you could, like you put a row in it in the in this in the spreadsheet, and it has you know. Nick critic goes, but I misspelled nick's name then nick gets you know, nick's spreadsheet pops and says your baseline event is here and nico's. Why that's not my name and he can he can actually kind of rebase it I think effectively.

A

I thought that was interesting, so I think you know it'll be, I think, a lot more powerful with with zero knowledge, because, as you say, andreas then you can enforce rules and say I'm not I'm not even picking this up yeah this isn't validating, but then.

D

E

Is where, in the standard do.

A

We do we allow the signal back to the original originators to say, there's something wrong with this. I'm not gonna. I'm not gonna proceed.

E

Where do we that's an implementation detail? My friend.

A

That is an implementation.

E

Detail: yeah right: it's like it's a it's just it's just this suit! It's just the the center just speaks out. What the what the, what the, what the, what what the implementation must follow? How.

D

E

Is signaled back whether it's a smoke signal or or or or you know, a a a a p2p message just like what do I know and care right, the the again.

E

I think that the real, the really important thing is is to to to to say it's like if you don't want to incur stupid work that you currently do use zero knowledge proofs, because you can stop everything at the door and and before it gets into into your into your kingdom, because once it's in all hell is going to break break loose so stop everything at the door and and that's what enterprises do not do.

A

E

And and that's where signatures and so forth that doesn't help right. It's like it's like it's like it's like you're you're, the the the the argument is, here's the invoice. You need to pay it. You know, but it's wrong. It's like no! You need to pay. It's like ah it's like. It's like it is provably wrong. Why should I pay a provably wrong wrong invoice. Go fix it.

E

I don't know how to fix this. Well, that's your problem.

A

Right now so uh anyway, uh well done base ledger. I mean you know. A base ledger is a product in the in in service, in the baseline ecosystem is not baseline. uh Nor is any other thing, so some run, and I are as co-chairs are always trying to be careful to not you know. Not you know, hey baseline is, is a standards body and stuff that you know, companies make uh you know around the standard is awesome.

A

We're gonna, we're gonna feature that stuff on the show, but we love it all uh equally and we, if anybody catches us playing favorites, uh please call us out it's not our job to do so. uh That said, uh I think it's it's. It's entirely right and appropriate right and proper for us to say um well done to the first. I think first um proper ccsm out there um and apologies to anybody that uh disagrees with that. That attribution that I think it's correct.

A

F

There is speaking of another.

A

Thing that that is made around the baseline protocol nick criticos, do you have any anything to say.

F

I've got a question. Actually um you know the the specification is out right, we're starting to see products like base ledger um coming out that that enable baseline, but are not baseline, as you just said, um and I apologize if if this discussion has come up and it's already been handled, I've been busy, as you know, um has the baseline protocol community considered some kind of accreditation or certification program for products that that are baseline, compliant or baseline, whatever right.

A

Yes, um okay, yeah feel free to tap in here, but uh and andreas as well.

A

The the standard has to be ratified, uh you know and okay promulgated uh by the oasis uh standards body, and that is a long process um uh shout out to to you know, folks, who I mean you know uh they they they give andreas endless trouble, but they do it in in good faith, uh but folks, like charles neville and uh folks like that who really know their their standards but uh standards work um have have put in real time um and effort uh reviewing it. You know uh calling out issues uh saying hey.

A

I understand this. This is too hard to understand this is you know this is even down to languaging issues, polishing.

F

A

Yeah, polish and- and we really grateful to charles and everybody else that has done so um and as that as that goes through the sausage, grinder it'll it'll, ultimately come out. I will say that we were sort of hopeful to do it by now, but then it's some somewhere along the way we went, you know it's, you know, there's lots of work being done. The standard being ratified is not the hottest issue. Standards are about longevity, not about intensity.

F

True, but as you start to get companies bringing multiple products to market and making claims around their baseline, this or baseline certified, or what have you right? um You know you need to have some sort of yeah some sort of standard by which you know it would be nice if the baseline protocol standard became the baseline for how standards should be drafted. That's absolutely.

A

And yeah so that that's um yeah as soon as we have that ratification, then we then then we can open up a website or a web page. That says here are the baseline compliant things. um You can't be baseline compliant technically, yet you can. You can be ahead of the game and and be implementing baselining, but you can't technically be compliant.

