【bitcoin mining process】

Simply put, players can get SLP token rewards through PvP and PvE battlebitcoin mining processs and completing daily tasks. Users can use SLP and AXS to breed new Axies or sell Axie, SLP and AXS tokens in exchange for real-world income.

In fact, as early as 2019, relevant departments in Inner Mongolia issued a policy to ethereum classic vs ethereum vs ethereum 2.0clean up virtual currency mining. In 2020, more than 30 big data and cloud computing companies were inspected on-site and found that 21 were actually encrypted mines. Among them are mining machine manufacturing companies Bitmain and Ebang International.In May of this year, Inner Mongolia took the lead in launching a new round of virtual currency mining and rectification activities in China. On May 25, the Inner Mongolia Development and Reform Commission issued the "Eight Measures for the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Development and Reform Commission on Resolutely Cracking Down on and Punishing Virtual Currency "Mining" (Draft for Comment).

ethereum 以太坊

The "Eight Measures" impose requirements on the prohibition of virtual currency mining on industrial parks, enterprises, Internet cafes, civil servants, and individuals. The punishments for violators are "unprecedented", including the revocation of licenses, inclusion in the blacklist of untrustworthiness, Transfer to discipline inspection and supervision organs for handling, transfer to judicial organs for handling, etc.Industry insiders said in an interview with a reporter from "Blockchain Daily" that although all parts of the country are rectifying, there are still virtual currency "mining" companies in some areas that use "big data industry" as a package to enjoy electricity, land, tax and other benefits. Policies and avoid supervision, the daily management of virtual currency mining and transactions should not be taken lightly. Scientific and technological means should be used to monitor and supervise, and focus on pre-prevention, mid-event control, and post-event disposal.The bidding behavior of the Inner Mongolia Development and Reform Commission is a concrete manifestation of the use of scientific and technological means to further implement the virtual currency supervision policy, and also demonstrates the resolute attitude of the Inner Mongolian authorities.Technical means to monitor virtual currency miningOn September 8, the official website of the Inner Mongolia Development and Reform Commission issued the "Announcement on Competitive Consultation and Procurement of Research Projects on the Policy Mechanism of "Cleaning up Virtual Currency Mining"."

According to the announcement, the main content of the research project has 10 items: (1) The generation and development process of virtual currency; (2) The position and attitude towards virtual currency "mining" and supervision situation at home and abroad; (3) The introduction of big data in our district , The original intention of cloud computing companies and the preferential policies provided; (4) the basic situation of the virtual currency "mining" project in our region (including costs, benefits, labor and electricity, taxation, etc.); (5) the virtual currency "mining" in our region Distribution of the main body of “mining”; (6) Identify virtual currency “mining” projects and big data and cloud computing projects through technical means; (7) Analysis of electricity consumption of mainstream mining machines and servers; (8) Clean up virtual currency “mining” "Relevant basis for behavior; (9) Impact on achieving carbon peak and carbon neutrality and accomplishing dual control goals of energy consumption; (10) Virtual currency "mining" behavior to establish a long-term regulatory mechanism related policy research, etc.The announcement shows that the project budget is within 300,000 yuan, and the bid opening time is 9:30 am on September 15.Provide some assets

Exchange assets in terms of computing time (weight in Substrate).XCM follows the instructionsAfter years of research and development, we finally formed a multi-chain market structure. There are currently more than 100 active public blockchains, many of which have their own unique applications, users, geographic distribution, security models, and design trade-offs. Regardless of what individual communities believe, the reality is that the universe tends to increase entropy, and the number of these networks is likely to continue to increase in the future.This type of market structure makes it necessary for us to obtain interoperability between different networks. Many developers have realized this, and the number of blockchain bridges surged last year, aiming to bring together increasingly fragmented networks. As of this writing, there have been more than 40 different bridging projects.

