- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 16:40:23 +0200
- To: Adán Sánchez de Pedro Crespo <adan@stampery.co>
- Cc: Blockchain CG <public-blockchain@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKKsGDutjBfBEJPow7v4L+D+Jx64u4cboP1JVH8EzvqXA@mail.gmail.com>
On 9 September 2016 at 16:39, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 9 September 2016 at 16:32, Adán Sánchez de Pedro Crespo < > adan@stampery.co> wrote: > >> >> > What are you looking for in a block chain vocabulary? >> >> Specifically for data anchoring, I'd look for, at least: >> >> 1. Names for different hashing algorithms. >> >> A software tool for verifying blockchain proofs should know which >> algorithm to follow when reconstructing the hash chain from the original >> data hash / target hash to the merkle root. >> >> This identifier must not only specify which was the hashing algorithm >> applied to the original dataset, but also tell if a merkle tree was used >> and if so, the "mixing function" [1]. >> >> Example values: >> + "SHA2-256-merkle-bin": 256 bits SHA-2 hash of the concatenation of the >> binary value of two hashes. This is used by Tierion. >> + "SHA2-512-merkle-hex-com": 512 bits SHA-3 hash of the commutative >> concatenation of the hexadecimal value of two hashes. This is used by >> Stampery. >> >> 2. Names / codes identifying different chains >> >> Names or codes should be defined to identify the different chains and >> anchoring strategies that are broadly used. >> >> For example, Chainpont defines "BTCOpReturn" for Bitcoin and "ETHData" >> for Ethereum. On the other hand, Stampery BTA defines "1" for Bitcoin, >> "2" for Etherum Classic, "3" for Ethereum Fork and their negative >> counterparts ("-1"/"-2") for their livenet versions [2]. >> > > Oh, excellent! Yes I see a need for this. Manu has done some work on > naming algorithms. > > There is also an IANA registry at the IETF. > > RFC 6920 does some work on naming hashing algorithms for example. > > I think this would be a great thing to standardize. > > But isnt there some complexity involved? e.g. Proof of work is not simply > proof of work. There are also max difficulty changes, number or blocks to > difficulty change. Things like Kimoto Gravity Well etc. Any thoughts on > how to enumerate all these different flavours of the same concept? > seeAlso https://www.iana.org/assignments/named-information/named-information.xhtml > > >> >> >> References: >> >> [1] Elixir examples of different mixing functions for usage in binary >> Merkle trees: >> https://github.com/stampery/elixir-merkle/blob/master/lib/mixers.ex >> [2] Stampery BTA whitepaper: >> https://s3.amazonaws.com/stampery-cdn/docs/Stampery-BTA-v5-whitepaper.pdf >> >> Best, >> -- >> *Adán Sánchez de Pedro Crespo* >> CTO, Stampery Inc. >> San Francisco - Madrid >> T: +34 663 163 375 >> >> >
Received on Friday, 9 September 2016 14:40:51 UTC