Interview with Dr. Yonatan Sompolinsky of Kaspa

cover
6 May 2024

I realized the following interview for my book, "Kaspa: From Ghost to Knight, off to heal the blockchain's plight."

This book is available for you to buy on Amazon in both paperback and E-book format, and I recommend it for every Kaspa community member or a block-DAG PoW enthusiast to read.

To maintain the open-source ethos, this book's content is available on my author's page, mickeymaler.com. There, people can read the earlier draft for free and consider a donation to support the next educational content about Kaspa.

Something about the book and Dr. Sompilinsky’s background:

The years between 2010 and 2013 were not an era of academic development for Bitcoin, with the notable exception being the On Bitcoin and Red Balloons paper (2011, revised in 2016) by Professor Aviv Zohar and his colleagues. Bitcoin slowly stopped being seen as a distinct technology that could ever be finalized to meet the Nakamoto vision, and instead became something closer to a technological religion. However, after being encouraged by talks with industry leaders at the Satoshi Roundtable, Aviv's student and apprentice, Yonatan Sompolinsky, decided to take a new path. Instead of improving technology from the previous decade, he applied the insights from his research to a new Proof of Work (PoW) protocol. Unlike most PoW protocols at the time, this one was not based on the linear structure of a blockchain. Thus, it aimed to avoid using the Longest chain rule and its constraints in fast decentralized networks that must also be secure and decentralized. As a result, it allowed the use of parallel blocks, known as asynchronous PoW.

What started as the "GHOST" appendix in the Secure High-Rate Transaction Processing in Bitcoin (2013) paper became the origin of the complex Direct Acyclic Graphs (DAG) research line. The block-DAG paradigm heralds a new era in the history of distributed ledger technologies as it inches ever closer to fulfilling the original Nakamoto vision.

Variations of GHOST and Inclusive Blockchain Protocols have been used in the Ethereum, while protocols from the PHANTOM family, such as GHOSTDAG and DAGKnight, solved the trilemma of blockchain scalability, security, and speed. For the first time ever, they made it possible to reach 1 BPS in a pure PoW network.

This is a story about things that would never be possible without PoW, where users of distributed networks are limited only by their internet speed. This is the story of PoW, of PoW in a block-DAG paradigm, of Kaspa, and of Dr. Yonatan Sompolinsky. This book is about a man who might not be a universally known celebrity in the field but who redefined what is possible in the PoW paradigm once and for all and still has a lot of steam to keep on rolling.

Dr. Sompolinsky’s Profile:

  • Early Academic Pursuits:
    • Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Began with an undergraduate degree in mathematics, followed by a graduate degree in computer science.
    • Inception of GHOST Protocol: Collaborated with Professor Aviv Zohar to develop the GHOST protocol, which was formalized in the academic paper "Secure High-Rate Transaction Processing in Bitcoin," published in 2015.
  • Academic and Practical Synergy:
    • Joining the Crypto Space: Founded DAGlabs in 2018 to commercialize DAG protocols, aiming to implement these in real-world applications.
    • Postdoctoral Research at Harvard University: Continued to explore complex blockchain transaction ordering systems and the implications of minimal extractable value (MEV).
  • Contributions and Innovations:
    • Extensive Academic Publications: Contributions from initial works like the GHOST protocol to later developments such as SPECTRE, GHOSTDAG, and the DAGKnight protocol.
    • Leadership and Collaboration: Engaged in significant industry discussions, including participation in the Satoshi roundtable, and collaborated with key figures like Michael Sutton and Shai Wyborski to advance the block-DAG research line.
  • Current Focus and Future Aspirations:
    • Application of DAGKnight Protocol: Working towards integrating the DAGKnight protocol into the Kaspa network to enhance Proof of Work performance.
    • Continued Advocacy for Decentralization: Remains a staunch advocate for fair and decentralized blockchain applications, ensuring Kaspa’s development aligns with open-source and community-driven initiatives.

Legacy and Impact:

Yonatan Sompolinsky's work exemplifies a profound blend of theoretical acumen and practical application, significantly impacting the blockchain field. His ongoing efforts to refine and implement new protocols continue to inspire innovations and discussions on the future of decentralized technologies.

The interview

Phase 1: Intro and academic career

Good afternoon, Dr. Sompolinsky. Thank you so much for accepting this interview.

Let's get straight into it.

