Hyperledger’s Behlendorf on embracing Ethereum, why enterprise blockchain will be permissioned …

The royal flush of enterprise blockchain approaches … that there’s a major missing approach to building distributed ledger now inside Hyperledger.

This is the first part of an extensive interview with Hyperledger Director Brian Behlendorf in advance of the Hyperledger Global Forum which takes place in Phoenix USA on March 3-6. Register by February 18th to get the discounted rates.


  • Hyperledger to serve as a bridge across the spectrum of permissioned to permissionless blockchains
  • Hyperledger has a royal flush of different approaches to enterprise blockchain
  • Unsure if there’s room for a seventh, but possible consolidation
  • Enterprise Ethereum Alliance compared to Hyperledger: standards versus software
  • Permissioned networks need to become more decentralized
  • Vast majority of transactions will be on permissioned blockchains indefinitely

Thejourney started with a 2016 visit to Shanghai

Behlendorf: I guess the kind of biggest thing that came in last year was Hyperledger Besu, and one of my first trips as the leader of this project was to China in 2016 to the second Ethereum Devcon in Shanghai. Mainly I wanted to go because I wanted to learn more about Ethereum. And I actually had met Vitalik and Bo Shen when they did their original ICO fundraise for this a year earlier.

Butreally, I wanted to see what the developer community was like aroundit and be super sharp about where we were going to positionHyperledger when it came to permissioned versus permissionlessblockchains.

Becausecertainly at the time, and even to a large extent today, thetechnology worlds behind public and permissioned are very differentand very different consensus mechanisms; very different algorithms;communities of developers with very different ideas about use casesand that sort of thing.

Aspectrum from permissioned to public

Butwhat became clear to me while there, was that it was eventually goingto be more of a spectrum. That as permissioned blockchains gotlarger, they would probably need to inherit and learn from theexperiences and maybe even adopt some of the algorithms that thepublic ledger communities were starting to pioneer.

Notso much around proof of work. I think there’s still a lot ofskepticism in the enterprise space around that, if only for theenergy load, that sort of thing. And not so much for the DAOdistributed autonomous organization kind of automated robotization ofmanagement kind of ideas.

But partly for how do you do these things really at scale? And so I felt it was important to have an olive branch out to that community. And make sure that as the permissioned side of the blockchain world grew in acceptance and deployment, that we could evolve Hyperledger to a point where it could serve as a bridge across the spectrum.

Hyperledger Global Forum

Iwas still pretty adamant I did not want Hyperledger to be running amain net or a token. I told people that you’ll never see a hypercoin. I still believe that. And thereby avoid the minting money outof thin air kind of thing.

ConsenSyswas part of original 2015 Hyperledger cohort

LikeI said, it was important to be close to the technology, and thatmeant being close to ConsenSys. ConsenSys was one of the companieswhich was in the initial cohort ofcompaniesinvolved with Hyperledger at the announcement in 2015, and they werearound for a year. They kind of went off and focused on publicblockchains and the ICO market for a while.

Butstarting about two years ago, they cameback around and realized the enterprise space was going to beimportant to them. And prior to last year, one project came in calledBurrow, which was a tiny piece of Ethereum technology, as well as arelationship with the EnterpriseEthereum Alliance.

Sowhen ConsenSys said: “Hey, we’ve been building this alternativestack for Ethereum enterprise technologies that could run both publicmain net Ethereum, as well as permissioned blockchains, and we’rebuilding it to be Apache licensed,” it felt like ready-made forHyperledger.

Soa lot of diplomacy, (we had) a lot of conversations with engineersabout how open source works, but also how Hyperledger’s communityworks, through a lot of conversations with the existing Hyperledgercommunity leaders. We brought in Besuand had a very frank and public conversation about how all of thisshould work. And that led to the project being accepted. And now it’sin.

Theroyal flush of enterprise blockchain approaches

I’mnot going to say that we’re done adding new frameworks. But the sixthat we have now represent a pretty royal flush of all the differentkinds of approaches I think you could take to building enterpriseblockchains.

