Sabitlenmiş Tweet
YoAda is now officially registered as Drep on #Cardano :
drep1y26sfka2km0p4xw073ujdq406wxxczhdyfh9vw7yxpfselchzkdjn
English
Mithril | IceBreaker | Astarter ✳️
8.7K posts
Mithril | IceBreaker | Astarter ✳️
@YoadaStakepool
Consider staking your $ADA with our 0% fee #Cardano pool YoAda https://t.co/NjH5goIFp5 drep1y26sfka2km0p4xw073ujdq406wxxczhdyfh9vw7yxpfselchzkdjn
france Katılım Haziran 2020
607 Takip Edilen1.8K Takipçiler
Mithril | IceBreaker | Astarter ✳️ retweetledi
This is a race we can win. It's the single largest area of growth for DeFi and no one is the market leader. Some of the best and brightest teams are chasing it. We have a head start and the right tech
Starknet (Privacy arc) 🥷@Starknet
strkBTC's bridge is designed to evolve across 3 phases, each one removing a layer of trust. The destination: a bridge where fraudulent transactions become mathematically impossible. Here's a breakdown of each phase 👇
English
@yutazzz I get why the "all-in-one" format raises eyebrows, but honestly, that’s where the magic usually happens.
Innovation is all about mixing different worlds together. When we ask to split a research project, we risk losing those unexpected sparks that makes it special.
English
チャールズさん、メッセージをありがとうございました。私はいかなる理由があってもIORの提案書は決して再提出されることはないことを確認しました。
私の考えではこの中のいくつかの研究はお金の無駄になる可能性が高いと考えていますが、LeiosやPerasや量子耐性などいくつかは必須です。私は分割されて再提出されることを願って、そのいくつかにYESを、そのいくつかのNOを投票したいと考えていました。
しかし、いかなる理由があってもIORの提案書は決して再提出されることはないことが確認できた今、DRepの現在の選択肢は次の２つで、その他の選択肢の交渉の余地はありません、全てを破壊する選択をできないので、私は投票を変更します。
1. IORの現在の提案書を受け入れる。（ PoUW などCardanoエコシステムから見て、優先度の低いと思う内容があっても）
2. IORの現在の提案書を拒否して、LeiosやPerasや量子耐性の全てを研究を捨てて、スケーラビリティとセキュリティを破壊する。
Charles Hoskinson@IOHK_Charles
一部の日本のdRepが私たちの研究提案に反対票を投じたことに、深い悲しみを覚えています。 もしこの提案が可決されなければ、カルダノ（Cardano）はその科学者たちを失い、私たちのラボは閉鎖に追い込まれるということを、日本のコミュニティ全体に再認識していただきたいと考えています。私たちは10年以上の歳月をかけて努力と成長を積み重ね、暗号資産分野において世界最強の研究グループを築き上げてきました。 一部の断片的な資金援助だけで、この成果をバラバラに崩壊させるわけにはいきません。私たちの科学者たちは、より確実性と敬意のある場所へと去ってしまうでしょう。 どうか、カルダノの研究アジェンダを支持するdRepへの委任をお願いいたします。
日本語
QME
English
Mithril | IceBreaker | Astarter ✳️ retweetledi
I would like to add my perspective to the "research proposal" by IOG (japanese version below)
First of all, I would like to make clear that this proposal does not benefit me directly in any way. I say "directly" because, if passed, I do believe it benefits me, indirectly, as an ADA holder.
It seems the main concern about the proposal is not about the contents of the proposal itself, but instead about the "bundled nature" of the proposal.
As someone who had to see its previous proposal barely rejected (only 0.22% support missing) with many of the NO/ABSTAIN being about the same "bundling" concern, I feel like this concern is being overstated in many cases, and also misses important context on why a proposer may decide to "bundle" parts that to the unexperienced eye may seem unrelated.
Regarding research and innovation in particular, most of the innovation in history came by taking subjects that for to the unexperienced eye may seem unrelated and "combining" them togheter.
This is the "combinatorial theory of invention"
- The Gutenberg printing press combined the wine press, movable type, and metallurgy for casting letters. None of those was new; the combination was.
- The Wright brothers drew on bicycle mechanics (balance, control surfaces) and applied them to flight, when most rivals focused only on raw engine power.
- Darwin's theory of natural selection famously drew on Malthus's economics of population pressure applied to biology
- The transistor and later computing pulled together quantum physics, materials science, and earlier work on logic and switching.