When did you realize that academia would be your career path? Is having an academic lifestyle common in your family, or did you have older friends aspiring to get into a university, and you thought being there with them would be fulfilling?

I never realized I wanted to be an academic, and I still don't. Yes, it's very common in the family, but rebelling is also a strong tradition in the family. There's a saying that you truly mature when you start choosing paths despite your parents suggesting those paths to you.

Interesting. What career path would you choose today?

Probably an author or a poet, if you can call this a career. Academia is the third or fourth option.

What were the first mathematical areas you fell for? Were you interested in topics such as magic numbers, probabilities, graph theory, and algorithms?

As an undergrad, I found Probability Theory more appealing than other areas, though I'm attracted by rather basic stuff. I can't say I'm over-sophisticated in my taste or scope. I also fell for Number Theory despite a very shallow knowledge of the field, like when you have a crush on someone that you know nothing about.

What did this crush look like?

I wasted a full semester trying to solve the Goldbach conjecture from Number Theory. Needless to say, no major or minor progress was made, and I was slowly disillusioned that I would earn the one million dollar prize for the solution. Having failed thus, I fell into clinical depression and opted for computer science, where I found perhaps more feasible ways to grab such prizes.

Have you ever experienced a scientific discovery or realization that was hard to believe when it occurred to you?

Overall, I made three, perhaps four, findings, and I find them natural in retrospect, which is not uncommon for a researcher.

What was the hardest part of your academic life, the hardest challenge you needed to face in your career, and what success of yours made you most proud?

The frustration of spending 2 or 3 years on the same maybe-unsolvable problem, the long loneliness that comes with it, the inability or uselessness of consulting with others, as things are too nuanced by then. It takes a mental toll.

From the introduction, we know that you solve blockchain challenges by using DAGs, but how did your DAG journey start, and what was your first experience with it?

I didn't read the introduction, but to your question, the idea to employ DAGs was my advisor’s, Aviv. The first DAG protocol, Inclusive, was mainly about the game theoretic aspects of using DAG but still with Bitcoin-like chain rules, just in a DAG structure. Only later did we start with the spicy DAG consensus algorithms. Though I can't overemphasize that DAG is really not a solution, it's a better framework for the consensus problem. Focusing on the DAG aspect is a bias towards the visual form, it’s equivalent to focusing on Satoshi's chain data structure.

As a seasoned academic, you can reflect on the many stages you took during your career. In retrospect, how do you see the process in which you started as a student, then turned to somebody else's apprentice, later shifted to a mentor, and finally became a founder and highly respected community contributor?

Mimicry is the best way to learn. I had an advisor who was available at the time to sit with me for hours of brainstorming. You learn and mimic the thought process and methodology. When Aviv became rather busy, I had my father around to think things through. He knows little to nothing about crypto, but that doesn’t matter much because, as a theoretical scientist, he knows how to identify fundamental aspects of the problem at hand, and this thought process is what I strive to learn. There are, of course, gaps in the framework, but still, that was a primary source of training for me.

What gaps, for instance?

Well, in physics and life sciences, normal behaviour and Normal distribution convey most of the information about the system under inspection. Typically, you assume n is greater than 50, say that particles follow a Normal distribution, and from thereon, you continue your analysis. But you can’t apply the Law of Large Numbers to consensus problems or game theoretic setups. Computer science deals with man-shaped environments where intelligent agents act, and this invites the atypical and manipulative and requires a lense for the peculiar, a worst-case scenario analysis.

You seem calm and easy during your interviews, but how do bigger conferences make you feel? Are you nervous when standing in front of a crowd with a microphone, or do you enjoy presenting your ideas to the public?

It depends on how much beer I drink beforehand.

You were recognized by numerous academic references and acknowledgments related to the work you have done or coauthored, a notable one being the Ethereum white paper. Please share with us which mentions have made you proud the most.

Probably my favourite citation is by Elaine and Raphael. I visited them at Cornell in 2016, and we discussed responsive consensus. A year or so passed, and they published a “hybrid Consensus” paper with several important contributions, one of which followed up on that conversation, which they cited as “personal communication” with myself. So that was one nice citation, I recall. By the way, this paper motivated us later on to formulate the 50% resilient responsive consensus problem, which I wasn’t able to solve until I met Michael Sutton.

OK, the next question: In the comment sections of your YouTube interviews and Twitter spaces, your fans often call you Satoshi Nakamoto. How does it make you feel?

Like an idiot.

Why?

