►
Description
Berlin Ethereum Meetup 2019/06/18
- Joseph Schweitzer (Ethereum Foundation)
- Billy Renenkamp (Cosmos)
- Gautam Dhameja (Polkadot/Parity)
- Yaniv Tal (The Graph)
- Johann Eid (Chainlink)
B
You
guys
for
staying
I
know
that
the
weather
is
very
nice
outside
and
sunlight
is
limited.
So
we
have
four
projects
up
on
stage.
You've
heard
them
present.
There
are
some
similarities
between,
but
not
across
necessarily
all
four,
although
they
exists
in
the
same
family,
so
I'm
going
to
lead
off
with
a
few
comparison,
questions
but
divide
them
up
here
to
the
inter
blockchain
communication
projects,
there's
the
obvious
polka,
dots
and
cosmos.
Could
you
speak
together?
B
C
Thank
you
for
the
question
so,
like
you
mentioned,
that
the
most
important
difference
between
polka
dot
and
cosmos
is
the
shared
security
and
the
independent
security
side
of
things,
and
then
the
second
part
is
upgradable
chains.
The
on
chain,
governance,
part
of
it.
Basically,
the
way
we
see
it
is
that
shared
security
is
needed
is
the
way,
because
one
change
should
not
be
competing
with
the
other
chain
about
security
resources.
C
They
should
not
be
basically
like
doing
the
exact
same
thing,
with
respect
to
stake
or
with
respect
to
mining
or
something
they
should
be
collaborating
on
that
scale
and
helping
each
other
become
more
secure.
So
if
you
are
attacking
a
chain
on
polka
dot,
a
pair
of
chain,
you
are
actually
attacking
the
whole
network
and
not
just
that
particular
chain,
and
secondly,
the
other
major
difference
is
the
upgradable
runtimes
and
the
blockchain
with
respect
to
Unchained
governances,
nothing
is
permanent.
There
has
to
be
an
option
to
upgrade
things.
We
are
looking
at
right
now.
C
There
are
so
many
use
cases
where
we
have
to
each
and
every
day,
upgrade
the
smart
contracts
or
upgrade
the
business
logic
or
run
times
and
everything,
and
then
there
is
this
huge
disruption
of
process
happening
because
of
that,
and
we
want
to
get
rid
of
that
whole
problem
by
providing
an
on
chain
upgrade
solution.
So
that's
basically
the
way
I
see
is
the
two
major
points
of
differences
between
cosmos
and
polka
rod
and
why
they
are
there.
Why
these
we
are
providing
these
kind
of
solutions
with
polka,
dot
and
I'll.
D
Polka
dot
wants
to
be
a
very
large
shared
environment,
which
has
its
benefits
and
also
has
its
drawbacks.
We
kind
of
take
the
approach
that
sovereignty
is
the
most
important
aspect
of
any
application-specific
blockchain,
and
so
we
make
that
the
first
available
aspect
of
it
when
it
comes
to
shared
security.
We
also
try
to
avoid
using
this
term.
We
think
it
kind
of
a
misnomer.
What
we
like
to
call.
It
is
cross
chain
collateralization,
which
is
entirely
possible
and
probably
going
to
occur
soon
on
cosmos,
and
what
that
means.
D
Basically,
is
that
so
there's
chain
a
let's
call.
It
cosmos
hub,
which
has
an
atom
used
for
staking
chain.
B
could
also
use
atom
for
staking,
as
long
as
it's
allowed
to
enact
slashing
conditions
on
that
chain,
A's
asset,
so
if
that
were
allowable
than
any
of
those
validators
which
have
atoms
securing
chain
a,
would
be
able
to
use
those
atoms
to
secure
chain
B
as
well.
This
is
basically
an
agreement
that
those
validators
need
to
come
to
with
the
second
chain,
which
is
again
how
we
kind
of
see
things
happening.
D
There's
no
reason
you
should
be
forced
to
secure
a
chain
that
you
don't
agree
with.
There's
no
reason
that
you
should
be
forced
to
support
something
whose
resources
are
draining
on
an
otherwise
productive
ecosystem.
All
of
these
things,
we
believe,
should
be
sort
of
autonomous
and
taken
care
of
by
sovereign
chains.
I'm
also.
B
Sure
that
you'll
have
responses
to
each
other,
so
we'll
come
back
to
a
similar
question
a
bit
later
on.