For this to happen it is not enough to know "two things exist", you need also someone that is capable of connecting the dots, and potentially, bring it a little further and add a sprinkle of something that did not exist yet.
So when you are asking to "debundle" a project or proposal, be aware that you are asking to reduce your chances of discovering something new and unique, especially for a proposal whose primary goal is to look for something new and unique.
Charles Hoskinson@IOHK_Charles
On Science x.com/i/broadcasts/1…
English
@JaromirTesar Very much appreciated Yoda! 🙏
We'll make sure to apply your feedback should the proposal be approved 👍
Please do not forget the Pebble proposal too, you may know we split the previous proposal into two
Pebble has also a lot of support, and the demand is even clearer there 🫡
English
As a DRep, I decided to vote YES for the proposal: The first node in the browser; a Cardano USP.
My rationale:
This proposal concerns Gerolamo, a TypeScript implementation of a Cardano node, scoped specifically to the browser-extension light-node use case. The goal is to deliver a production-ready Cardano light node that can run in the browser and expose a messaging API to dApps and wallets. This would allow applications to obtain locally verified chain data instead of relying entirely on trusted external servers.
The main reason I support this proposal is that Gerolamo could help move Cardano wallets and dApps toward a more trust-minimized model. Today, many applications depend heavily on backend providers, indexers, APIs, or other server-side infrastructure.
This is convenient, but it also creates dependency on external services. A browser-based validating node could allow users and developers to interact with Cardano with stronger local verification guarantees.
This does not only matter for users who explicitly demand maximum sovereignty. Most users probably do not think in terms of “full validation” or “trust minimization.”
However, they can still benefit from applications that are more reliable, more responsive, and less dependent on centralized infrastructure. If delivered successfully, Gerolamo could make stronger security assumptions available through ordinary browser-based applications.
I also see value in Gerolamo from the perspective of client diversity.
Cardano should not rely forever on a single dominant node implementation or one main codebase at the networking and validation layer. Gerolamo is not funded here as a block-producing node, and server-side relay roles are explicitly out of scope under this proposal.
However, a successful TypeScript implementation of ledger validation, networking, and browser-based node architecture could become an important foundation for future alternative node work.
That said, my YES vote is not without concerns.
I also note that Gerolamo has received previous funding, and based on the public project status, the final milestone from that earlier funding appears to remain paused or unfinished.
I do not consider this, by itself, a reason to reject the current proposal, especially because the new proposal has a clearer scope and a stronger milestone-based structure. However, I would still like HLabs to provide a clear retrospective on the previous funding.
Second, the proposal still carries high execution risk. A browser-based Cardano node is technically plausible, but difficult. The hardest part is not simply making something sync in a browser. The hard part is the correct and robust implementation of ledger rules, chain selection, rollback handling, Plutus validation, protocol parameter changes, storage behavior, and conformance with the reference implementation.
The author's clarification was useful, especially regarding the proxy architecture, Mithril, browser runtime assumptions, and the distinction between technical feasibility and production readiness. However, it also confirms that conformance is not currently a milestone-gated requirement, even though a significant part of the Haskell node conformance tests has reportedly been ported, and more work is ongoing.
Third, I recognize that demand for this kind of infrastructure is not always easy to prove in advance. Users do not usually ask directly for client diversity, local validation, or reduced RPC dependency, but they can benefit from these properties indirectly through more resilient and trust-minimized applications.
For this reason, I do not consider the absence of a fully proven demand to be a reason to reject the proposal.
However, adoption remains an important factor to watch. I would welcome clear communication from HLabs during delivery about potential wallet or dApp integrations, proxy operator interest, and usage indicators that show whether Gerolamo is moving from technical capability toward practical ecosystem adoption.
In conclusion, I am voting YES because I believe Gerolamo addresses an important long-term infrastructure need for Cardano: more trust-minimized dApps and wallets, reduced dependency on centralized backend services, stronger client diversity, and a potentially distinctive browser-based validation model.
At the same time, I recognize that this is an ambitious infrastructure proposal with meaningful technical and adoption risks.
My YES vote reflects support for the direction, the potential ecosystem benefits, and the team’s continued work, while also recognizing that delivery should be followed closely by the community. In particular, I will be looking for transparent reporting on progress, conformance work, benchmarks, adoption signals, and how the team builds on lessons from the previous Gerolamo funding.
If you'd like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support is the only way I can get time for governance.
