Cosmic Validator ⚛️
5K posts

Cosmic Validator ⚛️
@CosmicValidator
OG @Cosmos validator⚛ 📽Cosmos ecosystem news & educational videos $ATOM $TIA $DYDX $AKT $IP $MON

Full block of Telegram in Russia just started Both mobile and desktop versions don't work, even with a VPN. Durov's biggest market is off. TON is watching this closely 👀


🧵 1/6 The validator set has been the backbone of @BitwayOfficial journey, investing in high-performance infrastructure and technical expertise from testnets to mainnet. However, we have reached a critical friction point regarding network sustainability @shaneqiu



买币就是买团队,把打新当作天使投资,喜欢创始人团队你就买币交个朋友,不熟悉团队就避免参与,VC投资都会做足尽调,散户更要对自己的辛苦钱负责。 对所有的打新项目(包括Bitway)先降低预期,最后如果有好结果会更开心。每个项目都计算开盘是否回本建议不要参与任何打新,长期来看赔率不如去币安钱包刷分养多号,再把每一期理财活动都塞满,这是目前普通人在币圈复利变富最简单的方式。 除了看团队,站在项目方的角度建议警惕几类打新项目,1)在自己搭的平台打新,2)公募占总比过高/全解锁,3)估值过低。陷阱如果不诱人就不会让人陷进去。 Bitway目前有两种TGE前给散户的参与方式,打新和存钱拿积分,总有一种适合你的风险偏好。你问我存钱APR能有多少、打新开盘能不能回本,这些问题我不知道也回答不了,但我不建议投机的人来参与打新,对我或对你都没有任何好处。亏钱了你骂我我不会在意的,我们该做什么还是不会动摇。赚钱了也不用感谢我,因为你配。




🎁 @BitwayOfficial BTW token circulation will begin on Mar 2nd, 2026, at 08:00 (UTC). Users who participated in the Bitway Pre-TGE can trade BTW tokens on Binance Alpha. Winners of the Phase 1 Booster Campaign can claim and trade their BTW tokens within 8 hours after the token circulation starts.

A very important document. Let's walk through this one "goal" at a time. We'll start with fast slots and fast finality. I expect that we'll reduce slot time in an incremental fashion, eg. I like the "sqrt(2) at a time" formula (12 -> 8 -> 6 -> 4 -> 3 -> 2, though the last two steps are more speculative and depend on heavy research). It is possible to go faster or slower here; but the high level is that we'll view the slot time as a parameter that we adjust down when we're confident it's safe to, similar to the blob target. Fast slots are off in their own lane at the top of the roadmap, and do not really seem to connect to anything. This is because the rest of the roadmap is pretty independent of the slot time: we would need to do roughly the same things whether the slot time is 2 seconds or 32 seconds There are a few intersection areas though. One is p2p improvements. @raulvk has recently been working on an optimized p2p layer for Ethereum, which uses erasure coding to greatly improve on the bandwidth/latency tradeoff frontier. Roughly speaking: in today's design, each node receives a full block body from several peers, and is able to accept and rebroadcast it as soon as it receives the first one. If the "width" (number of peers sending you the block) is low, then one bad peer can greatly delay when you receive the block. If width is high, there is a lot of unneeded data overhead. With erasure coding, you can choose a k-of-n setup, eg: split each block into 8 pieces so that with any 4 of them you can reconstruct the full block. This gives you much of the redundancy benefits of high width, without the overhead. We have stats that show that this architecture can greatly reduce 95th percentile block propagation time, making shorter slots viable with no security tradeoffs (except increased protocol complexity, though here the performance-gain-to-lines-of-code ratio is quite favorable) Another intersection area is the more complex slot structure that comes with ePBS, FOCIL, and the fast confirmation rule. These have important benefits, but they decrease the safe latency maximum from slot/3 to slot/5. There's ongoing research to try to pipeline things better to minimize losses (also note: the slot time is lower-bounded not just by slot latency, but also by the fixed-cost part of ZK prover latency), but there are some tradeoffs here. One way we are exploring to compensate for this is to change to an architecture where only ~256-1024 randomly selected attesters sign on each slot. For a fork choice (non-finalizing) function, this is totally sufficient. The smaller number of signatures lets us remove the aggregation phase, shortening the slots. Fast finality is more complex (the ultimate protocol is IMO simpler than status quo Gasper, but the change path is complex). Today, finality takes 16 minutes (12s slots * 32 slot epochs * 2.5 epochs) on average. The goal is to decouple slots and finality, so allow us to reason about both separately, and we are aiming to use a one-round-finality BFT algorithm (a Minimmit variant) to finalize. So endgame finality time might be eg. 6-16 sec. Because this is a very invasive set of changes, the plan is to bundle the largest step in each change with a switch of the cryptography, notably to post-quantum hash-based signatures, and to a maximally STARK-friendly hash (there are three possible responses to the recent Poseidon2 attacks: (i) increase round count or introduce other countermeasures such as a Monolith layer, (ii) go back to Poseidon1, which is even more lindy than Poseidon2 and has not seen flaws, (iii) use BLAKE3 or other maximally-cheap "conventional" hash. All are being researched). Additionally, there is a plan to introduce many of these changes piece-by-piece, eg. "1-epoch finality" means we adjust the current consensus to change from FFG-style finalization to Minimmit-style finalization. One possible finality time trajectory is: 16 min (today) -> 10m40s (8s slots) -> 6m24s (one-epoch finality) -> 1m12s (8-slot epochs, 6s slots) -> 48s (4s slots) -> 16s (minimmit) -> 8s (minimmit with more aggressive parameters) One interesting consequence of the incremental approach is that there is a pathway to making the slots quantum-resistant much sooner than making the finality quantum-resistant, so we may well quite quickly get to a regime where, if quantum computers suddenly appear, we lose the finality guarantee, but the chain keeps chugging along. Summary: expect to see progressive decreases of both slot time and finality time, and expect to see these changes to be intertwined with a "ship of Theseus" style component-by-component replacement of Ethereum's slot structure and consensus with a cleaner, simpler, quantum-resistant, prover-friendly, end-to-end formally-verified alternative.










