#258 Monica Quaintance: Kadena – Public and Permissioned Blockchains that Scale

Transcript

[Music] this episode of epicenter is brought to you by Dutch X the fair and secure decentralized exchange platform bike Knossos to learn how you can build apps which leverage Dutch acts as liquidity tool visit epicentre TV slash X and buy microsoft azure configure and deploy a consortium network in just a few clicks with pre-built configuration and enterprise grade infrastructure spend less time on blockchain scaffolding in more time building your applications

learn more at akms slash epicenter fire welcome to epicenter the show it's octave of the technologies projects and starts driving decentralization and the global blocking revolution my name is Savannah Cujo and I'm ahead Roy hey mare how's it going it's going with it's been a while since we've done this together yeah I can't remember what I think I think block start was our last episode yeah I think we've added a couple of new hosts and I guess now like the veterans are sort of busy trying to do episode with the new hosts so that they get up to speed and

you know and we have a more diversified group of hosts for the future yeah I'm really excited about it and so our listeners will notice that the the format's a little different so we don't typically sort of have this little discussion between us but we're experimenting with with this new way of doing the show we just thought it's it'd be nice to be able to you know spend a few minutes before the actual interview to discuss about you know what we're about to talk about what you're about to hear so this is actually being recorded after the interview so it's a good way to sort of frame the context for what you're about to hear and also it gives us the opportunity to maybe talk to you

about stuff that me and we wouldn't know I have the opportunity to talk to you about like events we might be going to or things that might be happening in and around epicenter and this sort of thing so yeah let us know what you think about this new new format I mean doesn't change much for you but yeah hit us up on Twitter and also we'd love to hear what you think about our new our new hosts I mean Sony's been here for a while most of you are familiar with him but philia who just joined us recently we're super excited to have her on we're already this i guess two episodes in with her and I think she's been great so yeah what do you think mayor oh it's great to have new hosts know every new

person brings a different perspective and I get to learn a lot as a host myself doing these episodes with Fredrik and Sonny because their questions are so different from mine their curiosities are so different from my yeah absolutely and it kind of takes takes the heat off of us and you know allows allows us to do other types of things and and also for the listeners to be sort of kept on their feet as to like who's gonna be the next house on like the next episode what could I expect and so the dynamics that that creates yeah yeah I'm really excited and hopefully we can get some more hosts on at some point so today we're going to be speaking with

Monica acquaintances and Monica is lead engineering and adoption strategy at Kadena and Kadena is a company that came out of JPMorgan and is building so it's all unique actually because it's it's it's a company that's building a public network and also private network technologies you know typically so if you take like a hypo ledger or something like that or like well maybe not cosmos but yeah something like hyper ledger sort of companies that are traditionally in the private boxing space that deal with enterprise clients you know they have a stack that they're looking to deploy and consortium networks or with

enterprise players but they're not typically like building a public network with minors and you know privacy sorry censorship resistance and such but they're actually doing both those things they're building in public network and they're building enterprise blockchain toolkit stack whatever you want to call it so from that perspective I thought it was it was it was interesting I think you'll see that we sort of get in the weeds with Monica because there was some some points where we didn't quite agree about some of the fundamental underlying premises of of their other public the public network and the consensus network

there the mining protocol but I think it was interesting that nonetheless what do you think mayor this kind of a unique episode for me because I I saw the videos of Kadena and I chatted with Sonny on the epicenters lack prior to doing this episode and Sonny and I were like cadenas claiming a nearly infinite scalable infinitely scalable proof of worth blockchain you know in one of their videos somebody asks them what's the limit to the scalability of your public platform and their answer is uh you know that they limit is something like the limit of global bandwidth that

is available in the world is what will limit the platform like some some answer that goes into you know like the billions of trillions of transactions a second and and when I Sonny and I like looked at it we felt that the scalability solution can't work so I was actually I came into this episode hoping my doubts would be cleared and my skepticism would go but it really hasn't so I guess like what I'm going to do is you have the episode you can listen to it I get into the weeds with Monica and I'm going to just write what I think as a comment on on YouTube or on let's talk

Bitcoin so I want to do this because I sort of realized that people listen to epicenter episodes and they and some of them might put their money one way or another based on our episodes and if I feel if I have a critical opinion about something I just want to put it there and have a discussion about it so our listeners see what's going on in the hosts mind yeah yeah that's a good way to do it yeah myself I hadn't discussed with Sonny prior to the episode but I did read the white papers and yeah there were some things that I also felt I I

think it was after the show we were talking with her that maybe we were there were some fundamental differences about how we were coming at the problem and we really couldn't get to get to really put forth and agree on what we were disagreeing about and yeah maybe this is something that we can try to follow up with or try to get a better understanding in you know discussions sort of off the show but in Twitter and social networks and stuff so yeah here it is our interview with Monica quaint

ins of Kadena I forgot to mention two things first we are a web 3 this week in Berlin so if you're in town at the event and you see us come say hello we'd be happy to see you and we will be at DEFCON 4 in Prague next week all week long and we are hosting a meet-up it is the decentralized pumpkin meet up if you think pumpkins are too centralized you should come have drinks with us and discuss this cork issue it is on October 31st Halloween night between 7:30 and 9:30 right before the big Halloween party so location is not quite figured out yet but if you go to epicenter about TV / DEFCON 4 and you sign up we'll send you a notification when we have a location so see you at 2 by 3 and see you at Def Con so we're

here with Monika quaint ins and Monica is head of engineering and adoption strategy at Kadena Monika thanks for joining us thanks for having me so Kadena is a company that came out of JPMorgan and we're gonna be talking to Monica today about the work that Kadena is doing sort of in both public and private blockchain and both both of those systems they are building a public brought chain network that is based on a new consensus model that they have engineered called chain web and they're also on the other side of that working

on a private blockchain infrastructure for enterprise and so today we'll be getting into that in detail with Monica so first off perhaps let's get a bit of a background how did you get involved in blockchain technology that's uh I love asking people's crypto origin stories so my um I actually I worked with will at the SEC once upon a time we were both in the group that developed software to try to catch high frequency trading fraud though the idea is that you know you need software products in order to analyze trading blotters and so we were working on a team that built what we'll wrote the

first draft of something that actually got pushed out to a bunch of examiner's where they can like upload a trade blotter and it teaches examiner's how to look for trading front so that was we were working there at the SEC and he was really burned out and I was looking for something new so we both left at the same time and I went to go be a systems engineer for rent to the runway which is a fashion company based in New York and he went to JP Morgan's blockchain research group which was Hugh's the lead engineer there and was hired by Stu Popejoy and so swill and stew were working on the team that made Juno which was originally proposed to become part of hyper ledger and then it didn't and then it sort of eventually morphed into the team that worked on quorum before

they were doing that well and Stu were like oh we've made this really incredible thing this private blockchain we should turn that into a company so they left and they started kadena to originally make a private blockchain with a smart contract language and then they're like wait a minute we have an opportunity here we could take this from our contract language and we could put it on a public blockchain and then so over time we've evolved into this place where our product is actually just a blockchain that works for both public and private so will ins do called me and said hey we're gonna make a public blockchain do you want to come we need a systems engineer and we need somebody who can talk to people about what engineering means so yeah that's I started in December of last year which

has been I guess it's like 10 months now it's been the longest ten months of my life we do a lot of great stuff a lot of good research but it's also just like everything moves so fast interesting and so you mentioned you worked at a fashion company how how is that experienced informed anything that you're doing that so the I was on the team that was doing data infrastructure and that was a we were taking it from a bare-metal database to a distributed data cluster in the cloud so I was working on this project I was the tech lead for taking basically a the old-school cluster in Secaucus New Jersey and put migrating that so that

was it ended up being really useful because I can think about data and how its structured and how its stored and like what atomicity means and being able to replicate transactions and so it actually translates pretty well to the idea of a blockchain to in my mind a blockchain is not necessarily different from the database it's just a data store that nobody administers it has some particular rules about it but at the end of the day like it's just another distributed data store I was not expecting that experience to be so for watching but more specifically I think maybe we could talk about your role at the SEC what you were doing

there and how that sort of that brought you into your trajectory into what you're doing now so the the interesting thing about what we were doing at the SEC is that the their technology requirements are very high but they have the the talent there needs to be roughly unfettered in order to do what they're doing and this idea of trying to create sort of a tech incubator inside of a large government organization we were at the forefront of that and it didn't always like there's obviously friction there because engineers that have that are really brilliant and we had some incredible brilliant people on that team

and a lot of them are still there the idea of having to push the agenda for new tech the event horizon of new technology inside of a government organization that we had a lot of friction there so I actually didn't last very long Will was there for almost two years I was only there for like four months before will left and I was like I was just here to work with will who is we've been friends basically since college cool so shifting into Kadena can you talk about sort of the main projects that the company is working on yes the we've essentially have our hypothesis is that there's you only need

one blockchain instead of going around and trying to cobble together like oh I'm gonna launch my token using cerium and then I'm gonna write it in solidity but I might want to compile the wasum and then I might want to have some sort of second layer scalability solution on top and then under like it's too confusing it's too hard nobody wants to develop on that it's not developer friendly we're still at the build your own PC stage of computing right now we're like it's for hobbyists and it's for people that like get excited about seeing all these weird tool stuff but we're not gonna see real adoption and usage in blockchain land until we move away from like oh well you know you're

not a real blockchain developer unless you build your own stack we are offering a stack that just works instead of building your own PC you can just go to the Apple store and you can buy a Mac and it'll just work and you can just do your development on top of it so we have our own smart contract language and we're building our own public blockchain and it already scales it already has a base layer scaling solution we're building all of our own tooling so right now we're working on a pretty Developer IDE that has built-in error messages that has built-in formal verification we've have a bunch of new developments around how we use formal verification in our stack and then we also have for the way that we deal with privacy and handling privacy solutions is we have you can have an Oracle out to our

private blockchain so you can share as much data with the public blockchain as you want to and it just it's all designed to work together you don't have to go around and like find a bunch of third party solutions to try to do the thing that you're trying to do so you mentioned that there should be only one blockchain and so you're building you're building this blockchain based of this idea called chain web how does so is it like do you intend to build these permission private blockchains using the work that was done at JPMorgan these would be separate blocks chains that connect into this system or has your focus entirely shifted to just a public J we are still working on the

private blockchain we're actually have a healthcare insurance consortium that's using our private blockchain right now in order to they have an MVP and they're working on getting the pilot up and running between these different companies and right now they're using it for doctor office information sharing the idea is that each of these insurance companies get fined if they don't have correct information about like where a doctor is located and what insurance they're taking so each of them have people that they spend money on that call all of the doctor like every doctor in order to try and figure out what the right information is obviously they spend a ton of money doing this redundant work because they're all trying to do it so phase one of this

project is each of them instead can contribute to this ownerless system where they all benefit from the data and right now there's a mechanism in it where they can everybody pays into the system by running their nodes and then they get rewarded for updating pieces of data and then eventually the idea is that this project we will connect to the public watching and allow doctors to actually update their own information because then they don't get spammed with calls from every single insurance company and then they can get rewarded directly so the network can actually sustain itself in terms of data update and storage so this is the kind of idea was like a private blockchain that connects to a public blockchain but

really it's just one project it's the project where doctors and insurance companies can communicate with better data but it's connected of all these different pieces which is a private blockchain with our smart contact language on top that connects to a public blockchain interface you know the Dutch have given us so much orange carrots Bluetooth artificial hearts even donuts were invented by Dutch people but they also gave us Dutch auctions which as it turns out are great for decentralized exchanges Dutch X is a decentralized trading protocol for ER C 20 tokens and it's invented designed and built by kenosis current order boat based exchanges whether centralized or decentralized have a couple of issues miners and exchanges can front-runner

trade when they that in front of a large order to gain an economic advantage not to mention issues with securing funds by listing fees lack of liquidity and pricing efficiencies the Dutch tax exchange platform uses a Dutch auction mechanism to determine the fair value for a token and participants in a trade are encouraged to reveal their true likeness to pay which eliminates front running as a permissionless Unchained protocol it's useful for BOTS and other smart contracts needing to exchange tokens and Dutch checks also acts as an oracle for - requiring a price feed so to learn more check out the documentation at epicenter TV slash Dutch X smart contracts are live on the etherion main net so you can start building today we'd like to thank gnosis and Dutch X for their support of epicenter I'd like to

come back just to this thing you said earlier that that we would we could only have one blockchain as a software developer I'm sure you can appreciate that you know we have multiple programming different programming languages from C++ to Java to JavaScript and you know things like PHP and node and all these different programming languages sort of serve a specific use cases or specific type of application developments you know whether it be for web development or enterprise or solidity for smart contracts and such I think that this analogies sort of overlaps quite well in the blockchain space one because presumably there'll be many types of applications for blockchain but also just because of the sheer nature of open-source software and how things sort of pork and proliferate

and people work on their own projects and build their own applications and such do you do you think that that really stands up but you know there could be a future where potentially we could only have one blockchain and everything else just vanishes so I definitely did not say that we should only have one blockchain what I was trying to say and it may not have come out this way was the idea that you should have the option to just have a thing that works and I don't necessarily agree with like there are multiple operating systems and people write in different languages and we have lots of discussions about languages all of the time but you don't have to build your own computer in order to do development right now like the onboarding pipeline

for becoming a web developer for exam ball is easy you just you go to the store and you buy a computer and then you like write your first app and it's not that hard you don't have to understand how a computer works to write a web app you don't need to we want to get to the place where you don't have to necessarily understand like how cryptographic hashing works in order to build an app on a blockchain that was the point that I was trying to make that right now the learning curve is too steep it is too high you have to like have an opinion on validator nodes and like what's the right structure do you want to use like distributed or do you want to use pb FTE or like all of these

things like people hear all these terms floating around they get totally bewildered and we scare away otherwise perfectly good developers who would be great for our community with like balderdash around stupid stuff about consensus protocols like that stuff does not matter when you just want people to build something I want to get the on-ramp from people learning about blockchain to building things on blockchain to be way easier and I don't think that we're gonna end up with one blockchain in fact I think that continuing to make like we because of the way that interoperability works inside of our own protocol mean that we are already set up to have interoperability with other projects which means we're going to connect to

the cosmos hub and we're going to connect to aetherium and you'll be able to launch your token on aetherium but have it all of your transactions happen on top of kadena that's that's the goal of course you want to build this main public network and because you want it to be accessible to developers of all kinds you want it to be scalable right so that's why kadena is focusing on scalability for its public chain yeah we're focused on the way that our architecture set up we actually get both scalability and security the the design for chain web was originally proposed by people not us it was probably the first

paper that came out with something like that was for block group which came out and suggested a way of scaling Bitcoin for security purposes where you could have two bitcoins that share their proofs with each other which would give you an additional security property and we came up with this separately and then ended up coming back around to the same place where we proposed it for a scalability and then realized that we also get the security feature so yes the idea is that you can just put something on chain web and not have to worry about whether it's gonna scale out or not yes and let's talk about chain web and this scalability and security solution [Music] through it

walk us through how it works I usually do this with diagrams because it's a hard to visualize and I'm a very visual person but we can talk about it so imagine Bitcoin and the idea that you have a block and then your new block that you generate on top of that one has a reference back to the original block right this is the idea of like hash linking or having a root or a tree like a Merkel tree so now imagine if you had two chains then they each have their Genesis block and then they each start working on their first block the first block for each of these chains would

contain the proof like just the hash of the their peer chains previous block so not only do they have a reference to their own previous blocks they have a reference to their peer chains previous block you can see for two chains this is a lot of messages like you have exactly double the number of references as you two chains and that's a lot so the way that we scale this is by using a fixed graph structure and at this point people are like oh this makes you a dag with my responses all block chains are a dag so all of these projects like hash graph and iota are what I like to call arbitrary tags where they'll just pick

like some neighbor that's listening that's ready to receive a piece of information we have a fixed graph structure where peer chains always communicate to the peer that they're supposed to talk to and the way this gives us the benefit of always having them communicate in the most efficient manner specifically our graph structure with how we braid the chains together we use solutions to the degree diameter problem which is how do you have the largest order graph with a minimum number of messages between those the degree and the longest shortest hop is minimized so that's like the shortest path between

two points what's the longest one of those minimize that number so it allows for the fastest propagation of information out to all of the nodes well this is how we get it to be fast and how we get it to basically communicate with each other and effective manner is by picking a fixed graph structure and we have for each potential size of chain web of which there are you know many many many different potential sizes each of them we get to pick the most efficient structure per size so I talked about the Peterson graph a lot because it's easy to visualize in your mind it's 10 chains each of those chains communicating with each other in a fixed graph structure with a degree of 2 and a

diameter of 2 so that's two messages per node and to block height to receive full information propagation from any node to any other node okay okay so let's let's unpack that like so the way I'm thinking of it is so so imagine two chains let's say you have the litecoin chain and you have the Monaro chain right so we don't have interoperability between different projects it's not it's not in between projects so so what I'm trying to do is essentially start with like litecoin and Manero strip away things we don't need like two coins let's strip that away and

have one coin and then slowly from from that starting point let's build cadena right so so so imagine like you have this let's just imagine you have like litecoin and Manero and we have like two chains and these two two chains have two different coins today so one is litecoin the other is Manero and and later on in Kadena it's like we're gonna remove the two coins and there's going to be a single coin so can we just talk about cloning Bitcoin instead like you have Bitcoin and then you have another Bitcoin and they're both like because the idea is that all of the chains are actually identical they're completely identical in terms of how

they maintain state in terms of how you interact with it in terms of what they support like they're all completely clones of each other okay points Bitcoin one and Bitcoin - okay so you have Bitcoin and one and Bitcoin - and so you have like - these two block chains the both are producing blocks as let's say ten minutes and now let's say I'm a minor and in Bitcoin one I'm a minor in that chain so I create a block right so what happens differently now in cadena so in Bitcoin when I create a block in Bitcoin one I would reference only the previous block of Bitcoin one

what would I do differently in cadena right so as a minor we expect that everybody's best case scenario would be to mine all of the chains all of the time so as a minor you're actually mining both Bitcoin one and Bitcoin - you're trying to get a success on both chains which from like a game theory perspective you want to split your hashing power because you don't want to have a collision where you get a success like if you throw all 100 threads on the same - generating the same block there's a nonzero possibility that you get a success on two of your threads at the same time in which case you've wasted a

bunch of hash power and you should have to throw one of them away so instead we posit that people are gonna try to mine as many changes as possible all at the same time because then they can have more potential successes all at the same time so you as a miner would mind both Bitcoin one and Bitcoin two and you're just like hammering away at both of them at the same time so for example if I have 100 ASIC machines I'm putting 50 ASIC machines on Bitcoin one and then other 50 on Bitcoin - sure yeah so if if you're mining Bitcoin one your block that you're attempting to solve has in its header a reference to both the previous block in Bitcoin one

and the previous block on Bitcoin - okay so I create a block on Bitcoin one and it says when this block comes comes in it references the previous block in Bitcoin one and then it also says oh the last block that I had heard of in Bitcoin 2 was this so put that in as well yes right and similarly some other minor that generates a block in Bitcoin to would have listened about my block in Bitcoin 1 and they would put the my hash of this block in Bitcoin 1 in their block when they create one in Bitcoin - yes exactly so information about each block in Bitcoin 2 ends up entering the