MANDA Pool ID:
pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8
My DRep ID:
drep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqp
English
Mithril | IceBreaker | Astarter ✳️ retweetledi
I've been working on an idea that would allow market makers on Cardano to place/update orders at ultrafast speeds at no cost using regular HTTP transport mechanisms.
Only settlement (red box) needs to be on chain.
But it needs a light-node smart wallet, ideally in the browser:
English
Mithril | IceBreaker | Astarter ✳️ retweetledi
@MicheleHarmonic une raison de plus pour voter "oui" !!!!🤣🤣🤣
Français
Just found out I’m having a 3rd grandchild, yay! 😃
English
Mithril | IceBreaker | Astarter ✳️ retweetledi
But delegators should move their ada from dapp pool. @dapp_central there are plenty of pools with more pledge and less fees. Here is a link to help you choose a pool for #cardano yoada.fr/pools
Sic@Sic2336
At this point I think it's over 30 people involved in this, I am one of them. I understand @dapp_central is in a very bad position, but the lack of communication and the fact that people need to post to get his attention is very sad. I hope Farid will do the right thing for himself and the people involved, I still prefer to believe this was a very big mistake not an evil plan. Or maybe @ESCOweb3 was right and it's just a big scam.😅
English
Mithril | IceBreaker | Astarter ✳️ retweetledi
If you want to support a pool that run #mithril you are welcome to stake with YOADA
Bluebuddh₳@8lue8uddha1
I have removed all my delegation from the DAPP stake pool.
English
Mithril | IceBreaker | Astarter ✳️ retweetledi
Same for YoAda. We are minting blocks from July 2020. And we actually need your support now more than ever.
Sssebi🦁@Sssebi
It's crazy that a guy that scammed half of the Cardano community has so much stake while a guy that shows up every day for the past 5 years is still sitting around 2 mil🫣
English
Mithril | IceBreaker | Astarter ✳️ retweetledi
@stakenuts @JaromirTesar 100% agree. Changing the voting period to two epochs is the play. It cuts out the last-epoch scramble and keeps the whole governance process a lot more active and dynamic. 💯
English
Do even IO proposals have to wait until the last epoch before CC members and DReps wake up and vote?
What can we change to make governance more effective?
English
Mithril | IceBreaker | Astarter ✳️ retweetledi
Another one. It turns out that security seems to be pretty important for decentralized financial systems. Who would’ve thought?
Charles Guillemet@P3b7_
This morning, THORChain was drained of roughly $10.8m Node operators have freezed the network for nearly 13 hours. The full analysis isn't out yet, but according to @jpthor, this could be a MPC exploit. ECDSA and TSS is hard. THORChain's vaults rely on TSS, a flavor of MPC where a quorum of nodes jointly produces a signature without ever reconstructing the private key. Clean for Schnorr or EdDSA; painful for ECDSA, which Bitcoin and Ethereum require. That's why we saw plenty of protocol attempts (Lindell17, GG18, GG20, CMP, CGGMP21, DKLS, KU23...), each patching flaws in the previous one. GG20 has a track record. THORChain's TSS uses GG20, on a fork of Binance's tss-lib. GG20 has shipped two well-publicized critical bugs: CVE-2023-33241 and TSSHOCK. CGGMP21, now cggmp24, are the latest protocols, but GG20 is still widely deployed. I often hear a misconception when I hear about MPC setup: "The key is split across many nodes, so any single co-signer doesn't really matter". In every published GG18/GG20 attack, one malicious or compromised co-signer is enough to extract everyone else's shard and reconstruct the full key. AI changes the threat model. Compromising a full software node, complex Go stack, exposed P2P, custom signing daemons, a churn protocol that admits new participants on a schedule, has always been difficult and acted as a barrier. With LLM-driven vulnerability discovery and exploit synthesis, the bar to compromise one of N validators is dropping fast. Here, it's a plausible TSSHOCK-style playbook: - compromise one operator - wait for it to churn into an active Asgard vault - send malformed proofs during keygen or signing - reconstruct the key offline - sweep in a single transaction It's unclear yet if the attacker used a known-unpatched GG20 weakness, or a fresh cryptographic flaw. But, in all cases, MPC and TSS are not a substitute for hardening every co-signer. They sit on top of co-signers that must each be treated as critical infrastructure, hardware-isolated enclaves, minimally exposed, continuously audited, and running protocol with security proofs. While the investigation progresses, be careful in your interactions onchain. These TSS setup are used in various protocols.
English