Howdy, because it helps me think things through, I wrote this intro to Grin: https://github.com/crrdlx/crrdlx.github.io/blob/master/grintroduction.md The goal was to help me understand Grin. Anybody want to tell me if I got something wrong?
It is fair
The raw math is hard to grasp, but treating mw addition as an axiom and running with it is how I understand it; my view on math epistemology is strange(but of course correct, the standard monolithic, platonic correctness understanding the general public get is wrong; 11+2 could be 13 or it could be 1 pm it depends on context and what axioms fit) but I feel its extremely helpful here. You didn’t explain the important bits and my explanation given that starting point would be smaller.
Get or recreate the images of transactions combining under mw, and from that starting point that alice -> bob and charlie->dan can be made into alice, charlie -> bob, dan into the utxo set being a giant transaction is a better explanation for privacy then just declaring it private and what it isn’t
Good write up.
You mentioned steady inflation as a good thing for currency applications, but missed one of its biggest advantages: mining security in the long run.
Princeton put out a paper detailing how hard-cap coins like bitcoin might run into trouble in the future. Here’s a quick 2-minute video that I put together on the topic. Link to the paper is in the video description.
I think in your TL;DR you should put something about how lightweight grin is. I think that’s one of the main benefits that makes grin stand out amongst other privacy coins. Thanks.
Thanks for your thoughts. I watched your video a couple of days ago. Interesting. I asked the question a while back, “Why would anyone keep mining when block rewards are small or when all coins are mined?” The answer I got was to collect fees. Your video throw in a new twist. The recent Binance hack and subsequent chatter/debate of a possible rollback of the blockchain seems kind of similar to your video topic. If I understand both your vid and the Binance rollback idea, it comes down to game theory incentives. In both cases, there may exist an greater incentive for miners to collaborate to start an alternative chain. In the Binance case, going after a pot holding 7000 BTC rather than pursuing 12.5.
Both are a bit unnerving. We hear the word “immutable” around blockchain circles. Immutable sounds great, yet seems a little shaky when we hear talk like this.
You’re right. In the end, even blockchains are made of people. Life is politics.
I like this introduction. And the piggy looks cute