pull down to refresh
0 new comment
105 sats \ 3 replies \ @TRUTHSEEKER20 31 Jul
frankly, i have read the whole research and it was interesting enough to dive into the RGB 1.0 concept as it may looks like the most exciting thing happening in Bitcoin-based smart contracts right now. Love the focus on scalability without compromising privacy. cant wait to see its implementation on real-world apps and how beneficial it would be at certain levels. it seems promising, on the other hand i was wondering about, how does RGB 1.0 system ensure data integrity across multiple clients without obviousely the common issue of introducing excessive trust assumptions?
reply
0 new comment
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @dr_orlovsky OP 31 Jul
The trick is in the fact that the pieces of the state ("atoms") which can be changed/updated are owned - like bitcoin balances in UTXO model (actually, they are linked via the described mechanism of single-use seals). So there can't be any conflict, since either a party updates its state - or not!
reply
0 new comment
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @TRUTHSEEKER20 31 Jul
Ah, i can see that treating the state changes like UTXOs tied to ownership via single-use seals really simplifies the coordination problem. It’s kind of elegant how conflict resolution becomes unnecessary because ownership is binary: either you hold the right to update a piece of state, or you don’t. No global state to argue over, just local truth. Feels very in line with Bitcoin’s ethos. i suppose
reply
0 new comment
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @dr_orlovsky OP 31 Jul
Actually you do also have a global state, but it is append-only: a kind of pile where everyone can add, but no one can change or remove. It is “unowned”.
reply
0 new comment
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @BlokchainB 18h
Why yellow paper and not white?
reply
0 new comment
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @d680ecaa8e 13h
Trying multiple wallets seems good first day but you realize that split funds is not the ideal decision.
reply
0 new comment
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @029e79dd3c 19h freebie
Fhg