That
will
provide
an
opportunity
there,
but
to
the
graph
and
chain
link.
This
is
sort
of
a
similar
question,
because
Oracle
ization
and
data
availability
do
have
some
similarities
and
overlap,
especially
if
you're
providing
the
data
in
a
decentralized
way.
Could
you
speak
a
little
bit
to
how
the
projects
are
distinct
from
one
another
and
how
you
see
them
branching
off
a
bit
over
time?
Sure.
E
I'm,
just
one
small
correction
is
I
I,
don't
think
we
saw
the
problem
of
data
availability
per
se.
Usually
I.
Think
of
data
availability
is
like
a
layer,
one
concern
which
basically
means
that,
like
you're
guaranteed
that
you'll
be
able
to
get
the
data
that
the
data
doesn't
drop
off.
That
and
and
that's
like
an
assumption
that
we
make
of
all
of
our
data
sources
and
that
essentially,
what
we're
solving
is
kind
of
quality
of
service.
E
F
So,
basically,
in
order
to
achieve
decentralization
to
achieve
the
TBG
I
think
it's
very
important
to
have
something
like.
Basically,
you
need
in
order
12
to
centralization
to
have
as
many
actors
as
possible
right.
So
you
need
not
operators
who
are
providing
this
data
to
be
incentivized
and
to
have
reason
to
act
honestly,
my
city,
to
provide
the
data
as
I
should
provide
it
so
not
to
lie
or
not
to
act
maliciously.
So,
in
order
to
do
this,
you
have
to
have
mechanisms
such
as
taking.
Basically,
someone
has
something
at
stake
right.
F
So
if
you
have
a
security
deposit
in
tokens,
basically
saying
all
right,
if
I
start
lying
well,
the
other
nodes
will
show
that
I'm
lying
because
it
provides
the
right
data.
I
provide
the
wrong
one,
so
I
might
get
sloshed
right.
So
you
need
to
have
kind
of
incentives
for
not
operators
to
first
act.
You
know
not
Byzantine
way,
house.
G
F
B
Very
much
coming
back
to
over
here
and
we'll
have
a
few
that
run
across
the
board,
but
talking
inter
blockchain
connectivity,
communication
Billy
mentioned
in
his
talk
that
the
next
big
piece
for
cosmos
was
IBC.
Do
you
see
standards
evolving
over
time
or
will
every
IBC
related
project
need
to
find
their
own
way
to
interconnect?
If
you
were
at
the
interchange
conversations
event,
the
first
question
that
Jay
got
onstage
was
when
ether
bridge
so
will
will
IBC
possibly
handle
this
over
time
across
both
projects
or
how
will
that
shape
up
in
European
I.
D
D
D
Almost
every
situation
can
be
sort
of
boiled
down
to
a
transfer
of
value,
but
what
I
became
aware
of
a
little
bit
later
as
well,
is
that
so
much
of
IBC
is
based
on
the
work
from
goreck
who's
been
sort
of
the
inventors
of
the
smart
contract.
They've
been
working
in
this
sort
of
context
for
20
years,
and
a
message
type
that
is
very
much
on
the
runway
is
a
call
data
message
type.
D
So
this
would
be
sort
of
a
smart
contract
execution
message,
type,
which
basically
opens
up
any
other
sort
of
arbitrary
state
update
transition
that
that
could
be
imagined
through
a
message.
Type
I
actually
think
it'll
be
sort
of
underutilized,
though,
because
of
sort
of
the
beauty
and
elegance
that
comes
through
the
abstraction
of
actual
transfer
of
values
between
into
chains.
Where
were
the
things
that
matter
sort
of
arbitrary
state
updates
actually
are
already
designed
to
take
place
on
a
single
chain
that
they
were
designed
to
take
place
on.
D
B
B
C
So
so
the
to
the
answer
like
initially
when
we
mentioned
that
it's
still,
we
cannot
comment
a
lot
on
what's
coming
in
the
future.
It's
I
fully
agree
with
that.
On
the
other
side,
like
polka
dot,
is
already
having
a
protocol
called
ICMP
interchain
message,
passing,
which
is
different
from
IBC,
and
it
basically
like
allows
arbitrary
message.
Passing
now,
I
go
to
go
back
to
the
one
of
the
things
that
I
mentioned
in
my
talk
is
like
the
infrastructure
for
infrastructure.
C
So
what
ICMP
is
allowing
for
a
chance
to
actually
define
standards
on
what
kind
of
messages
to
be
passed?
It's
like
we
are
not
enforcing
chains
to.
You
should
be
only
doing
a
data
call
or
you
should
be
doing,
only
doing
a
point
transfer
or
anything.
It's
like
we
are
providing
a
base
protocol
and
an
infrastructure
and
the
chains
or
the
developers
out
there
who
are
building
their
platforms
and
frameworks
on
top
of
it
are
fully
free
to
decide
which
kind
of
messages
to
be
pass.
C
What
should
be
standardized,
should
it
be
shouldn't
there
be
a
standard
for
coin
transfer?
Should
there
be
a
standard
for
arbitrary
message
or
something
like
that,
it's
fully
up
to
them
to
design
and
implement
and
come
up
with
it.
Having
said
that,
there
are
other
teams
also
who
are
looking
into
inter
blockchain.
Communication
like
I
was
talking
to
some
of
them
in
this
week,
and
there
is
definitely
like
a
lot
of
overlap
between
these
protocols
and
there
are
a
lot
of
differences,
and
it
will
be
really
interesting
to
see
how
we
are
able
to.
D
Just
quickly
so
I
am
excited
to
hear
about
this
sort
of
process
on
polka-dot,
which
sounds
to
be
marrying
a
bit.
The
process
of
IBC,
which
is
sort
of
beginning
with
certain
message
types
and
working
through
what
those
message
type
support
would
look
like
on
different
chains.
I
mean
we've
also
talked
between
the
projects
about
the
fact
that
polkadot
would
be
able
to
support
IBC
if
it
chose
to
and
be
able
to
send
messages
from
the
polka
dot
ecosystem
out
into
the
wider
interchain.
D
Vice
versa,
your
your
sort
of
version
of
IBC
is
very
much
for
communicating
between
different
pair
of
chains.
Right,
I,
I'm
curious
what
the
design
decisions
are
between
IBC
and
your
own
version
of
it
that
are
specific
to
polkadot
that
wouldn't
be
possible
to
sort
of
incorporate
into
using
IBC
for
all
communication,
whether
it
was
between
pair
of
chains
or
to
the
wider
enter
chain.
Sure.
C
I'll,
be
very
quick
actually
on
that,
because
I
do
not
have
that
level
of
detailed
expertise
to
compare
IBC
and
ICMP,
but
what
I
can
actually
say
is
that
you're,
right
IBC
will
be
just
a
subset
or
layer
on
top
of
that,
if
that
needs
to
be
supported
in
the
future,
so
it's
still
a
underlying
protocol
which
can
basically,
if
we
devise
a
standard
which
has
the
standard
of
IBC
messages,
then
they
can
still
be
passed
among
the
para
chains.
So
that's
how
I
will
just
quickly
close
this
so.
B
The
topic
tonight
was
interoperability
and
coming
back
to
this
side
of
the
semi
circle,
how
I'm
curious
do
you
react
to
this
sort
of
answer
you
guys
have
spent
the
last
few
years,
but
the
project's
working
to
sure
bring
data
on
an
export
data
from
the
etherium
chain?
Is
this
like
starting
over
for
both
projects
for
each
let's
say,
inter
brachii,
inter
blockchain
communication
protocol,
or
would
you
benefit
from
a
standard
or
is
it
simple,
plug-and-play.
E
At
the
end
of
the
day,
I
think
it's,
it's
very
likely
to
be
like
a
very
heterogeneous,
multi,
blockchain
kind
of
world
and
we've
kind
of
been
prepared
from
for
that.
From
the
beginning
we
started
with
aetherium
just
because
it
has
the
most
active
ecosystem.
We
really
you
know
I
identify
with
the
project,
but
I
think
either
way.
Software
is
going
to
run
on
a
lot
of
different
chains,
and
so
for
us.
E
We
want
to
like
organize
all
of
the
data
from
these
different
chains
and
we
think
that
applications
are
going
to
utilize
data
from
multiple
chains
and
so
actually
like
organizing
that
data.
It's
it's
not
really
like
the
classical
interoperability
problem.
All
right.
The
the
problem
that,
like
cosmos
and
polka
dots
solve,
is
much
more
around
I
want
to
update
state
across
different
chains
and
so
for
us
there's
an
aspect
of
it
where
it's
it's.
E
You
know
less
tied
to
security
in
the
in
the
sense
that
you
know
you
can't
make
like
a
an
incorrect
state
transition.
