With various innovative consensus mechanisms such as PoS, DPoS and PBFT emerging in the blockchain world, some people are asking “is PoW outdated?”, “what is the future of PoW?”, “is it still meaningful to do some optimization and innovation work based on PoW?”

After much research and analysis, YeeCo team believes that PoW is still the basis or the kernel of other existing consensus mechanisms and holds an irreplaceable position. Here is our analysis and thoughts on the essential advantages of PoW consensus.

Distributed Consensus

When Satoshi Nakamoto came up with the PoW consensus, he didn’t mean to further the research on distributed consensus done by the scholars. People intend to consider that his PoW consensus provides a solution for distributed consensus in Byzantine environment, giving it an academic perspective, and we start to connect them together.

Speaking of the distributed consensus, we have to include "FLP impossible" theorem in our discussion. "FLP impossible" theorem is come up with and proven by three scientists, Fischer, Lynch and Patterson, in their paper "Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process” in 1985. The theorem concludes that there is no deterministic consensus algorithm that can solve the consistency problem in a minimum asynchronous model system that is reliable in the network but allows node failure (even if there is only one). The revelation of this theorem is that the technically workable distributed consensus must be compromised in some respects.

In fact, there are mainly 2 types of compromise; one is the compromise of asynchrony, and the other is the compromise of finality.

The compromise of asynchrony is to set the timeout mechanism, assuming that the message will not be infinitely delayed. The DLS algorithm (“Consensus in the Presence of Partial Synchrony”) and the PBFT algorithm (“Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance”) are examples in this. Furthermore, the DLS paper reveals two goals of asynchronous consensus in the Byzantine environment: security (consistency) and liveness (availability). Both of the examples make synchronization assumptions to ensure liveness rather than security, which means that if the real environment does not meet the synchronization hypothesis, it will only cause liveness problems rather than consistency problems. That's why we often say that PBFT is a consensus algorithm that prioritizes consistency over availability.

The compromise of finality is based on the concept introduced by Nakamoto, which is that finality is probabilistic. A probabilistically secure consensus is jointly constructed by peer-to-peer networks  through the proof of work and block rewards. It seems that on the map, the Nakamoto consensus is only one of the 2 compromise solutions of the asynchronous Byzantine consensus problem defined by consensus researchers, but the introduction of probability finality not only solves the traditional asynchronous Byzantine problem, but also solves a bigger problem. : Allows any number of nodes to participate in the system in an open manner, and they don’t have to know the complete set of the participants. It is very remarkable because this is the reality that the public chains face. In practice, the Nakamoto consensus that makes compromise on finality has achieved great success.

In essence, the innovative consensuses are also based on the 2 types of compromises.

The Compromises Made by Various Consensuses

PoS

PoS is essentially a PoW and it is a kind of compromise of finality. Staking can be regarded as a threshold. By introducing the threshold, the number of the participants is reduced. The smaller participant set size has two advantages: 1. The total workload of the entire system will be reduced, so is the energy consumption; 2. Asynchronous communication networks are smaller in scale and a fork is less likely to happen due to the delay, and block intervals can be smaller. This is why PoS says it has higher TPS and is more efficient.

DPoS+PBFT

DPoS+PBFT is PBFT in nature and it’s a kind of compromise of asynchrony. The purpose of DPoS is to select a set of participants that can apply the PBFT algorithm. This set has to meet three conditions: 1. The scale is small enough, otherwise the traffic is huge; 2. The total number of the participants is a certain figure, so it is an asynchronous consensus problem that PBFT can solve; 3. The number of malicious participants (Byzantine nodes) is less than 1/3. The Staking mechanism plays two roles in it: 1. Screening users as a threshold; 2. As an incentive mechanism to reduce the proportion of malicious nodes.

Tetris

Tetris is a knowledge inference based consensus algorithm innovated by YeeCo. It is essentially BFT and a kind of compromise of asynchrony. Tetris itself is a solution to the standard Byzantine problem, with a focus on its high performance and proven security. The BFT participants are selected through a pluggable upper layer protocol, which is workable in PoW, DPoS, VRF, etc.

Algorand

Algorand is essentially a BFT, a kind of compromise of asynchrony. Algorand chooses a set of participants that can apply the BFT algorithm in a very special and ingenious way, using VRF (verifiable random function), similar to each participant owning a lottery ticket and the participant can know if he/she is selected or not without communicating with other participants. It seems to be very efficient, but there are a few limits: 1. Need to set a threshold for the participants, because the cost of creating a private key to participate in the network is very low, and in fact Algorand takes the participant’s balance into consideration; 2. As there should be a winning rate for the lottery, and the system needs to know the total number of participants whic is a consensus problem in itself. In order to infer the total number of participants, Algorand tries to make sure that the online balance is about the same as the total balance in the network by rewarding the online nodes. This is in fact a Byzantine fault tolerant system that requires that the total balance of the online and honest nodes is  over 2/3.

DAG

DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph), adopted by IOTA and Conflux, is essentially PoW, and a compromise of finality. If the previous consensuses aim to avoid forks, then DAG’s aim is to control the fork to a certain level, thereby improving the system’s TPS. The essence of DAG is proof of work, but the principle of the longest chain has been changed to the principle of  the most difficult graph structure.

PoW Being the Kernel or Basis

The difference in the various consensus mechanisms is actually the difference in the path from “an open set of network participants” to “consensus”. For example, if the path is from “an open set of network participants” directly to “consensus”, then it is PoW; if the path is from “an open set of network participants” to “an open set of ledger keepers” first and then to "consensus", then it is PoS; if the path is from “an open set of network participants” to “a closed set of ledger keepers” first and then to “consensus”, then it is X+BFT, and X may be DPoS or VRF.

We can see that there are not much innovation in these consensus mechanisms. As long as a consensus is reached from an “an open set of network participants" (nodes can join and leave freely), only one model can be adopted, Nakamoto consensus: nodes are motivated to continue to reach a consensus result based on a consensus result with probabilistic finality.

The meaning of PoW to other consensuses lies in 2 points:

If the consensus is constructed from “an open set of network participants” (nodes can join and leave freely), then it is essentially Nakamoto consensus, so PoW consensus is regarded as the kernel of such consensuses.
If the consensus is changing “an open set of network participants” to “a closed set of network participants”, then mechanism is still required in this case. Where does the consensus on the value of staking come from? The first crypto currency and the Nakamoto consensus play important roles in it. So PoW consensus plays as the basis of such consensuses.

The Essential Advantages of PoW

PoW supporters has listed a number of its merits, such as reliability, purity. When it comes to energy consumption, some people regard it as a flaw, while some people disagree and believe that energy cost is the basis of security.

From my point of view, the essential advantages of PoW are as follows:

Ultimate Openness

PoW is designed for an open set of participants. This openness (the participants are unstable) is always a challenge for them to reach a consensus, whether it is during the earliest cold start, or during the mining stage when the crypto price and mining difficulty are fluctuating.

PoW has adopted an extremely simple mechanism to solve the openness problem. PoW does not need to make any patches for any of the scenarios or conduct any governance. Relying on its core mechanism to drive the entire system, it has withstood the test of time. PoW consensus design is ingenious, simple and adaptable, making it outstanding among a number of consensuses.

PoW is an absolute permissionless system. New hashrate can join the competition at any time and at the same starting line with existing hashrate. Although Staking investments seem similar to the hashrate investments, but different initial factors lead to quite different situations. If the blockchain system is a system that is easy to fall into the "Matthew effect", then in PoW the requirement of hashrate investments (external and physical) is an important factor to resist this effect. On the one hand, the lagging adjustment mechanism makes it difficult for the system to enter a steady state. On the other hand, the external and physical hashrate investments are more independent than stakings. For PoW, the positive feedback of the consensus advantage of influencing the consensus result to the business advantage is one-way, but for staking, the positive feedback is two-way.

Ultimate Security

The frequently discussed security issues, such as 51% attack, over 1/3 Byzantine nodes, are all issues that may arise due to the consensus rules. However, the blockchain system is ultimately a system running on a physical network, so, compared with the attack that takes advantage of the consensus rules, the attack at the physical network level would be a catastrophe to the blockchain system.

PoW believes that the power of a node should not be determined by the virtual resource it holds(Staking), but should be determined by the physical resource (hashrate).

In the case of Staking, it is easy to fall into a situation where the size of the network nodes doesn’t grow with the continuous investment of virtual resources due to the lack of driving force. The economic scale of the system and its resistance to threats from the network are not matched, and there is no internal mechanism to promote that.

In the case of PoW, the resource investments correspond to the investments to power of influence in the network. At the initial stage, the hashrate investment is to invest more nodes. Later, with the emergence of professional mining machines and mining pools,  the hashrate and the node count do not match exactly. But since the hashrate is invested, the investors will definitely take measures to get the power of influence in the network, and the economic scale of the system and its resistance to threats from the network are matched. If virtual resources are attached more importance to when weighting the node, the difference between the power of influence in the system and that in the physical network for the nodes will be greater. As for the PoW that doesn’t take the virtual resources into consideration at all, the power of influence in the system and that in the physical network for the nodes are the same. The security of PoW is reflected here: energy cost being the basis of security is resulted from the physical network environment.

Openness and security are exactly the two angles in the “blockchain impossible triangle” (in the triangle that’s formed by Scalability, Decentralization, and Security, there are only two angels can be achieved).

The essential advantages of PoW is that it provides a highly decentralized and secure consensus mechanism. And the one that’s left, scalability, is exactly the development and innovation direction of the PoW consensus.

This article is written by YeeCo CTO. Please feel free to share your thoughts below.

To know more about YeeCo:

Visit our website: yeeco.io

Follow us on Twitter @YeeCoOfficial

Join our Telegram community @yeeofficialgroup.

This is the author of this article and he is also YeeCo CTO. We welcome more questions and discussions. Let's contribute the blockchain technology together. 

With the development of the blockchain technology, especially the continuous exploration of new technologies such as low-latency chain and cross-chain, finality has been discussed and studied in more cases. Before we start the discussion of finality design, let us first understand what is finality.

The literal meaning of finality is immutability, and is a more ancient concept than “decentralization” and “consensus”. Since the birth of ledger, people can discuss and define its finality, which has nothing to do with any technical issues, because ledger at that time is centralized (with a trust intermediary), and like correctness, finality is also the reflection of the will of the intermediary.

Only after the blockchain technology introduces the decentralized ledger, consensus and finality become technical issues, and we may face situations where finality and consensus cannot be achieved at the same time.

The Finality of Different Consensus Mechanisms

According to the current research, we have evaluated the finality of various consensus mechanisms.

For example, PoW does not have absolute finality, only probabilistic finality; BFT has absolute finality, so does Casper FFG. YeeCo’s Tetris consensus also has absolute finality.

Why do different consensus mechanisms have different levels of finality, and what are the factors responsible for that?

The Principle of Finality

What is the nature of consensus? Consensus is the process by which people who want to achieve consistency successfully achieve that, and consensus mechanism ensure that people who want to achieve consistency can still achieve consistency when there is a communication barrier or someone misleading other people.

There is something very interesting in it, a bit of a word game, which is, “people who want to achieve consistency” appears as a precondition in some consensus mechanisms (first determine who want consistency, then seek the consistency ), while in some other consensus mechanisms, it appears as the result (claim the consensus of certain participators, never promise it is the consensus of all people though).

For example, a company wants to hold a dinner party, and all of the employees should reach a consensus on where to hold it. The first approach is “authorities have the final say”, which means if the leaders of the company could reach a consistency, then the whole company reach a consensus. The second approach is that some employs reach a consensus first, and then announce it in the company, but if some powerful people vote against it, then the consensus will be changed; it would keep going until all of the employees reach a consensus.

Both approaches can achieve consensus in some degree, but what about the finality? Regarding the first approach, the consensus has absolute finality since it can’t be changed as soon as it’s reached. Regarding the second approach, the consensus has probabilistic finality, since it can be modified theoretically, though with a verify low probability.

The example actually demonstrates the difference between the BFT consensus and the PoW consensus. Put it in technical language: the BFT consensus first assumes there is a stable consensus range, and on this basis, choose a strong consistency but low liveness mechanism, thus achieving absolute finality; the PoW consensus does not assume a stable consensus range, and the consensus participants can enter and exit at any time. On this basis, a mechanism with high liveness and eventual consistency is adopted, but it still doesn’t have absolute finality. Therefore, the consensus range is the key to determine the essential nature of finality.

The Necessity of Absolute Finality

As the transactions on the blockchain often represent the ownership transfer of properties, the fact that the transaction can be modified would be fatal to these economic activities. Double spend attack happens through taking advantage of PoW not having absolute finality.

Applications associated with the blockchain is operating based on some kind of finality criteria, such as the well-known Bitcoin 6 confirmations and the Ethereum 12 confirmations. However, things do not always work like that. Everyone can recall that when a fork, a hashrate war, or an attack occurred, the wallets and the exchanges suspended the transactions. This indicates the finality of the PoW is evaluated as vulnerable under such circumstances, so the n-confirmed standard will be adjusted to infinite confirmed standard.