Bitcoin 1 blockchain and information about each block in the Bitcoin 1 chain ends up entering Bitcoin - yes exactly and the the benefit of doing this is twofold one it keeps the network from diverging because if you have to listen to your peer chains then you have to very quickly come to like if there are two potential blocks on Bitcoin one and you're a minor on Bitcoin 2 when you hear about both of these blocks you must immediately pick one because you can only include one of them as the truth of Bitcoin 1 in your next block so it's a way of forcing Forks to recombine faster

because if there's a fork on Bitcoin 1 not only do the Bitcoin 1 miners have to pick one but also all of the other peer chains in this case bit going to have to pick one which forces people to make decisions which is what resolves Forks so that's one reason the other reason is this allows us to share this is how we propagate state between chains and which we do through simple payment verification so if I won't have an account on Bitcoin and we're an account-based not you TXO based so I have an account on Bitcoin one and I want to pay you but you're on Bitcoin to the way that we do that is we write a smart contract or I hate the

terms of our contract we can call it a smart contract between the two of us on Bitcoin one in which I say like oh I'm gonna pay my hair one token and then it is signed to your account on Bitcoin too and then we put that in on Bitcoin one the proof of it propagates in the next block to Bitcoin - at which point you say hey I'm gonna redeem my half of this smart contract on Bitcoin - I have destroyed the coins on Bitcoin 1 and they're gone and then you redeem which consumes the transaction ID for your half of the Redemption for that smart contract and then they coins get created

on Bitcoin - so we're like you could potentially have a case in which there is a chain that has no tokens on it because it has no accounts or they're all empty and then another chain could have all the tokens and it doesn't matter because each chain maintains its own idea of State and this is how we pass information from chain to chain if you've listened to previous episodes with Merlin Grey and Matt Turner you know that Microsoft is committed to providing enterprise grade tools and infrastructure for blockchain developers well the azure blockchain workbench is perfect for organizations building consortium networks take the etherium proof of authority template for example it's ideal for permission networks where consensus participants are known and reputable if the area manager has on

chain network governance that leverages parodies extensible proof Authority client each consortium member has the power to govern the network or delegate their consensus participants to a trusted operator and parodies webassembly support allows developers to write smart contracts and for many languages like C C++ and rust Azure blockchain workbench was created on the same principles that drive all production services in Azure so you know you're relying on secure redundant infrastructure that can scale and with built-in services like authenticating api's off chain databases and secure key management services you can scaffold your infrastructure in just a few hours the law more about Azure blockchain workbench and how Microsoft is advancing blockchain usability and enterprise checkout AKA ms slash epicenter and start building today we'd like to thank

Microsoft Azure for their support of epicenter on that topic you mentioned earlier that as a minor you should be mining on many chains so if we stay on this example of Bitcoin when I become two and we extend that example to now Bitcoin n so presumably you know there was hundreds of chains perhaps and as a miner I'm I'm disagreeing by hashing power amongst all these chains doesn't that create a a bandwidth issue I mean cuz I mean scalability in blockchain is fundamentally a networking issue I mean it's an issue of having sufficient bandwidth to propagate blocks quickly enough so that everybody can come to consensus around what is the actual state of the chain so if I'm a miner and

I'm mining on 100 blocks or a hundred chains rather that not only consumes a lot of bandwidth on a network but it creates congestion even sort of like at the entry point of my like my router like in my or the switch in my in my networking facility how I was get in a hurry chain of web address this sure so first we make the assumption that large mining pools exist which I think that it the crypto anarchist who wants to believe that all bitcoin is mined by like individual hackers with a GPU or

something in their closet it's like it's a fallacy we need to accept the fact that like Bitcoin but large mining pools exist and they are going to mine the whole web because they can and there are essentially going to perform the function of coordinating the header stream and the header stream is just these messages that go across the network that say like hey I found a block and here's the hash of that block and the header stream itself is very lightweight because it's very small hashes there that are being passed to each other if you wanted to only mine one chain you could subscribe to a header stream and

yes you'd have to make an assumption that the hashes that you're receiving are valid but given the fact that we assume that there are large mining pools and that people will be penalized by people not believing them if they ever put out a hash that's not valid then you know we believe that people will be able to only mine a small subset of the network if that's all that they can handle in terms of bandwidth but that most of the mining will be taken up by people that are actually capable of handling the bandwidth I don't know that that actually solves the the networking problem at the network level I mean so ok potentially small mining operations

or individual miners might only might want chain but the broader issue that the entire network needs to be able to visualize the state and if those smaller miners or don't miners like in remote areas that don't have the bandwidth can't access the information so how do we secure the chain in that sense what do you mean the information because they should be able to consume the header stream the header stream is just small hashes being sent around to each other and they're only the number of messages going from chain to chain that are the degree number of messages in the network so for the Peterson graph for example which is ten chains then that's

there are two for every node that sends two additional messages so it's not I guess I don't really understand your question yeah I think Sebastian's question is so today we have Bitcoin and in today Bitcoin block size is 1 MB right so every 10 minutes if I'm a Bitcoin miner I must get 1 MB worth of data very quickly and build on top of it right so when somebody else creates a block let's say Monica you create a block in New York I must get that 1 MB of data very quickly because I want to build on top

of it now now I can scale Bitcoin by increasing the block size so if you increase let's say the block size from 1 a and B to 100 MB now I need to get this 100 MB of data very quickly right in order to be competitive now what Sebastian is saying is now if so traditionally traditionally when we talk about scaling we which we want to reduce this requirement of 100 MB do something much lower right so so right now like let's say Bitcoin had a block size of 100 MB and you wanted to scale it using some other mechanism what you would try to do is you would want to

reduce the need for getting 100 MB of data to something lower like 10 MB but in cadena it feels like because if I'm a cadena miner and let's say I'm mining Bitcoin 1 and Bitcoin 2 I would need to get 100 MB for Bitcoin one and I would need to get 100 MB for Bitcoin but you don't need the 100 MB for a Bitcoin - all you need is the like one bite or like 64 bytes no but if I but like your assumption is each mining pool is mining all of the networks so if they're mining Bitcoin one as one is as well as Bitcoin - and if I would need to actually mined both those networks I

need to get data from both chains so it doesn't solve scaling because all it all it is equivalent to is an increase in block size like I could increase bitcoins block size from 100 MB to 200 MB or I could split it into two networks Bitcoin one and Bitcoin - 100 MB each in both cases I need to get there 200 MB of data in order to actually run my mining operation yes I agree with the idea that if you wanted to mine the entire network you would still need to be able to have all the data but that's the same problem that we have right now in terms of