A

So we can't say that yet and as soon as we have the ratification and a test harness that allows you to go through a set of tests, so nick your product, uh your products- I should say plural- could uh you know, could go through that test, harness and say yeah. We are baseline, compliant.

D

Yeah, I think there was a very long time back. I brought up this question that put that that sort of attestation become an opportunity for the party auditors to come in and order it and then give some logos to our attestation stamps to some products.

D

E

D

Time um chet here answered that yeah. Maybe companies could pick it up and if, if that picks up value, but that's all commercial language- and we can't be involved in that.

A

One of the requirements for for ratification is uh proof of util utilization. I get three companies, I think minimum. If I'm remembering my requirements correctly have to show that they're using the standard, um so things like base ledger coming out in in now in production in mainnet, uh you know other products as well. um I don't know if provides stuff is in production.

A

um I think it is, uh but you know so that would be another one, uh but there are you know, and nick yeah and labs uh tree trunk is applying. You know we're applying the uh the baseline approach.

A

You know those are all ones that we can. uh We can do nick before you jump off. I know you gotta go uh is, is there anything you want to say about nlabs? Yet I I know you guys are rocking and rolling.

F

Continuing to make progress, we've got, you know, big deals, bringing real world assets to defy if you haven't seen the real world asset market on ave or the gig pool, or anything on tin, lake or goldfinch, or anything like that.

F

You know it's kind of analogous to what we're doing and the product team is working on the road map. It's not my place here to kind of announce some of the things, but you made some comments earlier. I wish there was a product that did zero knowledge to get things into baseline, for example, might be something we could talk about in the near future.

A

All right, I know some people on this call that might be interested in that conversation. Okay, um thanks nick, it's good to see you um all right uh and.

F

I'm really digging an aunt shirt by the way.

A

And that's shirt: yeah.

F

I love whiskey.

A

Yeah, that's the whiskey protocol. That's uh yeah.

F

The whiskey products processes yeah, I thought I thought whiskey wanted to be bourbon when it grew up, but that's okay. Oh.

A

uh Okay, moving on sonal, um I think uh you've got some announcements about amster-based and some other things.

B

Yeah so we'll we'll spend some time talking about amsterdam with the remaining time um so we're officially starting our blip bounty hunt today and we'll end three weeks after the in-person event on april 20th, three weeks after being may 11th, and the blip bounty hunt is just a name for this six week- urgency of getting some developers together and forming groups and learning more about baseline. But it follows our standard processes already in place, which involves having a massive drop of blips that will come out today that were submitted by the community.

B

I think we got about 27 blip suggestions in that form, which is huge and lots of ideas suggested that um some core dabs, as well as the tsc, we're assessing for viability and how it applies to the baseline pattern and things like that.

B

So as we've sifted through those we'll be posting some finalized blips this afternoon and with those blips any group of chord, apps or individual, or if someone wants to start forming groups, please please join our community. We have members also looking to get together and meet new developers, but those blips can then have a grant request submitted so the normal process, a blip in place with an idea, and then, when you have your full scope, determined and proposed amount, you can submit your grant where the tsc will then approve.

B

So um there's a few steps, but it just follows our normal open source, community governance and myself, yoav and other members in the community are happy to help anybody interested facilitate that process um and with those blips we'll be releasing. We also are always open to new blips in the repo anybody can directly submit an idea. It can even just be like a phrase. There were some suggestions that was just like a baseline to this, and it was like. Oh okay, we'll have to really think about the details of that.

B

But that's how we start pooling together different ideas. People are having and nick, I see your hand up.

F

Yeah thanks um we're rallying uh some participation in devconnect and amp. What do we call it? Amsterdam? What have you um do.

A

They don't like base down, but hey.

F

Do they need to register for both or do devconnect folks automatically get access to amsterdam.

B

Yeah so um since all the events are separate for devconnect, we have our amster-based event. um I will share the link, but any community members can there's a price currently in place just so, we don't get signups of people who plan on attending because there is a max on the venue, but any community members can use our our code. That will also share um to bypass the price that we have on there, but we would love to see some nlabs and other participants joining in person.

B

So we just started officially circulating the event as we got listed on the dev connect site and we have over 40 signups um 29 for in person, which is super exciting and promising and day by day, we'll be releasing the speaker lineup. So sponsors have a speaker.