Fabric,which is very much like the granddaddy of the project, it just hit2.0. You saw the announcementof that. It’s still the most widely deployed enterprise blockchainplatform out there. Very flexible, very much an operating system,very generalizable.

Andthen, we’ve got the one focused on identity (Indy).You’ve got the one focused on digital assets, Iroha.The one focused on being a bridge to public and private being Besu.And then Sawtoothwhich is still a more experimental platform. Those six (includingBurrow),I don’t know if there’s room for a seventh, to be honest.

Thecommunity will decide

Thegood news is it’s not up to me. It’s really up to the community.

The community had to be convinced there is room for Besu, as a number six. I would say we might even consider seeing consolidation before we see expansion of that set, but anything’s possible.

It’shard for me to say that there’s a major missing approach to buildingdistributed ledger now inside Hyperledger.

AnotherEthereum link – Hyperledger Avalon

We’vehad a few other projects come in recently, such as HyperledgerAvalon, which is the main other one that I’ll highlight. Avalonis an implementation, actually again it’s Ethereum related because itis implementing a specification that came out of the EnterpriseEthereum Alliance around what they call the TrustedCompute Framework.

It’sa generalizable way of trying to describe privacy on blockchains,whether that’s implemented through secure enclaves, like Intel’schips or through zero-knowledge systems. And in doing that it mightbe a way for us to bring that better balance between confidentialityand auditability, which is the whole point of using blockchainsanyways. If you want confidential, don’t put it on a blockchain,right?

Butwhat we also want is the ability to, you know, track spending, theability to track a diamond as it goes through the supply chainwithout revealing every intermediary’s complete business flows.

Soproject Avalon is really about moving us further along those lines asa whole community. It’s more of a library. It’s more of a set ofconcepts and tools right now. But I hope that we’ll start to see thefirst deployment of that into at least pilot environments this year.

Q:Can you clarify your relationship with the Enterprise EthereumAlliance (EEA)? Because as an outsider you look like you have moreand more overlap.

SoI see some pretty sharp distinctions. One is, and this is true in alot of other technology domains, it’s really, really good to have astandards body in a domain separate from the leading open sourceproject in a domain or from the open source projects in a domain.

Thekinds of stakeholders you want to pull together around a standard.The kinds of IP processes you want to manage in the development of astandard. The fact that (for) a standard, once you eventually set it,it (should) not really be changed all that often. So there’s a lot ofpressure when you publish it to make sure you’ve gotten it exactlyright.

Whereaswith software these days, you know, being agile and publishingupdates frequently and continuing to refine and add features, thatsort of thing is important.

Allof these lead to very different collaboration cultures and differentorganizational structures, even different agreements between theparticipants. And so we’ve always said that Hyperledger is not astandards body. And it’s important for somebody else out there to bedoing that kind of work.

Ifnot the EEA then another standards body

Soif the EEA hadn’t come along, I would expect that you would have seensome other type of enterprise blockchain standards alliance comealong that perhaps wasn’t directly focused on Ethereum. Andobviously, there’s standards efforts at ISO and the identity relatedstandards work and a couple of other works, and all that iscompletely compatible with Hyperledger.

It’snice for the development teams at Hyperledger to have the choice ofwhich standards to implement, how quickly, and potentially even comeup with new de facto standards that could eventually get proposedupstream to somebody else’s standards body.

Sothat’s going to be a pretty sharp distinction between us and the EEA.And that’s borne fruit for us in, for example, project Avalon.Hyperledger being able to now take this standard defined elsewhereand build implementations of it. So that’s something that I think isimportant to keep in mind. And it’s always good to know where theboundaries are in any relationship like this. That’s just kept itvery productive.

Q:Do you have any views on the path of some applications moving ontopublic?

Ithink it’s inevitable that there will be some applications running onthe public ledger networks. DeFi seems to be the kind of thing takingoff there. But I think the vast majority of transactions for ageneration at least, and I don’t see any reason why this changesafter the generation frankly, will take place on permissionedblockchains.

