“Cross chain interoperability deals with the creation of a protocol that is able to settle transactions between different blockchains with different consensus mechanisms without the need for a third party.”

Now that we have a definition, in very broad terms, we can examine what interoperability means for the overall blockchain space, why we need it, what shortcomings it has right now and how they can be overcome.
I believe that most of the value of the blockchain space will be captured primarily in the protocols, as opposed to the current state of the internet where the protocol holds little value against the product. If we work from this maxim its very likely that protocols will be thin protocols. What this means, in simple terms, is that in comparison with the internet, the protocols and coins powering the protocols will hold more value than the applications using them.

There is another peculiarity in this space in comparison with the internet era, protocols can be forked as most of the work in the space is open source. This allows for anyone who is not entirely satisfied with the functioning of the protocol to fork the code and create their own version of the project with a slight modifications. This will create a hyper-competitive environment where there are many protocols, with slight changes for the same task, and in the words of Teemu Paivinen:

“The industry is growing so the perceived opportunity in more niche areas grows. Right now a highly specialised protocol might look like a $50M opportunity, but in the future if the total market capitalisation of the industry were to be 10x higher, that same opportunity would be worth $500M”.

This means that focusing on building a complex and complete protocol is no longer the best way to extract value from the ecosystem — the best way is to focus on building niche parts of a protocol. Therefore, what we are facing is essentially the idea that protocols are going to be made up of subprotocols, for example:

Interoperability can be leveraged via subprotocols in two different ways, the first being on-protocol interoperability. We could all agree to develop the subprotocols along a number of guidelines, but this would defeat the purpose of subprotocols. In turn, we get to develop a protocol to mediate between subprotocols.

In this first scenario we can see how adding an interoperability layer within the protocol layer can help all the subprotocols interact with each other. The same logic can of course be applied to different protocols:

In this example, an interoperability layer is being applied to make two applications, with two different protocol layers (made up of different sub-protocols that communicate thanks to their own interoperability layer). This is probably going to be one of the most prevalent ways to leverage interoperability. A good example for this use case would be an application that uses the SiaCoin network having to pull information from IPFS STORJ and MAID, consistently. This application could, in theory, code a framework to connect to each other independently but it would be much more reasonable to develop these connections through a single interoperability layer. By doing this, all these networks could essentially communicate with each other using the same code structure. Finally, a similar use as to that just described, we could have two blockchains who want to communicate with each other. This would be the case with Decentralised Exchanges, for example, and the architecture would look something like this:

Its important to note how the connectivity is not in between the two sub-protocols/applications/chains, but rather the intermediary protocol stores and acts as decentralised escrow for these transactions.

With a better understanding of the different ways of leveraging interoperability, and how important it will be to scaling the blockchain space, we can now look at the shortcomings. There are effectively hundreds of blockchains and many of them have inherent incompatibilities, meaning there is no easy way to approach interoperability. The solution therefore is not as simple as it might seem. To build a chain of chains that acts as an intermediary for all the other chains and implements a layer, through which the entire blockchain space can route their traffic to allow for better communication, is a painfully slow and complex process that requires a lot of manpower and a complex architecture. In on itself interoperability doesn’t solve any of the problems that the current ecosystem has. Be that throughput, [real] privacy or even cost, it just gives the developers of individual chains the chance to leverage the power of other chains to help address the shortcomings of their own chain. In other words, Bitcoins will still only be able to transact at 7 tx’s/s and Ethereum will still not be a private blockchain. Interoperability shouldn’t be viewed as a platform to mesh the best of each blockchain, it simply provides a general framework to aid the communication if someone decides it’s worth the effort. Finally, it is important to examine the current state of the art technology and the resources of the initiatives tackling it. I will therefore continue by explaining the different techniques and the companies that are attempting them, as well as how successfully they have been implemented so far.

Types of interoperability

From a technical perspective, there are three primary categories of strategies for chain interoperation:

• Centralized or multi-signature notary schemes — where a party or a group of parties agree to carry out an action on chain B when some event on chain A takes place.
• Sidechains/relays — systems inside of one blockchain that can validate and read events and/or state in other blockchains.
• Hash-locking — setting up operations on chain A and chain B that have the same trigger, usually the revelation of the preimage of a particular hash.

