5 ms·

What is Cardano? An introduction to the cryptocurrency being built by scientists

28 points by impostervt 9y ago

marsrover 9y ago
More detailed information: https://cardanodocs.com/introduction/ https://cardanodocs.com/introduction/
rushsteve1 9y ago
While the concept of a peer-reviewed cryptocurrency is an interesting one, and certainly has merit, I can't seem to figure out what Cardano offers that existing, and well established, cryptocurrencies like Ethereum don't.
- impostervt 9y ago
  Nothing, as far as I can tell. The goal seems to be just to do it better. There MAY be an idea of keeping the computing layer private, meaning you can run computations w/o everyone seeing how it works, which is the case with Ethereum block chains. That's just the impression I get from reading their docs.
- superquest 9y ago
  They mostly pitch how their development process / governance is better. "Scientific" is the word they always use.
- gremlinsinc 9y ago
  Ethereum is pretty flawed actually, it's easily congested when new ICO's launch for example, and some other network issues. Though, I can't say how this new crypto will handle things, I AM interested in seeing how Nxt/Ardor saga play out. It's much more secure, and stable than btc/ethereum and I think the child chain setup is going to be very popular.
frisby 9y ago
"...where you can Buy XMR (the token name of Cardano)" This is incorrect XMR is the token name of Monero ADA is the token name of Cardano
sneak 9y ago
This is advertising.
- rushsteve1 9y ago
  I disagree. Within the last week Cardano has gone from relatively unknown to the 6th highest market cap on https://coinmarketcap.com https://coinmarketcap.com. There is certainly enough of a surge in interest to make this a relevant post.
  - marsrover 9y ago
    I'm pretty sure the fact that the "article" links to both Coinbase and Binance with referral IDs classifies this as advertising.
    - Gargoyle 9y ago
      I wouldn't mind if the link was replaced with one that didn't include "buy now" links, but the topic of "What is Cardano?" is perfectly fine for this board.
    - rushsteve1 9y ago
      Oh I didn't even notice those were links. That puts a very different spin on the article...
infinity0 9y ago
Brief review I did of the paper a while back: Forkable strings (a la Ouroboros) makes unrealistic assumptions. Ouroboros is a Proof-of-Stake altcoin that comes with a security proof based on the idea of "forkable strings". As a brief introduction: each round/epoch consists of a sequence (of length n) of leaders, each chosen from a set of stakeholders, that have the authority to decide between multiple valid branches of a fork. They model this, using a concept they invent called a "forkable string", and prove various security properties about it. The full definition can be read in page 16 of the Ouroboros paper. One key assumption is that they assume all the honest leaders (say, at indexes H = [i], a subsequence of the full sequence [0, 1, ..., n-1]), will only commit to chains that have increasing depth, as i increases. For example, suppose that our sequence of leaders is 5 stakeholders long [s1 ... s5], and stakeholders s2, s3, s5 are honest. Suppose we start off at block O. Then suppose that s2 commits a new block B 2 blocks away from O: O <-- ? <-- B[s2] (The arrows go in the opposite direction in the paper, but I prefer it this way because that is how the references go. ? knows about O, O doesn't know about ?.) Then a "forkable string" assumes that s3 knows about B[s2], and since s3 is honest (as we assumed for our scenario) she will commit her new block C, >2 blocks away from O. Suppose she commits it 3 blocks away: O <-- ? <-- ? <-- C[s3] Then s5 knows about C[s3], and being honest, will commit his new block E, >3 blocks away from O: O <-- ? <-- ? <-- ? [..] <-- E[s5] Using this property (and others) of forkable strings, the authors then go on to prove various security properties about Ouroboros. As you might have noticed already, this property assumes that all honest nodes can reliably receive all other honest nodes' blocks. The paper in fact freely admits this in various places, e.g. on page 10 and page 16. I was already skeptical when reading that, but the fact that this assumption forms such a key requirement of their security proof raised my eyebrow(s) even further. If every honest node can reliably receive all honest nodes' blocks, we don't need any complex leadership selection algorithm nor the idea of forkable strings. Everyone can just sync (union) their view of what blocks they've seen with each other via this magical "reliable channel", and run a deterministic pure algorithm like `sort | head -n1` to disambiguate any forks! The whole point of a maxvalid() algorithm (e.g. PoW in bitcoin) is to secure the case where nodes including honest ones, don't have reliable channels to each other e.g. because they are under attack, or because of pervasive network latency. As soon as you assume they already have a reliable channel to everyone else, you have already "begged the question", and anything you build on top of this (like `sort | head -n1`) is guaranteed to "work". (Another strange thing, is that the authors allow the attacker to selectively show different honest nodes different stuff [1], but for some reason is not able to prevent honest nodes from seeing all other honest nodes' stuff.) [1] e.g. page 17 "the honest player associated with the third slot is shown a chain of length 1 produced by the adversarial player of slot 2" but is unable to see the other (2) node, that eventually forms the ^t chain ("tine").
thisisit 9y ago
Can someone please explain to me why is this being voted up? This an obvious fluff which hand waves through most of the stuff by saying - refer to the cardano website. Then, if you are impressed by the lack of info, there are two referral links for coinbase and binance.
Talyen42 9y ago
science-based dragon-based cryptocurrency built on peer review pixiedust of the academia elite there may be some good ideas buried under all this bullshit marketing buzzwordery, we'll probably find out next year

28 points by impostervt 9y ago

More detailed information: https://cardanodocs.com/introduction/ https://cardanodocs.com/introduction/

While the concept of a peer-reviewed cryptocurrency is an interesting one, and certainly has merit, I can't seem to figure out what Cardano offers that existing, and well established, cryptocurrencies like Ethereum don't.

impostervt 9y ago
Nothing, as far as I can tell. The goal seems to be just to do it better. There MAY be an idea of keeping the computing layer private, meaning you can run computations w/o everyone seeing how it works, which is the case with Ethereum block chains. That's just the impression I get from reading their docs.
superquest 9y ago
They mostly pitch how their development process / governance is better. "Scientific" is the word they always use.
gremlinsinc 9y ago
Ethereum is pretty flawed actually, it's easily congested when new ICO's launch for example, and some other network issues. Though, I can't say how this new crypto will handle things, I AM interested in seeing how Nxt/Ardor saga play out. It's much more secure, and stable than btc/ethereum and I think the child chain setup is going to be very popular.

frisby 9y ago

"...where you can Buy XMR (the token name of Cardano)" This is incorrect XMR is the token name of Monero ADA is the token name of Cardano

sneak 9y ago

This is advertising.

rushsteve1 9y ago
I disagree. Within the last week Cardano has gone from relatively unknown to the 6th highest market cap on https://coinmarketcap.com https://coinmarketcap.com. There is certainly enough of a surge in interest to make this a relevant post.
- marsrover 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure the fact that the "article" links to both Coinbase and Binance with referral IDs classifies this as advertising.
  - Gargoyle 9y ago
    I wouldn't mind if the link was replaced with one that didn't include "buy now" links, but the topic of "What is Cardano?" is perfectly fine for this board.
  - rushsteve1 9y ago
    Oh I didn't even notice those were links. That puts a very different spin on the article...

infinity0 9y ago

Brief review I did of the paper a while back: Forkable strings (a la Ouroboros) makes unrealistic assumptions. Ouroboros is a Proof-of-Stake altcoin that comes with a security proof based on the idea of "forkable strings". As a brief introduction: each round/epoch consists of a sequence (of length n) of leaders, each chosen from a set of stakeholders, that have the authority to decide between multiple valid branches of a fork. They model this, using a concept they invent called a "forkable string", and prove various security properties about it. The full definition can be read in page 16 of the Ouroboros paper. One key assumption is that they assume all the honest leaders (say, at indexes H = [i], a subsequence of the full sequence [0, 1, ..., n-1]), will only commit to chains that have increasing depth, as i increases. For example, suppose that our sequence of leaders is 5 stakeholders long [s1 ... s5], and stakeholders s2, s3, s5 are honest. Suppose we start off at block O. Then suppose that s2 commits a new block B 2 blocks away from O: O <-- ? <-- B[s2] (The arrows go in the opposite direction in the paper, but I prefer it this way because that is how the references go. ? knows about O, O doesn't know about ?.) Then a "forkable string" assumes that s3 knows about B[s2], and since s3 is honest (as we assumed for our scenario) she will commit her new block C, >2 blocks away from O. Suppose she commits it 3 blocks away: O <-- ? <-- ? <-- C[s3] Then s5 knows about C[s3], and being honest, will commit his new block E, >3 blocks away from O: O <-- ? <-- ? <-- ? [..] <-- E[s5] Using this property (and others) of forkable strings, the authors then go on to prove various security properties about Ouroboros. As you might have noticed already, this property assumes that all honest nodes can reliably receive all other honest nodes' blocks. The paper in fact freely admits this in various places, e.g. on page 10 and page 16. I was already skeptical when reading that, but the fact that this assumption forms such a key requirement of their security proof raised my eyebrow(s) even further. If every honest node can reliably receive all honest nodes' blocks, we don't need any complex leadership selection algorithm nor the idea of forkable strings. Everyone can just sync (union) their view of what blocks they've seen with each other via this magical "reliable channel", and run a deterministic pure algorithm like `sort | head -n1` to disambiguate any forks! The whole point of a maxvalid() algorithm (e.g. PoW in bitcoin) is to secure the case where nodes including honest ones, don't have reliable channels to each other e.g. because they are under attack, or because of pervasive network latency. As soon as you assume they already have a reliable channel to everyone else, you have already "begged the question", and anything you build on top of this (like `sort | head -n1`) is guaranteed to "work". (Another strange thing, is that the authors allow the attacker to selectively show different honest nodes different stuff [1], but for some reason is not able to prevent honest nodes from seeing all other honest nodes' stuff.) [1] e.g. page 17 "the honest player associated with the third slot is shown a chain of length 1 produced by the adversarial player of slot 2" but is unable to see the other (2) node, that eventually forms the ^t chain ("tine").

thisisit 9y ago

Can someone please explain to me why is this being voted up? This an obvious fluff which hand waves through most of the stuff by saying - refer to the cardano website. Then, if you are impressed by the lack of info, there are two referral links for coinbase and binance.

Talyen42 9y ago

science-based dragon-based cryptocurrency built on peer review pixiedust of the academia elite there may be some good ideas buried under all this bullshit marketing buzzwordery, we'll probably find out next year