Progress on mana was good last week week. German took over working on getting mainnnet to sync so I’ve had more time to work on Ellipticoin. Here are some updates and thoughts:
Since I’ve written last new estimates have come out on on when ETH 2.0 will be released. Most people agree that it’s going to take longer than a year before the network will go live. Being in software I expect it will take significantly longer than that. Software estimation is hard and it always has been.
Originally I was planning to build a network that was a competitor to Ethereum. Now I want to build an interim solution for developers who want to continue to develop Dapps with improved developer and user experiences but don’t want to wait until Eth 2.0 is complete. Then once Ethereum 2.0 is released, since both Ellipticoin and Ethereum 2.0 run the WebAssembly VM, people can migrate back to Ethereum if they like or continue to use Ellipticoin. That’s the power of standards and interoperability!
There are some trade-offs and optimizations that can be made to ETH 1.0 to make a network that scales without having to solve hard technical problems such as sharding and proof of stake.
I think I can build Ellipticoin faster than everyone else can build Ethereum 2.0 because I’m not actually building much new software. Like Ethereum 2.0 I’m going to use an existing WebAssembly interpreter. For the consensus mechanism I’m going to use Proof of Burn. This should be much easier to implement than Proof of Stake because the economics are almost identical Proof of Work’s. I also don’t plan to implement sharding. It’s mostly just putting the pieces together.
The goal, which I think is achievable, is to build a blockchain similar to Ethereum with the following traits:
Runs the WebAssembly VM. This will allow Dapp developers to build smart contracts in fully featured languages like Rust. This comes with the added benefit of the rich Rust community and ecosystem.
Processes 150 transactions or more per second. Ideally I think we can do a lot better than that but even a ~10x increase would be a significant improvement.
5 second block time. Ideally it’d get down to 3 but this will take some real world testing to figure out what’s possible.
A bridge that uses cross chain atomic swaps so you can move tokens back and forth between Ethereum and Ellipticoin
A stable coin (DAI) as the base currency
My goal is to build a system where you can move 100 DAI over to the Ellipticoin network, transfer it back and forth 100 times and then move it back in under a minute. Also I want to be able to deploy a simple smart contract to the network written in Rust.
It’s taken a team of 3-5 about 6 months to build a ETH 1.0 client that can successfully process the ETH 1.0 blocks (more news on this coming from POA soon!). Most of that time was actually spent reverse engineering the VM and figuring out edge cases in tests.
I’m confident I can launch Ellipticoin before ETH 2.0 is live.
- Updated how WebAssembly code is run
Before transactions were run through an Elixir nif. This worked but it meant each transaction that was processed had the overhead of calling through to that nif function. The way it works now is transactions are pushed by Elixir onto a queue in Redis. The transaction processor then runs the code through the wasmi WebAssembly interpreter and pushes the results back into Redis. The transaction processor is written in Rust so it’s fast.
You can see a basic WebAssembly program with state running here. The test calls
Counter twice and then verifies that
count is equal to
Here’s an example of a transaction running through the full HTTP stack.
- Wrote deployment scripts
The scripts deploy the staking contract to the Ethereum Network (Rinkeby for now), mint fake DAI on Rinkeby and deposit it into the staking contract. Writing these scripts took longer than I expected as development usually does.
- Remove the bridge concept in favor of cross chain atomic swaps
I talked to Brad a lot about my plans to build a bridge where users wanting to enter the network “buy” the exists of users wanting to exit. He pointed out that that will require liquidity of people wanting to enter the network. Instead I’m going to use cross chain atomic swaps to move tokens from the Ethereum network to the Ellipticoin network and back. These also require liquidity but cross chain atomic swaps are already a proven technology. I want to innovate in as few places as possible so I can focus on scaling and developer experience.
- Moved block data into Postgres.
Originally I was storing block data (
parent_block etc) in Redis along with contract state. This ended up being difficult to query. For example I wanted to query the latest 3 blocks that were mined. This is possible in Redis but not what it was built for. Since block data is only updated once per block it doesn’t have the same performance requirements as contract state. Moving block data into a postgres database will make querying data much easier. Smart contract state will still remain in memory so execution can remain fast.
- Moved smart contract code out of memory.
I chatted with Geoff last week and we agreed that if you’re going to use heap allocations in Rust the resulting WASM binaries are relatively large. The simple token contract I wrote results in a ~27 KB wasm file. Parity’s token example ends up being ~39KB. Without heap allocations you can get the resulting binaries down to less then 3 KB. I think there are ways to optimize binary size but for now I’m planning to assume contract binaries will be at or around 100 KB.
This is significant and if Ellipticoin is going to store all of its state in memory this could get expensive. So, instead of storing contract code in memory I’m moving it back to the disk. When transactions come in their code can be read from disk and pushed into a queue in memory. This can be done in parallel and ahead of time since, once it’s set, smart contract code is read-only (ie you don’t need to deal with race conditions). This way only contract state will be stored in memory. Contract state will be much smaller. Each entry in the address -> balance map is only 40B (32-byte address + 8-byte balance) for example.
If a transaction requires another contract’s code to function that can be specified when submitting that transaction to the network.
For now I’m going to store contract code in Postgres. When it comes time to scale up moving contract code to a key value store in RocksDB or similar should be trivial.
- I on-boarded Brad.
I paired with Brad last Wednesday and we got the staking contract running locally on his laptop. It’s so cool to have another developer helping me on the project! Brad has a background in finance so he’s been able to give good feedback on the economics of Ellipticoin. He’s been working in the blockchain space for past year or so and plans to do so for the foreseeable future. If anyone else is interested in contributing please join the Telegram room and we can go from there!
Things I’ve been thinking about
Brad brought up the point that if you burn enough DAI you could potentially send it into an upward spiral. We figured you could also liquidate the DAI in the staking contract for ETH and burn the ETH. This would theoretically reduce the supply of ETH which would drive up the price which would make the parent network more secure. I have also considered setting the burn address to a charity or a charity DAO such as giveth.
David, the creator of SIA Coin gave me some good feedback on the economics of proof of burn. He said that since energy is a resource that’s available everywhere it’s hard to gain control over it. If the staking contract burns tokens it’s possible that a malicious actor could hoard tokens to gain control over the network. I think if you hoard DAI more DAI are created. Also, if this doesn’t work we could make Ellipticoin token agnostic and have the smart contract liquidate tokens for ETH though a decentralized exchange. I don’t think we’ll need to do this for v1 but it’s good to keep thinking about.
Slimcoin corrected me on twitter. The project is alive and well and adding features! Sorry for mistake :)
DDOS attacks/Sybil Resistance
- Will gave some good feedback, pointing out that if the winning blacksmith node of each round is public that node is vulnerable to DDOS attacks. We figured that the protocol could be updated so that in each staking round the winning node determines the next winner and messages the winner directly. This can be expanded by not only notifying the next winner but the next few potential winners. If the first winner doesn’t mine a block after a certain period of time then the next winner can and so on. I also have considered a system where sending any message to a node costs a small fee. This would make DDOS attacks prohibitively expensive. There are definitely low tech solutions to this problem that can be used early on and it can iterated on as time goes on.
Design and development of Ellipticoin is far from perfect or done. I very much believe in iterative development and planning as a project progresses. If you have any feedback on any of these updates or ideas I’d love to hear from you! Come on by the Ellipicoin chat and say hello!
Thanks to Will Meister for giving me feedback on earlier drafts of this post.