The technical approach chosen depends mostly on the use case the interoperability layer/chain will be carrying out. This use is, in general terms, part of one the following:

• Portable assets
• Payment-versus-payment/payment-versus delivery
• Cross-chain oracles
• Asset encumbrance
• General cross-chain contracts

Implementations

The implementations differ from the practice and different methods are combined in different and potentially clever ways to try and squeeze the greatest amount of functionality, scalability and security.
In the following paragraphs, I will discuss different companies and initiatives that are working on the interoperability conundrum, how they are approaching it and then compare them, addressing their benefits and limitations. This section tries to provide a simplified description of how the blockchains achieve their interoperability, not to provide an in depth discussion of the differences and shortcoming of each approach. It’s purpose is to try to give the reader a more representative and holistic view of the state of this technology.

Polkadot

Polkadot is a scalable heterogeneous multi-chain, designed to provide no inherent application functionality. Polkadot proposes how multiple chains with different functionalities can be hosted side-by-side under the same framework. Polkadot is, in simple terms, a chain of chains, which simply enables a framework for different chains to interact with each other. In other words, Polkadot is not building a chain that will expand its capabilities, but rather a framework for other blockchains to interact with each other. This chain allows the interaction of different chains with each other but doesn’t necessarily leverage other chains’ capabilities. Thus meaning, you can exchange Bitcoin for Ether without a central party but you can’t use Ether smart contracts with Bitcoin. In reference to the diagrams above, Figure 3 and Figure 4, Polkadot is essentially the intermediate layer.

Cosmos

Cosmos is intended for the scaling of public Proof of Stake blockchains. Cosmos is a network architecture, of many independent blockchains called zones powered by the BFT algorithm Tendermint Core. In other words, Cosmos can be regarded as a simple Proof of Stake coin that extends its functionality by appending established proof of stake blockchains. Despite having its own “inter-blockchain communication” protocol, Cosmos intendeds to be a blockchain of block chains. The purpose is not to develop an interoperability protocol but rather to create an interoperable blockchain. In other words, Cosmos wants to leverage the power of all other blockchains within its own blockchain instead of creating a framework through which other blockchains can leverage each other. Cosmos is the entire ecosystem, instead of just the intermediate layer; it makes use internally of their own intermediate layer, but its not the intermediate layer in on itself. For all practical purposes, a developer could not use Cosmos to leverage Ether smart contracts in Bitcoin, but would rather have to use the Cosmos chain to create an application, in their blockchain, that does exactly that.

Comparison of CCI Protocols

We have given very brief descriptions of the most relevant projects which are trying to leverage interoperability. Now we will proceed to compare them. Polkadot enables interoperability between different blockchains, on the other hand, Cosmos aims to become a blockchain of blockchains. Polkadot is looking for scalability through collaboration while Cosmos is trying to become the most prevalent blockchain by exploiting the capabilities of the other chains without having to code them into their blockchain. Each of these options have their shortcomings and benefits, which will be examined below.

Having a framework to communicate between blockchains is very useful, however, it comes with the limitation that you need to build applications on top of a pre-existing blockchain — which might not be ideal. Another possible approach might be to run applications off-chain but settle the transactions on chain. This is not necessarily a bad thing but it inherently limits the decentralisation at an application level. To contrast, Cosmos provides a blockchain that can extend functionality by connecting to the blockchains; not only letting them communicate but also leveraging each others capabilities. While this addresses the shortcoming of Polkadot, it comes with its own weakness, which is: chains can not use Cosmos as a communication layer, but rather people would have to build their applications on the Cosmos layer, making it restrictive by nature. Polkadot, while less user friendly, is presented as a system with no contentions other than providing a layer for different blockchains to communicate. On the other hand Cosmos Is looking to become the superior chain that mentioned at the beginning of the essay, with a catch, Cosmos is not becoming the almighty chain by its own merit but rather by developing a chains that can leverage the functionality of all the other chains. In conclusion while both Polkadot and Cosmos are tackling Cross Chain Interoperability, they are doing it in what seems to be a mutually exclusive way.

References

1. Chain Interoperability Vitalik Buterin September 9, 2016

2. https://blog.zeppelin.solutions/thin-protocols-cc872258379f(Teemu Paivinen, 2017)

3. Polkadot White paper

4. Cosmos white paper

ForT is a decentralised charity that employs the blockchain to provide economic aid to people in need. ForT provides a new way of looking at charities, we cut loose the middleman — the charity itself. Thus creating a decentralised payment method in which only the people for whom the money was intended can spend the money. Unlike current charities, ForT will never have direct access to the funds that have been donated. This means that the users can be sure that their money is being spent by the people who were intended to use it. IoT will play an important role in the development of ForT.

It has been three months since I published my first article, regarding ForT. I have had a long time to reflect on the idea, its feasibility, costs and production. I have been busy reimagining ForT and while doing this I started a new venture; Castle, from which I plan to raise enough funds and acquire the experience to run ForT successfully. Castle already has a community of over 500 people, at the time of writing. Several core concepts have been updated for ForT and I believe that clarification is in order, so that people know there is an active development team, and they can decide whether they like the idea enough to stay.

Before starting with this article, you should definitely read the one I published in August, it explains the why, the how, although not the when; but I will address that in this article so do not worry. In this article I will explain the new vision for ForT, the phases, and the specifications; I will talk about the team, and I will give a brief overview of the road-map (for which I will not provide dates just milestones). Just in case you didn’t read the article before this one, I will reiterate, ForT is a non-profit organisation, and it will all be paid by the founding members, there will be no ICO and no pre-mine of any kind. We are also committed to full transparency, I encourage you to join and follow us in our social media if you would like to stay updated on the progress of ForT.

ForT’s process is divided into two stages: In the first stage we will aim to create a payment protocol; what we mean by this is, is that we will create a real world application by developing an under the hood solution to buy and sell cryptocurrency while, to the user, everything just looks like a simple transaction. Once stage one is over, we will progress to stage two, we will shift all of our efforts into developing a DAC, a Decentralised Autonomous Charity. We would love that once we have a working product, every charity in the world would jump to our ship, and implement our solution, but since we realise that it is not really an option, we are going to create our own exchange, which will of course make use of the payment protocol designed in stage one.

ForT as a Protocol

ForT is a protocol that automates and integrates smart contracts through an API into the payment systems of charities. We of course will provide this service completely free of charge. How exactly we plan to do this will be release in the white paper. The protocol serves many uses, firstly it will provide the users/charity with a higher security, secondly it will provide them with a higher transparency. and we will provide real time use of their funds. in a similar way as illustrated below:

We realise that on of the main things keeping crypto currencies from mass adoption was design, the design in crypto now a days is beyond horrible, I’m an experienced user and even I, sometimes, have trouble using it, there are few exceptions namely exodus, but other than that the space is just a mess with something so essential, we have decided to focus as much efforts on design as on the technology behind it, we may take longer but it will give us a competitive edge over any other company that might come our way.

ForT as a DAC

W e define it as a platform in which the funds and donations are moved around through smart contracts, where transparency traceability and accountability are available to everyone, and a system in which not a single person can decide the future of the platform as a whole.

The second stage of Fort includes developing a Decentralised autonomous charity. What this implies is we will build a platform in which there is no longer a middle man. This will be achieved through the implementation of a distributed ledger and a series of smart contract and a dynamic governance system. The idea behind a dynamic governance system is to make sure the organisation doesn’t go obsolete because it fails to adapt to changing environments.

That is a very brief description of the current vision of Fort, just so that the community is updated, I will now talk a bit about the team and how they will help to achieve the objectives set out above.

Road Map Milestones

Finally what everyone wants to know what we will happen and when we will start:

• Release the website
• Release the white paper
• Release the wallet
• Release protocol αlpha
• Release the partners
• Release protocol ßeta
• Release governance document for the DAC
• Release DAC alpha
• Release DAC beta

Expect the releases to start at some point after christmas, and to coninue until the DAC is complete, at this point the team will desvinculate themselves from the project and let it run on its own, as its intended to do, stepping in only to fix it at puntual moments and to donate to projects like any other user.

Keep in mind what we are tyring to do is not easy nor cheap, so it wont be a ten day process where we can role out a cloned buggy PoS coin.

Leave behind you 1 or 2 claps if you enjoyed the read or if you support our project and vision!

We will examine the universe from the beginning. Assuming the beginning at the Big Bang, again, not an exploration of how the universe started, but rather a reflection of the reason for its expansion other than what’s described in the Friedmann equations, I’ll be attempting to describe the expansion of the universe from a quantum perspective in a purely non-scientific scope, based on wild assumptions that have no mathematical proof to back the theory up. Partly because to prove this theory would be out of the scope of this reflection, partly because it would be ridiculously costly, partly because chances are the technology to prove it has not yet been developed. Most importantly because I’m not a theoretical physicist, and claiming to have mathematical proof on a theory I came up with during a commute to central London would be an insult to every physics expert. A community for which I have the uppermost respect, even if all they have done in the past 50 years is just confirm the theories that Einstein formulated ages ago making most of their work incredibly derivative and ultimately pointless. Again, before you jump to my neck and claim this theory has already been formalised in a broader way, in let’s say the strings theory, remember I am just writing this to get on record some thought provoking ideas I had, not claiming to be right in any way just putting it out there. Now, with this said let get hands on the theory.

Let’s start by looking at how the Big Bang started, any theory that aims to explain the expansion of the universe should contemplate how the expansion started in the first place. We will borrow a lot of the assumptions already made in the Big Bang theory and incorporate some of our own, I do realise the irony. So I apologise in advance if any of the theory seems to be repetitive and inconsequential, or even nonsense. At the very beginning there was a lot of mass concentrated in a very small space, as small as the point of a needle! Anyway, the Big Bang theory claims that the mass was so concentrated that at some point, an unknown reaction called baryogenesis, violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons — of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over anitmatter in the present universe (note: I ripped off wikipedia from that last part). I believe the predominance of matter over antimatter is what happened, but what I am going to get into now, finally (yes I know, I ramble a lot), is why it happened, which is not to try and explain baryogenesis, but to give an idea into why we exist.

I believe that subatomic particles, fermions, its types leptons and quarks, and bosons, with its singular types, photons and gluons, (Again, thanks Wikipedia. So much information available it’s crazy, check it out: wikipedia.org) all carry ‘weights’ not necessarily in the form of mass related to gravitational pull, but rather in the form of energy associated to the particle, an example of this at an atomic level would be sunlight, and how we use it to power up devices, by collecting its energy. Now I firmly believe that conservation of energy is a thing, but let’s keep in mind the expansion of the universe and the universe itself arrived from a singularity so please do not bully me for this, but I think that there was a point where the concentration of mass was so big that a singularity in which energy was created happened, and I aim to explain how.

Now, getting back to my point above of how every particle has an energy ‘weight’ attached to it, it’s important to talk about the interaction between this particles to explain the expansion and to theorise on the relationship that matter and antimatter have. I believe that in the early time, when one particle observed another article they exchanged energy and that if they exchanged energy for long enough then the particles would become tangled in some way, (remember the unscientific part at the beginning of the article, yeah..) of course, here I consider observation to be any sort of interaction between any number of particles within the confined space that the initial cluster was before it expanded. Now hang to that thought for a bit, while I explain the interaction of matter and antimatter in a super simplistic way, that goes against current scientific consensus in a couple of sentences, and manage to insult the whole scientific community in the way.

It is considered that gravitational forces attract matter and antimatter in the same way, (Google solved this one, like literally they had a tiny box in the upper part of the page with the answer, technology huh?) and while I think this is true I think that matter and antimatter repel each other (otherwise this theory wouldn’t work). Therefore, I strongly believe that when the initial cluster was formed the contents shifted into a shape in which the interaction of matter and antimatter had minimal exposure to each other. The matter and antimatter positioned themselves in the way in which there was the least amount of contact with each other; how? Well, it’s currently theorised that when a particle meets its antiparticle they release energy, this in turn moved around other particles, which means, even though it seems like trivial information, that the particles didn’t move around with some sort of swarm intelligence, but rather they were randomly assorted into a cluster, in which every matter was surrounded into the centre of the cluster, while antimatter was shoved into the borders. By the way, fun fact, this would mean that the initial cluster was not a cluster, but for a big while it was more of a pulsating dot, affected by the quantum interactions taking place inside of it, which I think is a pretty cool idea, just saying. So particles rearrange, which give quantum particles at the centre enough time to tangle with each other creating high energy levels in the centre of the cluster which over time accumulated and when they finally met with their outer antiparticles, greater a much bigger energy explosion than their non-tagled parts; enough to break the gravitational pull of the cluster apart. now once there was some space for the particles to cool off more complex structures could form, making the energy release when they broke apart even greater. It is important to know that the distribution of matter and antimatter was not necessarily homogenous in the initial cluster, which goes to explain the patches of antimatter the float around in the universe(although I don’t think that has been proven). Consequentially we can extrapolate that the universe grows in bursts but the energy released when it tries to pull back by the destruction of heavy objects is what drives the boundaries to keep pushing the universe to expansion. This theory contemplates the universe didn't grow in a single out burst but rather in exponentially more violent outburst of energy that keep pushing its boundaries.

My point here is not an explanation of the expansion of the universe, the Big Bang already does that and my theory, mostly, doesn’t contradict anything about it, my point was to try and illustrate through the Big Bang in a subatomic level why the universe keeps expanding, and I will now explain what this means for us. Now keep in mind the statements made above about how the reaction that started the chain of events that made the Big go Bang was the tangled nature of subatomic particles whose energy has been exchanged for a long period of time, long at a subatomic level that is. Now everyone that agrees with the Big Bang theory has to agree that we are made from the subsequent reaction that took place after it which culminated with us, as a species being born, from our perspective that is, now take into account the following fact, the bigger it is the slower its goes. That is why tiny things like photon go to like almost the speed of light (get it?). So we are big representations of fundamental particles really, which means we carry out the exact same job as them, in a much slower way, keep in mind atoms carry the same function more slowly, as do molecules, and as do cells, and we are multicellular organisms, that is like 5 levels of abstraction slower, but my point is if the centre of the cluster created the energy necessary to expand the cluster, because really, if you think about it, unless you think the universe is already infinite and not expanding anymore, in which case you are most likely wrong, we are still in the cluster but in a bigger way, then the centre of the cluster must still be providing an energy higher than the total gravitational pull of the totality of the elements of the cluster, which means that subatomic particles are still getting tangled to provide for that energy, and the reaction of burning matter and antimatter through annihilation, is still a thing at the border of our galaxy. Which subsequently means that we exist as complex realisations of the universe, we can all agree that we are the universe experiencing itself, which in of itself is quite cool, except when you think about it, technically our only job is to provide a higher level of tangledness (that is a thing now).

So let me put it in the following way, the theory that states that the word only exists once you observe it that is absolutely right, and many have said it is a shit theory because you cannot prove it, but you don’t have too, the theory works on the principle that a measuring device of some sort has to be present, but I think that the definition of observer is flawed, just because we are not there doesn’t mean that it stops existing, that would be silly, the particles are still there to observe each other, surely the interaction is slower the higher the level of abstraction, but what we are not taking into account is that maybe, we make up for slowness with a bigger impact in tangledness like one observation from us, sets in mentioned the tangle of an innumerable number of subatomic particles, which means we don’t need a room to be observed, to be real, because it’s observing itself, that is the beauty as long as there’s energy there is observation, which begs the real question; if there was no intrinsic energy would it exist? Probably not. This brings us to the initial thesis, what is our higher purpose? The answer is at the very least depressing, our job in the universe, considering that we are the universe, is to observe ourselves to ensure that the ever expanding mass of nothingness is perpetuated, we are puppets to the powerful unforgiving hands of a universe that doesn’t care about us but exists for us, you know itself, so in a beautiful way the universe controls our life in a perfect balance with the other particles to perpetuate itself the longest time possible.