I mean, it’s heartwarming to have some people think I can write a production-ready codebase like Satoshi. I scored 62 points in my C/C++ undergrad course, and even that was by the mercy of the lecturer. Perhaps if Bitcoin had been released in Java and with copilot, maybe then I might have been Satoshi, who knows.

Do you know who Satoshi is?

I can tell you, but then I need to kill you. Seriously though, no one knows, and I don’t know that any of this matters. Satoshi’s anonymity is core to the inception of Bitcoin and the decentralization movement. Also, the value of discovering Satoshi is overrated; I, for one, know much more about crypto and permissionless consensus than Satoshi knows; she hasn’t been to conferences for years.

Did you consider creating Kaspa anonymously? Do you wish you had?

“I’m a count, not a saint.”

The end of the Phase One.


A tragedy that marked this interview

The initial phase of the interview was conducted between May 18 and August 9, 2023.

After this period, Dr. Sompolinsky temporarily halted the interview to devote attention to research endeavors. Between this interview's first and second phases, the Kaspa network faced several minor attacks. These incidents were minor enough not to warrant detailed discussion here, but they contributed to identifying enhancements and implementing solutions that improved the network overall.

Regrettably, these were not the sole incidents of concern occurring between the end of the first interview phase and the start of the next phase on February 9, 2024.

Toward the end of 2023, Israel was the scene of a devastating terrorist attack—a deliberate act of violence at a music festival, resulting in the loss of innocent lives. This attack incited further armed conflict in the Gaza area.

During this time, the communication thread I held with several Kaspa members was interrupted. While some took care of their families or moved to safer zones, some stayed in their houses, running to their basements to take cover every few hours. During these days, the anniversary of Kaspa’s founding came to pass. However, instead of cheers and celebrations, many minds in the project, especially those living in Israel, were focused on very different things. They prayed for the restoration of normalcy, the safe return of hostages, and an end to the bloody decades-long conflict.

These are two countries that are divided in faith yet are doomed to be neighbors to each other in a shared holy land.


Phase 2: Blockchain, blockDAG, and the world of crypto

When considering the creation of a significant project like Kaspa, which aims to stand alongside established giants such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, it becomes clear that a mere vision might not suffice. Beyond vision, what additional elements are essential to develop a blockchain project that not only challenges existing principles but also introduces innovative solutions within the Proof of Work (PoW) cryptocurrency domain?

You can’t compare the vision required behind Bitcoin to the vision of any other follow-up project. It’s like comparing the work done by the first mathematician who proved a theorem to the work done by successors. There are many cases where successors provide “better” – as in simpler or more beautiful – proofs, but still, the first prover paved a path in a desert, and the degree of vision required by successors is an order of magnitude smaller.

Kaspa addresses the blockchain’s security-scalability-decentralization trilemma with blockDAG technology. Do you think Satoshi Nakamoto would have admired such a solution? Could it have brought a smile to his face?

Admired - no, a smile - definitely.

In developing Kaspa and aiming to adhere closely to the foundational principles established by Bitcoin, including the Proof of Work mechanism and the UTXO model, how did you approach the emission schedule differently to address market dynamics and ensure a more egalitarian distribution compared to Bitcoin's early mining period?

Kaspa attempted to stay faithful to Bitcoin’s launch and design, proof of work, UTXO model, a verification-oriented (not computation-oriented) scripting language, etc. The emission schedule of Kaspa is indeed more rapid, but if you normalize it to market dynamics, it’s, in fact, less rapid and more egalitarian than Bitcoin, in the sense that the core developers weren’t able to mine “peacefully” like Satoshi and Hal for months and months. Satoshi is estimated to have been able to mine about 5% of the total supply of bitcoins, whereas Kaspa core devs were able to mine about 2.5% of the Kaspa total supply.

Yeah. Over time, your strategic decisions for Kaspa, such as its rapid emission schedule, have been seen as very insightful. What were the key factors you considered when launching Kaspa?

Regarding my strategic decisions, some were insightful, some an oversight. Shouldn’t be too romantic about that.

What are examples of decisions that were an oversight?

Gamenet, with its preverse incentives; the lack of any preparation of mining infra for DAGlabs; the failed attempt to change denomination (rejected by the community). I’m sure there are several more.

What were the initial plans for Kaspa's launch regarding hardware development and ASIC presales, and what factors contributed to the eventual decision for a fair launch?

We had an idea to develop hardware and go for an ASIC presale; I wrote about it in my blog, and Nic Carter has a nice piece on this, too. But this path didn’t materialize. Optical ASIC hardware wasn’t mature at the time, and in the lack of sound alternatives, we ended up with a vanilla fair launch.

Do you view your company, DAGlabs, as a success or failure, and why?

It was a resounding failure. DAGlabs was a for-profit entity that was supposed to identify and implement a practical path to reconcile VC-backed and fair-launch models. There was no good strategy behind this – or behind any other aspect of the organization, for that matter. I ended up conveying the organization’s failure to investors, and, to their credit, they encouraged me to launch nonetheless, even with the lack of a business model or ROI plan.

So is it fair to say that you gave up, or almost did, and that Polychain pushed you to launch?

Yes, that’s one way to put it. I was also compelled to launch by my friend, Gadi, who recognized the potential.

I suppose it was a happy ending, and investors were still satisfied.

Mostly yes, I suppose. Some people came after the fact and wanted to eat the cake and have it, too, but most people involved comprehended the fair launch model and understood and accepted its implications.

You have seen the rise and fall of some blockchain projects and remember the early days of Bitcoin and Ethereum. Did these communities make any mistakes or unlucky decisions in their early days? Did you acknowledge them and write them on your "I will not repeat this with my own project" list?

Nah, unfortunately, I performed every startup textbook mistake that exists. But now I do have such a list, in case that’s helpful.

What are some lessons you can share with young crypto entrepreneurs?

Bootstrap your project in a bear market. This will filter out people with weak convictions and risk “dodginess” and investors whom you wouldn’t otherwise want to collaborate with. In general, work with people on the basis of symmetric risk only. A crypto startup’s journey is too volatile, and people who have already achieved high net worth are likely to jump ship sooner than they would when things turn south.

Are there any other interesting or historical details you can share about the early days of Bitcoin or Ethereum?

One insightful crypto drama that I recall witnessing firsthand was the Ethereum DAO hack, or rather the rollback, which took place in the Cornell bootcamp I mentioned. It was amusing to see the minority chain (aka Ethereum Classic) forming in real-time and the community split around it. The entire episode was perplexing; the exploit was discovered by folks from Cornell a few days before it was exploited, and the hacker published a rather provocative code-is-law manifesto. Overall, there was some sense that the hacker wasn’t a complete outsider.

What is Your vision for Kaspa?

I do not have one.

Well, then, what is a fulfillment of Nakamoto's vision for you? Some believe it's Kaspa.

Of course, Kaspa faithfully fulfills at least parts of Satoshi’s vision more faithfully than Bitcoin. The peer-to-peer electronic cash aspirations, at least for L1, have been abandoned by the Bitcoin community for some 7 or 8 years by now. And besides inherent shortcomings, LN’s adoption is very low relative to Bitcoin’s. Kaspa is not perfect on all metrics, and it's not the ultimate cryptocurrency; there's no such thing—there are only tradeoffs. Hopefully, we picked the sweetest spots on the curve.

Do you have a vision for crypto, or would you rather focus on research and walk your own path in your own time?

I actually do, and it's compatible with focusing on my research. It's around the concept of an expressive design of Turing Complete logic. When the time comes, I'll share more. Needless to say, I would love for my ideas and proposals to be accepted by our community and baked into Kaspa.

Back to Kaspa, if I may. What led to Kaspa's creation and its role in your research?

I wanted a boutique crypto platform that will implement my research, and which will keep me incentivized to come up with new research lines.

Are you exploring new research areas for Kaspa?

Yes, several, some more exciting than others.

Can you give us a sneak peek?

In time due. For now, suffice it to say one research line resolves around MEV and Oracle data and another line around a new smart contract concept, which I hope would prove useful.

What is Kaspa’s current development roadmap?

A roadmap assumes a team and structure. Kaspa operates differently, based on community grants, votes, per-project devs, dev funds, etc. I can share my wishlist with you if you want, as well as my loose prediction of how the process is likely to evolve in practice: DAGKnight, 100 BPS, and an MEV resistance mechanism. These are on the part of perfecting the sequencing functionality. Other wish features: zkVM – an L1 op_code that allows for native zk rollups and account abstraction, a feature that supports native social recovery necessary for sound money.

What needs to be done so that DAGKnight (DK) becomes the new consensus for Kaspa?

We need the Rust+10 BPS project to be fully complete before we focus on this full-time, which I suppose is wrapping up these very days. Originally, the 10 BPS was meant to happen after the Rust completion and either after or in parallel with DK efforts. Priorities have shifted since it made sense to extend the Rust project to include being able to cope with very high BPS. So, we got Rust+10BPS together at the expense of a delay in DK implementation and upgrade.

Yonatan, imagine that Rust rewrite is complete, and Kaspa operates on DAGKnight with 30 BPS. What will this allow Kaspa to perform?

I don’t know, but I’m sure new usage patterns will emerge in 30—and definitely 100 – BPS. They will probably revolve around instantaneous first confirmation for commutative state changes, i.e., when the ordering of this round’s transactions does not affect your transaction or when there’s no material risk for double-spend. Also, I presume that with 100 BPS, several service providers will run their own miners, giving rise to new mining dynamics.

And what can we expect from DAGKnight with 100 BPS? I guess that from 30 BPS higher, it is not about speed anymore.

DAGKNIGHT is also useful for 10 BPS. Anything above 10 BPS is about the decentralization of mining, MEV protection, and perhaps more properties that I haven’t thought of yet.

Great. Let me ask about future Kaspa development. Can you provide minimalistic information about the topics you mentioned during the CECS conference and what logical milestones Kaspa should follow?

  • Selfish-mining bounds:
    • In general, DAG makes selfish mining less risky but also much less profitable. DAG is more tolerant to late blocks, and you’d expect it, in particular, to give a selfish miner more room for error. It indeed does, but also honest nodes enjoy higher tolerancy to the artificial latency caused by the selfish mining, so the attack is overall much less profitable. I doubt this observartion merits another research paper, but maybe if I come across a bored student I’ll assign this to them.
  • Tightness of confirmation times:
    • It is NP difficult – and arguably of little practical value – to provide tight bounds for theoretical liveness attacks on DAG protocols. These analyses assume an unrealistically powerful attacker who enjoys zero latency to or from honest nodes. A more useful approach would be – having proved theoretical liveness bounds – to use machine learning to tighten the bounds for practical attacks.
  • Additional benefits to parameterless (elastic throughput, MEV protection):
    • Parameterlessness allows you to support a high variance of block sizes and block rates. I am still unsure where to take it from here. I was considering elastic throughput, but this also requires further thought.

What about the new thing in the Kaspa ecosystem, the Kaspa Ecosystem Fund (KEF)?

I chatted with KEF folks twice. They are very keen to support Kaspa R&D, particularly smart contracts. I’d be happy to work with them and similar organizations in the future, though I am not affiliated with them or with kaspa.org at that.

How do you view Kaspa's role or desired position in the crypto ecosystem?

Kaspa is all about sequencing—speed, security, decentralization, and, in the future, resistance to MEV, which stems from the informational gap between sequencers and transaction issuers. Sequencing is the linchpin of consensus; any compromise there infiltrates the entire stack. Perfect sequencing complements the rest of the stack—e.g., the VM—from other successful projects through friendly clones.

Does this mean Kaspa will serve as a rollup sequencer for other projects in the ecosystem, such as Ethereum?

Eth L2 terminology keeps shifting. A rollup and a sequencing layer mean today different things to different people. In any case, it might be a good first step to serve as a sequencing layer for the Eth ecosystem, but the end game should be to settle on Kaspa and develop our own ecosystem. While we are at it, I am not sure what will be the actual borders of the Eth ecosystem going forward since its L2/L3 ecosystem is increasingly assuming the role of the main chain – sequencing and data availability are gradually moving to centralized players, and while the main chain might remain the root settlement layer, there’s also a non-negligible chance that Eth will undergo a “supernova” event and the ecosystem will fragment. This is not to say Eth will die, not at all, but rather that the actual technological meaning of “belonging to the Eth ecosystem” will become increasingly more ambiguous. I wrote about it in my blog if I may self-promote here:
[In which we’ll bе reduced to a spectrum of gray].

Bitcoin rollups and DeFi are supposed to be the “next new thing.” Take bitVm by Citrea, for example. How would this compare to Kaspa?

It’s interesting to see the Bitcoin community embrace the use case of DeFi, which is traditionally considered a scam, at least in hardcore circles. I suppose it’s inevitable that Bitcoin DeFi becomes a thing, and at the same time, I doubt it will dominate. Bitcoin’s 10-minute block interval rules it out as a relevant sequencing layer for finance, and settling on Bitcoin can be done only via some bridge unless a new ZKP op_code is implemented.

What changes would you like to see in the Kaspa community?

First and foremost, a more distributed knowledge base. There are still several areas where too few researchers or devs fully comprehend, which implies we still have too few points of failure, even if the mining and control of the network itself are decentralized. More generally, a more technical or technological and less persona-oriented approach towards the project. Kaspa should not be based on trust in people, let alone one founder or a handful of community figures. I originated Kaspa, and I contribute to it; I do not have or wish to have a sense of ownership over it, and I’m happy for others to take it wherever they want (which is why I do not mention Kaspa in my bio). If the cost of reasserting this crypto-premise is some people leaving the project because they thought it’s all about me, so be it. I believe that’d be a very healthy development, will pay off in the long run and probably sooner, and will accelerate Kaspa’s path to antifragility. The more personality-cult-minded people leaving the project, the more crypto-principled folks will be attracted to it: more critical thinking and technical eyes, quicker development and testing cycles, and broader pressure to document the codebase.

During Ethereum's early stages, Vitalik Buterin and his team adopted a variant of the GHOST protocol for Ethereum consensus. However, they had to switch to an alternative approach due to improper implementation. Interestingly, it's believed that Ethereum still operates on a variation of another protocol you co-authored, the Inclusive Blockchain Protocols, which pioneered using a directed acyclic graph (blockDAG) for block structure. Were there any discussions or exchanges between you and Vitalik about this strategic shift? Did he give you a call back then? :) Did he ever seek your input, consult with you, or inquire about your ongoing research? If such interaction did not occur, do you think it would have been advantageous to them at the time?

Ethereum implemented a variant of Inclusive in their uncle's inclusion protocol. AFAIK, not implementing GHOST was not due to improper implementation but a combination of wanting to simplify and perhaps some original developers not fully comprehending it. Vitalik and I spoke about it twice perhaps, but not in real time. When Ethereum WP was released, Aviv and I were already aware of problems in GHOST and were halfway DAG wards.

What influenced your decision to choose the PoW path for your project?

My research is on PoW, I wouldn't have too much to contribute with other designs. PoW is much better notwithstanding.

In terms of the Kaspa Proof-of-Work (PoW) function, it has been highlighted that it is specifically designed to be compatible with Optical ASIC chips. This unique characteristic potentially enables PoW mining with significantly reduced electricity consumption. Could you elaborate on the potential impact of this development and discuss the trade-off between the high initial capital and maintenance costs associated with Optical ASIC chip mining versus the long-term benefit of reduced electricity consumption resulting from light-electron interaction?

If you believe ASICs are better than CPUs for network health, then the same arguments would apply to optical ASICs being healthier than digital ones. TLDR, a smaller fraction of the security investment is burnt at each time interval.

How does the Kaspa community plan to maintain the drive for continuous development and upgrades, ensuring it doesn't suffer the fate of Bitcoin or Monero, where development stagnated after reaching the limits of their base layer (L1) systems?

I'm not going anywhere, at least as long as LBJ stays in the game. I mean this more seriously than it sounds. Lebron James is a role model, sticking to the demanding work of your game, whatever that may be, striving, always striving, regardless of how many successes you have already in your bag. He's twenty years older than some of his peers, and he doesn't care.

We are almost done. It wasn't even that hard, right?
Yonatan, when you realized I am Czech, you said that you would treat this interview with a higher priority right from the start if you had known this earlier. Why?

Czech has a warm spot in my heart. The country has been historically, and still is, proudly committed to and consistent in supporting the promotion of Western values in the middle east.


Anything you want to share with the community before we finish this interview?

Please read the appendix to my first paper, Secure High-Rate Transaction Processing in Bitcoin. It has a nice lemma about the race between a Poisson random process and an increasing hazard rate one. Also, don't take everything I say too seriously. Cheers.


The end.


Have you enjoyed the interview, and do you want to know more about Dr. Somplisky’s work, Kaspa, a solution to a trilemma of blockchain security, scalability, and decentralization, and introduction to a blockchain’s new meta - the block-DAG paradigm? Pick yourself a copy of my book:

Or send me a KAS thank you at the address below! Kind regards, Mickey.

kaspa:qrq2mtm3g9feuyt7f4pmkc6jxuujxh80g6u8wmmpr44leuq9f8wr2z0x9rxmh