[ Proposal ] $2,000,000 Community Fund Proposal to hire Microsoft to make Cosmos transaction processing more Distributed and Scalable

I had never looked at Sui until yesterday. Sui has Auth-O login flow with ZKP as a primitive in the SDK. What I initially proposed as a solution was just an auth-flow using Auth-O for quantum hardening purposes. World Coin has Auth-O integration and they also have another auth solution called Incognito Actions.

I am having more or less the same discussion on the osmosis forum - all cosmos chains should be assessing these strategies - in my opinion.

Despite the effort to craft this proposal, we think it falls short of all the pre-requisite due diligence to pass through in order to get clearance for on an on-chain vote. The proposal claims to address problems described by a monolithic architecture of node operation, which is actually quite false due to the distributed nature of consensus operators in the Hub. Each validator is in charge of receiving, filtering, transmitting and ultimately processing transactions. Some features and parameters can be adjusted independently by each node (min fee, internal RPC filtering, etc…) creating a diverse set of defenses. If we were to ever face the type of attack you are mentioning in the post, individual nodes might come to different solutions, which in turn offers a much more resilient approach than relying on third party dependencies.

Moreover the Cosmos Ecosystem in general seems to have opted for a different route in order to address the challenges you mentioned. Some teams have even entirely dedicated their work to overcome these challenges, notably Skip.

Overall, we think their approach is better suited for the present times. It is a situation that may change as things evolve in the future, but for now, we are sorry but we won’t support this proposition.

1 Like

Mainly this…I’m more seeking consensus building - way before I’d ever put a proposal on the hub. There are several things to pick apart here, and although I appreciate your spirited response nothing of what I am saying is inaccurate. I’m not quite sure if you understand which problem(s) I am addressing.

The protocol design in this Regulated Liability Network is done in a manner that functions as individual microservices - each one of them scalable dependent on the load the system is experiencing, but it does seem similar to some of the functionality in the BlockSDK link you shared. I’m not familiar with the BlockSDK, but the protocol name is familiar - Skip. A monolithic architecture just means a single binary runs the system and will perform all the functionality of that app - including, in the instance of a distributed system like Cosmos - gossip transactions to other nodes in the network to reach consensus on the state of the network.

Here are a couple of things I am addressing.

1.) In evaluating technologies to build mission critical enterprise level applications this Regulated Liability Network appears to be better suited for solutions I’ve been foccusing on. One of my interests is manufacturing and supply chains - and the corresponding zero-waste goals associated with consumerism. Issuing digital twin NFTs that would streamline waste tracking at whatever level necessary, and/or automated associated health monitoring based on what we buy at grocery stores.

I think Defi, MEV and all that is innovative, which seems to be addressed with the BlockSDK - but isn’t the niche I’ve been focused on.

I really like the Cosmos tech and team. This is Hyperledger Burrow - it used tendermint and was accepted into the Hyperledger foundation some years ago, but is retired now. This tech existed even before the Cosmos White Paper was 1st published. It was/is a private permissioned chain that Iot and Ai + whatever business logic required could be deployed on it. I’ve been following along for some time. Hyperledger-archives/burrow: https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/burrow (github.com)

These kinds of solutions could be built with the CosmosSDK and different businesses or business ecosystem participants be party to a shared ledger. Interchain Accounts is an intresting innovation because the account of record for the kinds of transactions I’m interested in wouldn’t be bridged and would represent the state of those silo’d relationships.

2.) Quantum hardening. Loss of funds due to inadequate security concerns would be a bummer. Working with an ecosystem participant like Microsoft - in conjunction with their other partners OpenAi - to architect a microservice oriented blockchain system with the CosmosSDK would be a reasonable effort in the community.

Collaborating with teams like World Coin with the auth solution to quantum harden the protocol could bring other areas where alignment might exists like Univeral Basic Income, integrations into Robotics and Ai. No telling what kind of tech primitives might come out of such an ambitious effort.

I could add the World Coin auth to the CosmosSDK myself. It’s not a difficult addition to the SDK. It’s a matter of building relationships with other conglomerates with similar ambitions and the long term viability of the technology the Cosmos teams have been working on.

I am not a tech expert, but the last 24 hours have shown we don’t need this. Validator event without this managed ~1000 TX per block.

1 Like

There is more than one issue being addressed.

  • The architecture structure is to explore what is possible with the SDK.

  • Sui designed their login flow the way they did for a reason - to be quantum secure. The attack would affect individual wallets and loss of funds would be the outcome.

  • Business relationships where alignment with other projects would be healthy is the other main driver for this proposal soliciting feedback