Transcript

(00:00) [Music] i’m gonna get started here my name is caleb chen i’m here with jj and andrew lee from purse.io um i work at private internet access one of the companies that was involved in the founding of the handshake blockchain and um i have the honor of being here to moderate this q a so let’s start off with some introductions uh please start with uh jj and then andrew afterwards go ahead and give a quick introduction to the audience oh oh hey and i think thank you thank you everyone for uh offending and everybody who’s been

(00:53) involved and um kind of organizing the event um sorry for the technical difficulties everybody no worries um yeah i know i mean i’ve been on and off like you know kind of today and yesterday and like really like the atmosphere here today like reminds me of um of like you know like maybe like a virtual version of uh texas bitcoin conference or san jose bitcoin conference back in like 2012 or 13.

(01:21) um it actually happens to be like first time i met on caleb um and uh and so um yeah i mean just like a little background about myself i’m a handshake director um and a general kind of cryptocurrency and decentralization enthusiast um i i’ve been well bill you know yeah we can hear you we can hear you now jj okay there we go cool um yeah so yeah i was just saying um i’ve been um investing in building um crypto where are we doing introductions what’s going on yeah introduction tell us a little bit

(02:03) about yourself jj um yeah so for so for many years uh i worked on bitcoin i was considered myself a bitcoin developer uh i eventually i first worked at bitpay and eventually went on to work at purse uh where we developed a full node a re-implementation of bitcoin called b coin which eventually served for served as a basis for handshake um yeah that’s that’s the abridged version sounds good andrew what about you hey so just just really quick i don’t know if we can confirm or not or maybe through chat did you guys already hear

(02:51) my introduction or should i should i kind of like do that again okay cool yeah i think i think everybody was able to already hear like my introduction but yeah but for whatever reason i don’t think he would be okay caleb can you hear me yep okay yeah for some reason uh you can’t hear andrew i cannot okay so i think um i think everybody can see him like emojis though so whenever you’re done speaking if you toss an emoji up then uh move on oh blue hearts perfect okay all right um yeah so i think if everyone heard

(03:36) andrew’s uh introduction oh maybe we move on from here perfect so um we had collected some questions previously on twitter but uh as the conversation goes on if anyone in the audience has any questions feel free to use that questions tab in the air meet right there on the right to list your questions and we’ll get to them shortly so the first question that we have comes from steven mackey adamentum and it’s a question for both jj and andrew in your own words explain why and how handshake came to be what is the original ethos

(04:18) start with jj and then go to andrew um so i don’t know if there’s i don’t know if there’s an ethos exactly but there is there is a vision or or maybe use cases so i think naming is very important as a base layer uh like for example like how do you get rid of the the ssl cert bracket you need to solve the naming problem first you can’t just get rid of ssl certs without solving the naming problem and so that sort of brings you to dns because dns is a naming system and it already has all of these technologies built into it

(05:05) like dane and tls which which can serve as a replacement for the root authorities the the ssl or tls certificate authorities um and when you think about it dns is already pretty decentralized like if you look at if you look at internet technologies they they tend to get more centralized over time like for example twitter twitter used to be rss and blogs and now it’s twitter now it’s a completely centralized system they took rss and blogs and added a ceo and added a company and and essentialized it on a platform

(05:46) reddit was the same thing it used to be news groups and usenet and uh in a decentralized manner so naming was originally decentralized but over time we ended up with the icann root zone and that’s sort of the only centralized part of dns so if you can decentralize that part you end up with a completely decentralized system um and initially in sort of early conversations about handshake we sort of had maybe like more of an ens or or name coin like model where you just you sort of reserved one pseudo tld which would serve all the

(06:34) child zones so we were thinking like dot h or something and i remember in the early days i i tried playing around with this i tried implementing it and it was terrible it didn’t work it didn’t work at all like it screwed up ssl searches screwed up load load balancers and reverse proxies and i think almost as like a hack i tried removing the dot h like well what if we just were the root zone and everything started everything worked like a dream after that and so i was staring at it and i started thinking like well why

(07:11) don’t why doesn’t this protocol just become the root zone it would work transparently nobody if the internet infrastructure actually upgraded to this the average person almost wouldn’t notice the difference i mean other than the fact that maybe there’s there’s more tlds in the root zone of course they’ve noticed that but for the most part like the average person doesn’t actually have to do anything they don’t have to install anything they don’t like like you think about bitcoin right

(07:44) it’s very hard to get people to use bitcoin and even though bitcoin has made massive strides and become super popular it’s still hard to convince the average person to use bitcoin for something but what if they didn’t have to what if what if the financial infrastructure just got upgraded to bitcoin behind the scenes and they didn’t even notice the difference like that’s actually something you can do with naming no nobody actually needs to to see the upgrade happen um so this is essentially i would say if if

(08:20) there’s an ethos i would say it’s essentially that handshake is sort of a soft fork for the internet it’s a way to upgrade internet infrastructure um and most people don’t have to concern themselves with it at all um and it’s it’s just it’s a good base layer for other things right like other protocols other other projects it provides you a small amount of uncensorable data on the blockchain you know it’s good for it’s good for identity just um proofs of identity and owning your own identity

(08:58) and it can’t be taken away from you um yeah i suppose that would that would be my answer unless i can think of anything else i think that’s i think that’s that’s my answer thank you very much for that jj how about you andrew yeah so i think um you know what’s been implicit in on stephen mackey’s question um is the idea that um you know the ethos evolves um you know as new contributors and people kind of come into the space and join the community um and uh yeah even the original ethos um was uh defined

(09:40) um really by a lot of people um and i can really only speak for myself um personally um and uh and and so i mean you know in the design itself um you know i think there’s a deep regard for um giving back um and you’re kind of like standing on the shoulders of giants um for of those who kind of stood before um before hanchik um and you know mainly you know like you know the name coin ems um the icann system and um even satoshi um it has as a not original allocation and uh and and and so so it’s kind of like yeah i mean

(10:24) i think it is very antithetical um to uh you know the ethos of uh silicon valley and tech in general um both kind of to the notion of um disrupting incumbents um or and or you know like founder of glorification um and and and so so yeah and i think a lot of the original you know ecosystem they’re defined by um the likes of you know bitcoin [Music] and the budgets that we admire um but but uh yeah i mean and another part of the ethos i think is um the project is highly experimental um the significant energy went into um

(11:11) you know like various parts of handshake you know on the parts of thinking about jj but also like joseph and dr vinay from stanford and others that really make um handshake uh technically novel on and and and so yeah you know technical risks that were taken to kind of um advance on advance uh all right so this next question comes from matt zipkin who y’all may have heard earlier and i believe it is for jj why do we use blake for pay to public key hash and transaction id but sha 3 for pay the script hash and name

(12:12) hash oh i think i think if i have to remember it i would say it’s mostly superstition and this superstition is in some ways inherited from bitcoin the superstition being that uh pay to pub key hash is more secure than pay to script hash because say there’s some kind of uh i don’t know like length extension or collision attack against shaft 250 or against ripen d160 or shaft v6 or in this case um you know blake 2.

(12:56) you can’t really grind a pub key because you need the private key for it so you can’t really you can’t really grind pay to script hash and attempt some kind of collision attack because you need to do an ec point multiplication every time and that slows it down hundreds of times but if you have a script you can do some kind of collision attack because you can just grind and nuts in the script you know just some some useless value that gets like pushed onto the stack or something and then gets thrown away um and so bitcoin sort of accounted for

(13:32) this when they added segwit you know they switched the the script hashing algorithm to sha-256 um so i believe when i was first implementing it i just use shot 3 just because i understand that blake 2 and shot 3 are purported to have very similar security properties but if you look at shot 3 it sort of looks more secure it’s like you know it’s twice as many rounds for the compression front or the sponge function for the ketchup function uh than than blake’s two compression function it’s a lot slower