Needless to say, I am more than opened to criticism and discussion. Also thanks to Arthur for checking up on my terrible grammar.

ForT is a decentralised charity that employs the IOTA tangle to provide economic aid to people in need. ForT provides a new way of looking at charities, we cut loose the middleman — the charity itself. Thus creating a decentralised payment method in which only the people for whom the money was intended can spend the money. Unlike current charities, ForT will never have direct access to the funds that have been donated. This means that the users can be sure that their money is being spent by the people who were intended to use it. IoT will play an important role in the development of ForT.

We will be developing state of the art software and hardware that will revolutionise the charity dynamics all over the world. We are giving away all of our power to the donors — there is no single authority that regulates or decides on the use of the funds.

From a technical point of view ForT is made up of three different devices — the first of which will be owned by the individual that is making use of the donations. Furthermore, ForT will utilise a fingerprint ID reader working simultaneously with a hash machine, where the merchant will have the ability to identify the hashes that appear in each individual’s personal device. Additionally, we will create an application on top of the IOTA tangle, this application will operate together with the three aforementioned devices.

In terms of providing distributed value for investors, ForT will use its own token — “ForT”- based on IOTA tangle. While we do not aim to replace every existing charity, we do aim to become influential enough to attract the attention of larger charity organisations; who will subsequently seek to implement our service to improve their own efficiency. Everyone in the world, that wonders where their money is going when they donate to a charity, will rest assured knowing that they can check exactly what their money is being spent on — with the help of the tangle.

This revolution of the Charity industry will not happen in a single day but rather in a set of calculated phases. It will be a long and extensive transition, but the results will be remarkably beneficial.

It is imperative to highlight that ForT is a nonprofit organisation that aims to improve the quality and availability of aid to people in need, while creating the transparency that is not currently present within this industry. Therefore, investors have to understand that this will not return money at all, except perhaps if we receive a bid for the proprietary technology.

If you run a charity or work closely with one, ForT is a great opportunity for you. It will provide a direct line of access for the people who are in need to take advantage of the donations, while reducing to zero the operational costs of that department of the charity.

ForT is a multi-agent system, which hands the donations through smart contracts. The device can be automated depending on the use case. The ForT system will use an Artificial Intelligence algorithm to learn where the funds are most needed at a given time and redirect them. It does this based on the amount of money spent by zone and device, and is constantly recalculating rates and daily limits to offer the most fair division of equity possible.

ForT is easy to setup and use for both donors and users. The donations process will work through Paypal or through the websites

ForT is a malleable product that can adapt to many different situations, usually charities only focus on a single issue, however ForT can tackle a multitude of issues in different parts of the world, without incurring in extra costs.

The ForT Project can be used to tackle homeless people’s reinsertion into society. The charity also provides a very stable and reusable strategy to ensure that a plan for reinsertion is taking place at every single moment. An overview of when and where homeless people will be able to spend their funds is detailed below:

• Hostels
• Supermarket
• Clothing
• Gym membership
• Counselling
• Drug Rehabilitation
• Educational Workshops
• Public transport
• Medication, etc

The problem of homelessness is going to be addressed by offering positive reinforcement to homeless people willing to go through a programme that aims to reinsert them into society. In case this is not possible, the program will destine funds for the care of people who cannot take care of themselves.

To wrap it up, ForT has innumerable real-world applications, the ease of use and the much-needed transparency in a very opaque industry, will hopefully be welcomed by the grand majority of donors. Development has already been underway for a while now, and will continue do so until Q4 of 2017, where we plan to release an alpha trial in London. Huge thanks to Gary Simon for designing the logo! Do take a minute to check out how he created the logo and the reasoning behind it at “How To Design A Crypto Currency Logo”. Or check out his youtube tutorial.