Hacker News Reader

If you want a deterministic smart contract language, you're better off avoiding the EVM, or worse, Solidity.

Tezos (plug, plug, I'm the lead on the project) has a VM with a full formal specification, and even a rudimentary embedding in Coq. It's statically typed and purely functional.

https://tezos.com/language.txt

View on HN

We should plug Tendermint into Tezos as well.

My thinking for v2 is to use Honey Badger BFT, with multi party computation for bonding / unbonding

Overall I agree with Tendermint (and contra Casper or DFinity) that it's better to just drop availability and to have a less subjective security model. It sucks to get stuck if the validator set becomes compromised, but it's not the end of the world.

Whats the benefit of HB over Tendermint? There's a good reason we don't use threshold signatures... to guarantee accountability. We could add threshold signatures on top of Tendermint, but for most use cases this isn't very helpful (yet).

In any case, building on TMSP will make Texas future proof to any consensus engine that favors safety. Let's discuss.

Yes, getting accountability needs to be addressed, we're looking at several ways. Makes no sense to build on TMSP, governance that introspects over the consensus mechanism is a key feature. We aspire to be a utility, not a vassal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com