(14:12) um so i think that was just sort of i mean it’s not a very scientific argument but it’s yeah it’s just kind of superstition and the same is true uh for the name hashing right it’s like we didn’t want people to attempt dos attacks on the tree uh and find colliding prefix bits because that would cause the tree to grow very deep very early you could cause it to grow to you could cause a branch on the tree to grow to like 256 bits 256 levels deep uh and that just you know increases the amount of internal nodes the amount of hashing you

(14:57) have to do the amount of disk space required and um yeah we just didn’t want people attempting any kind of dos attacks and out of superstition sha-3 was picked over blake two thank you for that explanation jj number two also from zippy why didn’t you add confidential transactions for truly secret bids and better privacy uh i mean i don’t think early on i don’t think we ever considered that it’s a lot of complicated cryptography it’s really big um i mean i don’t know i don’t if we were re-implementing handshake

(15:45) from scratch and we can because in truth handshake in my opinion handshake is not about it’s not about complex cryptography or transaction throughput or transactions per second it’s it’s about naming and that’s the most important thing and i don’t know maybe it could be improved with confidential transactions but it’s not something i’ve looked into understood thank you for that explanation so number three will you ever publish the blgr branch with the file rotation uh oh yeah i can’t remember if that

(16:28) was merged before the last release i think i’m gonna merge it right after the last release yeah probably for the next release uh publish it and it’ll be included in the next release perfect perfect all right the last of our pre questions comes from evan botello and this one’s for jj and for andrew why did you land on 66 million per year as the hard cap for name renewal transaction was the fee competition and economics around the handshake coin a major part of that discussion uh so that was almost purely based

(17:12) on the dos limits for the tree uh we wanted some sort of limit for insertions into the tree into the oracle tree just because um like if you look at aetherium like they could they they have um like they sort of have uh a patricia like a like a base it’s not really a patricia tribe because a patricia tribe by definition is base two i think so they sort of have like a like a base 16 try and they commit it on every block if i’m not mistaken and it’s been a source of endless problems for them and then they’ve had to find out

(17:55) really clever ways to optimize it so that was one of the things we were most concerned about when we were designing handshake is how do you make this tree efficient and that’s also one of the reasons we have you know the tree commission interval it’s every 36 blocks the tree gets committed so you have to wait about six hours after you after you open an auction or or you know make a bid or send an update you have to wait for the tree to actually update before it’s actually accessible through the tree or before you can

(18:27) create a proof for the name so that was just something we were very wary of uh and so like renewals updates any kind of actions on names need to have dos limits just so it’s just to prevent any kind of dosing on the tree and this sort of ties into the previous question about you know why did we use sha 3 for name hashing it’s just it’s mostly to prevent dos attacks and those constants for uh for you know renewal limits update limits things like that they might have been a little bit strict they i mean they could probably increase

(19:10) a little bit especially now that uh lib oracle has been developed that’s a that’s a c implementation of the oracle tree which is you know um i actually don’t remember the benchmarks off my head but it’s many it’s several times faster than the the java script implementation that we currently use so yeah in reality that could probably that could have probably been a little bit higher but yeah it was mostly it was mostly due to dos limits i don’t think we were discussing um all that many economic factors or fee

(19:49) markets or anything but we were discussing sort of name throughput like it was taken into account how many names can this system actually handle we want to handle as many as possible uh while still remaining safe and avoiding dos attacks um but yeah that was that was actually one of the hardest parts of the protocol the design was picking those dos limits and i i definitely wouldn’t ever want to do that again because it was a lot of it was a lot of head scratching and a lot of it was very hard to think about but yeah

(20:30) that’s my answer anything to add andrew with those your emojis no i don’t have anything yet cool so on to our first questions from the audience from jihan wu chu one year out how do you feel about where the project is it was a unique and ambitious launch what worked what do you think needs to be worked on let’s start with jj and go to andrew uh the the thing i’m happiest about is that the protocol is stable uh it’s a year out and nobody’s been able to break it um yeah i mean we haven’t had any any

(21:25) crap so many point clean projects cryptocurrency projects have like a crash on day one i think eos did like they they had some kind of assertion failure just right on day one and it’s it’s very difficult to launch a project like that and and have no problems with it especially when there’s just a lot of complexity in the consensus layer so the thing i’m happiest with is that it works and um i think everyone can feel just pretty confident in it now as a system like it it seems like a real thing now

(22:01) and i’m i’m really happy about that yeah um yeah you know i think i was thinking back yeah yeah i was thinking back about like you know the last um bitcoin conference and you know the first community organized bitcoin conference and and and they occurred back in 2012 to 2013 um which was in the three to four maybe around five years after um satoshi launched bitcoin and um and you know kind of and to see that um you know you see that happen virtually in this world uh on um today uh you know i i think is uh you know

(22:44) very optimistic um you know i mean i i don’t know i’m sure caleb or caleb can’t hear me but if you could recall um i mean there were maybe about dozens of ardent believers there’s no one famous jack dorsey elon musk like michael sailor you know these people weren’t in the room um but you know but there were just you know kinds of people from all walks of life um that you know had conviction um and you know the psychology and you know that because there’s a better alternative to the status quo

(23:16) um and uh yeah i mean i i think you know i i think that’s a very very optimistic signal um you know about after a year after handshake once uh to see you know kind of a community organized uh uh yeah we have nothing you know jj and i and i don’t think joseph andrew had anything to do with like organizing uh watson’s cockpit which is very cool um and uh and so so yeah but you know i mean i think another thing um to kind of think about is and i think the crypto crypto landscapes your perspective like uh you know i i

(23:53) think um yeah i i i i i think handshake was kind of modeled to be you know as decentralized fully decentralized as possible and um and so uh you know i i think you know you know just trade-offs for that um you know i think resiliency and and um and determination and kind of believers and these kinds of things um are or um the positive aspects but yeah you know getting listed for things like that might be you know things like that might be a little bit slower so um yeah yeah i mean i i but generally speaking you know like

(24:30) benchmarked against bitcoin and also we have the shake tax um presentation is amazing oh caleb i think andrew’s done now i forgot you can’t hear him perfect i just saw the emoji next question comes from deez we’ve heard about what worked and uh what is what needs to be worked on but have there been any regrets so far any ideas for protocol improvements hard fork revisions with jj and then andrew oh i mean i wish i had a list prepared for this but yeah i mean there are some minor regrets that aren’t really changeable now um

(25:30) just sort of like uh like the dos limits like i mentioned um let’s see what else yeah there’s just i’d have to think about this one if you give me if you give me like if you give me like a minute or two i could come back to this one yeah i’ll come back to you for this one um maybe maybe maybe uh maybe ask a question for andrew and then i’ll think about this one and i’ll answer it after andrew or something yeah sadly i don’t have too much to offer um in terms of uh you know maybe you could maybe could uh like ask

(26:20) a different question maybe specifically for andrew and i could think about this for a minute i just need like two minutes to think about it or hey why don’t you ask this oh sure maybe i suggested so andrew we have a question from i apologize this uh butchering this name my yank um what are the areas to work research to enable more usability of the protocol in the real world yeah so from my perspective man um yeah i i think uh you know the more utility definitely you know angie has um like you know definitely those kinds of

(27:01) things are good for adoption on you know name base bob you know and all the other projects that are coming on board um are super exciting from that perspective um you know i i i like i i definitely think on the decentralized social networks or decentralized um other uh you know kinds of applications are really you know have really good um market timing fit you know like today and um and so yeah i’m really excited about more applications kind of coming on board and um okay uh and andrew’s done um but in response to the previous question i

(27:44) mean i think there’s just a lot of like really minor design things maybe maybe some things with regards to like the airdrop like the protocol could have done that slightly differently could have been improved it could have been um more verifiable um i think the protocol could could have given existing name holders more h s um and then there’s just there’s just a lot of like really minor design things that probably wouldn’t interest people very minor regrets like i don’t know maybe the hashes should