people just wanting to be able to pump out more Bitcoin blocks or make bigger Bitcoin blocks but this is you if you don't you don't have to mine the entire network you can mine a subset of the network which means you don't have to consume all of the data you could mine only one chain and then just listen to the header stream for everybody else's successes in which case you would only need to receive if we're using 200 as our example and you would only need 100 Meg's from the previous block and all the others you could just listen it for so if bandwidth is your problem then you can only subscribe to a subset yes so I actually like that that makes total sense right so so the trade-off is if I

as a miner need to mine all the chains then I need to get the data of all the chains and if all miners are forced to get the data of all the chains cadena boils down to like a single block chain with an extremely large block size right so that's not scalable so the the point at which cadena would be scalable is if I if me as a miner is given the choice of needing to mine only one chain and forgetting about the other chain and then I need to listen to only one chain listen to a smaller data stream and other miners can work on that other chain and then there is scalability so I actually agree that yeah that's the

that's the fundamental trade-off that in in order for the system like cadena to actually scale really scale you would need to concentrate miners into certain chains like hay miners 35 39 and 38 focus on blocks in number 23 you five miners focus on some other chain and so on would you agree with that yes think that it seems like I should build a timing and bandwidth consideration into our mining model right now because we're doing a bunch of Markov simulations on like what people's expected value is on mining different chains and that right now at the moment we have it where the penalty for

switching between mining different chains is very low which causes our model to suggest that people are going to basically hop to mining whichever chain they think receive the last the least attention last round and with that as I mean I could just go in and dial in different assumptions into and right now I don't think we've necessarily considered bandwidth as being a huge lever but if you think that that's interesting like totally think that that's a worthwhile suggestion but for my respect I think bang with is is the fundamental barrier to descale ability at the lowest level I mean any any solution that we try to build on top

of an existing block watching to create more efficient watching systems whether it be proof of work or proof of stake what we're trying to do essentially is minimize the amount of bandwidth that needs to go from validators that maintain the chain for me it's sort of a sort of a fundamental thing in in this scalability discussion at a broader sense that most people are not addressing so we've we've had some we had a product project on recently blocked route is sort of building a content distribution network for for block chains that addresses this issue at the fundamental network level but I haven't I haven't seen any other

projects at least the ones we had on that sort of look at scaling from this perspective now you written a white paper which describes the different attack vectors possible with chain web and the way you may negate them could you run us through some of these and how you're mitigating those those attack vectors sure so the first one that we started looking at because it's it's like the fundamental it like the first one described in the Bitcoin white paper and all this is about 51% attacks and how like basically everybody screwed if somebody gets 51% control of your network and fine but if they don't have

51% but they have less percentage of your network how does that mitigate the potential likelihood of somebody being able to attack your chain and so when it comes to double spend attacks because of these shared references between chains where like Bitcoin 2 has the hash of Bitcoin 1 in it not only does it quickly force you to resolve any potential Forks but also as block depth increases and it's a block that's being attacked gets further in the Buried not only by blocks on its own chain but by pure chains that reference it also getting buried you you

start having to not only replace at any given chain but you also have to replace any pure chains that happen to reference it so when we started looking into strategies that would require something that somebody would use in order to replace a block and do a double spend attack they have to honestly mine the network in order to generate pier blocks like more than 60% of their hash power actually has to go to honestly mine the network in order to try to attack the network and they just they exponentially fall behind in terms of that attack that that's not really a feasible situation well that was the first one that we looked at this is the whole like the

black rope originally produced this chains sharing each other's hashes as a security measure that's how that really gets it exposed it's how we come up with the turn um we use the term merkel cone because it's like Merkle tree but it has an additional dimension on top of it so it because of the way that the merkel cone propagates exponentially across all these different pure chains double spend attacks are very hard okay that's that sounds like an interesting proposition so like in let's say like you have like a cadena network and you have ten chains in this cadena network right and you know like the total mining power in this

whole network is X like X data hashes or X X whatever unit right you can think of it like thousand tera hashes some large number and then you have cadena chain one k1 you have got in a chain 2 k2 and you have a pill karina chain 10 K 10 so and the total hashing power is thousand tera hashes is it the case that cadena one gets 100 tera hash cadena 2 gets 200 tera hash and these thousand are distributed equally between the chains or how does mining power get distributed across these chains so it's the it's the miners choice which

chains to mine and this is part of what the simulation project that we've been working on in terms of building the the model for the network graph and then building the miner graph and then having them run through simulations on how they would mind that are we pause it obviously we haven't built it yet so all of this is still simulation land but that the network when actually stabilizes to a point where they're all roughly equal because any chain that you think has less hash power becomes an attractive target so you want if your chain if you think the peep a lot of people are mining a chain that you're on then you're competing too much and you want to hop to a chain where the collective hashing power is lower which

actually causes the entire network to to stabilize there also the fact that you have to wait for that the blocks to be finished on your peer chains before you can include their proofs in your header serves - it's sort of like you've tied them all together in this three-legged race where they can't get too far ahead you can only get diameter number of blocks ahead of the network as a whole which means that any chain can only fall diameter number of blocks behind before it starts to slow everybody else down which then causes people to dog pile on to the chain that's holding them back so this is the like that the balancing network we haven't we've called it given this event horizon of blocks various

names are lead chain of engineer calls at the cut-set which i think is sort of a weird term I was calling it the meniscus for awhile nobody likes that one nobody liked meniscus so I'm going with event horizon for now which is like the latest block for all of the chains and where they are and this is the idea that the hashing power will pool to the lowest chain because that's the one that is the most attractive so that's an interesting idea so the basic idea is that you somehow want to you have these ten chains and you somehow want these chains to progress at similar speeds so if if a block is created here you want

the other to create blocks and so what you're effectively doing is you are somehow incentivizing the miners to switch to the slowest chain so that the whole system can make progress and when the miners switch to the slowest chain automatically the harsh power distributes equally so right so you start with let's say a thousand Terra hashes and you end up with a system where there's like 100 Terra ashes equally across all the chains right so it won't it won't be exactly equal but like some might have 80 some might have 120 that but like it you will aim to get like somewhat equal distribution now the question becomes that suppose now I'm a

minor on chain five right so I'm a minor on chain five and I'm a large minor and now chain five has 80 80 like 80 Terra hashes right now I'm a large minor and my mining capacity right now I'm not mining today 'no but my mining capacity is 100 terra hashes right I can 51% attack chain five because those guys are 80 and I have 100 pointed waiting to go so what I do here is I'd say okay let me put those 100 on just chain five and let