Thereasons for that include a blockchain use case will probably define acertain jurisdictional kind of coverage. This blockchain is governedby the laws of country X or GDPR or something like that. And often,those regulations will have some sort of data residency requirements,and privacy requirements that will be really hard to enforce if youdon’t have the ability to bind all the different participants with acopy of the dataset to a set of agreements.

Hopefully,you can use smart contracts and others to provide a lot ofconfidentiality. But you know, if you and I have some sort ofbusiness arrangement and you end up with a copy of data, there’s nosmart contract in the world that can delete that data out of yourhands if I wished it.

Therehas to be, in many cases, a contractual relationship between partiesthat describes the use of that data no matter how thoroughly we’veencrypted it on whatever blockchain we’re using. And so for mostparticipants, most people, they’ll want that kind of agreement boundinto the network.

Permissionedbut more decentralized

Nowthe thing that permissioned networks need to do is themselves be moredecentralized than many of the ones that you see today. I think, manyof these networks that have launched, they’re still somewhat in theirearly stages, where it makes sense to have one technology partner tohelp bootstrap to get everyone on board and push it forward.

Butmy take is, as soon as they’re in production, you should be open toadding nodes to that network, not only from other end users. If it’sa banking network from other banks, that sort of thing if theyqualify and are able to sign whatever participation agreement isrequired. But also from other technology providers, from other cloudproviders or from nodes that are hosted by the end users themselves.

Ithink if you do that, and then I think if you also make it easy forsmall and midsize businesses to either participate as kind of fullyvested citizens on a blockchain, able to submit transactions, reviewtransactions, confirm the validity of transactions. Or do thatthrough an intermediary of some sort, with the choice of who to trustin doing that. If you make it easy for small, midsize businesses tojoin these blockchains, then that basically erases the advantage ofdoing some of these things as a public blockchain, which isaccessibility.

Accessibilityand blurry lines between permissioned and public

Arguablythat’s the main reason why advocates of public blockchains forenterprise use cases are advocates. They say it’s because then youdon’t have to ask anybody for permission. You just jump on and startengaging. I have no doubt that even enterprise stuff done on publicchains will still implement access control, or KYC (know yourcustomer) or some other type of criteria threshold in order toparticipate.

Andso I think this is why I’m saying that the line between permissionedand public will get awfully blurry. I do think that the vast majorityof transactions will be taking place on permissioned blockchainsindefinitely. Just because that’s an architectural model that mosttechnologists and most companies are going to find more familiar.

Image Copyright: Ledger Insights, Hyperledger

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Harbinger Tax Is a Hybrid Solution To Domain Names: Ethereum Co-Founder

Ethereum Co-founder and famous crypto analyst Vitalik Buterin participated in a twitter thread on domain names talking about the importance of …

Harbinger Tax Is a Hybrid Solution To Domain Names: Ethereum Co-Founder

Harbinger Tax Is a Hybrid Solution To Domain Names: Ethereum Co-Founder

  • The thread began with American entrepreneur Scott Banister losing his NIST account.
  • Balaji Srinivasan replied that he loved the idea in theory but had doubts about its practicality in functioning.
  • This exchange is similar to the thread by Uniswaps Exchange Engineer Noah Zinsmeister.

One of the hottest topics in the crypto-market right now is the domain pricing on small character names. Ethereum Co-founder and famous crypto analyst Vitalik Buterin participated in a twitter thread on domain names talking about the importance of Harberger tax on them.

He believes that not doing so will encourage corruption in the long run. He further also spoke of Harber
ger Tax as partial ownership and explained his insights on how it can prevent a monopoly.

The thread began with American entrepreneur Scott Banister losing his NIST account. His wife and entrepreneur, Cyan Banister, announced that the report had been stolen and changed. She further said that they could not retrieve it due to the new rule on 4-character names.

Order of events: This account @im_ice_cubes stole my husband’s account (those followers are his) and changed the name of the account making @nist availble. Why they would do that seems fishy. Husband couldn’t get name back because it is four letters (new rule). Gov takes it. https://t.co/HPlsPLW3ts

— Cyan (@cyantist) December 28, 2019

This intrigued Balaji S Srinivasan, the cofounder of Coin Centre, who believed that domain names and user names should be private property. He stated that in the medium term, the current regulations would lead to sites that create tradeable usernames.

