EOS.IO Development Update

in #eosio6 years ago

We have been very busy working to make EOS.IO the best smart contract platform on the market. Our team has been pushing the boundaries of blockchain design to provide the best possible balance between ease of development and performance.

In our last update, we outlined some of the changes we were working on, including:

  • Support for Apple’s Touch ID / Secure Enclave
  • Error Handling on Deferred (asynchronous) Transactions
  • Parallel Execution

Since that update we have implemented much of what we discussed. Much of this work has been occuring in the eos-noon branch on github so that we can maintain a stable master for those utilizing the test network. Here are some details of what we’ve been working on.

Deferred Transactions

Deferred transactions enable communication between different shards by minimizing the number of database locks that must be acquired at the same time. These have now been implemented along with the ability to schedule a transaction to be delivered in the future and to cancel a scheduled transaction.

Scheduled transactions (combined with free transactions) makes EOS.IO the first “Turing Complete Smart Contract Platform”. This means that it will be possible to create a smart contract that will automatically perform an action multiple times per second on an ongoing basis without any outside input. As long as the contract has sufficient computational bandwidth, the contract can run forever. All other competing smart contract platforms require outside input to run due to being limited by fees and the lack of ability to schedule a transaction for a future point in time.

This functionality is now complete in our code and will be available in the EOS Dawn 3.0 Testnet release, which we are hoping to release by the end of Q1 2018.

Authorization Delays

Time is a critical element of security. We are in the process of updating the permission structures of EOS.IO to enable users to configure a mandatory delay for each permission level. For example, posting to social media can be instant, while transfering funds may require a 24 hour or longer delay. When a user attempts to perform an action with a configured delay, the transaction will be packaged and deferred for the delay period, and can be cancelled any time prior to the end of that period. This will enable the user to utilize the Hacked Account Recovery process to regain control over their account before any significant harm can be done.

Hacked Account Recovery

Every account will have three special permissions: owner, active, and recovery. The owner permission should be configured with N of M multisig (2 of 2), and has the power to change all other permissions instantly. Updating the owner permission should be configured to require a 30 day delay. Ideally the owner would require the active permission of a recovery partner. To hack the owner permission would require the user and their recovery partner to be compromised at the same time. If the recovery partner’s active key is compromised, then the recovery partner can use their owner permission to recover. In practice, this forms a web of trust among all users that would require everyone to be hacked at once for accounts to be compromised.

If the recovery partner(s) decides to be uncooperative, the active permission can always unilaterally update the owner permission with a 30 day delay. This means that your account cannot be held at the mercy of others.
There is only one scenario that could leave an individual helpless: losing their active key at the same time as the hacker gets the key. This can largely be mitigated by having an adequate backup strategy with redundant keys.

Lost Password Recovery

People forget passwords, computers break, and stuff happens. Murphy’s law states that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, and this applies to the best laid plans of mice and crypto experts. With EOS.IO you are not out of luck. Every account can specify a number of recovery partners that have the ability to update the active authority (with 7 days delay), but only if your account is inactive for 30 days. As long as you specify some friends and family you trust to return your account to you if you lose your keys, then you never have to worry about getting locked out forever.

Every account will include a constitutional and legal obligation to restore your property right to the account. If they abuse the position and attempt to take over your account while you are in a 30 day coma, you can still sue them to get the account back. Because you only appoint people you know to be your recovery partner, it will be easy to know who to hold accountable.

Lost password recovery is made possible by the power of combining social networks, time delays, and cryptography to build trust networks that protect everyone’s property rights.

Update Resource Usage Algorithms

EOS Dawn 2.0 implemented some basic resource limits, but we still have work to do. Over the past two months we have completely revamped our resource rate limiting strategy for bandwidth, computation, voting, and storage.

Separate Staking

The most significant change we’ve added is to create different staking pools for different rights in order to recognize the economic reality of different supply/demand prices for bandwidth, memory, and control. For example, we don’t want people allocating memory they don’t intend to use just so that they can claim their voting rights or bandwidth. We also want to impose a 3 day delay for unstaking bandwidth, no delay for unstaking unused storage, and a 6 month delay for unstaking voting. Bandwidth and voting can be delegated but storage cannot. As you can see there are many different needs that must be addressed.

Bandwidth Delegation

Any account can delegate bandwidth to any other account by transferring tokens to a bandwidth staking account. To keep things symmetrical, a user “delegates bandwidth” to themselves the same way they would delegate bandwidth to someone else. A user can get their tokens back at any time after a 3 day delay.
Bandwidth will be “billed” to all accounts that authorize a transaction and usage will linearly decay to 0 after 3 days of inactivity.