Interoperability unlocks innovation possibilitiesWith the development of a single ecosystem, they will develop their own unique advantages: stronger security, greater throughput, cheaper transaction fees, better privacy, specific resource supply (such as storage, computing, bandwidth), and Regional developer and user communities, etc. Bridges are important because they allow users to access new platforms and protocols; enable interoperability between protocols; allow developers to collaborate to build new products, and so on. More specifically, they have the following benefits:

ethereum 以太坊

Improve the productivity and utility of existing crypto assetsBridging allows existing encrypted assets to be transferred to a new platform to do new things. like:Send DAI to Terra to buy synthetic assets on Mirror, or earn revenue on AnchorSend TopShot from Flow to Ethereum as collateral for NFTfi

Use DOT and ATOM as collateral to lend DAI on MakerExpand the product features of existing agreementsBridging expands the design space that the protocol can implement. E.g:Use Yearn vaults for liquid mining on Solana and Avalanche

NFT cross-chain sharing order book on Ethereum and Flow on Rarible ProtocolIndex Coop's proof of equity index

骚情赋骨网

Unlock new feature use cases for users and developersBridging gives users and developers more choices. like:

Arbitrage the price of SUSHI across DEX on Optimism, Arbitrum and PolygonUse Bitcoin to pay for Arweave storage feesBid NFT on Tezos with PartyBidFrom an abstract perspective, a bridge can be defined as follows: a system that transmits information between two or more blockchains. And "information" can refer to assets, contract calls, proofs, or status. Most bridge designs consist of the following parts:Monitoring: There is usually a participant (or a "oracle", "verifier", "relayer") monitoring the status of the source chain.Message delivery/relay: After the participants receive the event, they need to transfer information from the source chain to the target chain.

Consensus: In some models, in order to forward information to the target chain, a consensus must be reached between participants monitoring the source chain.Signature: Participants need to encrypt and sign the information sent to the target chain, which can be single-signatured or as part of a threshold signature scheme.

There are roughly four types of bridging schemes, each of which has its advantages and disadvantages:Asset-specific: The sole purpose of this bridge type is to provide access to specific assets on external chains. These assets are usually "wrapped" assets (assets that are fully mortgaged by the underlying assets in custody or non-custody). Bitcoin is the most common asset bridged to other chains, and there are seven different bridges on Ethereum alone. This kind of bridging is the easiest to achieve, and obtain huge liquidity from it. But its functions are limited and need to be re-implemented on each target chain. Examples are wBTC and wrapped Arweave.

Chain-specific: A bridge between two chains, which usually supports the locking and unlocking of tokens on the source chain and the casting of arbitrary encapsulated assets on the target chain. Due to the limited complexity of these bridges, they can usually be marketed faster, but they are not easy to expand into the broader ecosystem. The use case is Polygon’s PoS bridge, which allows users to transfer assets from Ethereum to Polygon and vice versa, but only on these two chains.Application-specific: An application that provides access to two or more blockchains, but only for use in that application. The advantage of this kind of application itself is that the code base is small; instead of having a separate instance of the entire application on each blockchain, there are usually more lightweight and modular on each blockchain "Adapter". A blockchain that implements an "adapter" can access all other blockchains it is connected to, so there is a network effect. Their disadvantage is that it is difficult to extend this function to other applications (for example, from lending applications to transaction applications). Specific use cases are Compound Chain and Thorchain, which respectively build independent blockchains dedicated to cross-chain lending and transactions.

Generalized: A protocol designed to transmit information across multiple blockchains. Due to its low complexity, this design enjoys a strong network effect-a single integration of the project allows it to access the entire ecosystem within the bridge. The disadvantage is that some designs usually trade-off between security and decentralization to achieve this scalability effect. This may have complex and unexpected consequences for the ecosystem. One of the use cases is IBC, which is used to send information in two heterogeneous chains (with a guarantee of finality).In addition, according to the mechanism used to verify cross-chain transactions, there are roughly three types of bridge designs:Type 1: External validators & Federations (External validators & Federations)This type of bridging scheme usually has a group of verifiers that monitor the "mailbox" addresses on the source chain and perform operations on the target chain based on consensus. Asset transfer usually works like this: lock assets on the "mailbox", and then mint the same amount of assets on the target chain. These validators usually deposit separate tokens as collateral to ensure the security of the network.