me just create one invalid transaction that creates I don't know a billion cadena and just gives it to me and I basically create that block very quickly on chain five and because my block appears quickly because I have more hash power than the others that invalid block propagates to change seven eight two and one and they include my invalid block when they create their next block and so my block becomes canonical do you think this is a problem so the way that that would become resolved in chain web is like you're not the only minor on chain five somebody

else will attempt to validate your block as a way of putting the next block on top of chain five and see that your block isn't actually valid in which case they will suggest this as an alternative and since people are mining like you would mine a subset of chains mine like chains five six and seven then somebody who is mining five six and seven C's that like five is actually not a valid block and we'll suggest an alternative block and include that in six and seven and then whoever is mall so mining six and seven will see this other proposed block five and that it's not included in this other proposed block six which will then cause them to reject that block five and the block six that includes a

reference to the bad block five like this idea that a bad block would never be validated by another miner is like I think the core of why that doesn't necessarily work so what you're saying is long you're gonna use the other chains as a judiciary of kind right so I am the I'm the big baguette mad attacker and let's say Sebastian represent the honest miners of chain five if I am the attacker of chain five and so I was fast because I have more hashing power I produced the block quickly it broadcast quickly now you're saying like Oh Sebastian but will also create the competing block and try to broadcast it right now now the whole network changed one to ten must decide his Meijer's

block canonical or Sebastian's block canonical so the whole network in some senses needs to become a judiciary yes but they can be a judiciary only if they know if only if they store the whole block chain of chain five but only if they're mining a smaller subset of any connected subset of the network like five six and seven or three four and five okay so let's say I propagate my hash tube from one to eight blocks changed one to it here my thing and Sebastian things Sebastian's honest thing goes only to nine and ten I win well but then it'll

go to nine and ten and then nine we'll have to reconcile with eight and then you'll have to go and you'll pick which one of these either nine or eight so this is because of the way that it's webbed together you have to make calls very fast and yes we assume that people are mining more than one chain which allows them to cross check each other if everybody only mined one chain then we would have a problem but because it's designed for people to hop between chains and mined more than one chain it forces them to reconcile with each other I mean let's let's move on to some other topic but I feel like the fundamental issue with cadena is is exactly this it

is it is that in order for reconciliation to work you start to need bigger and bigger juries and ultimately you'll boil down to the system where everybody needs to mine every chain which means everybody needs to get the data from every chain which means actually it it will not end up solving scalability I don't think that everybody needs to mine every chain but that's that's a fair critique yeah okay so let's move on to the next name Sebastian so there was a I wanted to come back to this earlier and her discussion but we sort of got sidetracked with these other topics but

there's one passage in the white paper that that kind of struck me and I wanted to maybe get get you to perhaps explain it and in your own words so in on page two there's a section where you talk about proof of stake and proof of work and you argue that proof of stake validators would be subject to money transmitter regulation at least in the US as it reads here can you expand on this logic and what what evidence you have to support this this claim that proof of stake validators would likely be subject to money transmitter regulations sure so this is the reason that we take this position is the idea

that right now it's - it takes too long and it's too hard to pass new laws to try to regulate blockchain and it's gonna take a while in order to get new legislation out there especially in the United States where these takings take forever and people debate about them for a long time that trying to pass new laws for blockchain is going to take a while so the only way that people are gonna try to regulate blockchain for at least the short term is to try to apply existing legislation to blockchain and the way that existing legislation works for money transmitters is essentially if you put money up and we know who you are

and then you clear a transaction that sends money to like al-qaeda or something that we should punish you because you are enabling money transmissions to somebody who's sketchy so when it comes to proof of work miners because they don't necessarily have any stake in the network and we don't necessarily know who they are if they clear a transaction by mining that sends money to al-qaeda then it's not their fault because they weren't actually being a money transmitter because they didn't put any money up and we don't know who they are

but when it comes to proof of stake part of the argument about making proof of stake work is that you had to prove your identity and you had to stake some sort of amount of money and because you put up that money and then you sent money to al-qaeda you can fall under existing money translator legislation much easier than a miner who doesn't look like what the law already considers to be a money transmitter so that's why this area it's that the shape of staking looks a lot like the shape of existing money transmitter legislation whereas the shape of mining doesn't look very similar to existing money transmitter laws so that's why we're concerned about

validation in general like all of these services where a fund is trying to turn their fund into being a validator unlike yose or something where they then clear a transaction that then causes I don't know something illegal that they could be held liable for it I mean so don't you think that if this were the case if regulators really wanted to go after after pick what I mean like I mean Bitcoin in the eyes of US regulators I would say I mean to some extent perhaps not everyone but the some extent Bitcoin is seen as a currency where a lot of illicit transactions occur or at least have occurred in the past don't

you think that regulators could just go after mining pools that because we know we're mining is concentrated where they could force mining pools to do kyc on the miners that access the pool I don't think that legally they could make that case right now that mining is money transmission but I do think that they can make the case that validating is money transmission that's that's our stance on it that validating looks really similar to existing legislation and my name is not mayor I think you'll have a lot to say about this yeah and this is because like the validated is identified with one public key whereas a minor is not yeah or that a minor may not even be

participating in the network necessarily they could just be mining a block with their hashing power and then immediately selling all their Bitcoin and they don't care about like staking money in the network it's this this like staking thing that is the that is the problem because then it looks like being having a money transmitter license is like you know you staked a bunch of cash in order for somebody to then be able to use you as a transmitter that's what that shape starts to look like you but I would say that that up I mean the the office keishon of identity that you have in Bitcoin mining can be you you can rep you lit you can replicate that obfuscation in proof is stick as well I mean okay you may have a key but I mean you can pretty easily I would say change

that that key for the next round of validations and the validator that's taking stake from from delegate errs doesn't necessarily have the identity on this for doing some sort of kyc of the delegate errs themselves so it's C it's the probabilistic nature of proof of work that really gives it the the slipperiness because as a Bitcoin miner there's always a nonzero chance that the block that you confirmed might not actually be the real confirmation it's this like invalidating you actually have to vote and then the vote is confirmed and you have finality it's the finality

thing that really makes it a certified transition with your name on it in Bitcoin it's like there's always some probability as to whether you did or did not confirm it and it's not really a line in the sand it's this finality issue that actually makes it slippery that's a very interesting argument I must say like that's something and that's an entirely new way of looking at it so what you're saying is if I'm a minor in Bitcoin and I created this block it had a bunch of transactions and I published it I can argue that I published some data but I wasn't hundred percent sure it was going to be included in the Bitcoin blockchain it could have been orphaned so I wasn't processing