B

Slot mover is officially a sponsor now, so anton will be joining us in person and speaking, and we have a few others coming in the queue so that'll be exciting and also increase the interest of participants in person which will be super exciting and we have samrat yoav and keith on this call, as well as jack who's in amsterdam. Who'll be going in person and going around all of these events and networking with other developers, so super excited to see what comes out of that.

F

I can feel the energy already um limited seating at amsterdays right. You said you're at 29 in person. What do you expect to cap it at? I just want to push on the urgency side to make sure we get the budget and people register early. Basically, don't delay.

B

The max um for the venue is 120., okay, but we'll we can stay.

F

B

F

B

Well, so with that, um we're gonna just spend a few time a few minutes, and if we don't get through many of the blips, that's totally fine. I think just to start engaging some questions and conversations based on the blips that were submitted that are not fleshed out enough to be added yet but we'd like to hear thoughts from the group here, and it also helps the community understand.

B

How do you assess if an example or idea is follows the baseline pattern, so one that we'd, like to start with that was submitted was related to a baseline poker game. um This idea has been mentioned in the past um and I'll hand over to y'all to give the context on the description, the the use case at hand, and then we can have the group further flush it out and if, um if it's fully formed, we can add it to the blip repo as well.

B

I know there's been some interest from dabs on um doing a poker baseline so over to you, yolav.

D

All right, yeah, thank you sono, so um when you, when you consider a game of poker right, you've got we'll say: texas hold'em, for example, you've got uh nine people sitting at a table, and there are several data points at this table that everybody that is important to everybody, whether or not they can see it or whether or not it's public to them. So things like the chips in front of them.

D

Everybody can see the chips right, but also the cards that they're holding the bets that they're making are the chips being put into the middle correctly. Are the cards that they were given fairly dealt? Was anything changed or swapped was the? Was the dealer acting fairly? Were the chips distributed to the winner correctly, uh all things that are kind of important to everybody, whether they realize it or not?

D

So the the the baseline blip idea here is to kind of take all of that in and coordinate all of that data between all the players, public and private and kind of ensure that the game is happening fairly and without manipulation.

D

And so I think the the thing to kind of discuss is how this exactly gets baseline. What does that process look like and what is kind of involved in that? I think that's uh an open floor question to anybody.

E

You look at how virtual poker doesn't.

D

uh Virtual poker.

E

Virtue poker yeah.

A

That's the big yeah, that's the big poker game. You know, I I I still think that um you know I I think I made a comment on that on this particular blip keith that that uh you know uh that um uh it seems to me that that it it does not require baselining, necessarily or maybe, but uh you know poker straight up poker andreas is, is less of an obvious baseline pattern than a card game, wherein two parties who have hole cards have to those those whole cards have to conform to some requirements.

A

Some patterns some some claim, and then the third player um would, you know, have some options based on that, so that neither the you know in in this case I think neither the third first party or the second party if this, the first player or the second player, would have to see each other's cards, uh although they could.

F

A

F

Or uh bridge bridge.

A

That was just yeah, I mean, if you're a trump game like bridge trump. Being an odd thing to say these days. uh A trump game like bridge would be um interesting. I think, uh from a from a baseline, I've always thought that it's just less popular than poker.

A

um Does that make sense and again that that brings in that third-party thing, there's very few baseline patterns that I know of that are just to party, and I think that the battleship game basically embodies that that one edge case right. You know that pattern of uh there's two parties and they can't know about each other's setup of some kind, but they need to know one claim, like you know, e4. Yes, it's a hit on my battleship or no it's not that's.

A

That's you know, even that you could argue, isn't quite full-on baseline, but I'm going to see. I think it is it's close enough. It's certainly general application of zero knowledge, uh but zero baselining is a subset of that general application right. It's coordination under zero knowledge, as opposed to.

E

Almost I I so I think I think, there's there's uh um poker is is, is perfectly perfectly perfectly suited because.

A

How would you describe a pattern in poker that would be baseline? That would be right down the middle of baselining.

E

um Because because you're you're making commitments to sets right, you're making a commitment, so the dealer, the dealer shuffles the cards right right, the cards are then are then are then uh you're you're you're you're, generating a commitment of the cards, which means the order is given.

A

Okay, okay, so yeah, so the the.

E

And then and then everybody updates the proof with their with their with their with their with their uh with their.

C

E

Yeah, so it's like with their hand, you're you're, not committing you, don't have to worry about about the amounts, the balances, because you they're they're, publicly visible. It's only the order of the cards and the cards that you hold and the sets that.

A

A

Yeah and you and there's the signaling right, you have a fair deck and then you have a deal and then each each player is is is signaling that they have the deal um again. I still think it'd be more interesting in a game where the player, one and player two have to do some interaction and then player three uh but yeah you you.

E

Can do gin, it's it's all about it's all about committing to the to the cards and not and not, uh um um and not being able to cheat because every time you're doing you're committing to a set of cards.

A

Well, I would agree 100 that that's an application of zero knowledge. That makes sense. The question is: is it a baseline pattern and baselining to me always has a signaling component and it has a or you should usually have a signaling component and should usually have um usually two parties making a claim that a third party needs to believe.

A

Although there are cases where it's just one part, two parts.

E

You need to you need to if you, if you have the winning hand right, you need to prove that you have the winning hand without showing the winning hand.

A

Again, very applica, very sensible.

E

But you need to coordinate others, others others need to others need to believe it and you're updating the proofs. The only reason what you have is is is: is you need you need? You need recursive proofs, because because then you can validate the entire game with one proof, which is the key thing that it has been that everything has been has been has been, uh um has been correct right from from the commitment of the cards all the way through right.

A

Anybody watching this show who is has skills. You have a direct path to unspeakable wealth. You make a game called fair deck, make sure you can get that name, but I would I would be going right out right now and making fair deck and basically have you know, start a poker poker. uh um Well, I hope I don't get in trouble for advocating a a gambling application on on national television but yeah. I think it, but I think that would be.

E

Absolutely you don't have to it, doesn't have to be commercial, you can you can make it you know. So people are selling card decks. All the time.

A

But I mean yeah, that is a you know for an enterprising uh uh set of skilled people. That would be a hell of a you know. To be able to say yeah there is nobody, there's a fully non-custodial poker game.

A

What about like.

D

Like a rummy idea, where you build off of somebody else's cards, you know and then that's one commitment and then you adding in that card. That's another proof that chains onto the previous one and then that so on and so forth. And then you got various people doing various kind of combinations building off of each other's.

D

You know: hands.

A

Yeah see that's, I I'm gonna stand by my. I think there are other card games that are more powerfully demonstrative of demonstrative of baseline pattern, but I think andreas is right that you could. You could use the baselining pattern to build fair deck and, just and and yeah that that game would have no common server.

A

There would be nobody holding the deck right.

E

I know there's a there's. There's one party that that there's the dealer, the dealer.

A

Is always that that dealer could be anybody.

E

The dealer can be anybody, there's, there's, there's there's there's one dealer and the key thing that the dealer does is is: is it randomly shuffles the only thing that's randomly shuffles the deck and then generates a commitment to that deck which in fact can be can be straightforwardly a pedestal commitment.

A

I'm just watching to see how fast the the folks on this call with skills leave this meeting and to see which one gets done. Building that application first, there there's got to be cha-ching in that. In that idea,.

B

Awesome well, that was fun. That was only one and that's better than speeding through the rest, um it gave us a little more direction on how to formulate this blip idea and maybe even keep it more general to a card game and give some of the examples discussed today and see what creative ideas the community comes up with, as well as people hopefully propose to work on that. If.

A

Anybody gets the grant for that sonal. They should commit to giving lots of money back to the baseline, the standards body because they're going to just be rolling in it.

B

Yeah, maybe some on chain tree trunk, royalty, type, theme, cool all right, so we'll just continuously bring some of these other ideas up in future shows, I think the best part is hearing everybody talk through what works and doesn't work and there's, like I mentioned a big list of ideas of us trying to figure out if it's a good example or not awesome, and with that we I hear the bell the ding, so that is the end of our this week's baseline show next week, we'll have our april general assembly.

B

So please join to get the wide scope of updates from different teams on the community, but thank you all for joining this call on zoom as well. Those who watched us so thank you so much. This was fun.

F

I could see you by the clock on the wall, it's time to bid you one and all goodbye goodbye, farewell.