However, does it create any problems from the standpoint of

Question

However, does it create any problems from the standpoint of

blockchain immutability?
1. What happens if the provider of off-chain computations servers provides incorrect data?
2. What happens if it's unavailable? All blockchain ecosystems are almost self-sustainable systems. What if a critical part of a dapp depends on off-chain computations - will it halt until the off-chain provider goes online?

#boba #cryptocurrency #english

0

12.12.2021

8 ответов

21 просмотр

Naikee Автор вопроса

Thanks for response. Yes, fail-safe blockchain alternatives are a pretty safe option. In the future, it will probably even possible to use several off-chain computation providers to solve this problems - like mirrors if something goes wrong.

0

12.12.2021

Jan Liphardt

Naikee
Thanks for response. Yes, fail-safe blockchain al...

Yes! That's the right way to do that - that's the entire point of a distributed system, in the end!!

0

12.12.2021

Naikee Автор вопроса

Jan Liphardt
Yes, those are both excellent points. For #1, the ...

About #1, how this checking of Turing inputs and outputs can be performed? Via Curl? What should be done if some of the inputs/outputs is incorrect? Guess there's no such thing as slashing/punishment, since those are a smart contracts, not the nodes.

0

12.12.2021

Jan Liphardt

Naikee
About #1, how this checking of Turing inputs and o...

The inital calldata are public, as are data packed into events - so an independant party can: (1) take the inputs, (2) spin up their own AWS endpoints based on public code, and (3) compare the outputs they get with what is reported in the event data. But that only works if the DAPPS make public what code they run at their endpoint. For example, our stableswap test code is here: https://github.com/omgnetwork/optimism-v2/blob/turing-hybrid-compute/packages/boba/turing/AWS_code/turing_stableSwap.py

0

12.12.2021

Naikee Автор вопроса

Jan Liphardt
The inital calldata are public, as are data packed...

Thanks. Looks like it can be done by setting up common fraud provers from the community, which integrate every dapp with turing usage. However, how can they be rewarded to compensate expenses for running such nodes? Since the network doesn't receive any fees to the treasury, it could become a problem a bit later. The only suggestion now is to update economics a little bit via DAO voting, and send a small percentage of the reward received by stakers (when staking is launched) to such initiatives, because that should be in everyone's best interests to keep the network safe.

0

12.12.2021

Jan Liphardt

Naikee
Thanks. Looks like it can be done by setting up c...

Yup! Propose this please, if you put up a proposal will support

0

12.12.2021

Naikee Автор вопроса

Jan Liphardt
Yup! Propose this please, if you put up a proposal...

Okay, I'll post this today on forum in proposals. 🙂

0

12.12.2021

Jan Liphardt · Accepted Answer

Yes, those are both excellent points. For #1, the revised fraud-detector will allow TCE (Turing compute events) to be verified, too, which addresses part of the issue. But it does not really address a fraudulant DAPP for example that claims to be an efficient stableswap but isn't in reality. Basically, what is needed is a seperate system for (1) DAPPs publishing their Turing code - similar to verfiying your contract on Etherscan, and (2) a system for incentivizing people to check the public Turing inputs and outputs (available as events). For #2, that's also a great point. In test systems we have the contracts fallback on simpler logic when offchain is not available - so if offchain is available SQRT(3) = 1.73205 but when it's not available SQRT(3) = 1 (the usual solidity approximation)

209 похожих чатов

However, does it create any problems from the standpoint of

8 ответов

Похожие вопросы