You
know
using
the
graph,
but
still
linking
the
data
across
different
chains.
So
you
know,
if
you
have
like
an
interface
and
in
your
app,
you
want
to
show
you
know
all
of
the
jobs
that
you
can
perform,
and
you
know
the
those
jobs
are
pulling
data
from
different
protocols
that
are
living
on
different
chains.
F
F
Now,
on
our
side
like
technically
it's
very
different
from
GBC,
but
and
basically
being
able
to
communicate
the
cross
blockchains,
but
once
we
have
pulled
this
data
from
the
real
world
to
blocks
and
applications,
if
you
also
plan
to
be
block
diagnostic
right,
which
means
that
we
don't
want
to
only
have
smart
contracts.
Keeping
on
here
on,
we
want
were
smart
contracts,
living
on
cosmos
and
polka
dot,
and
all
of
them
being
able
to
communicate
so
I
think
having
a
standard.
F
There
is
a
very
key,
so
we
we
all
know
about
TCP,
IP
and
TCP
IP
was
created
by
a
consortium
of
enterprises,
businesses,
researchers
who
can
work
together
to
create
the
standard
and
I
think
it's
very
important
in
the
blockchain
space
to
have
something
similar
like
we
can
pull
real
world
data
without
having
like,
with
having
standards
that
are
established.
You
know,
and
we
need
the
same
to
kind
of
make
this
data
flow
across
different
blocks
and
networks,
so
that's
very
key
to
having
non
inter
connect.
F
B
You
very
much
I
have
two
more
quick
questions
and
then
I
believe
Maurice
will
lead
a
few
from
the
audience
going
to
move
quickly
to
everybody's
favorite.
Subject:
token
economics
so
or
lack
thereof
so
quickly
across
the
board
and
I'll
hand
off
the
mic
so
that
you
can
sort
of
pass
across
cosmos
seems
to
utilize
one
system
where
heavily
incentivize
taking,
but
it's
not
required
ecosystem
wide.
If
you
move
off
of
the
hub
or
as
polka
dot,
I
believe
is
the
other
side
of
the
coin.
It's
highly
incentivize
use
to
keep
the
entire
system
interconnected.
B
F
Basically,
we
are
relying
on
a
decentralized
network
right,
so
any
decentralized
network
in
order
to
establish
trust.
We
need
to
can
have
game
theory
and
token
economics
to
make
sure
that
the
actors
providing
the
data
are
incentivized
to
provide
it
in
a
reliable
manner
right.
So,
basically,
the
way
it
works
with
a
chain
link
once
once
everything
will
be
kind
of
figured
out
on
this
side.
So
in
a
few
months
we
start
implementing
staking,
which
means
that
people
will-
or
there
is
no
date
on
this
one,
but
basically
people
will
network.
F
We
need
to
have
a
security
deposit
of
link
tokens
to
ensure
that
basically,
they
have
something
at
stake:
right
kind
of
similar
to
us,
taking
on
cosmos
and
tezo's,
when
you're
committing
to
saying
that
this
state
is
the
right
one.
If
you're
providing
data
to
the
chaining
Network,
you
need
to
have
something
at
stake
when
you're
doing
it
and
basically
these
data,
these
Oracle's
will
be
paid
by
the
users
contract.
So
someone
who
is
pulling
data
from
nirakar
we'd
have
to
pay
this
oracle
using
the
link
token.
F
F
So
that's
I,
think
our
token
economics
is
very
similar
to
when
a
decentralized
network-
that's
choosing
staking,
for
instance
like
there
are
no
like
we
haven't,
found
the
right
approach.
I.
Think
no
one
has
it's
see
the
space,
that's
being
explored
right,
it's
a
very
new
space,
so
it's
kind
of
similar
and
we'll
try
to
experiment
and
see
what
works
yeah.
E
I
think
we've
probably
talked
about
our
token
lesson,
like
maybe
any
other
protocol
that
I
know
about.
We
haven't
launched
a
token
yet,
but
there
is
a
token
as
part
of
our
protocol
design
and
that's
just
because
we
made
the
decision
early
on
that
we
wanted
to
solve
like
pressing
problems
for
developers,
and
we
would
start
with
that
first
and
that
we
would
kind
of
decentralize.
E
So
what
we
looked
at
today
in
the
demo
was
us
running
our
hosted
service.
Well,
we're
running
a
bunch
of
the
nodes
and
it's
basically
centralized
all
the
code
is
open
source.
If
you
want
to
run
your
own
nodes,
you
can,
or
you
could
just
rely
on
our
nodes
to
make
your
life
easier
for
now,
but
the
goal
is
the
decentralized
network,
and
so
it's
kind
of
this
trust
we're
taking
on
with
the
community
to
say
you
know
we're,
starting
with
the
set
of
problems.
First,
we
want
to
make
it
really
usable.
E
We
want
to
make
life
really
easy
for
developers,
and
you
know
what
will
be
decentralizing
as
a
subsequent
step
along
those
lines
at
graph
day.
Is
this
event
that
we
held
in
January?
We,
oh,
we
like
published
our
specs
for
our
hybrid
network,
which
is
the
next
milestone
for
us
and
in
the
hybrid
network.
Anyone
externally
will
be
able
to
run
a
graph
node.
It's
part
of
this
network.
E
We
are
going
to
release,
you
know
touken
in
that
milestone,
and-
and
so
we
published
the
the
specs
for
this
intermediate
milestone,
where
the
graph
is
still
responsible
for
some
elements
of
security
in
the
network.
But
the
economics
are
decentralized,
so
you
can
earn
money
by
running
a
graph
node
and
basically
the
token
has
two
uses
in
the
network.
There's
a
work
token
model,
so
it's
very
similar
to
like
a
live
peer.
For
example,
if
you
want
to
run
a
node,
you
have
to
stake
graph
tokens
and
that
provides
the
economic
security.
E
Essentially
this
global
graph
of
data
where
people
want
to
organize
data
and
come
up
with
standards
for
data
formats
in
a
way,
that's
decentralized,
and
so
there's
a
governance
component
to
that,
and
then
also
there's
like
a
revenue
share
component.
Where,
if
you
stake
on
a
sub
graph,
then
you
can
earn
some
portion
of
the
query
fees
for
your
curation
work.
So
those
are
things
that
are
part
of
our
our
hybrid
network
spec,
which
is
going
to
be
the
next
phase
for
a
protocol
which
is
on
our
github
at
graph
protocol.
Slash
research.
D
Cool
so
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
I
am
a
fan
of
this
idea
of
like
centralizing
as
there's
value
there.
If
you
try
to
decentralize
too
early
and
there's
not
value
on
your
network,
it's
it's
a
huge
security
vulnerability.
You
can
attack
a
network
that
has
no
value,
so
I
really
appreciate
that
spec
coming
from
y'all
in
a
way.
It
also
has
similarities
to
the
way
we
think
about
talking
economics
at
cosmos,
because
atom
is
meant
to
be
a
staking
token.
It's
not
meant
to
be
a
store
value.
D
It's
not
meant
to
be
a
fee
token
right
now.
Atom
is
a
cosmos
as
a
hub.
That
only
has
one
token
on
it.
It
is
used
as
the
fee
token,
but
we
want
to
make
atoms
as
illiquid
as
possible
because
that
will
make
it
as
hard
as
possible
to
attack
the
network,
because
if
it's
easy
to
buy
one-third
of
the
the
stake,
that's
on
the
network,
then
it's
easy
to
attack
the
network.
D
But
if
there's
just
not
even
one
third
for
sale
at
any
given
moment,
it's
going
to
be
impossible
to
accrue
enough
to
make
an
attack
like
that.
So
our
primary
goal
is
making
the
token
illiquid
one
of
the
ways
we
do,
that
is
with
staking
rewards,
which
are
very
different
from
rewards
on
a
perc
mining
where
you
think
of
getting
paid
for
running
your
node.
If
you
find
the
block
reward,
you
know,
that's
your
payday,
it's
very
much
the
opposite
on
on
cosmos.
We
we
mean
it
to
be
an
inflationary
token.
D
It
basically
means,
if
you're
not
staking
your
token.
The
value
of
it
is
dropping
every
second,
that
someone
gets
a
block
reward
because
the
the
quantity
of
tokens
out
there
is
constantly
increasing
if
you're,
not
part
of
that
increasing.
By
delegating
your
stake
to
a
validator
or
validating
yourself.
That
means
the
value
your
tokens
are
constantly
dropping.
So
that
is
supposed
to
encourage
you
to
delegate
them
to
stake
them.
Lock
them
up.
Do
not
let
them
be
on
the
open
market,
because,
if
they're
available,
that
means
the
market
and
the
network
is
unsecure.
D
The
atom
is
supposed
to
give
you
rights
as
a
validator
to
accept
fees.
This
is
where
we
see
the
value
of
the
network
going
through,
which
is
why
we
also
very
much
depend
on
people
wanting
and
using
block
chains.
This
is
something
that
I
like
strongly
believe
in
it's
it's
a
time
to
finally
test
like
we
have
the
tools
and
the
ability
to
build
scalable
block
chains.
D
C
Something
like
the
one
thing
that
I
find
very
common
in
all
of
these
token
designs
is
proof
of
stake.
The
world
is
moving
to
the
staking
side
of
things
now
and
now
the
thing
is
with
polka
dot.
We
again
have
a
proof
of
stake
system,
but
what
we
call
it
and
it's
how
it
is
slightly
different
from
generally
proof
of
stake
or
delegated
of
SOI
stake.
It's
like
it's
called
nominator
proof
of
stake,
basically
or
nominated
proved
mistake.
It's
called
n
pause
and
the
way
it
works
is
not.
C
Everybody
needs
to
run
on
or
to
get
block
rewards.
You
can
actually
nominate
a
potential
validator
to
act
with
your
stake
and
they
can
stake
into
the
network
and
run
a
node.
The
second
most
important
thing
is:
when
these
validators
join
the
network,
they
actually
are
changed
or
shuffled
every
set
period
of
time,
which
is
called
a
session,
so
they-
and
at
that
particular
time
the
block
rewards
are
distributed.
C
C
The
second
utility
is
getting
parish
in
slots
themselves,
so
you
have
to
stick
dot
tokens
to
get
a
parish
in
slot
on
the
relay
chain,
and
then
you
can
actually
be
a
part
of
that
whole
polka
dot
network
which
allows
you
to
participate
into
the
message
passing
and
the
pool
security
and
all
the
goodness
of
the
relay
chain.
There
is
no
concept
of
gas
or
fee
per
se.
It's
if
you
have
a
parish
in
slot.
C
You
are
actually
allowed
to
be
part
of
the
network
processing
the
transactions
along
with
the
other
validators
and
message
passing
and
in
your
chain
yourself.
You
are
completely
free
to
how
you
want
to
have
your
token
economics.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
if,
for
example,
there
are
use
cases
like
NGOs
and
governments
where
you
do
not
want
your
users
to
be
paying
for
transactions,
they
should
be
using
your
network
as
a
as
a
free
service.
Then
you
are
good
with
that
as
well.
C
You
do
not
need
took
a
local
token
economics
in
your
parrot
chain
and
in
case
you
want
a
fee
or
sub
system
or
something
like
that.
For
example,
the
smart
contract
pair
chain
being
built
on
polka
dot
called
H
where
they
will
be
having
their
fee
concept
inside
their
particular
chain.
So
it
is
very
segregated
and
different
on
the
polka
dot
network.
It's
the
dot
token
doing
all
these
several
things
and
being
used
for
that
and
for
a
local
parrot
chain.
It
may
or
may
not
be
something
else.
Yeah.
B
Yeah
all
right,
so
the
last
one
is
a
fun
one.
You
can
keep
it
relatively
short.
If
you'd
like
there
were
two
comments
made
up
here,
one
was
that
when
they
joined
someone
here
joined
their
project,
they
thought
it
was
a
problem.
A
solution
in
search
of
a
problem
and
the
other
one
was
mentioned
by
okay,
still
fits
the
question
and
multiple
people
up
here
mentioned
not
to
speculate
about
the
future.
B
F
So,
actually
it's
a
vision
of
changing
is
ready
to
replace
detail
agreements
by
smart
contracts.
So
for
this
we
need
a
lot
of
data.
We
need
the
system
of
decentralized
oracle,
which
is
secure,
which
is
reliable,
I.
Think
a
good
example
of
how
we
see
move
things
moving
forward
is
the
integration
we
had
recently
with
Google,
which
is
going
to
use
bigquery,
which
is
going
to
use
chain
link
in
order
to
pass
big
query
data
on
to
the
ethereum
blockchain.
F
So
that's
I
think
yeah
I'm
lucky
because
it
was
announced
a
few
days
ago
and
it's
a
perfect
example.
We
aim
to
see
a
lot
more
businesses
using
chaining
in
order
to
solve
problems
that
can
be
solved
with
smart
contracts.
So
DocuSign
is
another
partnership
we
got
their
CEO
is
an
adviser
to
chain
link
and
we
see
a
lot
more
enterprises
using
chaining
in
order
to
leverage
the
power
of
mass
of
smart
contracts.
Basically,
it's
in
insurance
in
finance
and
in
trade
finance.
F
E
So
if
we're
successful,
the
graph
will
be
like
a
global
API
for
just
like
all
the
world
structured
information.
So
if
you
want
to
build
an
application,
you
go
to
the
graph
and
you
find
all
of
the
data
that
you
need
to
build
your
app
really
quickly.
You
deploy
it
and
it
just
runs
forever
as
far
as
kind
of
the
space
as
a
whole.
I
really
subscribe
to
the
kind
of
sovereign,
individual
sort
of
view
of
the
world.
Where
you
know
everyone
can
design
their
own
jobs.
E
D
You
just
have
a
much
more
efficient
computer
system
where
money
itself
is
as
important
as
a
boolean
or
a
string
when
you're
programming-
and
you
can.
You
can
rely
on
this
fact
that
money
is
real
in
the
software
level
and
what's
required,
for
that
is
something
like
IBC,
which
is
you
know,
a
standard
for
transferring
value
between
different
computation
systems,
whether
it's
the
most
boring
case,
say
a
single
validator
on
a
chain
or
a
public
validator
set
on
a
public
blockchain.
C
Good,
so
for
Gerard,
it's
kind
of
something
similar,
but
it's
in
a
slightly
different
way.
Again.
If
we
are
successful
and
we
will
be-
we
are
looking
at
basically
a
world
which
is
more
connected.
We,
for
example,
let
me
give
you
an
example
for
a
real
world.
There
will
be
change
for
doing
very
different
things
and
doing
them
very
efficiently.
Very
well.
If
I
want
to
book
a
book,
a
flight
and
I
want
to
book
an
Hotel
and
I
want
to
book
an
taxi,
and
those
are
all
being
done
on
different
chains.
C
They
will
be
I,
don't
have
to
write
like
rely
on
their
calling
them
separately
or
I.
Don't
have
to
basically
authenticate
my
identity
for
each
of
them.
I
don't
have
to
make
payments
on
each
of
them.
I
will
be
basically
able
to
do
that.
Payments
on
one
chain
or
who
I
am.
Where
is
my
digital
passport
on
one
chain
and
similarly
poking
at
plane,
ticket
and
hotel
on
the
other
chain
and
so
on?
So
it's
basically
going
to
be
a
lot
more
connected,
less
bloated
and
a
lot
more
transparent
when
we
succeed,
hopefully,
all.
B
H
H
Also,
how
do
we
communicate
between
side
chains
and
et
RIA
minute?
And
so
maybe
it's
more
of
a
proposal
like
we,
you
have
a
IPC
in
12,
and
so
we
communicate
is
hash
data
according
to
e
IP
712,
we
store
it
in
one
contract.
We
prove
that
it
exists
in
the
outbox
on
e
teria
minute,
and
now
we
pass
whatever
message.
So
we
have
a
message
struct
and
then
a
specific
type
struct
that
sits
in
a
message.
B
I
There
is
a
standard
for
IBC,
that's
currently
being
worked
on
by
multiple
companies
and
actually
at
the
last
community
call
a
researcher
from
web.
Do
foundation
actually
participated
in
the
call.
So
if
you
want
to
participate,
then
you're
more
than
welcome
to
there's
a
github
repo,
it's
cosmos,
slash,
ICS
and
then
actually
also
the
polka
dot.
Wiki
has
a
good
explanation
of
it
and
then
there's
also
right
now
for
implementations.
Haskell,
that's
being
worked
on
Haskell
JavaScript,
Russ,
tango,
cool.
A
J
Question
is
more
regarding
like
getting
jet
data
on
chain
and
off
chain
and
I'd
like
to
understand,
because
it
seems
to
me
that
this
is
more
or
less
a
subset
of
just
off
chain,
compute,
environment
and
in
both
cases,
both
in
graph
and
in
chain
link.
You
require
having
these
decentralized
networks,
and
why
do
they
always
have
to
be
separate?
Why
do
you
have
to
build
the
network
every
single
time?
One?
J
You
can
just
build
a
generalized
application
that
requires,
for
example,
in
my
case,
I
want
inputs
from
five
validators,
and
that
can
be
the
five
API
is
that
I'm
requesting,
but
also
I
can
run
it
as
many
nodes
as
I
want,
and
I
only
have
to
run
it
on.
Let's
say
that
I
exactly
at
work,
why
do
I
have
to
limit
myself
to
a
subset
of
API
requests
but
I
ever
chain-link
or
graph
offers,
and
not
be
able
to
write
a
generalized
spec
such
as,
let's
say
a
kubernetes
one?
Well.
E
I
think
you're
right
that
you
know
generalize
compute
is
kind
of
a
reusable
kind
of
primitive,
but
I
also
think
that
all
of
these
different
use
cases
have
enough
differences
when
you
down
into
it
we're,
especially
because
we're
so
early
in
the
evolution
of
these
protocols,
they
kind
of
need
the
ability
to
evolve
separately,
because
it's
just
really
hard
to
coordinate
large
number
of
engineers
together
and
so
like
even
within
a
single
team.
You
know
you
kind
of
break
things
up
into
like
modules
or
something
right.
E
You
want
to
have
something:
that's
a
small
enough
box
that
there's
like
one
team
or
something
that
can
like
own
that
box
and
make
changes
independently
and
I
think
that
the
general
concept
of
like
protocols
that
are
specialized
that
layer
on
top
I
think
is
a
good
one.
You
know
modular
I
think
is
better
than
monolithic
in
general
for
these
types
of
things.
Now
as
a
node
operator,
maybe
it
turns
out
that
you're
an
enterprising
node
operator-
and
you
say
you
know
what
I
can
actually
ingest
the
same
data
from
these.
E
E
The
computation,
maybe
is
like
somewhat
reusable,
and
you
can
find
a
way
to
do
that
and
I
think
people
should
experiment
and
I
think
there's
opportunities
for
those
kinds
of
optimizations,
but
as
far
as
like
the
specs
and
the
networks
themselves,
I
just
think
that,
like
you,
know
we're
kind
of
building
an
operating
system
here,
it's
like
you
know,
all
of
the
different
pieces
are
super
complex
and
we
just
have
to
you
know,
draw
boxes
around
the
various
components
so
that
we
can
kind
of
get
it
done.
Yeah.
F
G
Have
a
question
regarding
the
interoperability
so
currently,
when
developing
a
weapon,
for
example
and
I
want
to
use
a
single
blockchain.
Then
I
already
have
this
issue
that
I
need
a
blockchain
wallet.
I
need
some
plug-in
like
meta
masks
and
now,
if
I
imagine
that
we
have
a
plethora
of
different
competing
block
chains,
Oh
neat
yeah,
numerous
wallets
as
well.
D
I
read
an
article
recently
from
Richard
Moore,
who,
if
you
don't
know
him,
is
a
great
researcher,
mostly
associated
he's
image
of
ethers,
j/s
and
a
few
different
projects,
and
he
who
was
writing
sort
of
a
speculative
article
about
how
do
you
you
to
proof
your
blockchain
for
the
quantum
computing
world
and
quantum
computers
are
really
good
at
doing
very
specific
things,
but
not
everything.
One
of
the
things
they're
really
good,
is
sort
of
breaking
encryption
on
private
keys.
D
What
they're,
really
not
good
at
doing,
is
dealing
with
pip
32
mnemonic
phrases
so
there's
nothing
that
would
prevent
you
from
using
the
same
mnemonic
phrase
on
many
different
curve,
architectures,
and
also
it
would
sort
of
keep
you
future
proof
from
a
quantum
world
I'm,
not
sure
which
wallets
are
currently
supporting
different
curve
outcomes
from
bit.
32
I
know
that
cosmos
supports
the
same
curve
as
aetherium.
The
way
that
metamath
scandals
it
is
slightly
differently
in
order
to
sort
of
recover
the
public
key.
D
It's
made
a
reason
for
people
to
have
private
keys
to
be
aware
of
what
they
are
to
think
about
what
that
means,
to
think
about
multi
signatures
to
think
about
all
these
really
important
schemes
that
are
extremely
powerful.
It's
only
until
we
have
something
that
we
need
to
secure.
Do
we
care
about
securing
them
and
I
agree
with
you
that
I
think
this
is
sort
of
the
most
important
component
of
no
matter.
What
blockchain
you
are
it's
it's
where
the
the
tires
hit,
the
road,
it's
where
the
humans
touch,
the
technology,
you've.