“I believe new sites will create that use crypto domains and NFTs for tradeable usernames,” He said. This evoked a response from Vitalik, who spoke of Harberger tax as a means to counter first-mover privilege.

Incredible series of events.

Scott Banister has accepted the outcome — but in the medium term, I believe new sites will be created that use crypto domains and NFTs for tradeable usernames.

These should be private property. https://t.co/2hy0lYmlCm

— Balaji S. Srinivasan (@balajis) December 28, 2019

Eh, IMO small-letter names should be Harberger-taxed or something similar. Otherwise the system feels attractive in the short term but first mover privilege corrupts it in the long term.

— vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) December 28, 2019

A user, marc, asked the Ethereum Co-founder to explain the functioning of the Harberger tax. In response to that, Vitalik said that it is a partial ownership system. “. The owner sets a price at which anyone can buy the asset from them, and they must pay a tax proportional to that price.” He added.

He also explained that the objective of the tax is to counter the monopoly in the system and obtain revenue that can use for funding.

Drop me your best insight into Harbinger tax, Vitalik.

Haven’t spent time to consider it but in a perfunctory glance I see nothing. In fact, I see an obscure reaffirmation of something quite a bit broader and what is likely the end goal regardless.

— Marc (@azeroz) December 28, 2019

Balaji Srinivasan replied that he loved the idea in theory but had doubts about its practicality in functioning. In such a system, setting the price too low will, and it brought out under, whereas setting it too high will lead to a substantial annual fee. He wondered how the everchanging rates of the crypto market would cope with the system.

He questioned if the system will house a 30 – day repricing policy. He also pointed out that this will disadvantage small start-ups. They will either forced to pay a large amount of tax or have their name bought by more prominent companies.

I love the idea in theory. Set the price of your property too low, and it might get bought out from under you. Set it too high, and you have to pay a huge annual fee.

But given how dynamic the prices of real estate or crypto are, I’d like to see how it works in practice.

— Balaji S. Srinivasan (@balajis) December 29, 2019

So, two thoughts.

1) Is there an optimal re-valuation period? Eg every 30 days you reprice it?

2) It seems to cause uncertainty for small startups and disadvantage them vs large cos. Either the startup pays a big fee, or the bigco can just buy their name out from under them.

— Balaji S. Srinivasan (@balajis) December 29, 2019

To this, Vitalik Buterin recommended a limited price-capped version. He suggested a 250 USD per year annual fee for anyone who wanted to keep their name. To pay less than the amount, one must open his doors for anyone who wants to buy it at (the annual fee you pay) / (the tax rate).

He also proposed the function asymptotic: buy price = fee * 250 / tax rate / (250 – fee) to get rid of the sharp cliff. He stated that the goal is to tax the ‘squatter ecosystem’ and “force them to serve the public good more.”

I recommend starting with a limited price-capped version: if you pay $250/year, no one can take the name away from you. The main goal would be to tax the squatter ecosystem and force it to serve the public good more.

— vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) December 29, 2019

To clarify, if you pay *less than* $250/year, then someone can grab it from you at a price of (the annual fee you pay) / (the tax rate). You can also get rid of the sharp cliff by making the function asymptotic: buy_price = fee * 250 / tax_rate / (250 – fee) pic.twitter.com/VybsgQHU2y

— vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) December 29, 2019

Balaji Srinivasan agreed by pointing out that with a price for premium domain registrations, one can tax the squatters without harming the start-ups.

That’s interesting. So essentially for the price of a premium domain registration (some like .inc are $900+), you can deter squatters without imposing too high a fee on startups.

This is a good site to calibrate the exact numbers:https://t.co/YtkaNxEhznpic.twitter.com/FEXw6qUMie

— Balaji S. Srinivasan (@balajis) December 29, 2019

Vitalik Buterin further added that the objective of the Harberger tax is to optimally impose the colonists and ensure that the resale value is proportionate to the actual amount. It also has the advantage of providing a standard interface for sales, he said.