Now that we have separated staking pools for bandwidth and memory, we can provide better alignment of interests for those who wish to exercise political control on the platform. To gain influence in selecting block producers and protocol upgrades, users must stake tokens in a contract with a 6 month linear withdraw period. This will expose them to capital losses if their actions have negative impact on the platform.


RAM is expensive and limited in what a single computer can support on commodity hardware. If we allocate all 1TB of RAM proportional to a market cap of $100B, then it would cost over $10 per byte of storage. This would make the platform unusable in a world where 99.99% of token holders don’t actually need the RAM.

To resolve this issue we can borrow an idea from Bancor to treat memory like a smart token with 1% reserve. In this case the reserve is 1TB of real RAM and the Bancor algorithm sells this real RAM at a dynamic price such that RAM never runs out. When someone wishes to reserve RAM, they send tokens to the memory contract and are reserved bytes based on a function of liquid tokens and available RAM.

The blockchain will track the actual usage of an account and abort transactions that would attempt to consume more RAM than they had previously allocated. When an account is done with its allocated, but no longer needed RAM, it can request a reduction of its allocation and will receive back the locked tokens.

It will not be possible to transfer or delegate reserved storage nor to profit from capital appreciation by reserving RAM at cheap prices and then freeing it at expensive prices. This is critical to prevent storage from becoming a speculative instrument which would bid up prices beyond what people actually need today.

Each user is limited to one increase in allocation per day, and the price they pay for their full allocation will be based upon the free RAM after the allocation. This means that it is very expensive to allocate a lot of RAM at once (due to market slippage) and that the most cost effective strategy is to buy storage over time and only in quantities an individual expects to use in the future.

This strategy will cause those who want to reserve a lot of RAM to dollar cost average and give all competitors similar prices over time.

Billing Memory Usage

We have learned a lot about how to make applications usable and one of the things we realized very quickly is that there are many cases where the contract owner would be better off if they could have the user bring their own storage. Without being able to put the cost on the user, it makes certain parallel computations difficult and forces contract developers to build their own accounting models.
Every contract will have the option to either bill the storage to the user who authorized the transaction, or to the contract itself. In most cases it works much better for each user to store their own “account information” rather than a service contract to store it internally. This gives developers maximum flexibility in designing their user experiences.

This change is in progress and scheduled for inclusion in EOS Dawn 3.0.

Implicit Transaction Locking

We have renamed “read/write scopes” to “read/write locks” to convey their logical behavior and have also increased the granularity of the locks to maximize opportunity for parallel execution.
Developers testing EOS Dawn 2.0 are familiar with the need to declare the “scopes” required for each transaction. This made transactions more difficult to construct and fragile in the face of certain dynamic situations. We investigated the situation and determined that block producers could determining which read/write locks are required. This removed the need to specify the required locks in every transaction which saves space while making things easier than ever for developers.

This change has been implemented in the eos-noon branch.

Dynamic Upgrades of Core Features

Normally upgrading a blockchain requires a hardfork. This can occur anytime new features are desired, existing features need upgrades, or bugs need fixed. Hard forks are disruptive to the entire network; therefore, it is desirable for as much of the blockchain behavior to be defined dynamically via WASM as possible.
We have started the process of migrating core features from native C++ to WASM contracts. These features include:

  • The core token (e.g. EOS)
  • Staking for bandwidth, memory, and voting
  • Producer voting
  • Multisig Contracts
  • Community Benefit Contract / Worker Proposal allocation

The only transactions that will not be implemented directly in WASM will be:

  • Account creation
  • Bandwidth / RAM usage metrics
  • Permission Updates

Scheduled / Deferred Transactions

With this change, block producers will be able to fix bugs and upgrade many aspects of the protocol without having to hard fork. Through this process we are eating our own dog food and ensuring that our smart contract development environment is robust enough to implement every contract we can think of.

Emerging Token Standard

In an effort to support interoperability between contracts we have been developing a token standard for contracts. This standard will be similar to the idea behind ERC-20 tokens and enable many contracts to interoperate with each other.

Our token standard will have many advantages over traditional ERC-2* tokens:

  • Transfers may contain memos for application data
  • Sender and receiver can execute code and reject the transaction
  • Benefit from the EOS.IO permission system
  • Native tokens are implemented using the same code
  • A single contract can create and manage multiple tokens

We are implementing a standard C++ library that will make creating your token as simple as parameterizing some template variables and deploying a contract.

Focus on Stability

Our single threaded code is on track to sustain 5000 TPS with a 0.5 second block interval, and delivering finality within 2 seconds. This is industry leading performance; therefore we believe the market would benefit more from improved stability, features, and better architecture than pure performance at this stage. Therefore, we are choosing to improve overall quality of transactions before we push to maximise the quantity of transactions per second.

In our last update for Dawn 2.0, we indicated our intention to start work on parallel execution earlier than originally intended. Due to a large number of new developer-friendly features that we have added, we have reprioritized stability over performance for the June release of EOS.IO. We feel it is better to achieve the best possible architecture than to deliver more raw performance than the market will be able to immediately use.

With the addition of interchain communication, we feel that EOS.IO will easily support infinite scaling. This feature is largely implemented, and we hope to have a proof-of-concept demonstration of interchain communication with 2-way peg by the end of Q2.

Byzantine Fault Tolerant(BFT) DPOS

There are two primary proof of stake systems: DPOS, and BFT systems like tenderment. They each have different advantages. DPOS supports faster block times (0.5 second) and will continue to function and heal even if all but 1 block producer fails. The downside to traditional DPOS is that it can take 45 seconds to reach absolute finality. In practice, systems like STEEM and BitShares have 99.9% finality in less than 2 seconds, but for low-latency inter-blockchain communication we would like absolute finality in less than 2 seconds.

BFT systems reach absolute finality every block, but their algorithm can be high bandwidth, can take 2-3 seconds and has no intermediate states with 99.9% finality. Furthermore, these systems halt completely if 33% of the nodes fail.
BFT-DPOS gives us the best of all worlds. Blocks are produced with 99.9% finality every 0.5 seconds and confirmed with absolute finality every 2 seconds or better. We achieve this by having block producers send out a block confirmation every time they extend their local chain. A byzantine fault is proven if a block producer sends out two confirmations for the same block height or block time stamp. Producers include an incrementing sequence number with each confirmation they send. A producer who sends two confirmations with the same sequence number is also proven to be byzantine.

Since only one producer can produce a block at any time, and producers only switch forks when a longer chain is found, forks that would create different irreversible blocks are only possible if over ⅓ of producers commit cryptographically provable byzantine faults. In such a situation, the community through the constitution can take actions to freeze the producer’s accounts and the misbehaving producers can automatically be removed from the block schedule. The DPOS chain would still continue under the longest-chain rule until the issue is resolved.

Compensation for Runner Up Block Producers

We are working on an algorithm that would divide Block Producer pay into two classes:

  • Per-block reward
  • Per-vote reward

All Block Producers with votes will be able to claim their per-vote reward once per hour by signing a transaction. To do this they will - at the very least - need to set up a bot to broadcast a transaction. With this compensation system, there is continual incentive for producers to campaign for votes.

We are also implementing a vote-decay system by weighing more recent votes more than older votes. In this way, Block Producer selection will in part be based upon who has the most active voters who refresh their vote at least once per month. Stale votes will decay to minimal impact within 2 years.

Growing Team

This week we were pleased to add 8 new people to our team. We are constantly looking for more. If you are a talented developer or designer please contact us.


The EOS.IO software is maturing nicely and is on track for a robust June 2018 release, with far more features than were originally outlined in the White Paper.

Follow me on Twitter and stay tuned for our live special announcement from Seoul, South Korea!

block.one is a software company and is producing the EOS.IO software as free, open source software. This software may enable those who deploy it to launch a blockchain or decentralized applications with the features described above. block.one will not be launching a public blockchain based on the EOS.IO software. It will be the sole responsibility of third parties and the community and those who wish to become block producers to implement the features and/or provide the services described above as they see fit. block.one does not guarantee that anyone will implement such features or provide such services or that the EOS.IO software will be adopted and deployed in any way.

All statements in this document, other than statements of historical facts, including any statements regarding block.one’s business strategy, plans, prospects, developments and objectives are forward looking statements. These statements are only predictions and reflect block.one’s current beliefs and expectations with respect to future events and are based on assumptions and are subject to risk, uncertainties and change at any time. We operate in a rapidly changing environment. New risks emerge from time to time. Given these risks and uncertainties, you are cautioned not to rely on these forward-looking statements. Actual results, performance or events may differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements. Some of the factors that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements contained herein include, without limitation: market volatility; continued availability of capital, financing and personnel; product acceptance; the commercial success of any new products or technologies; competition; government regulation and laws; and general economic, market or business conditions. Any forward-looking statement made by block.one speaks only as of the date on which it is made and block.one is under no obligation to, and expressly disclaims any obligation to, update or alter its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, subsequent events or otherwise.


Never cease to impress. Using that Bancor principle in regards to RAM allocation is clever! Can you elaborate on this part:

"Bandwidth will be “billed” to all accounts that authorize a transaction and usage will linearly decay to 0 after 3 days of inactivity."

Can you walk me (us) through please?

I'm not part of the team, so maybe @dan can correct me if I'm wrong, but...

The amount of bandwidth you have consumed is posted to your account ("billed"). That amount then decreases at a linear rate over the next 3 days. For example, if you used 259,200 MB of bandwidth, then it would tick down by 1 each second. If you set something up that used 259,200 to get started on then used 1 MB every second as a scheduled operation, your bandwidth 'bill' would effectively hold steady at 259,200 MB.

Presumably you would have some maximum 'bill' that your account is allowed to have against it, based on the stake held by the account, and if your bandwidth 'bill' exceeded the maximum your operations would be frozen or rejected until you either increase your stake or the bill decays below your maximum.

Dan operates at 2 levels higher than the rest of us

I have 100% faith in his work.

Here is something to ponder. What if @dan release better versions of STEEM and BTS running on EOS as flagship DAPP projects. That would break the crypto-sphere. Ethereum would die in shame and Cardano (cheap knock-off) would be pushed to the sidelines and only Komodo and Enigma would survive due to their privacy features. NEM would also survive because they are more of a currency with smart contract features and not aiming to be the competition of EOS.

I fully expect someone to compete with Steem on EOS. There are plenty of issues and areas for Steem to improve and it seems development is pretty slow around here. Ignoring the user experience to chase a grander vision is risky.

I see Bitshares being ported over in a very mutually beneficial way in to EOS and serve as the financial backbone. Would love to hear what @stan says.

YOYOW is already Chinese competition and GOLOS is Russinan competition. One could take a bunch of ideas from TRON, LBRY and add a marketplace like SYScoin and basically you'll have a winner. Maybe some of the creators of those projects would join.

What I'm most excited for is Gamecredits and MobileGo. They already plan to develop for both Ethereum and Waves and that mindset isn't too far from "Hey, let's go for EOS". Their project is solid but they'll really need scaling. Think about putting down a review after a purchase or voting for a game.

Even if you manage that what about chats and release days for video games that sell few million copies in 24 hours. EOS devs should seriously talk to Game credits. They have a great teams and not much of games or a scalable platform.

so you like to have monopoly's around like facebook or what? what's wrong with competition? the west won't use yoyoow and golos is steem so there is not competition at this point.. gamecredits is the only one that did nothing and I tried using the other ones you mention here i have used lbry and to store for payments makes no sense you must pay to watch a video aswel, it's the reason for the price aswel it will be back below 0.25 soon but i guess 10 cent suits more.. steem is a blockchain which goes beyond steemit. I only fear the way it may become when leaders with high steempower don't interact and prevent pricepoolrape by a few whales and even tend to be guilty of gangrape the pricepool theirselves maybe.. the credibility of those who had previlege to mine and the upcoming begging 3th world who spreads the most dirty in the new section aswel... those are factors to fear

There have been rumbings about this.

That´s quite possible. I was always wondering, how the 3 coins/projects will work together in the future.

Airdrops..sweet! I didnt think about that!!

Thanks for sharing your article! Very appreciated!

What if they are waiting to deploy EOS so they can migrate STEEM and BTS over to EOS, and then have greater incentive to then develop them more?

Yeah, he is pretty dang smart but more importantly he is employing his knowledge and skills to better the world by securing everyone's life, liberty and property through blockchain technology in ways that have not been achieved by others. That is why I am such a fan of his.

Same same, and one of my favorite parts of this article is:

The EOS.IO software is maturing nicely and is on track for a robust June 2018 release, with far more features than were originally outlined in the White Paper.

Going above and beyond is never a bad thing!

some say people whose name starts with the letter d are generally special, smart and very sensitive human beings.

that's because they don't know me or they would change their minds

oh big thing!!!!!....I also wrote a revolutionary software ....it used to print to the screen the words "Hello World"....after months of intense research, I found out I could replace the words "Hello world" by any sentence I want, so I could insult people and tell them it was not me, it was the app...a new world of possibilities.....I.E. yesterday I told my friend Miguel:"Hey Miguel, open this app", he did it and the app printed "F*ck you Miguel" and I told him it was the app's fault, I made it with a complex system of Artificial Intelligence, etc....so, pure happiness

I voted this comment because I think it's the more profound and deep comment ever written on steem blockchain and I think the author should be heavily curated.

nahhhhh....I voted it because it's mine and they say I earn money if I upvote my own comments.

But self upvoting is a little silly!

A little silly, or a lot profitable? These are the conundrums of Steem!

I think upvoting other people to show that you care and respect their contribution to the community is more important then financial aspect of upvoting. On the other hand, if you gain overall respect in community upvotes from others can be much more profitable. This is the main reason that I prefer not to upvote myself.

I agree with you.

True, Money Talks either way.

Add a Lorem Ipsum to that and you are rich

Yeah, or higher LOL, well said man

Agreed, he has an uncanny ability to deliver solutions to issues we did not even see as problems. I am looking forward to seeing EOS going live and using DAPP's in the eco system.

Talk about yourself please :P

2 levels higher? I take it as a compliment !

We are many thinking the same way! :)

I even thought about resteeming his post so people think I understand what it's written there and they will think I am smart....then I can tell them "See!!!! I am not a retard, as my mother used to call me"

Looking forward to EOS becoming reality!

This is all these good works going on in many altcoins that make me believe and invest in the future of cryptos.

You got a 16.13% upvote from @yourwhale courtesy of @discernente!

You got a 2.70% upvote from @upyou thanks to @discernente!

This post has received a 0.75 % upvote from @boomerang thanks to: @discernente

If you think that just voting is enough to ensure a system's decentralization, come look at US politics.

Vitalik Buterin on Laura Shin's Unchained: 39:33

I tend to agree.

Counterargument??? @Dan

Discussion on DPOS starts at 38:30

Ethereum's equivalent of voting is: what pool are you going to be mining on? They are not solving any centralization issues with DPOS that way. DPOS at least sets lower limit on number of block producers and give them equal power. So DPOS ends up being more decentralized in practice.

Casper introduces bonded staking where validators incur a direct monetary loss if they go against network consensus - although I'm not exactly sure how this consensus is determined. This provides an extra measure of security in addition to voting, which is vitalik's point - stake-weighted voting alone is not sufficiently secure enough to maintain these networks, and DPOS relies solely on this voting.

If you go against consensus in DPOS you are likely to be voted out. Plus, this article mentions that you must stake your tokens for at least 6 months in order to vote. This means that voters will have to bear the consequences of their voting in the market.

Ethereum will only have protection from going against consensus. It won't have anything that incentivizes voters to vote in a way that increases value of the network. While EOS has exactly that.

Plus, this article mentions that you must stake your tokens for at least 6 months in order to vote.

This is the only difference I see in DPOS vs the US political system. Perhaps it will be enough to make the system sufficiently secure.

EOS or Ethereum...The future will laugh for the ether... @helikopterben

Hi @dan
I am working on a game which I will run on the EOS blockchain. My team and me are working as fast as we can but it will still take some time to finish it.
The moment the game app and webside are ready to run I would like to have a chat with you where I tell you all about the game and I would very much appreciate your opinion and help to get it on the EOS blockchain or maybe on the Bitshares blockchain.

Best regards

Very cool man. Good luck

good job :)

Excellent work Dan! May I suggest that for the token specification your look into the ERC223 specification? This specification fixes the issue of an ERC20 token contract not being able to handle incoming transactions of an ERC20 token. For example, implementing token functionality into a contract or people accidentally sending tokens to a contract, and those tokens being irrecoverable,

Dude, I am so excited about EOS, I sometimes can't sleep at night. I can't wait to hear on January 23rd who the first VC company is going to be. I also hear that Block.one is going to release EOS Dawn 3.0 at the end of January. I am also hearing that "it is going to get a little attention." :) Congrats to all EOS token holders.

I was wondering if there's capability built in for executing a dead mans switch and how to do this in the code such as pinging a time server. Also it would be nice to be able to lock up funds or specify contract change conditions under duress.

Having used Bitshares and Steem, I'm still mystified why ETH is going up when it has such awful scaling and security issues. Why are people so slow to figure this out? I'm relatively new to this programming space (but over 2 decades experience in software dev)...

I know that Turing completeness introduces increased security risks, so I'm wondering how you've mitigated the attack surface?

Because ETH is better than Bitcoin and has first mover advantage in the DApps space.

Market dominance is not just about being the best technology solution.

That was a rhetorical question. I'm old enough to remember Betamax vs VHS and punchcards and working on a PDP1170 mainframe. I know a statist might say "there should be a law against that", but maybe there should be an algorithm to fix that.

LOL. I was actually going to use the Beta vs VHS example but then realised you might be too young and not know what I'm talking about!

Apologies for replying to your rhetorical question.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.29
TRX 0.14
JST 0.036
BTC 61470.88
ETH 3368.72
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.67