Hi Dan,
Below are our team’s thoughts on your questions. We are looking forward to the discussion tomorrow.
Question 1:
Adding another framework to Hyperledger presents both opportunities and risks. On the risks side, we are just now at a point where we were starting to see real progress on componentization and steps towards architectural convergence. A siloed project could upset that progress. I appreciate the Besu proposers expressing a willingness to work with existing component projects (e.g. Transact & Ursa). Is Besu architected in a way to also provide components to the rest of Hyperledger? Are there pieces that offer independent value?
PegaSys’ Thoughts: Besu has been built with a modular architecture in mind. Elements of it could be reused by other parts of Hyperledger. The leading elements for this would be: Other elements may also be useful. As these modules have not yet been run independently, there would likely be work required to ensure that they run well outside of Besu, but this is certainly possible.
Question 2:
On the opportunities side, with new frameworks we’ve always had a constantly rising bar… what does this new proposal bring that is unique to our greenhouse. The most prominent item I see is Ethereum mainnet compatibility. Could someone articulate the value of that in specific terms? I am familiar with the notion of using mainnet as a receipt log. I would like to understand other benefits and use cases for permissioned networks to link with mainnet.
PegaSys’ Thoughts: This article published last week by ConsenSys does a good job articulating the value of Ethereum mainnet as well as the benefits for linking permissioned networks with Ethereum mainnet. In our opinion, this section from the article provides a good overview:
“Many enterprise blockchain experts anticipate that permissioned blockchain networks’ access to the mainnet will be analogous to an intranet’s access to the Internet today, in which users behind security firewalls still have access to all or select parts of the Internet. In the case of blockchain, enterprise networks would have access to the Ethereum mainnet via a bridge, with the ability to pick and choose which networks, nodes, and accounts to interact with on the main chain. Permissioned network interoperability with the Ethereum mainnet would allow data storage across the blockchain and private cloud with customizable privacy and scalability. Connecting to the mainnet also allows compatibility with and access to:
Thank you, Grace
First off thanks for all the work going into the proposal and the timely responses to this list and the wiki. While there is already collaboration with portions of the Ethereum and EEA communities, more involvement and collaboration is
always very welcome. I think this project could foster even more and I have a just a few questions remaining in my mind after reviewing all the comments in this thread and the wiki.
Adding another framework to Hyperledger presents both opportunities and risks. On the risks side, we are just now at a point where we were starting to see real progress on componentization and steps towards architectural convergence. A
siloed project could upset that progress. I appreciate the Besu proposers expressing a willingness to work with existing component projects (e.g. Transact & Ursa). Is Besu architected in a way to also provide components to the rest of Hyperledger? Are there
pieces that offer independent value?
On the opportunities side, with new frameworks we’ve always had a constantly rising bar… what does this new proposal bring that is unique to our greenhouse. The most prominent item I see is Ethereum mainnet compatibility. Could someone
articulate the value of that in specific terms? I am familiar with the notion of using mainnet as a receipt log. I would like to understand other benefits and use cases for permissioned networks to link with mainnet.
I look forward to discussing this proposal in our steering meeting tomorrow (8/22).
Thanks,
Dan Middleton
Chair, Technical Steering Committee
Joe - we can probably do it, and pretty quickly. We already have both Fabric and Ethereum nodes (full nodes) on the Unbounded Network for quite a while... and we are already bridging Fabric - Quorum (JPM's), etc...
I don't think being under the same foundation will guarantee that people actively "make it work". One can argue that some of the biggest Fabric supporters also part of EEA/TTI and still haven't made this a priority. I wonder who will spend
the money and time..
Also, for those more familiar with the Ethereum Ecosystem - there are so many tools that are not part of Hyperledger, from Truffle to Infura and I don't want to even mention block explorers and others. Do we want a commitment that all these
tools will be part of Hyperledger, or that code will move from these projects (some are with GPL and others) into the respective HL candidates? There are actually announcements left, right and center about truffle adding Fabric support, etc. These developments
are not done in Hyperledger.
-----
What I don't understand is, since when we have ever required anything like some of the things I see below from a project at incubation? Shall we make these a future requirement?
I will put together a wider response tomorrow, actually with a few questions that I belive we should answer within Hyperledger first, before we make so many changes "after a proposal is submitted". We saw it with Grid, which required an
escalation to the board, and we are beginning to see some similar traits.
In the meantime, enjoy the Web3 Summit, Berlin BC Week, where applies.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:20, Joseph Lubin
We have also engaged in discussions for a year of so with some Fabric focussed groups around finding a project that would benefit from a Fabric-Ethereum bridge. To this point we haven't found a partner that was interested in doing this
with us, but I expect this will happen quite quickly if we are all part of the same foundation.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 6:08 PM, Grace Hartley <grace.hartley@...> wrote:
Here are our team's thoughts, but we'd love to hear the community's feedback as well.
In the short term we see the majority of interop and cross ledger communication happening at layer 2. We are actively working with teams
in the wider community to ensure that Besu facilitates layer 2 cross ledger communication, particularly working with the web3j team who are adding support for Hyperledger Fabric, and the Truffle team who are doing the same.
In the medium-term we are very interested in interoperability between chains, and we will be investing increasing effort in this direction,
and in doing so expect to leverage many of the existing Hyperledger projects to do so. The two most obvious projects for collaboration currently are Burrow due to it’s EVM execution environment and aim of providing
a
practical base for EVM extensions in a many-chain world. In addition we look towards working with Quilt for its implementation of the interledger
protocol. Quilt is a natural collaboration opportunity due to both the technologies it supports, and the fact that it is a JVM based technology.
Thank you Grace, for the kind response
How do you foresee Besu converge with Hyperledger technologies. For example, do you see Besu converging or inter-operating with Fabric or Sawtooth anytime. I do see blockchain networks going Hybrid as they evolve. There are several other
yperledger projects like URSA and Transact. Quite interested in knowing Besu leveraging these.
Hi All,
Thanks for the thoughtful questions. We've responded to them below.
Virgil’s Question:
Why the name "Besu"? That seems an odd choice, I'd imagine you'd want to pick an Ethereum-related word like "Rainbow", "Unicorn", or some such.
PegaSys' Response:
As Dan mentioned, we had a trademark challenge with Pantheon and we have to switch our name regardless of the Proposal. We chose Hyperledger Besu because “besu”
means base in Japanese. We felt like base indicated how we developed the Ethereum client. We believe it is a solid foundation for blockchain developers to work on to run networks, build applications or send transactions, as an example.
Hyperledger’s naming principles target names that are not “common” words and that are easy to trademark. Unicorn, rainbow and all other words we explored that
have more direct connections to Ethereum will have trademark challenges.
Mohan’s Question:
Hyperledger technologies support a permissioned blockchain. They do not, at least to my understanding, have a crypto aspect. Is the intent to incubate Besu as a permissioned
ethereum based blockchain and support interoperability with other platforms like Sawtooth, Iroha , Fabric? Also, how does this relate to Hyperledger Burrow?
PegaSys' Response:
The intent for Besu to be submitted in its current form. It can be run on the Ethereum public network or on private permissioned networks, as well as test networks
such as Rinkeby, Ropsten, and Görli. We think public chain compatibility aligns with the enterprise market’s growing interest in using mainnet for a broader and more diverse set of use cases. Because this project is a protocol, it can be used for many different
applications. Enabling cryotocurrency is only one of the applications. This project would be the first public chain compatible client within Hyperledger.
Silas provides a great response on his thoughts about how the project relates to Burrow and some ideas around collaboration here. Burrow is most well known for
its EVM, which could connect in with Besu. They have a number of other components that we have started discussing with Silas. We are excited about closely working with the Hyperledger community to find areas for interoperability across the other projects.
We have ideas mentioned in the Proposal around who we can collaborate with.
Hyperledger technologies support a permissioned blockchain. They do not, at least to my understanding, have a crypto aspect. Is the intent to incubate
Besu as a permissioned ethereum based blockchain and support interoperability with other platforms like Sawtooth, Iroha , Fabric? Also, how does this relate to Hyperledger Burrow?
Why the name "Besu"? That seems an odd choice, I'd imagine you'd want to pick an Ethereum-related word like "Rainbow", "Unicorn", or some such.
There were some trademark issues around "Pantheon", unfortunately
Why rename it?
Hi All, We are excited to share that
PegaSys, the Protocol Engineering team at
ConsenSys, submitted the
Proposal for our Ethereum client, Hyperledger Besu (currently known as Pantheon), for your consideration as a new Hyperledger project.
We welcome your feedback on the Proposal and look forward to engaging with you on it. Feel free to send our team feedback via email or comment
directly in the Proposal document.
Thank you,
PegaSys and ConsenSys Team Joseph Lubin, ConsenSys,
joseph. lubin@ consensys. netDaniel Heyman, ConsenSys/ PegSys,
daniel. heyman@ consensys. netRob Dawson, ConsenSys/ PegaSys,
rob. dawson@ consensys. netGrace Hartley, ConsenSys/PegaSys,
grace. hartley@ consensys. netDanno Ferrin, ConsenSys/PegaSys,
danno. ferrin@ consensys. net
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http:/
/ www. digitalasset. com/ emaildisclaimer. html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete
this message.
|