transactions I was just publishing data and because I didn't have certainty that that data would go into Bitcoin I'm not transmitting money but in proof of stake if I vote on a block and after my vote the block gets finalized so let's say like the voting has happened and I cast the determining vote that finalized that block then what I'm essentially doing is in the process of voting I'm making the transactions final and that makes me more like a money transmitter because while I was publishing that data I knew that if I publish it these transactions would be considered final yeah that's super

interesting right i I don't know if the regulators are gonna look at it like this or not who knows I mean that's our interpreter we just think that proof-of-work is safer because it has this other like dimensional element to it and i really don't want to go to jail I'm sure like the proof of stake designers so you know like you know like in cosmos so I'm actually building the cosmos validator so this is a topic that's really close to my heart in cosmos yes like the validator it could be doing things that are like casting votes it's like you know or like you know in cosmos 66% of the network has to cos I cast a yes vote

for the block to go in the chain and be final so let's say you know like 65% has done and then like my validator casts that decisive vote that switches it over to 66% and then creates a new block that takes that vote as then maybe they maybe they could be this element that yes I did put the deciding vote in there they validated it put deciding vote in there but I think if you look at something like a source that argument would be quite weak in Tasers because in Tasers even if you create a block that block is not final until like 10 or 20 blocks are built on top of your

block it's like Bitcoin so cosmos is not like Bitcoin the block is final and you don't need to have more blocks on top of it to be final but Intel sauce is like like Bitcoin where you need ten things to come on top of yours before it gets considered final so if that's the argument then tezo's maker is fine but a cosmos validator may not be so that that will require interesting I actually love cosmos I think cosmos is a great project and I think Zaki is amazing and their whole team is great so just because we're not proof of stake doesn't mean that necessarily work like fundamentally theologically opposed to proof of stake if we look at so the blockchain ecosystem at the moment we can start to

discern some some some applications and use cases for each one you know a Bitcoin is sort of shaping up to be a digital gold right an asset that you keep and that you know will gain value within the future if Nerium is shaping up to be at least in it the initial use case is in project funding etc what is what is the use case here for 14 web what's what's the application that you're hoping will emerge is like the killer application for chain with so I like to talk about the like blockchain as a stack where for example if you were

in a launch a project and you wanted to do a token sale and then you wanted to have an application that would be able to move a bunch of transactions through your app and then you would sell your token on aetherium but you would want to program your app impact and have your transactions run through chain web because we posit that we're gonna have much higher throughput and therefore much lower transaction fees and we will be able to handle high-volume transactions in a way that right now aetherium you're sort of struggling to have the high volume of transactions and we we would like to have the ability to have interoperability between all of

these other different layers of the blockchain stack if you wanted to launch our token on eath we would want to be the computer underneath because we have a super simple smart contract language that we think is very easy and has really nice tooling on top of a chain that will be able to handle your throughput so we're very conscious of your time here and we we want to spend some time unpacked but I think we might have to leave that for a future episode okay give me like two minutes unpacked okay sure cuz it's really cool and really everybody should go and take a look at it we have the developer SDKs are up you can like treat your computer as if it were a tiny node and right packed right now it's so we've taken like basically the

completely opposite track from solidity and all of this like virtual machine land where we're trying to replicate an entire computer on a blockchain it is non turing-complete on purpose it's more like sequel for the blockchain instead of sequel for database we have packed for blockchain and it has all the things like key signatures and governance and who owns what and who can change what all of that is built in automatically it has a full formal verification spec and we have this really awesome thing now that we've just developed called verifiable interfaces where you can essentially like program what an ER c20 should look like and give it a bunch of specs and then if somebody implements it incorrectly it will warn them like Oh your er C 20 equivalent is actually malformed so you can can't have like we

did the summer a bunch of like bad ER c 20s that come out so all of that stuff all built in already packed is like I could spend a whole nother hour talking about it but talk about notion yeah well we perhaps that we can have your own in the future to go more in depth unpacked because I mean chain web did take a while to unpack here unpacked so I didn't want to spend some time on on kadena and your private blockchain offering so how does Canada interact with with chain web and what's the goal here with regards to the types of clients that you're approaching with this with this platform yeah so we have we have two signed clients right now

that we're working with one of them is this health care insurance project that we've already I've already talked about briefly but in general the idea is that we want to be a way of onboarding existing businesses and new business applications from private to public in a way that is safe and secure and it's a way of unlocking sort of existing business value in a new way new liquidity pipeline so I talked about the health insurance one where you know you can pay doctors to update their own information we've also talked to a bunch of different companies some of them are some of them are cooler than

others our other big client right now is a reinsurance company that does insurance products they do like home insurance and stuff and so we've been discussing with them something where they can have a broader pipeline for validating their auditor data so using like third-party auditors that can contribute data in a more tightly verified way to their pipelines so that they can have a better less leakage and their insurance flow basically so we have the side where we deal mostly with private and then we also have a focus on dealing with public and then everything in between so we talked about the idea of connecting smart TV to the wall and

then having a people in public on the public blockchain get paid like five dollars off their Netflix subscription or something in order to provide their Smart TV data to a private blockchain that would then use that information which would be better than what we have now because right now like who knows who's looking at your data and what you're providing them this would give you control over your own data which you could monetize in public but then they could mine in private so there's we have this idea that there's not private and public there's just one blockchain with different permissions so to touch on this in the in the white paper uuugh there's a part there where it references sort of the scalability benefits of kadena in a private setting

and it makes reference to sort of five to fifteen thousand nodes as being you know the threshold where it begins to exhibit linear scalability with me which is sort of expected at some point that your system is going to stop scaling exponentially and more linearly but give it given that you know a network like Bitcoin you know as I just looked up earlier has about 10,000 nodes at what point does a network like go from being a private network to just being another public network does it preserve the benefits that sort of the initial consortium or set of clients set out to to implement and what where's the line they're like where were you sort of

switched from being one to the other so the our simulations for scaleable BFT which is our private consensus mechanism is we we've never run a simulation more than 500 nodes but given that our other options for people trying to do private blockchain right now or like hyper ledger that doesn't scale past four nodes and corta which isn't even really a blockchain and all of these like other private blockchain technologies like we fundamentally believe that we have a better private blockchain than anybody else right now and that the idea is that you would for one of these applications

start it in scalable BFT in the consortium model and then as you see the potential benefits of unlocking some of these pieces of data into public you can connect them to the public chain so it's more about how you want to monetize your data if it's still the idea that you want to share in a consortium model like we can scale that out for some certain amount of time but it's still a permissioned model whereas if you wanted to allow exposure to some of these pieces of data to the public like we're talking to a fund right now that creates products for people to put in their like

mutual fund portfolios it's not Treasury bonds but it's sort of like Treasury bonds they want to create a tokenized representation of one of their funds so that would be a public representation of a private blockchain that represents an asset if that makes any sense I wanted to take something to to ask you you know your thoughts and opinions about where we stand right now with regards to enterprise blockchain permissions blockchain what-have-you previously I co-founded a company that sold I guess enterprise blockchain solutions for traceability to do large insurance companies you know companies in the finance sector and I came out of

that with having been confronted with the challenge of implementing blockchain in enterprise sort of skeptical to like where things are going in this space right now and I could point to a few things namely is that blockchain is sort of orthogonal to a lot of the business models in in finance and most of the financial sector whether insurance or banking or financial services and although a lot of a lot of companies obviously are paying attention to blockchain and experimenting with proof of concepts etc none of the know that has really panned out and you know we've been saying for about three years they're like that Enterprise is gonna

start adopting blockchain but even the largest consulting companies like IBM have been pumping out pocs and are struggling to convert those into production systems I think mostly it's because of this orthogonal nature of what block teams represent to large companies and just failing to see the ROI I guess as everybody is joining consortiums and trying to figure out like what they're gonna do next why is credit card in a different in a sense and like what's your what's your go to market strategy for bringing customers on board consortiums on board and then converting them over sort of this public this more public network as

you describe it our vision for Kadena as a whole is that we because of how our smart contracts function you can essentially create importable services so stick with me here and I'm going to tie back to enterprise but imagine on the public chain that you have building block services that provide a network that gives you a lot of flexibility so you have we're gonna set up a background check service that's on the blockchain and a escrow service and a smart contract insurance and all of these

components that we have right now in the economy they don't function great and they're expensive and they essentially push all of the payment on to the consumers end which sucks so instead if we have them in an imported smart contract way on a public bot chain then you say as entrepreneur want to create a rent an apartment service on the blockchain so what you would do is you would have a way of showing your listings and then when somebody wants to rent an apartment you would import the background check smart contract and you would use it and for some sort of micro transaction fee you pay the verifier of

the background check directly through their smart contract you would have some sort of escrow service which you would pay directly or maybe you just do it built into your smart contract and these building block components would help you do the part of your real estate apartment rental startup that is most interesting to you which is figuring out how to expose listings without having to deal with all of these other terrible components that are necessary for a company like ensuring your smart contracts and doing background checks and whatever so then when we're talking about having these services on a chain there are a lot of companies that already have these services they just

don't know how to effectively monetize them or they're already cost centers from their company that by having an Oracle to public blockchain they could monetize what's already a cost center for them so imagine like I don't Chase Bank Chase Bank already has a department that does background checks and if they could have a smart contract on the public blockchain where people could pay them to do background checks they could run that through their pipeline and monetize an existing business unit that right now is only a cost center for them so this is it's sort of like applying the sharing economy to the components that already make up very large businesses so this is

a way of onboarding Chase Bank on to enterprise POC Jane I'm not saying like Deere Chase Bank please go in and rip out all of your existing database because they're never going to do that but instead we can go to them and say look let's create a new product that monetizes an existing cost center in your business that doesn't have to connect to any of the rest of your network that's totally secure and let's see how it goes because they're much more likely to try to create a new revenue stream that's disconnected from the rest of their business then they are to try to like rip out the guts of their existing infrastructure it's super hard to sell that because nobody wants to touch something that's basically working

for something that doesn't necessarily have any major advantages but potential new revenue streams everybody gets excited for potential new revenue streams I get that and I think that's the fundamental issue here and that's the sort of fundamental problems with the whole premise of enterprise blockchain is that it is orthogonal to the like to do to try to get Chase Bank to monetize an existing service is really the way that they already do business especially when you're opening it up on a sort of public network and I think that coming away from my experience in my previous company that

it's not so much a technological issue it's not so much about the technology it's really a change management issue and that all this evangelism that all of us have been doing for so all these years in large companies and enterprise about blockchain technology I think we've been doing it wrong and it really comes down to like what is the future of identity what is the future of payments what is the future of insurance what is that going to look like in the future and and currently I think most people that are addressing that are talking to innovation departments at banks and financial services companies insurance what-have-you

we're not really doing this they're still spending time saying oh I mean look you could you could take this existing thing plug a blockchain into it and start making money in the secret system but that's that doesn't exist yet so I guess my question is remains like what what is the what is really the the go to market strategy where have you I sort of identified some some key industries or types of clients where you can take kadena and really provide an out-of-the-box solution to start a generator like generate revenue and to prove these use cases right because the proof is in the pudding sure I mean we have two existing clients we already have a working MVP I don't know what to

tell you other than like we're doing it and we don't have to pay like some companies like pay people to use pocs like people come to us they want to use our stuff sometimes we have to turn people away because they're like we have this great idea we're like great but we can't execute it for you you have to have your own engineering team we're just gonna give you consulting and like if people aren't ready to go we're not gonna work with them but right now big people are coming to us say if they say that we have a thing that works we do so what's the what's the road map like in the next so you mentioned earlier an SDK where people can already start using the platform can you talk more about that sure so we've got two teams right now working

on both the language development and tooling for developers and another team that's working on chain web and protocol development and so we've split them into two test nets so we're right now working on both of them at the same time the packed test net is supposed to come up next month where people can see it's gonna use a database to generate blocks but it's essentially gonna have all of the bells and whistles for a development environment where people can put their smart contracts up onto our IDE and have error messages and it'll hook up to the formal verification system and this will be more of a simulated experience of what developing on cadena will be like and then meanwhile we're working on chain web test net which should be up by

the end of the year which will it's basically just a way of testing how blocks get generated in Forks get resolved in the consensus mechanism and then we're gonna merge them to create a unified test net when then the goal is to have the maintenance around the second quarter of next year great so we'll have links to all that in show notes if people are interested they can go to to the Canadian website read the white papers which you've you've co-written with your co-founders and and learn more about how Canada will be building up this this chain web network and then also implementing their technologies in enterprise so thanks

Monica for coming on the show today thanks guys this is great thank you for joining us on this week's episode we released new episodes every week you can find and subscribe to the show on iTunes Spotify YouTube SoundCloud or wherever you listen to podcast and if you have a Google home or Alexa device you can tell it to listen to the latest episode of the epicenter podcast go to epicenter TV slash subscribe for a full list of places where you can watch and listen while you're there be sure to sign up for the newsletter so you get new episodes in your inbox as their release if you want to interact with us guests or other podcast listeners you can follow us on Twitter and please leave us a review on iTunes it helps me to find the show and we're always happy to read them but thanks so

much and we look forward to being back next [Music] [Music]