Right. The goal is that under harberger tax the optimal price for squatters to set resale prices is proportional to the actual value of the domain, so the squatter ecosystem is incentivized to set prices optimally to avoid domains going too slow *or* too fast…

— vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) December 29, 2019

… *and* they’re forced to offer sales through a standard interface instead of brokers or stupid one-on-one negotiations. Oh, and you’re also taxing the squatters every year, and your tax can actually capture a substantial portion of the value of the system

— vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) December 29, 2019

This exchange is similar to the thread by Uniswaps Exchange Engineer Noah Zinsmeister, who complained that a $160/$640 price for a 4/3-character name was ridiculous, and ENS should look at a system where “yearly Harberger-style auctions with a hard max that give existing owners priority.”

The fact that 4/3-character @ensdomains names cost $160/$640 _per year_ is pretty ridiculous. At the very least wouldn’t yearly Harberger-style auctions with a hard max that give existing owners priority if reached be better than this?

— Noah Zinsmeister (@NoahZinsmeister) September 5, 2019

With these multi-faceted views coming in, it is difficult to anticipate where the future of the domain names system and Harberger tax lays.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Ethereum Gold Project Market Capitalization Reaches $47657.00 (ETGP)

Ethereum Gold Project (CURRENCY:ETGP) traded 3.1% lower against the dollar during the one day period ending at 8:00 AM ET on December 30th.

Ethereum Gold Project (CURRENCY:ETGP) traded 3.1% lower against the dollar during the one day period ending at 8:00 AM ET on December 30th. During the last seven days, Ethereum Gold Project has traded 10.6% lower against the dollar. Ethereum Gold Project has a total market capitalization of $47,657.00 and approximately $30,051.00 worth of Ethereum Gold Project was traded on exchanges in the last day. One Ethereum Gold Project token can currently be purchased for $0.0000 or 0.00000000 BTC on popular exchanges including Mercatox, Hotbit and Token Store.

Here is how similar cryptocurrencies have performed during the last day:

  • Huobi Token (HT) traded 0.6% lower against the dollar and now trades at $2.80 or 0.00037999 BTC.
  • Maker (MKR) traded up 1.7% against the dollar and now trades at $444.52 or 0.06026872 BTC.
  • Crypto.com Coin (CRO) traded 0.7% lower against the dollar and now trades at $0.0344 or 0.00000466 BTC.
  • IOStoken (IOST) traded down 0.3% against the dollar and now trades at $0.0396 or 0.00000526 BTC.
  • FTX Token (FTT) traded down 0.6% against the dollar and now trades at $2.20 or 0.00029867 BTC.
  • OKB (OKB) traded up 2.9% against the dollar and now trades at $2.72 or 0.00036822 BTC.
  • Sai (DAI) traded up 0.3% against the dollar and now trades at $1.01 or 0.00011869 BTC.
  • Seele (SEELE) traded 0.6% lower against the dollar and now trades at $0.14 or 0.00001874 BTC.
  • ZB Token (ZB) traded up 0.7% against the dollar and now trades at $0.19 or 0.00002571 BTC.
  • THETA (THETA) traded up 5.5% against the dollar and now trades at $0.0923 or 0.00001252 BTC.

Ethereum Gold Project Token Profile

Ethereum Gold Project (CRYPTO:ETGP) is a token. Its launch date was October 13th, 2017. Ethereum Gold Project’s total supply is 6,000,000,000 tokens and its circulating supply is 5,874,571,479 tokens. Ethereum Gold Project’s official website is www.etgproject.org. Ethereum Gold Project’s official Twitter account is @

and its Facebook page is accessible here.

Ethereum Gold Project Token Trading

Ethereum Gold Project can be purchased on the following cryptocurrency exchanges: Mercatox, Token Store and Hotbit. It is usually not presently possible to purchase alternative cryptocurrencies such as Ethereum Gold Project directly using U.S. dollars. Investors seeking to acquire Ethereum Gold Project should first purchase Ethereum or Bitcoin using an exchange that deals in U.S. dollars such as GDAX, Changelly or Gemini. Investors can then use their newly-acquired Ethereum or Bitcoin to purchase Ethereum Gold Project using one of the exchanges listed above.

Receive News & Updates for Ethereum Gold Project Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and updates for Ethereum Gold Project and related cryptocurrencies with MarketBeat.com’s FREE CryptoBeat newsletter.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Bayern Munich Tokens Sell for Over $30000

According to Stryking, the Ethereum-based NFTs are unique cryptographic tokens with the “…rarity, authenticity, and ownership secured and …

Seven bundles of Stryking’s official Bayern Munich non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have been sold at auction for 240.9649 ETH, equivalent to approximately $31,100. One full set of the special Christmas 2019 Edition collection, featuring 24 players from Germany’s most successful football club, went for 133 ETH (around $16,700) while the remaining six bundles contained four cards each.

The value of each four card set varied from 33.9 ETH down to 4.4 ETH depending on the status of the players they portrayed. Top price was paid for the international quartet of Robert Lewandowski, Sven Ulreich, Kingsley Coman and Ivan Perišić.

The numbers dont lie for the excitement around the @stryking_io Holiday Auctions as according to @opensea we had a 6000% increase in the ETH value of sales from the past week!#blockchain#crypto#cryptocurrency#Dapps#ETH#ethereum#bayernmünchen#Bayern#NFT#technewspic.twitter.com/GV7MZwa2FV

— stryking.io (@stryking_io) December 29, 2019

The sale saw a spike in interest for Berlin-based Stryking products with performance analytic charts logging an impressive 6000% increase on the previous week. Until the sale, Stryking were probably best known for Football-Stars, their web and mobile gaming platform aimed at European fans.

Sporting Connections

Stryking made news in 2018 when they garnered support from Portuguese star Luis Figo and are now a subsidiary of Animoca Brands after being acquired in September this year. Animoca Brands have themselves previously enjoyed NFT auction successes with their official connection with Formula 1 motor racing.

Not resting on their laurels, Stryking have already started a second sale for Bayern Munich NFTs – called New Year 2020 Edition Legendary Player Cards – which will run until 6 January.

Ready for some Fireworks? 🎇Our New Year #FCBayern Special Edition cards are out‼️‼️⚽️ Auction is on, make sure to get yours at https://t.co/PsYOU9UxsG#NFT#digitalcollectibles#Blockchain#TokenSalespic.twitter.com/7jDcgn5lPW

— stryking.io (@stryking_io) December 30, 2019

According to Stryking, the Ethereum-based NFTs are unique cryptographic tokens with the “…rarity, authenticity, and ownership secured and guaranteed by blockchain technology.”

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Trade99’s ETC Price Analysis: Is Ethereum Classic on the Way to Outsmart from the Bears?

Ethereum Classic was being traded at $8.06 on July 4, 2019, with the bullish trend, soon started to drop and reached $5.28 with a 34% fall as on July …

Ethereum Classic was being traded at $8.06 on July 4, 2019, with the bullish trend, soon started to drop and reached $5.28 with a 34% fall as on July 17, 2019. It continued to be traded close to $6 mark until August 21, 2019. With a sharp rise, ETC price reached $7.57 on August 22, but dipped down by 23% and reached $5.83 on August 30. On September 25, there was a dip of 27.76% with the price dropping to $4.68. After this drop, the bullish trend ended and the bears have ever since started to dominate the coin.

Ethereum Classic Price

As per the price evaluation of Ethereum Classic since December 17, 2019, it shows an uptrend by 33.54%. It may rise in the near-term and reach near its next resistance $5.81.

Trade99’s analysts recommend to invest money in purchasing new coins and retain the same for the long term. CMF indicator also reflects the bearish stance for ETC. The previous six months’ performance for the coin presents the bearish trend from July till September 25, 2019, post which the bulls are controlling it. Since the end of September 2019 till the present date, the movement for ETC has been almost constant without any drastic rise or fall noted.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts