Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

DGML makes onchain document verification more efficient: hash only the clause you need, then anchor that proof on NVNM Chain. Explained by jean paoli of Docugami with JP Mullin (🕉, 🏘️).

14,300 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🕉️ #MANTRA Brings Real-World Assets Onchain with #Mainnet Launch. We’re thrilled to announce that the highly anticipated launch of the MANTRA Chain Mainnet will be coming in October 2024. 🔥As part of MANTRA’s vision to become the preferred ledger of record for real-world assets, the MANTRA Chain Mainnet will include key features such as: 🔒Verifiable network security and stability, mitigating counterparty risk ✅A trusted platform to deploy institutional capital onchain 👀A foundation for a globally accessible asset class, unlocking the multi-trillion dollar real-world asset economy "The launch of our Mainnet marks the culmination of years of work to bring finance onchain. We are thrilled to be at the forefront of bridging the gap between traditional and decentralized finance,” said JP Mullin (🕉, 🏘️), CEO & Co-Founder of MANTRA. “By providing on-ramps for tokens and stablecoins with world class stability and reliability, we believe MANTRA Chain will be the leading global destination for businesses and industries to access onchain financing and asset tokenization." This milestone marks a significant step towards bringing traditional finance (TradFi) onchain and provides a new home for MANTRA's native token, $OM. We want to thank our Sherpas for their unwavering support on this transformative journey to pave the way for a more inclusive and compliant future for tokenized assets. 📝 Read more: $OM #HomeForRWAs #OMtober

MANTRA | The EVM L1 for RWAs

130,761 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Axiom Math's Carina Hong on why verification isn't about catching mistakes, it's how you drive the cost of a proof to zero: "Formal verification is going to make your life slightly better if you're facing a proof with one million lines. Remember the Erdős unit distance problem, the chain of thought being generated? There are actual mathematicians trying to follow it step by step and scrutinize it. That seems very difficult if you're not in that very niche domain of discrete geometry intersecting with algebraic number theory." "But if you have a Lean proof accompanying it, you can just run it. And running the Lean proof gives you that provable guarantee that this proof is sound." "I have a hot take. People think Lean is this library built on the existing Mathlib. I think it's going to grow significantly. A lot of the hurdles where Lean is difficult is that the basic definitions of some mathematical fields are just not in the library." "My hot take is the scaling law, if you go down the formal mathematics path, is going to be a lot steeper than informal mathematics. So it's not just for verification, for trust, it's also for performance, it's also for optimal generation." "Verification is not like insurance. It's not something where, oh, we want to make sure there's no flaw. That's great, but it also helps you generate mathematics, both proofs and conjectures and theories, a lot better." "So imagine the cost of proof goes to zero. Then you can massage the problem statements, and even if it's an open problem, a lot more easily, flexibly, and adaptively." Carina Hong Axiom

MTS

13,273 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Why did Ian Whiffin agree to give expert testimony on Jen McCabe’s cellphone extraction, when the state refused to let him look at or even give him the full, original extraction OR its verification hash? A thread🧵 Full cellphone extractions, sometimes called forensic images, generate what’s called a “hash value”, which serves as a unique digital fingerprint necessary for ensuring the integrity of data. Any discrepancy between the hash values indicates tampering with or corruption of evidence, alerting forensic examiners to potential issues with the evidence. Hash verification is a fundamental principle and a rather ubiquitous practice in the world of digital forensics, where data validation and verification are key. It is the gold standard across the industry, and has also become so in the courtroom, whereby admissibility of digital evidence is determined by its relevance, authenticity and reliability. In court, the hash value can be used to demonstrate that the evidence has not been altered since its collection, and is a universal way for experts to authenticate and validate the reliability of data for the trial Court. But, an extraction that’s missing a hash value altogether is a huge red flag. 🚩 Who removed the hash value? And why? It’s necessary to the chain of custody, and as Gaurino and Tully would be well aware, it’s also an element of the data that an expert would require in order to verify and validate it. There’s no “good” reason for why someone would remove a hash value, and the extraction can’t be characterized as a forensic image as its origin is unknown. This was a deliberate step taken to hide something, which one could argue shows consciousness of guilt. If the data are true and accurate, why would you bring their integrity into question by removing the hash? However, if the data were altered or tampered with, and let’s say, hypothetically speaking, you wanted a digital forensic expert to provide testimony supportive of your “Google search” theory. . . In that hypothetical, you’d have to remove the hash value. Otherwise, the expert would immediately detect that the data were altered, as they would not be able to verify the hash against the original. #KarenReadTrial #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #FreeKarenRead #CantonCoverup #PoliceCorruption #KarenRead #Cellebrite #DFIR

Olivia

270,376 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr