►
From YouTube: Ouroboros Samasika: A Solid Foundation for Decentralization | Illuminate:Genesis Summit
Description
Mina Protocol uses Ouroboros Samisika, a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism based off of Cardano Protocol’s Ouroboros. Watch this session to learn how Mina's Ouroboros Samisika is the first succinct proof-of-stake consensus mechanism with strong decentralization properties such as; self-bootstrap, dynamic availability, uncapped participation, succinctness, and universal composability.
🔦 Featuring 🔦
Vanishree Rao – Lead Cryptographer, O(1) Labs
What is Illuminate?
Illuminate is a free virtual event that took place on March 28th, 2021, and which celebrated Mina’s mainnet launch and exciting protocol milestones.
Participants heard from a range of blockchain experts, industry leaders, and community members about Genesis and the road ahead. The one-day event featured panels and sessions on Mina’s use cases, advancements in zk-SNARKs, Staking-as-a-Service, industry insights and so much more. Illuminate is also a big thank-you to Mina’s vibrant community, who have made incredible contributions to the network over the past two years.
📧 Sign-up here to be the first to find out about the next illuminate conference: https://bit.ly/MinaNewsletter
💥 Follow us on Crowdcast: http://bit.ly/MinaCrowdcast
What is Mina?
Mina is the world’s lightest blockchain, powered by participants. Rather than apply brute computing force, Mina uses advanced cryptography and recursive zk-SNARKs to design an entire blockchain that is and always will be about 22kb, the size of a couple of tweets, ushering in a new era of blockchain accessibility. With its unique privacy features and ability to connect to any website, Mina is building a private gateway between the real world and crypto—and the secure, democratic future we all deserve. Mina is stewarded by the Mina Foundation, a non-profit organization.
#Blockchain #ZeroKnowledge #Cardando #Ouroboros #consensus #Crypto #Decentralization #Scalability #Cryptography #MinaProtocol
A
A
So
this
is
just
one
of
the
multiple
potential
repercussions
of
centralized
transaction
validation
right,
and
this
was
the
main
problem
that
the
ingenious
solution
of
bitcoin
really
wanted
to
solve,
and
it
really
wanted
to
democratize
transaction
validation.
But
then
life
happened
and
then
the
size
of
bitcoin
currently
is
over
300
gigabytes.
A
And
this,
of
course,
is
the
core
part
of
our
solution.
Z,
k,
snaps,
recursive
sequence,
is
the
core
part
of
our
solution,
but
we
needed
to
keep
in
mind
the
value
of
decentralization,
even
when
we
were
designing
the
other
aspects
of
the
protocol.
Why?
Because
any
whole
protocol
is
only
as
decentralized
as
its
least
decentralized
component,
so
that
one
other
aspect
of
any
blockchain
protocol-
that's
very
important
to
it.
Where
we
needed
to
ensure
a
high
degree
of
decentralization
is
the
consensus
protocol.
A
A
So
one
question
is:
does
the
protocol
rely
on
a
centralized
party
to
give
advice
on
what
the
active
chain
is,
especially
for
newly
joining
parties
or
parties
who
have
been
offline
forever
for
a
very
long
period
of
time,
and
does
the
protocols
seriously
restrict
people
to
stay
online
for
extended
periods
of
time,
because
if
it
does,
then
it
already
precludes
all
those
large
populations
who
do
not
have
reliable
access
to
the
internet
or
to
power
supply?
And
another
question
is:
does
the
protocol
put
a
cap
on
the
number
of
people
who
can
validate
the
system?
A
If
it
does,
then
it's
a
clear
area
for
centralization.
Why?
Because
it
it
it
just,
is
going
back
to
the
problem
of
bitcoin
all
these
protocols,
like
byzantine
fault,
tolerant
protocols
like
tendermint
and
byzan
byzantine
agreement
protocols
like
algorand.
They
all
put
some
limitations
on
the
number
of
parties
that
can
be
validators,
so
that
was
so.
A
These
are
the
three
important
yardsticks
we
had
to
choose
a
consensus
protocol
for
our
minor
protocol
and
we
added
one
more
important
question
in
our
search
for
the
consensus
protocol,
and
this
question
relates
to
our
succinct
setting
right.
We
we
are
in
a
succinct
setting.
We
wanted
to
check
whether
any
given
consensus
protocol
is
compatible
with
our
succinct
setting.
So,
specifically,
the
question
is:
does
the
consensus
protocol
to
arrive
at
arrive
at
consensus?
Does
it
access
arbitrary
amount
of
in
arbitrary
information
from
the
history
of
the
protocol?
A
If
it
does,
then
it
will
not
work
in
the
succinct
setting,
because
in
the
succinct
setting
we
do
not
have
luxury
of
accessing
any
amount
of
information.
We
are
very
succinct
right.
So
these
are
the
main
questions
we
started
with
and
we
did
not
find
any
off-the-shelf
protocol
that
said
that
that
fared
well
in
all
the
decent,
in
all
the
decentralization
yardsticks
and
also
would
fit
well
in
our
succinct
setting.
A
A
So
we
we
took
this
as
the
starting
point
and
we
brought
in
significant
change
to
the
protocol,
but
we
managed
to
borrow
all
the
amazing
decentralization
properties
of
arborist
genesis
and
that's
the
consensus
protocol
that
mina
uses
order,
borussia
so
yeah
in
in
to
some
in
to
summarize,
what
are
the
properties
that
are
borrowers
or
where
some
asica
has?
As
far
as
decentralization
is
concerned,
you
do
not
need
any
centralized
party
to
give
advice
on
what
the
active
chain
is.
A
A
Many
protocols
don't
have
this
property,
they
they
just
it's
a
it's
a
band-aid
solution.
On
top
that,
oh
you
do
you
just
don't
it
just
this!
The
protocol
is
not
able
to
do
it,
but
we'll
put
this
centralized
party
who
will
be
providing
this
advice
to
newly
joining
parties
or
to
parties
who
have
been
offline
for
a
very
long
time
and
have
left
con
have
lost
context
on
what
is
happening.
So
that's
as
far
as
checkpointing
advice
is
concerned
and
then
with
respect
to
putting
any
restriction
on
parties
being
online.
A
Arborist
samasika
really
embraces
dynamic
availability
of
parties
and
and
it
just
let
and
it
works
where
parties
can
go
online
and
offline,
and
this
just
enables
people
to
go
offline
because
of
maybe
even
network
issues.
And
thirdly,
there
is
no
cap
on
participation
in
arabica
yeah
and
it
works
in
a
succinct
setting
all
the
chain
selection
rules
right
whenever
there
are
multiple
chains.
How
do
you
select
the
right
chain?
That's
the
core
question
in
any
consensus
protocol.
So
all
these
all
the
answers
to
such
questions
use
very
local
information.
A
There
is
one
additional
aspect
of
any
consensus
protocol
that
I
believe
is
very
very
important,
and
that
is
especially
true
these
days,
because
you
see
we
don't
have
blockchains
that
are
working
in
silos
right.
We
have
blockchains
interacting
with
other
blockchains,
so
we
have
protocols
interacting
with
other
protocols.
A
The
question
is,
if
you
look
at
a
protocol
that
is
proven,
secure,
that
is
proven,
secure
in
a
standalone
setting.
Will
the
protocol
be
secure
in
in
in
a
wider
ecosystem?
Where
is
where
it
is
interacting
with
other
protocols,
not
necessarily
in
fact
more
often
than
not,
protocols
tend
to
be
insecure
when
they
interact
with
other
protocols.
A
This
theory
is
formalized
in
the
world
of
cryptography
by
the
by
this
name:
universal
composability
and
our
protocol
is
proven
secure
in
the
universal
composability
setting.
So
we
are
ready
to
securely
interact
with
other
protocols
so
yeah.
That's
that
the
arbor
of
samsica
protocol
is
universal,
universally
composable
all
right.
So
that's
the
that.
That's
what
I
wanted
to
talk
about,
so
it's
less
technical
and
really
highlighting
trying
to
highlight
the
values
we
wanted
to
keep
in
mind,
as
we
designed
chose
the
starting
point
and
designed
the
consensus
protocol.
A
A
Here
is
an
interesting
question:
do
validators
not
get
penalized
if
offline,
so
here,
let's
step
back
and
think
about
penalization
for
a
second
in
any
protocol
right?
That
happens
to
be
a
part
of
the
solution,
because
the
protocol
is
not
able
to
handle
that
build
behavior.
If
there
is
any
behavior
offline,
I'm
not
calling
that
as
a
little
behavior,
but
any
behavior
that
is
not
ideal
for
the
protocol
protocols
tend
to
penalize
such
behaviors
right,
but
it's
a
band-aid
solution.
It's
a
band-aid
solution
for
something
that
the
protocol
is
not
able
to
handle.
A
These
are
the
questions
we
really
kept
in
mind
and
wanted
to
wanted
that
the
protocol
handle
all
these
situations
so
that
people
who
are
genuine,
who
are
making
these
honest
mistakes,
are
not
getting
penalized
right.
So
that
is
why
we
don't
have
slashing.
That
is
why
arbor's
samasika
meena
protocol
doesn't
have
slashing
that's
a
good
question.
A
Where
can
we
learn
more
about
arbor
samasika
as
to
how
it
works
so
in
the
chat
I'll
I'll
I'll
paste?
This
link
to
a
talk
that
I
gave
on
the
inner
workings
of
samsica.
If
you
want
the
technical
explanation,
and
also
it's
on
our
it's
on
our
white
paper,
our
white
paper
really
goes
into
the
depths
of
it
and
explains
every
step
of
it
and
has
proofs
of
security,
rigorous
proofs
of
security.
A
Again,
how
will
evil
meena
validators
be
punished
again?
Protocol
handles
ill
behavior.
If
there
is
no
behavior,
it's
just
that
they
just
are
not
able
to
exploit
those
loopholes
are
not
present
in
the
protocol,
so
your
behaviors
won't
be
able
to
exploit
that's
why
we
don't
penalize
such
a
behaviors,
a
futuristic
question.
What
do
you
think
or
how
many?
A
I
guess
the
question
was,
how
many
protocols
will
stay
active
in
the
future?
I
think
anybody's
guesses
anywhere
is
is
as
good
as
anybody
else's
guess
in
this
ever-changing
blockchain
world.
But,
but
I
think
here
is
my
theory.
Every
industry
will
end
up
choosing
an
ecosystem
of
protocols.
Just
like
the
internet.
Did
you
know
there?
There
is
ethernet.
There
is
http,
there
is
tls
protocols,
an
ecosystem
of
protocols
that
will
work
well
for
that
industry
and
with
the
in
from
the
view
of
the
meena
protocol,
the
value
offerings
right,
the
succinctness
and
privacy.
A
A
Is
there
to
respect
and
give
credit
to
all
the
previous
works,
the
all
the
previous
works
of
cardano
that
are
in
that
family?
They
start
with
the
word
auroboros
and
we
kept
that
name
and
samasika
in
sanskrit
means
small,
succinct,
there's
a
question
on
quantum
computers
and
being
co
post
quantum
secured
not
even
specific
to
mina,
not
even
specific,
to
blockchain
protocols,
but
in
general.
I
think
that
this
is
so
some.
A
I
know
that
some
projects
are
already
thinking
about
post
quantum
security
and
they're
deploying
it,
but
nist
has
this
competition
and
it
will
standardize
some
protocols
and
schemes.
I
guess
in
2023
or
somewhere
around
that
that's
the
schedule.
I
think
anything
we
do
now
will
be
probably
will
need
to
change
by
then
and
then-
and
I
I
I
I
hope,
I'm
right
in
a
couple
of
years.
Post
quantum
computers
are
not
going
to
come,
that's
the
hope.
So
the
right
thing
I
think,
and
a
wise
thing
for
any
project.
A
I
think
I
think,
is
to
just
wait
till
the
next
guidelines
come
out.
So
please
recap
the
difference
between
arbor,
samasika
and
cardano.
I
think
they
mean
arborists,
some
asica
and
oraboros
genesis.
I
think
the
main
difference
so,
okay,
arborio's
genesis
has
two
parts,
two
important
parts.
One
part
is:
how
do
you
choose
the
right
chain
when
the
fork
is
very
small
and
the
other
part
is
how
do
you
choose
the
right
chain
when
the
fork
is
very
long
and
the
fork
is
very
small.
A
You
do
like
you
usually
do
like
in
bitcoin,
you
choose
the
longest
chain,
but
when
the
fork
is
very
long,
arborous
genesis
has
this
solution
where
it
looks
back
in
history.
That's
the
part,
that's
the
part
that
didn't
work
out
for
us
right,
that's
the
part
we
changed
and
the
it's
called
the
long
range
fork.
This
is
a
short
range
for
the
small
one
and
the
long
range
fork
rule
that
we
have
there.
Also
in
genesis.
It's
not
the
longest
longest
chain
rule
in
our
case
in
some
sick.
A
Also,
it's
not
the
longest
chain
rule
but
they're
different
between
genesis
and
samasika
in
the
sense
that
some
asica
uses
pro
uses
local
information
to
achieve
all
right.
I
think
those
are
the
main
questions
and
thank
you
again.
So
much
for
listening
in
and
we're
all
very
excited
for
the
protocol
and
it's
great
to
have
you
all
as
part
of
the
protocol.
A
A
It's
a
fork!
That's
really
really
long.
What
arbor's
genesis
says
is:
please
look
at
the
initial
part
of
the
fork,
don't
look
at
the
entire
chain
and
compare
the
chains
just
look
at
the
initial
initial,
let's
say
just
let's
say:
10
minutes.
First,
10
minutes
after
the
foot
see
which
chain
has
more
blocks,
choose
that
chain.
That's
what
arbor's
genesis
says
right.
We
don't
do
that.
Why?
Because
we
don't
know
when,
if
it
is
a
long-range
forward,
we
don't
know
when
that
fork
happened
right.
A
It
could
have
happened
any
anytime
in
history
right
and
we
do
not
have
access
to
any
information
from
any
time
in
history.
We
just
have
local
information.
We
just
we
just
have
succinct
information.
Sorry,
not
local.
We
just
have
succinct
information,
so
the
question
for
arbor
samsika
then
was:
how
do
you
make?
How
do
you?
How
do
you
crunch
all
that
information
that
arbor's
genesis
needed
in
a
succinct
manner,
so
that
organisation
can
work
in
a
succinct
setting?
A
The
way
we
did
is
as
follows.
So
this
is.
This
is
a
very,
very
cute
idea
right.
So
it's
it's
a
very
it's
like
to
do
it's
a
very
nice
concept
to
imagine
so
you
imagine
windows
right
there.
There
is
a
window
and
this
there
is
a
window
all
the
time.
There
is
always
a
window
and
it
keeps
moving
as
time
passes
and
what
you
do
in
any
window.
A
A
A
The
number
of
blocks
in
that
window
increase
to
12.
Let's
say
that
number
will
still
be
10
because
we
are
taking
the
minimum
of
everything
we
have
seen
so
far
and
move
again.
The
number
drops
to
8.
you
change
that
number
to
8
10
to
8,
because
8
is
the
minimum
of
everything
you
have
seen
so
far,
and
it
is
this
number
that
you
compare.
A
You
have
two
chains,
there
is
a
long
range
fork
and
you
compare
these
two
numbers
for
those
two
chains
and
you'll
end
up
choosing
the
right
chain
and
and
why
it
all
happens
it
it's
hard
to
explain
in
in
just
a
few
minutes
there.
There
is
so
much
of
analysis
that
goes
in,
but
I
would
highly
encourage
you
to
look
at
the
paper
or
the
or
the
technical
talk
yeah.
So
that's
the
main
difference
between
arbor
samsung
and
arborist
genesis.