Type 2: Light clients & RelaysParticipants monitor events on the source chain and generate encrypted packaging proofs about past events recorded on the chain. These proofs will be forwarded to the contract on the target chain (such as "light client") along with the block header, and then verify whether an event is recorded, and perform operations after verification. This design mechanism requires some participants to "relay" the block headers and proofs. Although users can "self-relay" transactions, there is indeed an active assumption that the relay will continue to forward data. This is a relatively secure bridging design because it guarantees the effective delivery of trustlessness without trusting intermediate entities. But it is also resource-intensive, because developers must build a new smart contract on each new target chain to parse the source chain's state proof; the verification process itself requires a large amount of gas.

Type 3: Liquidity networksThis is similar to a peer-to-peer network, where each node acts as a "router", holding a "library" of source and target chain assets. These networks usually take advantage of the security of the underlying blockchain; through the use of locking and dispute mechanisms, it can be ensured that routers will not steal users' funds. Because of this, a liquid network like Connext may be a safer choice for users who transfer large amounts of value. In addition, this type of bridge may be most suitable for cross-chain asset transfer, because the assets provided by the router are the original assets of the target chain, rather than derivative assets that cannot be completely replaced by each other.

It should be noted that any given bridge above is a two-way communication channel. There may be independent models in each channel, so this classification cannot accurately represent mixed models such as Gravity, Interlay, and tBTC. Because they all have light clients in one direction and validator nodes in the other direction.In addition, the design of a bridge can be roughly evaluated based on the following factors:

Security: Trust and liveness assumptions, tolerance for malicious behavior, security and reflexivity of user funds.Speed: The delay time of transaction completion, and the guarantee of final certainty. There is usually a trade-off between speed and safety.Connectivity: The choice of target chains for users and developers, and the different difficulty levels of integrating additional target chains.Capital efficiency: economic mechanism, which sets the transaction cost of capital and asset transfer required to ensure the security of the system.

Statefulness: The ability to transfer specific assets, more complex states, and/or perform cross-chain contract calls.In summary, the trade-offs of these three design mechanisms can be evaluated from the perspective of the following figure:

In addition, security is a scope, we can roughly divide it into the following categories:Trust-less: The security of the bridge is bound to the underlying blockchain it bridges. Unless the underlying blockchain is attacked by consensus-level attacks, users' funds will not be lost or stolen. In other words, this is not complete trustlessness, because all the economic, engineering, and cryptographic components of these systems contain trust assumptions (for example, there are no loopholes in the code).

Insured (Insured): Attackers can steal user funds, but they may be unprofitable in doing so. Because they need to provide collateral to participate in the network, and they will be punished for wrongdoing and malicious behavior. If the user's funds are lost, the agreement will compensate the user by confiscation of the attacker's collateral.Bonded (Bonded): Similar to the insurance model (for example, the economic benefits of participants are closely related to their behavior), except that the user's collateral is forfeited due to his mistakes and malicious behavior. The type of collateral is important for both the insurance and the mortgage model; endogenous collateral (protocol tokens as collateral) is more risky, because if the bridge fails, the value of the token is also likely to collapse, which further reduces Security guarantee for bridging.

Both Sides of the Table

Perspectives of a 2x entrepreneur turned VC at @UpfrontVC#

Mark Suster

Written by

2x entrepreneur. Sold both companies (last to salesforce.com). Turned VC looking to invest in passionate entrepreneurs 〞 I*m on Twitter at @msuster

Both Sides of the Table

Perspectives of a 2x entrepreneur turned VC at @UpfrontVC, the largest and most active early-stage fund in Southern California. Snapchat: msuster

Mark Suster

Written by

2x entrepreneur. Sold both companies (last to salesforce.com). Turned VC looking to invest in passionate entrepreneurs 〞 I*m on Twitter at @msuster

Both Sides of the Table

Perspectives of a 2x entrepreneur turned VC at @UpfrontVC, the largest and most active early-stage fund in Southern California. Snapchat: msuster