(28:31) have been treated as little indian like they are in bitcoin uh internally um maybe the way the bit fields are handled should have been handled slightly differently they require an extra subtraction for uh accesses and modifications but it’s like that’s extremely minor stuff uh most of the things in the core protocol i think turned out pretty well um one big regret is is maybe maybe the wallet which actually can be changed since it’s not the core protocol there’s just i think that wallet was inherited from b

(29:13) coin and i was never i was never happy with it like i would i would rather give me a blockchain to implement any day i never want to implement a wallet like a blockchain or a mempool is a thousand times easier than implementing the wallet it really is and that that sounds i mean there’s maybe there’s maybe more catastrophic gotchas uh when you’re working on the consensus layer but i think they’re in some ways there’s there’s less of them and in some ways they’re easier to spot and it’s just i wish the um

(29:53) i wish the the hsd code base just had a better wallet maybe somebody will rewrite it someday but that that might be one of my biggest regrets is just uh like the hsd wallet or something nothing nothing um nothing on the core consensus level really i don’t look at it and feel a sense of regret really i think it turned out pretty well i think it turned out pretty well too next question comes from uh well mike posted it i think it comes from chris smith and question is not sure if you heard brantley from ens speak earlier today but it would be

(30:37) good to break down some of the points he raised and addressed them from handshakes perspective um in case those points aren’t fresh to mind you guys could just go through the regular talking points between h s and e s and then uh maybe i might spark more specific questions from the audience oh i mean so i didn’t hear that talk if somebody can reiterate those points that would be useful but i mean i think um i think the main reason we saw ens is sort of unusable is just one there’s a centralized group of signers

(31:17) that control the root zone two it doesn’t really seem like a replacement for the root zone three it uses that that base 16 radix tree that i mentioned before that ethereum uses and the proofs are just massive and i think maybe some ethereum expert can weigh in i’m not an ethereum expert but my understanding is there’s actually there’s nested base 16 radius trees or patricia tries or whatever the ethereum people call it so the proofs end up being really big so it’s i mean i could also go into the reasons

(32:00) like i didn’t see namecoin as a suitable option for naming just because they had no way of doing spv or spv proofs um so handshake really wanted to optimize for names and optimize those proofs and i think we did that really well with the oracle tree so i’d say those are like maybe the the three points um where i see three drawbacks i see in ens i suppose but if somebody wants to like reiterate those points i’d be happy to address them please do in the audience anything you want to add to that andrew no i don’t really i don’t have any

(32:45) oh yeah and andrews don’t talk charging forward with the limitations we have so next question comes from joseon who came up with the bootstrapped name list methodology uh are they referring to the the list of reserve names yes i do believe so uh um i’m not sure i think maybe yeah i think that’s probably to joseph’s credit i think that was his idea to just get existing name holders on board but just get them interested in the project you know um it also sort of added assuming assuming hns would be valuable someday it sort of added

(33:40) economic incentives for people to uh to actually set up dns sec on on their domain because you need dnsx up to actually claim your name on chain so it added economic incentives for that um and that that’s really important because there’s not that many websites that support dns sec and dns sec is actually sort of necessary for handshake security model work at least if you want uh if you want like dane to work or something dnsec is pretty important so yeah um and i think we did i think our original research on you know doing

(34:27) using dns sec as a way to prove ownership of domain was was pretty cool uh and it’s been working well so far and um yeah i think that’s my answer yeah i can’t remember who um specifically came up with uh still talking oh yeah man i think just the general idea behind the you know 100 000 alexa alexa names is largely those those names are brands and um and and i think there’s some kind of exclusion beyond 50 000 to the new um common dictionary names too um so so i mean i mean and the general idea is is that you know

(35:21) you know the brands that built up the value um and related to those names um um um when i can the new gtlds registries were forced to block many geographical terms and other institution names my question is if handshake blocked these terms as well red cross could be an example official blacklisted is there a list uh could you repeat the question what is wait let me find the question what is this i can release new gtlds um so i mean there are blacklisted names on handshake right now um and in theory any name could be

(36:22) blacklisted as um policy well resolver policy is sort of like a term inherited from bitcoin referring to transaction relay policy but you know we can just say like resolver policy or something um i think maybe this is maybe this is a good question to address just sort of like the idea of maybe collisions between handshake and i can i i don’t really see like what this question is getting at all that much but um there are there are going to be differences between handshake and icann in the future just because icann’s not

(37:15) just going to stop you know selling new gtlds um but that’s kind of beyond the scope of the protocol i think um and i think that’s maybe more of a community thing like so there’s always going to be um some kind of dissonance between naming platforms like for example i don’t have the same name on twitter as i do on github i couldn’t get my github name on twitter so my twitter name has like a stupid underscore in front of it um and i think people deal with naming conflicts in their day-to-day life as as far as

(37:57) echo like signing up for different platforms you can’t always get this the same username or anything like that um so people are used to resolving those conflicts and um like when you register a domain name if you’re say you’re starting a company or something or you’re starting like an online store or you’re just starting a website like a blog you usually try to get and you think of an idea for a domain name usually try to get as many as you can you try to get like comm net org io you know whatever

(38:32) um handshake at least right now maybe just adds an extra one you should try to get the handshake name too and i think people are already used to that i don’t know if this is what the question was trying to delve into but it felt like a good time to bring that up so oh and also uh on the on the topic of like naming collisions between can and handshake i mean there’s a chance so name claims the the reserved names name claims the name claiming system is going to be disabled in about three years it only runs for four years or about a

(39:13) year in so i mean there’s a chance three years from now verisign doesn’t claim com or something and that would be really bad because com goes up for auction and anybody can take it and have it resolved to you know whatever authoritative name server that they wanted uh so the solution to this is you know it’s it’s got to be sort of a community solution like the community comes to consensus that you know resolver policy should be that when the authoritative name server is resolving com it should you know

(39:52) either hit icann servers or hit you know uh like some hard-coded name servers that actually point at verisign servers that would be one way to deal with the kind of collision issue um yeah i’m kind of meandering around with this answer but i think it’s worth talking about anyway that’s all i got definitely worth talking about anything uh to add andrew right so speaking of next question from michael kleinman for both andrew and jj where do you see handshake in five years in terms of disruption to the dot com tld and can you speculate

(40:49) on how i can and verisign may try to respond to this disruption is handshake on i can slash verisign’s radar yet oh this is a fun question um so i don’t think it i mean handshake isn’t really supposed to be a disruption to calm i mean it’s supposed to work with the existing system like i said it’s a it’s a soft fork for the internet so anything that’s not the root zone it’s supposed to work with um and you know calm is not the root zone it’s a it’s a child zone so i think

(41:31) uh there are various if handshake is ever on um say like icann’s radar and icann wanted to be malicious i’m not saying that they are but i’m i’m saying if they if they wanted to be there there are certain attacks that they could do right like for example they could they could regenerate the um the ksk for the root zone that that key signing key the ksk 2017 is actually committed as a consensus rule in the handshake code base so if they were to change that um name claims would not work anymore i mean that’s one potential attack that

(42:17) they could do uh even worse if they decided to revoke the key by revealing the private key publicly or something which is i mean you could do that if you wanted to revoke a key that’s i mean you could release the private key that would actually make things worse because you know it would mean that people could start trying to steal claimed names on or reserve names on handshake um the other tax that they could do they could maybe you know just start selling gtld’s willy-nilly for a very low price and that just

(42:56) creates more naming collisions between handshake and the root zone uh and yeah and and then the community is is left trying to figure out how to resolve all those conflicts you know um can’t think of any other attacks they could do right now but yeah that’s a really interesting question we’re talking about i think that’s a fun question to talk about yeah so to just uh to kind of get go back to the ethos question um i mean i i think what were um the original i mean the original ethos question um you know i think what we’re mostly

(43:42) hoping for was um some sort of opt in adoption um as opposed to a disruption um you know both in the um technical design and uh and coin allocation um i you know i i think you know uh there’s an opportunity at least the window of opportunity um um in terms of kind of uh you know like you know often adoption you know i mean in the future i mean of course you know it yeah you know there could be um your future you know waiting for more future like collisions and such um but yeah i mean it’s hard to speculate like you know fighters

(44:22) on the line or you know like you know in terms of like playing out all the um kind of game theory and uh in terms of like how how all this will play out but um and i you know i have no idea um but you know i believe um you know in terms of whether it’s on um you know icon or science reader i believe there are um you know i can um um representatives or speakers as part of this conference and um and uh and and i believe uh you know members of pancake have attended uh i can conferences and vice versa so um yeah i definitely believe uh you know

(45:07) oh yeah andrew’s andrew’s done talking but yeah i think i think he made some good points like this is like i said like this is designed to be an internet software so it’s it’s designed to work with existing technology i don’t think yeah i don’t think it was ever handshake’s goal to disrupt i mean maybe it could be disruptive but i don’t think like i said like that’s not uh or at least that’s not the ethos that i said it was originally or i thought of it as um and i don’t think

(45:47) uh even though there are potential attacks against handshake because we do give um icann limited control over over the handshake protocol itself um that doesn’t necessarily mean handshake or doesn’t necessarily mean um icann would attempt any of those attacks i don’t know we’ll have to see but um yeah i think uh uh i don’t know i’m good that’s my answer thank you very much both of you for that so jj this next question should be of particular interest to you uh from christian he says i hold

(46:37) jj and would like to gift it to you as a sign of gratitude for us at the handshake institute would you accept the name uh i would love to that that sounds awesome i i actually i actually don’t have that many names believe it or not nice well christian there’s your answer so next question comes from guthrie what single use case do you all think could be most impactful to the average person in the long term um i mean it depends on it depends on what person you’re talking about i suppose uh because if if handshake ever becomes a part of

(47:34) that infrastructure upgrade that we’re talking about and it and it simply becomes the root zone it i mean that’s a major use case for everyone including just average people who don’t know they’re using handshake um but yeah i think i don’t know i’d have to think about this one too because like i said it’s just a good base layer for so many things i’d have to think if you give me like two minutes to think about this one too i’d probably come up with a good yeah yeah maybe andrew yeah so i i don’t

(48:13) really know either i mean to be honest i mean i don’t i don’t really know what the single use case you know that would be um most impactful but um i mean it could be a number of things um and uh and what’s kind of interesting like you know i think dj kind of alluded to it too that there’s uh i mean there’s a lot a lot of different i mean you know the top two browsers or something or you know adopted it or your top isps or whatever you would like to do like there’s a lot of different avenues

(48:46) where you know you can kind of point to you know maybe maybe um or you know top name registrar or something something of that sort um um uh you know adopted of that adopted handshaker you know kind of it can kind of i mean i think i think probably um getting rid of ssl certificate authorities um that would probably be like the most clear use case that you know maybe not your average person would understand but oh can you guys hear me i’m getting some errors from air me yes okay yeah um so yeah i think like ssl certs get getting rid of root

(49:43) authorities would probably be like the most obvious use case to your average developer but maybe not your average person uh and i mean there’s there’s unknowns here right that anyone might use this as some kind of base layer for some other system that’s my answer thank you both so we have another question from deez and this is common questions asked by community members during onboarding why is the reveal phase 10 days and why doesn’t the bidding phase extend at the end to disincentivize snipe bidding

(50:25) so i think we made the uh reveal phase much longer than the bidding phase just because it’s more important uh like the reveals need to get in it’s it’s sort of a similar attack to you know things you can do on layer two systems like lightning you know where there’s like a mass close out of channels and there’s there’s some kind of time critical smart contract on the blockchain and if a transaction doesn’t get mined within a certain time window you end up losing money and so the the reveal phase

(51:02) is longer than the bidding phase for that reason just because those transactions absolutely need to get mined otherwise people might lose their bids um and what was the second part could you say it again one second the second part is um why doesn’t the bidding phase extend at the end to disincentivize sniping i see uh like extend in the case that somebody tries to snipe a bid is that the yeah like on a lot of auction sites um if a bid is made in the last hour of the bidding period then it automatically extends the bidding period

(51:53) for another hour right right right right um i mean i think that like there’s many other forms of auctions that you could do um but the main i mean the main mechanism that’s supposed to prevent price sniping is is the blinding right that was sort of the counter measure to uh people attempting to to snipe bids but it’s not perfect right because there is like the lock up value and somebody can just bid more than lockup value so yes it’s not entirely perfect there um i don’t know if in the early days we

(52:43) ever considered extending the bidding interval i think that would that would probably just screw up a lot of things implementation-wise because assuming sort of like a strict window of blocks just simplifies everything and and having it be dynamic like that would just introduce a lot of problems it would introduce a lot of problems for consensus layer um you probably could do it it would just be it would just be a pain i think instead of doing that maybe more work could be put into improving the blinding mechanism i mean maybe

(53:22) maybe like confidential transactions like zippy mentioned something like that i wouldn’t i would actually probably look into that first before uh before considering creating some kind of like dynamic window yeah i think that’s my answer makes sense to me yeah i don’t have so next question here from omar is using atomic swaps would we be able to bid on names with bitcoin or monero for example in the future uh i mean i’m not an expert on that that’s entirely possible that’s it’s sort of outside the scope of

(54:16) the protocol so i i don’t know i just don’t feel all that comfortable commenting on it awesome so we have the last question here coming from kiva and it is what were your favorite open source projects that h v vc funds went to oh oh i’d have to look at the list again but like um mucks and it’s basically just developed by one guy nicholas murray i believe and uh yeah he’s been like developing it for years and you know i think he’s mostly just been funding himself but um yeah like everyone you know any developer you talk to

(55:06) there’s nobody who doesn’t know about tbox or use it on a daily basis um uh the was another one like i think that’s a really good project and it’s really it’s really important to have an alternative to photoshop uh and yeah like that that project there’s the people who work on it are pretty amazing because that’s a really difficult piece of software to make and i think it just needed some love and i’m i’m glad they got funds i’d probably have to i probably have to look at the

(55:40) list again to refresh my memory but maybe maybe i can pull it up while like andrew yeah i think my favorite were were i mean the projects like uh both and uh team martin and and and there were definitely others um where where is really small teams that have never um you know you know even tried to or tried or earlier i mean and didn’t receive donations or anything like that i didn’t have the foundation set up um like like with what dj was saying about the team sky like uh yeah i’m not entirely sure that he

(56:15) even um like had an entity or preparation kind of send out set up no one had even tried to donate to him in the past um and uh and and there were there were lots of lots of uh kind of like small small open-source you know the larger of interest but yeah i think i think places where you know the largest i think we’re kind of just yeah i don’t i don’t know i forgot about arch linux i love arch i’m looking at the list now like they’re all pretty damn good um free software found it like yeah these are all

(57:13) great projects but yeah uh i i think i listen my favorite awesome so there’s one more question here they’re gonna slide in um comes from anthony liu at name base why was the idea to do a worldwide airdrop at if i mean was it the oh wait what would you repeat that yes why was the idea to do a worldwide air drop at 50 billion market cap oh on the white paper oh okay um i didn’t know it was removed from the white paper i’m i’m actually uncertain here i don’t know if andrew knows yeah i was i wasn’t aware that it was

(58:01) removed either but but i i mean i think um yeah it wasn’t my idea i don’t think it was either ideas you know the protocol in the white paper so i’m not sure to have to ask some other people um oh andrew’s done by the way all right well that is it for the questions i want to give a quick thank you to andrew and jj for answering all these questions and definitely also a thank you to handycon organizers for putting this on for everybody and of course also thank you to the audience for listening and asking those great questions

(58:51) thank you all yeah thank you everyone it’s awesome to be here [Music] you