Cross-chain and multi-chain sharding are also forms of applications associated with the blockchain. Their requirements for finality are much higher than off-chain applications:

Blockchain is a system that operates according to programmed procedures and cannot modify the n-confirmed criteria actively as in the case of off-chain applications.
In terms of double spend attack, it is not easy to find a trading target large enough in the off-chain application. There is not much profit in it and the cost is high, so it is difficult to carry out the double spend attack. However, it is easy to find a trading target large enough in the cross-chain, and the attack becomes profitable.
Therefore, from the perspective of application supporting, the blockchain should be responsible and provide finality, rather than letting the applications evaluate the finality degree by themselves. From the perspective of cross-chain supporting, the security of cross-chain is based on finality. In a word, absolute finality is vital and necessary.

Consensus Participants’ Game under Absolute Finality

Regarding the consistency of the consensus, if the consensus participants can still agree with the “authorities have the final say” principle (for BFT, it is the collection of voters; for PoW, it is the hashrate), then even if the consensus does not meet their own wishes, they will still choose to “obey”; if the consensus participants do not agree with the principle, then there would be a hard fork.

When absolute finality is introduced, let’s take a look at what it means for a consensus with strong consistency and a consensus with eventual consistency.

For the consensus with strong consistency, like that of BFT, strong consistency and absolute finality are a whole. The consensus itself can’t build an alternative chain. Usually an alternative chain is built due to some interference. If some voters made a hard fork happen and build an alternative chain, the finality of the old chain is still guaranteed, and as long as the new chain has its own users, these users also recognize the finality of the new chain. If the collectors collude to rebuild the chain through hard forks, the original chain is discarded, and it seems that the applications on the original chain is affected by the modification of the block, but it is not due to the destruction of the finality, it’s simply due to the death of the original chain.

For the consensus with eventual consistency, like that of PoW, the rebuildability of the chain is preserved in order to support the unstable consensus range. If absolute finality is introduced, a new stable consensus range must have been introduced. In order to ensure the finality of a block, the operation of PoW can’t be just following the longest chain principle. Rather, it should follow the principle of “the longest chain containing the finalized block”, that is, even if the super hashrate has the ability to rebuild the chain, it should also”obey” the new stable consensus range, and if the super hashrate is unwilling to obey, then it can make a hard fork, in which case the finality of the original chain is still guaranteed. The willingness to obey of the the super hashrate is related to the authority of the “new stable consensus range”. If it has little authority, it is likely for the super hashrate not to obey, in which case, the situation would be a complicated one regarding how the applications would choose, stick with the old chain or switch to the hard fork.

From the above analysis we can learn that absolute finality can lead to two extremes. One is to reach a consistency that cannot be modified; the other is that if a consistency can’t be reached, it will be split into two different consistencies that can’t be modified, and the applications have to choose one between two and recognize the finality of the consistency it picked.

Since there are two extreme cases, when we design the finality mechanism, we should try to avoid the case that can lead to hard forks. We will discuss the finality design of the PoW consensus mechanism in the next part.

In summary, from the perspective of applications, absolute finality turns the risk of block being modified into the risk of blockchain fork, which in turn affects the consensus participants’ game. If such impact can further reduces the possibility of blockchain fork, it would be a successful finality mechanism and that would be very valuable for the applications.

The Finality Design of the PoW Consensus Mechanism

The classic PoW consensus adheres to the adoption of the unstable consensus range and the principle of the longest chain, and retains the possibility that super hashrate is able to rebuild the chain to achieve new consistency. If we still insist on these, it is theoretically impossible to establish absolute finality, so we should choose a reasonable way to break these limits.

The absolute finality design of PoW consensus mechanism should include the following points:

1. The establishment of stable consensus range

As mentioned above, the essential requirement of absolute finality is a stable consensus range. The question is how to introduce one, whether we should directly transform the unstable consensus range in PoW and combine the two ranges into one, or introduce a new one and make them run side by side?

How much influence does the stable consensus range have on the decentralization of PoW, and will it weaken the authority of the hashrate so that the PoW actually degenerates into a voting mechanism?

2. The establishment timing of finality

Should we establish it and consistency at the same time, or at different times? If at different times, how long should finality be delayed? In theory, the shorter the delay is, the more it is needed for the unstable consensus range (hashrate) to obey the stable consensus range. How to balance them then?

3. Make stable consensus range compatible with the incentive mechanism

The stable consensus range is generated by some mechanism, such as Staking. As voting on finality determines the direction of the chain, voters can choose to vote on both sides without any loss. This is nothing at stake problem. How to avoid this problem through incentive mechanism?

4. Failure governance mechanism

The establishment of finality is to obtain a strong consistency at the cost of liveness, then it will certainly encounter a situation where the consensus on finality cannot be achieved. The advantage of this situation is that it reflects the responsible side of the chain. The height of the finalized block no longer grows, and the off-chain activities will be suspended accordingly. The downside is that a governance mechanism is needed to resolve the failure of reaching a consensus on finality.

5. Support multi-chain sharding

Off-chain applications need safe access to finality information. The regular way is to run a full node, synchronize finality consensus results and verify. In the multi-chain sharding scenarios, usually each sharding runs the full node of its own and light nodes of all other shardings. This brings out a problem, whether a light node can safely synchronize the finality consensus results. It is an important problem that needs to solve in order to achieve multi-chain sharding.

In addition, if a sharding chain is forked, how to make other shardings identify which is the original chain and which is the forked chain, and ensure that they only interacts with one chain unanimously.

YeeCo’s CRFG (Conditional Reward Finality Gadgets) proposes a set of solutions for establishing absolute finality on the PoW consensus mechanism, which will be elaborated in the subsequent articles.


How do you guys think of the PoW consensus? Join me in the discussion.

The article is quite long indeed. I'll try the Development&Technical discussion board. Thanks!

lol, thanks for the concern, but that's our account at Medium and I'm the one published it.

I wonder what do you guys think of PoW consensus. Anyone want to discuss about it?

With the development of the blockchain technology, especially the continuous exploration of new technologies such as low-latency chain and cross-chain, finality has been discussed and studied in more cases. Before we start the discussion of finality design, let us first understand what is finality.

The literal meaning of finality is immutability, and is a more ancient concept than “decentralization” and “consensus”. Since the birth of ledger, people can discuss and define its finality, which has nothing to do with any technical issues, because ledger at that time is centralized (with a trust intermediary), and like correctness, finality is also the reflection of the will of the intermediary.

Only after the blockchain technology introduces the decentralized ledger, consensus and finality become technical issues, and we may face situations where finality and consensus cannot be achieved at the same time.

The Finality of Different Consensus Mechanisms

According to the current research, we have evaluated the finality of various consensus mechanisms.

For example, PoW does not have absolute finality, only probabilistic finality; BFT has absolute finality, so does Casper FFG. YeeCo’s Tetris consensus also has absolute finality.

Why do different consensus mechanisms have different levels of finality, and what are the factors responsible for that?

The Principle of Finality

What is the nature of consensus? Consensus is the process by which people who want to achieve consistency successfully achieve that, and consensus mechanism ensure that people who want to achieve consistency can still achieve consistency when there is a communication barrier or someone misleading other people.

There is something very interesting in it, a bit of a word game, which is, “people who want to achieve consistency” appears as a precondition in some consensus mechanisms (first determine who want consistency, then seek the consistency ), while in some other consensus mechanisms, it appears as the result (claim the consensus of certain participators, never promise it is the consensus of all people though).

For example, a company wants to hold a dinner party, and all of the employees should reach a consensus on where to hold it. The first approach is “authorities have the final say”, which means if the leaders of the company could reach a consistency, then the whole company reach a consensus. The second approach is that some employs reach a consensus first, and then announce it in the company, but if some powerful people vote against it, then the consensus will be changed; it would keep going until all of the employees reach a consensus.

Both approaches can achieve consensus in some degree, but what about the finality? Regarding the first approach, the consensus has absolute finality since it can’t be changed as soon as it’s reached. Regarding the second approach, the consensus has probabilistic finality, since it can be modified theoretically, though with a verify low probability.

The example actually demonstrates the difference between the BFT consensus and the PoW consensus. Put it in technical language: the BFT consensus first assumes there is a stable consensus range, and on this basis, choose a strong consistency but low liveness mechanism, thus achieving absolute finality; the PoW consensus does not assume a stable consensus range, and the consensus participants can enter and exit at any time. On this basis, a mechanism with high liveness and eventual consistency is adopted, but it still doesn’t have absolute finality. Therefore, the consensus range is the key to determine the essential nature of finality.

The Necessity of Absolute Finality

As the transactions on the blockchain often represent the ownership transfer of properties, the fact that the transaction can be modified would be fatal to these economic activities. Double spend attack happens through taking advantage of PoW not having absolute finality.

Applications associated with the blockchain is operating based on some kind of finality criteria, such as the well-known Bitcoin 6 confirmations and the Ethereum 12 confirmations. However, things do not always work like that. Everyone can recall that when a fork, a hashrate war, or an attack occurred, the wallets and the exchanges suspended the transactions. This indicates the finality of the PoW is evaluated as vulnerable under such circumstances, so the n-confirmed standard will be adjusted to infinite confirmed standard.

Cross-chain and multi-chain sharding are also forms of applications associated with the blockchain. Their requirements for finality are much higher than off-chain applications:

Blockchain is a system that operates according to programmed procedures and cannot modify the n-confirmed criteria actively as in the case of off-chain applications.
In terms of double spend attack, it is not easy to find a trading target large enough in the off-chain application. There is not much profit in it and the cost is high, so it is difficult to carry out the double spend attack. However, it is easy to find a trading target large enough in the cross-chain, and the attack becomes profitable.
Therefore, from the perspective of application supporting, the blockchain should be responsible and provide finality, rather than letting the applications evaluate the finality degree by themselves. From the perspective of cross-chain supporting, the security of cross-chain is based on finality. In a word, absolute finality is vital and necessary.

Consensus Participants’ Game under Absolute Finality

Regarding the consistency of the consensus, if the consensus participants can still agree with the “authorities have the final say” principle (for BFT, it is the collection of voters; for PoW, it is the hashrate), then even if the consensus does not meet their own wishes, they will still choose to “obey”; if the consensus participants do not agree with the principle, then there would be a hard fork.

When absolute finality is introduced, let’s take a look at what it means for a consensus with strong consistency and a consensus with eventual consistency.

For the consensus with strong consistency, like that of BFT, strong consistency and absolute finality are a whole. The consensus itself can’t build an alternative chain. Usually an alternative chain is built due to some interference. If some voters made a hard fork happen and build an alternative chain, the finality of the old chain is still guaranteed, and as long as the new chain has its own users, these users also recognize the finality of the new chain. If the collectors collude to rebuild the chain through hard forks, the original chain is discarded, and it seems that the applications on the original chain is affected by the modification of the block, but it is not due to the destruction of the finality, it’s simply due to the death of the original chain.

For the consensus with eventual consistency, like that of PoW, the rebuildability of the chain is preserved in order to support the unstable consensus range. If absolute finality is introduced, a new stable consensus range must have been introduced. In order to ensure the finality of a block, the operation of PoW can’t be just following the longest chain principle. Rather, it should follow the principle of “the longest chain containing the finalized block”, that is, even if the super hashrate has the ability to rebuild the chain, it should also”obey” the new stable consensus range, and if the super hashrate is unwilling to obey, then it can make a hard fork, in which case the finality of the original chain is still guaranteed. The willingness to obey of the the super hashrate is related to the authority of the “new stable consensus range”. If it has little authority, it is likely for the super hashrate not to obey, in which case, the situation would be a complicated one regarding how the applications would choose, stick with the old chain or switch to the hard fork.

From the above analysis we can learn that absolute finality can lead to two extremes. One is to reach a consistency that cannot be modified; the other is that if a consistency can’t be reached, it will be split into two different consistencies that can’t be modified, and the applications have to choose one between two and recognize the finality of the consistency it picked.

Since there are two extreme cases, when we design the finality mechanism, we should try to avoid the case that can lead to hard forks. We will discuss the finality design of the PoW consensus mechanism in the next part.

In summary, from the perspective of applications, absolute finality turns the risk of block being modified into the risk of blockchain fork, which in turn affects the consensus participants’ game. If such impact can further reduces the possibility of blockchain fork, it would be a successful finality mechanism and that would be very valuable for the applications.

The Finality Design of the PoW Consensus Mechanism

The classic PoW consensus adheres to the adoption of the unstable consensus range and the principle of the longest chain, and retains the possibility that super hashrate is able to rebuild the chain to achieve new consistency. If we still insist on these, it is theoretically impossible to establish absolute finality, so we should choose a reasonable way to break these limits.

The absolute finality design of PoW consensus mechanism should include the following points:

1. The establishment of stable consensus range

As mentioned above, the essential requirement of absolute finality is a stable consensus range. The question is how to introduce one, whether we should directly transform the unstable consensus range in PoW and combine the two ranges into one, or introduce a new one and make them run side by side?

How much influence does the stable consensus range have on the decentralization of PoW, and will it weaken the authority of the hashrate so that the PoW actually degenerates into a voting mechanism?

2. The establishment timing of finality

Should we establish it and consistency at the same time, or at different times? If at different times, how long should finality be delayed? In theory, the shorter the delay is, the more it is needed for the unstable consensus range (hashrate) to obey the stable consensus range. How to balance them then?

3. Make stable consensus range compatible with the incentive mechanism

The stable consensus range is generated by some mechanism, such as Staking. As voting on finality determines the direction of the chain, voters can choose to vote on both sides without any loss. This is nothing at stake problem. How to avoid this problem through incentive mechanism?

4. Failure governance mechanism

The establishment of finality is to obtain a strong consistency at the cost of liveness, then it will certainly encounter a situation where the consensus on finality cannot be achieved. The advantage of this situation is that it reflects the responsible side of the chain. The height of the finalized block no longer grows, and the off-chain activities will be suspended accordingly. The downside is that a governance mechanism is needed to resolve the failure of reaching a consensus on finality.

5. Support multi-chain sharding

Off-chain applications need safe access to finality information. The regular way is to run a full node, synchronize finality consensus results and verify. In the multi-chain sharding scenarios, usually each sharding runs the full node of its own and light nodes of all other shardings. This brings out a problem, whether a light node can safely synchronize the finality consensus results. It is an important problem that needs to solve in order to achieve multi-chain sharding.

In addition, if a sharding chain is forked, how to make other shardings identify which is the original chain and which is the forked chain, and ensure that they only interacts with one chain unanimously.

YeeCo’s CRFG (Conditional Reward Finality Gadgets) proposes a set of solutions for establishing absolute finality on the PoW consensus mechanism, which will be elaborated in the subsequent articles.

原文链接：https://github.com/guoxbin/articles/blob/master/design_of_finality_in_blockchain_consensus.md
了解YeeCo公链的最新进展： https://github.com/yeeco/gyee

[/b]

随着区块链技术的发展，特别是低延迟链，跨链等新技术的不断探索，确定性（Finality）越来越多的被讨论和研究。在开始本文的讨论之前，我们先理解下什么是确定性。

确定性字面意思是不可改变性，是比“去中心化”，“共识”更古老的概念。 从有账本开始，就可以探讨和定义其确定性，而此确定性不面临任何技术问题，因为那个时候的账本都是中心化的（有信任中介），确定性和正确性一样，都是信任中介意志的反映。

而只有在区块链技术引入了去中心化账本之后，共识和确定性才成为一个技术问题，我们可能面临确定性和共识无法同时达到的情况。

[/b]

根据目前的研究，大家对各类不同共识算法的确定性有了评估。

比如PoW不具有绝对确定性（Absolute Finality），只具有概率确定性（Probabilistic Finality），BFT具有绝对确定性，Casper FFG具有绝对确定性，YeeCo团队的Tetris共识具有绝对确定性。

为什么不同共识算法的确定性水平不同，是什么内在特性起作用呢？

[/b]

共识的本质是什么？共识是想要达成一致性（Consistency）的人达成一致性的过程，共识算法保证了想要达成一致性的人在有通信障碍或有人从中误导的情况下仍然可以达到一致性。

这里面有一个很好玩的点，有点文字游戏的意思，那就是“想要达成一致性的人”在某种共识机制中是作为前提条件出现的（先确定哪些人想达成一致，再寻求一致），而在某种其他共识机制中是作为共识结果出现的（达到一致但也注明范围，永远不承诺是所有人的共识）

举个例子，假设要为全公司组织一次聚餐，需要就去哪吃饭达成共识，第一种做法的思路是这事是公司“说的算的人”才能决定的，把这些人选定，投票，形成共识；第二种做法的思路是，公司水有多深，咱也不知道，咱也不敢问，到底是老板说的算，还是老板的小秘说的算，还是扫地僧说的算，姑且先形成一个不成熟的共识，然后公示出来，坐等有更大权力的人出来纠正，如果公示期足够长，就相信最终能达成一致，形成共识。

目前两种做法都算是达成了共识，但是他们在确定性上的表现如何呢？第一种做法的共识已经是公司“说的算的人”的决定，当时要么达成了一致，那就可以不修改了，要么就没达不成一致，悬而未决，总之不会出现先公布一个结果又修改的情况；第二种做法的共识是不断被纠正的，越往后被纠正的成本越高，概率越低，但理论上仍然可能被修改。

上述例子其实描述了BFT共识和PoW共识的不同，换成技术的语言说就是：BFT共识先假定一个稳定的共识范围，在此基础上选择一种强一致性但是低活性（Liveness）的机制，强一致性可以实现绝对确定性；PoW共识不假定稳定的共识范围，认为共识参与者可以随时进出，在此基础上只能采取一种高活性但是只具有最终一致性的机制，而最终一致性不能实现绝对确定性，只能实现概率确定性。

所以，决定确定性的本质特性是共识范围，这也符合大众的直觉观念，所谓共识范围就是“谁说的算”，“谁说的算”确定，你就会相信结果不会被修改，“谁说的算”不确定，你就不会相信结果不会被修改，这也就是大家口中说的：生意要跟“说的算的人”谈。


因为区块链上的交易往往对应链下世界的权属转移（比如支付，充值等等），交易可被修改对这些经济活动的破坏是致命的，双花攻击实质就是利用了PoW不具有绝对确定性。

和链关联的应用在实践中还是基于某种确定性的标准在工作，比如大家熟知的比特币6个确认，以太坊12个确认。但这个确定性标准并不完整，大家可以回忆当发生分叉，算力战，攻击等情况下，钱包和交易所都会主动暂停交易，相当于这些应用评估PoW的确定性在这些特殊情况下减弱了，于是主动把n-confirm的标准调整到无穷大个确认。

跨链和多链分片也是和链关联的应用的一种表现形式，只不过链之间互为应用，他们对确定性的要求比链下应用更高，体现在两点：

区块链是一套按既定程序运行的系统，并不能像链下应用那样通过评估主动修改n-confirm的标准。
双花攻击中，链下应用很难找到足够大的交易物，收益不足而成本很高，双花实际很难被采用，但是跨链时链上很容易找到足够大的交易物，收益提升，双花变得有利可图。
所以，一方面从支撑应用的角度，链应该提供负责任的确定性，而不是把评估确定性的工作推给应用，另一方面从支持跨链的角度，确定性是其安全性的基石。 实现绝对确定性是必要的。

[/b]

单看共识的一致性，如果共识参与者还能做到认同“谁说了算”（BFT里是投票人集合，PoW里是算力），那么若共识结果符合自己的意愿，则皆大欢喜，若共识结果不符合自己的意愿也会选择“服从”；如果共识参与者已经不认同“谁说了算”了，则会选择硬分叉。

当引入了绝对确定性后，我们看一下对于强一致性共识和最终一致性共识分别意味着什么。

对于BFT这种强一致性共识，强一致性和绝对确定性是一体的，共识本身没有重铸链的情况，发生重铸链都是因为被干预，如果是部分投票人通过硬分叉分裂了链，老的链上的块的确定性仍然是得到保证的，只不过新分叉出一条链，这条新链只要有用户，这些用户也是认可这条新链上的块的确定性的； 如果是投票人集合合谋通过硬分叉重铸链，之前的链被废弃了，看起来依赖之前链的应用受到了区块被修改的影响，实际这种影响是因为老链死亡，而不是因为老链上的区块的确定性被破坏。

对于PoW这种最终一致性共识，链的可被重铸性是为了支持不稳定的共识范围而保留的，如果引入了绝对确定性，按前面的论述一定是额外引入了稳定的共识范围，那为了保证一个块的确定性，PoW的运行方式就不能仅仅是最长链原则，而只能是“包含被确定的块的最长链”原则，即大算力即使具备重铸链的能力，也要“服从”那个建立了确定性的稳定共识范围，而如果大算力不愿意服从，则只能发起硬分叉，老的链上的块的确定性仍然是得到保证的。大算力服从的意愿与“额外引入的稳定的共识范围”的权威性有关，如果不够权威，则大算力不服从的可能性就很大，应用是跟着确定性的共识范围走还是跟着大算力走就成了一个很复杂的情况了。

通过上诉的场景分析，我们可以理解到绝对确定性是不收敛的，是一致性的两个极端，一个极端是达成一致且不修改，一个极端是达不成一致就分裂成两个都不修改的部分，应用要在两个部分中做出选择，选择哪部分就认可哪部分的确定性。

既然有两个极端情况，我们设计确定性机制的时候，就要尽量让博弈结果能够均衡到不分裂的那种结果，后面会讨论PoW共识中确定性的设计。

总结来看，从应用的视角，绝对确定性的价值在于把区块可被改变的风险转化成了区块链分叉的风险，这种转变反过来又影响共识参与人的博弈行为，如果这种影响又进一步降低了分叉的可能性，则是一个成功的确定性机制，对应用来说是非常有价值的。

[/b]

经典的PoW共识坚持不稳定的共识范围这一设定，坚持最长链原则，保留了大算力进来重铸链而达到新的一致性的可能，如果我们仍然坚持这些，理论上是无法建立绝对确定性的，我们的设计上应该选择合理的突破这些限制。

PoW的绝对确定性机制应该包含下列要点：

稳定共识范围的建立

如前文所述，绝对最终确定性的本质要求是需要一个稳定共识范围，那如何引入，是直接改造PoW里那个不稳定共识范围，合二为一，还是额外引入一个新的，二者并列运行？

稳定共识范围对PoW的去中心化特性的影响有多大，会不会太削弱算力的权力，从而让这种PoW实际退化成一个投票机制？

确定性建立的时机

我们是要和一致性同时建立，还是可以分开？如果分开，确定性要延迟多久？理论上延迟要越小，就越需要那个建立一致性的不稳定共识范围（算力）服从于那个建立确定性的稳定共识范围，如何权衡？

稳定性共识范围如何做到激励相容

稳定性共识范围是某种机制选出来的，比如Staking，如果说对确定性进行投票决定了链的走向的话，投票人可以选择两边都投而没有任何损失，这就是无利害攻击（Nothing at stake），如何通过激励机制避免这种问题？

失败治理机制

确定性的建立，是通过牺牲活性换取了强一致性，那么就一定会遇到确定性的共识达不成的情况，这种情况好处是正好对外体现出了负责任的一面，达不成确定性，被确定的块的高度就不再增长了，链下活动也可以据此暂停，坏处是需要一套治理机制解决共识失败的情况。

对多链分片的支持

链外应用需要安全的获取的确定性信息，常规的方式是运行全节点，同步确定性共识结果并做验证，对于多链分片这种场景，每个分片一般是运行当前分片的全节点，运行其他所有分片的轻节点，这就涉及到一个问题，能否实现一个轻节点能安全的同步确定性共识结果，这是实现多链分片的一个重要问题。

另外，如果一个分片的链发生了分叉，如何让其他分片统一识别哪个是原有链，哪个是分叉链，并保证统一只跟其中一个链交互。

YeeCo的CRFG（Conditional Reward Finality Gadgets）提出了一套在PoW共识上建立绝对确定性的方案，后续的文章会做出详细介绍。

以上为YeeCo开发者的思考，不知大家有何见解，欢迎参与讨论。

Yee Project

YeeWallet: new version will be available soon
YeeWallet asset change notice feature is optimized. The new version will be released soon.

Yee Application YeeCall: new versions are available
1. Support group ownership transfer
2. Support group ban
3. Bug fixes

📲Download the latest version of YeeCall to experience the new features:
Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yeecall.app
iOS App Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/yeecall-hd-voice-video-call/id852211576

YeeChain

At present, Tetris of the consensus mechanism part has been accomplished, and the P2P network management and state machine data fast synchronization module code have been released at Github. After further digital proof and engineering verification, modules for extracting consensus information from state machine data will be released.

According to the current test data, 50 nodes can synchronize state machine data in seconds, and TPS reaches over 10,000. The virtual machine module of the smart contract part has been designed and entered the encoding phase, and the slice storage network ESDHT enters the late stage of encoding. The developers of the development platform DAPPStore has completed the prototype verification of the program running environment.

Yee Community

YeeCall x ABCC Campaign has ended and the rewards will be distributed soon
YeeCall x ABCC Campaign has ended on August 15th. The qualified YeeCall users who signed up for ABCC exchange through the event page will get a random airdrop of 1–100 AT and get another 100YEE+5AT reward if the user transferred at least 10USDT worth of coins to his/her ABCC account. The rewards will be distributed to the qualified YeeCall users’ ABCC accounts within 5 days after the end of the campaign. Stay tuned for upcoming events!

Yee News

YeeCall was invited to attend “IEEE HOTICN 2018 Blockchain Technology and Application Forum”

On August 14th, YeeCall was invited to participate in the “IEEE HOTICN 2018 Blockchain Technology and Application Forum”. YeeCall CTO Jiang Zhouping attended on behalf of the YeeCall team and delivered a keynote speech.

YeeCall CTO Jiang Zhouping believes that blockchain technology is creating a value Internet. At the application level, YeeCall hopes to become the super entry of the blockchain through its super group that can host 50,000 members and newbie-friendly crypto wallet. At the technical level, YeeCall is building a new Tetris consensus mechanism and gradually realizing the layout of “private chain — alliance chain — public chain”.

Jiang Zhouping also participated in the roundtable forum and analyzed the blockchain technology and application in the coming year. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) is the world’s largest non-profit professional organization for the advancement of technology. It has more than 400,000 members in more than 160 countries. To date, IEEE has developed more than 900 industry standards in space, computing, telecommunications, biomedical, power and consumer electronics.

Yee and IBM Hyperledger held a meeting to discuss the development of alliance chain

On August 17, IBM technical experts and the head of the Hyperledger community visited the Yee Shenzhen R&D Center to discuss blockchain, alliance chain development and community building. Yee team said that at the end of September Yee public chain will build a developer community for the developers to build the YEE public chain together, and will contribute code to the Hyperledger developer community to jointly promote the development of blockchain technology. At the same time, Yee team invited Hyperledger to build a developer community at YeeCall.

Follow us to get the latest updates:
Our website: www.yeefoundation.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/YeeToken
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/YeeToken/
Telegram: https://t.me/yeeofficialgroup

📲Download the latest versions of YeeCall on Google Play & iOS App Store to experience YeeWallet features.

Yee Project

YeeWallet: new features will be available this week

1. support 0-conf transaction on BTC and BCH transfer (the detailed transferring process is displayed as soon as the transfer operation is confirmed)
2. BCH and ETH are added as anchoring cryptocurrency
3. Support BCH CashAddr

5 more popular coins are selected to be listed on YeeWallet. YeeWallet aims to be a crypto wallet that supports all of the popular coins. More popular coins will be added to YeeWallet.

Yee Application YeeCall: new versions are available

1. Support group ownership transfer
2. Support group ban
3. Bug fixes

📲Download the latest version of YeeCall to experience the new features:
Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yeecall.app
iOS App Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/yeecall-hd-voice-video-call/id852211576

Yee Community

[COS Airdrop] Contentos x Yee 1 Million COS Airdrop has ended

On August 6, Yee joined with Contentos to airdrop 1 million COS to YeeWallet users. The airdrop has been distributed to the qualified users’ YeeWallet. More airdrops and events are coming. Stay tuned!
Visit Contentos official website to learn more about the project: www.contentos.io

Transfer contract service fee has been fully returned

The transfer contract service fee generated until the end of Sunday has been fully returned to the service users! For the relevant users, please check your YeeWallet. If you haven’t used the transfer contract yet, try it and experience the safe and reliable transaction. Download YeeCall to experience transfer contract now.

YeeCall x ABCC Campaign: Sign up to Get Double Rewards

YeeCall joins with ABCC to airdrop double rewards to YeeCall users.
Event time: 2018/8/1–2018/8/15
Sign up now: https://jinshuju.net/f/PUiMHM

How to join:
1. The YeeCall users who sign up for ABCC exchange through the event page will get a random airdrop of 1–100 AT, which means you can get at least 1 AT airdrop and the luckiest ones can even get a 100AT airdrop.
2. Transfer at least 10USDT worth of coins to your ABCC account, and you can get another 100YEE+5AT reward.
3. The snapshot of the event participants’ ABCC accounts will be taken at 23:59:59 August 15. AT will be airdropped to qualified users’ ABCC account. )
4. Rewards will be distributed to the qualified users’ ABCC accounts within 5 days after the event ends.
5. The users whose malicious or cheating behaviors are detected will be disqualified from the rewards.
Click to sign up: https://jinshuju.net/f/PUiMHM

Check out more details about Yee project, YeeCall, and YEE token at our website and other channels:

Our website: www.yeefoundation.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/YeeToken
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/YeeToken/
Telegram: https://t.me/yeeofficialgroup

Thanks for your support! You're so keen on identifying good projects. Check out Yee Project Weekly Update 2018/07/29–2018/08/03: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4845100.msg43694369#msg43694369. YeeWallet’s 0-conf transaction feature will be available soon. Download the latest versions of YeeCall on Google Play & iOS App Store to experience YeeWallet features. For more information about Yee, please refer to http://yeefoundation.com/

📲Download the latest versions of YeeCall on Google Play & iOS App Store to experience YeeWallet features.

Yee Project

YeeWallet: deposit with 0-conf transaction feature will be available this week; 5 more popular coins are listed on YeeWallet

YeeWallet’s 0-conf transaction feature will be available this week. With this feature, the deposit process (processing block) will be displayed as soon as the deposit operation is acquired. This will relieve the users’ anxiety while they are waiting for the deposit to be completed. The new version will also support BCH CashAddr format.

5 more popular coins are selected to be listed on YeeWallet. YeeWallet aims to be a crypto wallet that supports all of the popular coins. More popular coins will be added to YeeWallet.

Yee Community

YeeCall x ABCC Campaign: Sign up to Get Double Rewards

YeeCall joins with ABCC to airdrop double rewards to YeeCall users.
Event time: 2018/8/1–2018/8/15
Sign up now: https://jinshuju.net/f/PUiMHM

How to join:
1. The YeeCall users who sign up for ABCC exchange through the event pagewill get a random airdrop of 1–100 AT, which means you can get at least 1 AT airdrop and the luckiest ones can even get a 100AT airdrop.
2. Transfer at least 10USDT worth of coins to your ABCC account, and you canget another 100YEE+5AT reward.
3. The snapshot of the event participants’ ABCC accounts will be taken at 23:59:59 August 15. AT will be airdropped to qualified users’ ABCC account. )
4. Rewards will be distributed to the qualified users’ ABCC accounts within 5 days after the event ends.
5. The users whose malicious or cheating behaviors are detected will be disqualified from the rewards.

Click to sign up: https://jinshuju.net/f/PUiMHM

[COS Airdrop] Contentos x Yee 1 Million COS Airdrop

Yee has established a strategic partnership with Contentos, a globally-leading content public blockchain and a decentralizing global content eco-system. To celebrate the cooperation of the two parties, Contentos joins with Yee to airdrop 1 million COS to YeeWallet users.

Yee will take snapshots of YeeWallet users’ wallet accounts, and the users that meet the conditions will get COS airdrop.
The airdrop rules are as follows:
1. Snapshot period: 2018/07/08–2018/08/08 23:59:59 (GMT+8)
2. The users should meet 2 conditions:
a. have activated YeeWallet
b. hold average 500 or 500+ YEE in the YeeWallet in the past 30 days
3. The users that meet the conditions will share 1 million COS according to the proportion of the total YEE held by the qualified users that the average YEE you are holding in the past 30 days accounts for.
Eg., if the average YEE you are holding in the past 30 days accounts for 10% of the total YEE held by the qualified users, then you get 10% of 1 million COS.

Get more details: https://medium.com/@yeefoundation/cos-airdrop-contentos-x-yee-1-million-cos-airdrop-b1c4afea04da

Yee News

Yee application YeeCall is nominated for “2018 Chinese Excellent Technology Innovation Award”

YeeCall team’s innovation, a method and device for quickly calibrating video region of interest, is recommended by Chinese Scientists Forum and is nominated for “2018 Chinese Excellent Technology Innovation Award”. The Chinese Scientists Forum was founded by the famous scientist, former vice chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress and Chairman of the Chinese Association for Science and Technology, Zhou Guangzhao.

Follow us on Twitter to get the latest updates: https://twitter.com/YeeToken
Join Yee official group in YeeCall to get free YEE giveaway http://doodle.yeecall.com/shares/invites?id=5af268a3e4b06b95d25db901
Check out more details about Yee project, YeeCall, and YEE token at our website and other channels:
Our website: www.yeefoundation.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/YeeToken/
Telegram: https://t.me/yeeofficialgroup

📲Download the latest versions of YeeCall on Google Play & iOS App Store to experience YeeWallet features.

Yee Project

YeeWallet: transfer contract feature will be available by this weekend
YeeWallet team has completed the testing and optimization of transfer contract feature. The new version has been launched and under review and will be available by this week. With the transfer contract feature, the transaction and transfer between YeeCall users will be protected by the contract both parties made, thus safeguarding the interest of YeeCall users.

Yee Application YeeCall: new versions are available
1. Double click “YeeCall” at the bottom of the main interface to locate unread messages quickly.
2. Bug fixes

📲Download the latest version of YeeCall to experience the new features:
Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yeecall.app
iOS App Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/yeecall-hd-voice-video-call/id852211576

Yee Community

2018 World Cup Guess Game has ended; check out the interesting numbers of the guess game
With the end of 2018 World Cup, our World Cup guess game has also ended. Did you guess the Champion correctly? How many bets did you win? Are you the best predictor? Let’s check out some interesting numbers of the guess game.

The Biggest Winner
The YeeCall player that won 20062.74509347 YEE throughout the game

The Biggest Loser
The YeeCall player that lost 5080 YEE throughout the game

The Best Predictor
The YeeCall player that guessed 42 match results correctly

The Unluckiest Player
The YeeCall player that guessed wrong on 39 match results

The Luckiest Player
The YeeCall player that guessed right on 10 match results consecutively

The Most Unexpected Match Winner
Mexico in Mexico vs. Germany, the reward is 40 times of the bet amount

The Most Profitable Match
Croatia vs. England, the players that guessed right won 1875.62919463YEE

Yee News

SouthEast’s largest technology media e27 published a news report on YeeCall’s strategic financing and YeeCall’s plan on developing various blockchain solutions

On July 5, YeeCall announced that it has raised US$5 million in a strategic financing round, led by Leo Digital Network, a subsidiary of Shanghai-based Leo Group.

SouthEast’s largest technology media e27 published a news report on YeeCall’s strategic financing and that “YeeCall will use the capital to set up a blockchain industry solution business unit, and launch new industrial solutions on blockchain”.

Check out the news: https://e27.co/video-conference-calling-app-yeecall-raises-us5m-venture-blockchain-20180718/

Follow us on Twitter to get the latest updates: https://twitter.com/YeeToken
Join Yee official group in YeeCall to get free YEE giveaway http://doodle.yeecall.com/shares/invites?id=5af268a3e4b06b95d25db901
Check out more details about Yee project, YeeCall, and YEE token at our website and other channels:
Our website: www.yeefoundation.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/YeeToken/
Telegram: https://t.me/yeeofficialgroup

📲Download the latest versions of YeeCall on Google Play & iOS App Store to experience YeeWallet features.

Yee Project

YeeWallet: recharge with 0 confirmation feature is under developing

This week, YeeWallet is developing a feature that will enable YeeWallet to support recharge with 0 confirmation. With this feature, the recharge process (processing block) will be displayed as soon as the recharge operation is acquired. This will relieve the users’ anxiety while they are waiting for the recharge to be completed.
The new version will also support the new CashAddr Bitcoin Cash address format.

Yee Application YeeCall: new versions are available

1. Support scanning QR code to add friend, join group, and follow channels
2. Support identifying the QR code in a picture
3. Bug fixes

📲Download the latest version of YeeCall to experience the new features:
Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yeecall.app
iOS App Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/yeecall-hd-voice-video-call/id852211576

Yee Community

With the help from Yee community, YEE token successfully got listed on FCoin Exchange

Thanks to the support and help from Yee community, YEE successfully got listed on FCoin exchange. Though the listing time is postponed to July 4th due to the traffic congestion, that is another great accomplishment that Yee team and Yee community achieved together. Good job, Yee community!

YeeCall referral campaign ‘Invite Friends & Win Up To 30,000 YEE’ has ended

YeeCall referral campaign has ended on June 30. By referring friends to download and sign up for YeeCall, both the attendee and the friend can get 100YEE rewards. The maximum YEE every attendee could get is 30,000. The reward will be distributed within 15 days after the event is over. Stay tuned for the upcoming events!

The playing method of World Cup match result guess game is changed, MORE EXCITING!

The 2018 World Cup has come to the knockout phase. To make the match result guess game more exciting, our team has changed the playing method of the game. Rather than betting 10YEE on each guess, the players can choose the amount of YEE tokens that want to bet, from 10YEE to 500YEE. Enjoy the game!

Join the game and discuss with global players: http://doodle.yeecall.com/shares/invites?id=5b3606f6e4b086f7adf0c262

Yee News

YeeCall has finished B1 strategic financing and will explore the application of blockchain technology in industries

On July 5, “YeeCall Strategic Financing Press Conference” was held at Crowne Plaza, Beijing. Over 10 renowned VCs and PE investors, 5 financial institutions, and 30 media partners attended the conference. At the conference, Yee CEO Zhang Lei announced that YeeCall has received millions of dollars strategic investment.

Zhang Lei also announced that YeeCall will set up a Blockchain Industry Solution BusinessUnit and explore the application of blockchain technology in Industries.

Follow us on Twitter to get the latest updates: https://twitter.com/YeeToken

Join Yee official group in YeeCall to get free YEE giveaway http://doodle.yeecall.com/shares/invites?id=5af268a3e4b06b95d25db901

Check out more details about Yee project, YeeCall, and YEE token at our website and other channels:

Our website: www.yeefoundation.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/YeeToken/

Thanks. Where are you from? We may hold a meetup later in your country.