Community Debriefs Weekly Debrief

243 Aug 11 Community Debrief – WBA investment forum – crypto carbon footprints – CPT vs TPS

0:00:00 – Rao’s Tech Update 184. –…

0:09:33 – Greg – board update – Masters Services Agreement with the China team

0:10:34 – Community Week n Review

0:12:20 – Steve H GBA – Government Blockchain Association update. 3 minute presentation on DAASL at WBA investment forum .

0:16:07 – Steve Ross Talbot – recap of his presentation

0:20:52 – Rao recap – Social impact business – NFT’s for low income artists.

0:24:22 – SRT – worried it muddied the waters

0:26:24 – Darryl – investor explainer video preview.

0:31:43 – Discussion – Nora – we should be careful about the claims we make about climate.

0:38:00 – Darryl – Greg was right!

0:39:20 – Cointelegraph article: Measuring success: Offsetting crypto carbon emissions necessary for adoption?… “crypto organizations are now expected to estimate the carbon footprint of their digital asset holdings: “

0:42:44 – Greg – I want to draw attention to a marketing push re:TPS numbers. Scaling is directly related to the ability to deploy more nodes. This is the whole point of horizontal scaling. If a project gives out a single number to explain their TPS, they don’t scale as you add hardware. Any chain that is giving a TPS that is not contingent upon the number of nodes deployed, is saying up front: “we don’t scale”. We need to tell this story as clearly as possible. If you want to reduce it to. a single number, the number you want to reduce it to is the CPT, Cost Per Transaction. And you can measure that cost in either dollars and cents or Euros or Renminbi, or you can measure it in terms of energy cost: KWh. The way to boil it down: CPT not TPS. If a company is doing ERP – Enterprise Resource Planning, they have a particular transaction rate they need to know – how many servers? Our answer: We can show metric that says: if you want to hit this TPS, you will want to run this many nodes with these characteristics, etc.

0:46:37 – Greg – in 2001 / 2002 – all of us at Microsoft were talking about Cost Per Transaction.

0:47:15 – Nora – Bitcoin took us backwards? Greg – exactly right. Blockchain architectures though they were a major advance in terms of availability and eventual consistency, however there are real engineering tradeoffs when you do that and you need to know when you want to make those tradeoffs.

0:49:30 – Greg – There was this great tool – bitcoin – but it has taken a long time for people to take that idea and integrate it with wisdom that we have had forever. Blockchain people used a flat namespace, addresses inside Ethereum or Bitcoin are FLAT! They don’t have structure. That is a step backwards. We have known for a very long time that you need a notion of transaction AND you need a notion of query. We’ve also known that it has to be built into it form the beginning.

0:51:10 – Nora – why did the creator of bitcoin create an algorithm that is so wasteful?

0:53:49 – Greg – there is a communication gap. The Chinese community has been aware of the energy issue for a very long time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *