Telegram Open Network (TON)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Current State of Telegram Open Network
October, 2019 Decentral Park Capital The Current State of Telegram Open Network A sleeping giant awakens Author: Elias Simos Privacy is not for sale, and human rights should not be compromised out of fear or greed. - Pavel Durov (April, 2018) Downloaded from www.hvst.com by IP address 192.168.160.10 on 09/30/2021 Author:Author: Elias Elias Simos, Simos, Senior Senior Research Research Analyst Analyst at decentralpark.ioat decentralpark.io Table of contents Key Takeaways 3 About Decentral Park 4 Introduction 5 Crypto winter and a tale of valuations 6 TON: Special case or one of many? 9 Part 1: All things Grams 10 1.1. Tоken Economics 11 1.2. What is a Gram worth? 13 1.3. Finding liquidity 17 1.4. A TON of use cases 18 1.4.1. Demand-side use cases; payments, bots, content and Dapps 18 1.4.1.1. Monetizing bots and enabling payments between users, developers and advertisers 18 1.4.1.2. Telegram Passport 20 1.4.1.3. Dapps 21 1.4.2. Supply-side use cases 22 Part 2: The current state of the Telegram Open Network 24 2.1. Taking TON apart; a review of TON’s architecture 24 2.1.1 The TON Blockchain 26 2.1.1.1. The masterchain 26 2.1.1.2. The workchains 27 2.1.1.3. The shardchains 27 2.1.1.4. Instant Hypercube Message Routing 28 2.1.1.5. TVM (TON Virtual Machine) 28 2.1.1.6. Smart contracts 29 2.1.1.7. -
Telegram STAGE a PRIMER
Telegram STAGE A PRIMER 21 February 2018 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Problem Statement 3 Outline of the Vision 4 A Brief History of Telegram 5 Telegram Open Network (TON) 7 Infinite Sharding Paradigm 7 Instant Hypercube Routing 8 Proof-of-Stake Approach 8 2-D Distributed Ledgers 8 TON Storage 9 TON Proxy 9 TON Services 9 TON DNS 10 TON Payments 10 Telegram Messenger-TON Integration 11 Light Wallet 11 External Secure IDs 12 Ecosystem 13 Bot Platform 13 Groups and Channels 13 Digital Content and Physical Goods 13 A Gateway to Decentralized Services 14 Uses of TON as a Cryptocurrency 14 Roadmap 15 Token Distribution 16 Use of Funds 19 Governance 20 Team 21 Founders 21 Other Notable Team Members 23 Technical White Paper 25 Risk Factors 26 2 / 26 Introduction Cryptocurrencies and other blockchain-based technologies have the potential to make the world more secure and self-governed. However, to this day, no consensus-backed currency has been able to appeal to the mass market and reach mainstream adoption. This paper outlines a vision for a new cryptocurrency and an ecosystem capable of meeting the needs of hundreds of millions of consumers, including 200 million Telegram users. Scheduled to launch in 2018, this cryptocurrency will be based on a multi-blockchain Proof-of- Stake system — TON (Telegram Open Network, or ultimately The Open Network) — designed to host a new generation of cryptocurrencies and decentralized applications. The protocol and other components of TON are described in detail in the Technical White Paper (attached hereto as Appendix A), while this document focuses on a general overview of the proposed technology and its uses. -
Factors Influencing the Success of an Initial Coin Offering
FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SUCCESS OF AN INITIAL COIN OFFERING -THE IMPACT OF LOCAT ION ON THE PROBABILITY OF REACHING AN ICO`S FUNDING GOAL- Diaconu, Stefan (11842008) Business Administration Finance Specialization Supervisor: Feher, Adam Date: 30th June 2020 Abstract The thesis analyzes whether the geographical location of a project influences the probability that an ICO is going to achieve its funding target. Data on 100 ICO campaigns was selected from 20 different locations between 2017 and 2018. The hypothesis tested whether ICOs based in the US are more likely to reach their funding target compared to ICOs in different countries. A binary logistic regression model was implemented to test the hypothesis. The results confirmed that US-based companies increase the likelihood of reaching the funding goal by 50%, while other location did not have a significant effect. Moreover, the model predicts a higher probability of success with higher experts rating and increased funding targets. Having a Twitter account, an increased team size or shorter campaign duration did not affect the likelihood of reaching the target. The study concludes with emphasizing the importance of developing a general regulatory framework and risk-assessment measures for ICOs. Statement of Originality This document is written by student Diaconu Stefan who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents. -
Standard Conversion Factors
Standard conversion factors 7 1 tonne of oil equivalent (toe) = 10 kilocalories = 396.83 therms = 41.868 GJ = 11,630 kWh 1 therm = 100,000 British thermal units (Btu) The following prefixes are used for multiples of joules, watts and watt hours: kilo (k) = 1,000 or 103 mega (M) = 1,000,000 or 106 giga (G) = 1,000,000,000 or 109 tera (T) = 1,000,000,000,000 or 1012 peta (P) = 1,000,000,000,000,000 or 1015 WEIGHT 1 kilogramme (kg) = 2.2046 pounds (lb) VOLUME 1 cubic metre (cu m) = 35.31 cu ft 1 pound (lb) = 0.4536 kg 1 cubic foot (cu ft) = 0.02832 cu m 1 tonne (t) = 1,000 kg 1 litre = 0.22 Imperial = 0.9842 long ton gallon (UK gal.) = 1.102 short ton (sh tn) 1 UK gallon = 8 UK pints 1 Statute or long ton = 2,240 lb = 1.201 U.S. gallons (US gal) = 1.016 t = 4.54609 litres = 1.120 sh tn 1 barrel = 159.0 litres = 34.97 UK gal = 42 US gal LENGTH 1 mile = 1.6093 kilometres 1 kilometre (km) = 0.62137 miles TEMPERATURE 1 scale degree Celsius (C) = 1.8 scale degrees Fahrenheit (F) For conversion of temperatures: °C = 5/9 (°F - 32); °F = 9/5 °C + 32 Average conversion factors for petroleum Imperial Litres Imperial Litres gallons per gallons per per tonne tonne per tonne tonne Crude oil: Gas/diesel oil: Indigenous Gas oil 257 1,167 Imported Marine diesel oil 253 1,150 Average of refining throughput Fuel oil: Ethane All grades 222 1,021 Propane Light fuel oil: Butane 1% or less sulphur 1,071 Naphtha (l.d.f.) >1% sulphur 232 1,071 Medium fuel oil: Aviation gasoline 1% or less sulphur 237 1,079 >1% sulphur 1,028 Motor -
Conversion Factors for SI and Non-SI Units
Conversion Factors for SI and non-SI Units To convert Column 1 To convert Column 2 into Column 2, into Column 1, multiply by Column 1 SI Unit Column 2 non-SI Units multiply by Length 0.621 kilometer, km (103 m) mile, mi 1.609 1.094 meter, m yard, yd 0.914 3.28 meter, m foot, ft 0.304 6 1.0 micrometer, mm (10- m) micron, m 1.0 3.94 × 10-2 millimeter, mm (10-3 m) inch, in 25.4 10 nanometer, nm (10-9 m) Angstrom, Å 0.1 Area 2.47 hectare, ha acre 0.405 247 square kilometer, km2 (103 m)2 acre 4.05 × 10-3 0.386 square kilometer, km2 (103 m)2 square mile, mi2 2.590 2.47 × 10-4 square meter, m2 acre 4.05 × 103 10.76 square meter, m2 square foot, ft2 9.29 × 10-2 1.55 × 10-3 square millimeter, mm2 (10-3 m)2 square inch, in2 645 Volume 9.73 × 10-3 cubic meter, m3 acre-inch 102.8 35.3 cubic meter, m3 cubic foot, ft3 2.83 × 10-2 6.10 × 104 cubic meter, m3 cubic inch, in3 1.64 × 10-5 2.84 × 10-2 liter, L (10-3 m3) bushel, bu 35.24 1.057 liter, L (10-3 m3) quart (liquid), qt 0.946 3.53 × 10-2 liter, L (10-3 m3) cubic foot, ft3 28.3 0.265 liter, L (10-3 m3) gallon 3.78 33.78 liter, L (10-3 m3) ounce (fluid), oz 2.96 × 10-2 2.11 liter, L (10-3 m3) pint (fluid), pt 0.473 Mass 2.20 × 10-3 gram, g (10-3 kg) pound, lb 454 3.52 × 10-2 gram, g (10-3 kg) ounce (avdp), oz 28.4 2.205 kilogram, kg pound, lb 0.454 0.01 kilogram, kg quintal (metric), q 100 1.10 × 10-3 kilogram, kg ton (2000 lb), ton 907 1.102 megagram, Mg (tonne) ton (U.S.), ton 0.907 1.102 tonne, t ton (U.S.), ton 0.907 Yield and Rate 0.893 kilogram per hectare, kg ha-1 pound per acre, lb acre-1 -
Libra and the Others: the Future of Digital Money
Libra and the Others: The Future of Digital Money © 2019 IAI by Nicola Bilotta and Fabrizio Botti ABSTRACT The current debate about cryptocurrencies is evolving around the proposals of big-tech corporations developing their own ISSN 2610-9603 | ISBN 978-88-9368-114-8 digital currencies, which have the potential to reach scale very quickly. Three ongoing projects – Facebook’s Libra, Telegram’s Gram and the Walmart Units – shed light on the different economic rationales behind the launch of a digital currency by large private companies with different business and political approaches. Walmart hopes its digital currency will improve the efficiency of its ecosystem by engaging consumers while saving on interchange fees. Facebook’s and Telegram’s digital currencies have the ambition to become global currencies. The development of private digital currency poses a number of risks related to the stability of the banking and finance systems as well as oversight. The regulatory approach towards these three projects will set a precedent that will influence other private giant corporations. There is a need to address regulatory gaps within the existing frameworks at an international level because domestic public policy risks being inefficient in mitigating potential challenges. Currency | Digital policy | Financial services keywords IAI PAPERS 19 | 22 - NOVEMBER 2019 19 | 22 - NOVEMBER IAI PAPERS Libra and the Others: The Future of Digital Money Libra and the Others: The Future of Digital Money by Nicola Bilotta and Fabrizio Botti* © 2019 IAI “Money is too important to be left to the private sector alone. Like the law, it is a foundational public good. -
Arcano Economic Research ARCANO October 2018 Çgtítulo Principal (Sin Numerar) the Fintech Revolution a Chart Is Worth a Thousand Words
Arcano Economic Research ARCANO October 2018 çgTítulo principal (sin numerar) The Fintech Revolution A Chart Is Worth a Thousand Words 700 250 2015 600 200 500 150 400 300 100 200 1812 50 100 0 0 Research 1812 1860 1910 1960 2000 2015 2018 Citigroup valuation ($Bn, RHS) Citigroup clients (M, LHS) Economic Ant Financial valuation ($Bn, RHS) Ant Financial clients (M, LHS) Arcano Arcano Ant is the world’s largest mobile and online payment platform, currently the world’s most valuable Fintech company. It was renamed Ant Financial in 2014. Singularity University is a globally renowned academic institution devoted to innovation and education based on the potential development of technologies to solve humanity’s challenges and build a better future. Source: Citigroup, Google and Singular University Report summary video Ignacio de la Torre, Ph. D. [email protected] +34 91 353 21 40 Leopoldo Torralba [email protected] +34 91 353 21 40 Joaquín Rivera [email protected] +34 91 353 21 40 The Fintech Revolution ARCANO Arcano, the firm of reference for investing in Spain www.arcanopartners.com Arcano is a leading independent advisory firm with offices in Madrid, Barcelona and New York. The company has three areas of specialisation: Investment Banking, Asset Management, and Multifamily Office. Our team is formed by more than 150 qualified professionals devoted to offering financial advisory services and tailored solutions for our clients with a unique, independent approach. Arcano’s Investment Banking area leads the Spanish market in the mid- and small-cap companies segment, with a special focus on real estate, both in mergers and acquisitions of capital venture firms, family enterprises and listed companies, headed by Jorge Vasallo ([email protected]). -
Blockchain and Freedom of Expression
Blockchain and freedom of expression 2019 Blockchain and freedom of expression 1 ARTICLE 19 Free Word Centre 60 Farringdon Road London EC1R 3GA United Kingdom T: +44 20 7324 2500 F: +44 20 7490 0566 E: [email protected] W: www.article19.org Tw: @article19org Fb: facebook.com/article19org © ARTICLE 19, 2019 This work is provided under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-ShareAlike 2.5 licence. You are free to copy, distribute and display this work and to make derivative works, provided you: 1) give credit to ARTICLE 19; 2) do not use this work for commercial purposes; 3) distribute any works derived from this publication under a licence identical to this one. To access the full legal text of this licence, please visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-sa/2.5/legalcode. ARTICLE 19 would appreciate receiving a copy of any materials in which information from this report is used. Contents Executive summary 4 Summary of recommendations 6 Introduction 9 Background to blockchains 12 Key terminology 12 Key characteristics of blockchains 14 International human rights standards and blockchains 16 Right to freedom of expression 16 Right to privacy 17 Internet governance 18 Intermediary liability 18 Blockchains and freedom of expression 20 Decentralisation, disintermediation and freedom of expression 20 Digital access and literacy 21 Security and vulnerability of access points 22 Governance 23 Use case: content dissemination 25 Dissemination of text 25 Dissemination of multimedia and the ‘permanent web’ 27 Blockchain-based social networks 29 Use case: authentication 32 Authentication of individuals 32 Authentication of content (digital notarisation) 37 Use case: personal data and storage of identity-linked information 39 Use case: cryptocurrencies 41 Conclusions and recommendations 43 Recommendations 44 About ARTICLE 19 48 Endnotes 49 Executive summary In this report, ARTICLE 19 examines the impact and implications of blockchain technology for the right to freedom of expression. -
Useful Conversions
Useful Conversions Agronomic: · 1 acre-foot of soil = 2,000 tons (approximate @ 92 lbs/cu. ft.) · 1 lb per acre = 0.0104 grams per square foot · 100 lbs per acre = 0.2296 lbs per 100 square foot · 1 cubic feet per second = 448.8 gallons per minute · 1 lb = 16 ounces = 454 grams · 1 oz = 28.375 grams · 1 inch = 2.54 cm · 1 gallon = 3.78 liters · 1 ppm = 2 lbs/acre of soil 6" deep @ 92 lbs/cu. ft. · 1 ton per acre = 20.8 g per sq. ft. = 0.73 ounces/ sq. ft. · 1 ton per acre = 1 lb per 21.78 sq. ft. · 1 ton per acre = 4.59 lb per 100 sq. ft. · 1 gram per sq. ft. = 96 lbs per acre · 1 lb per acre = 1.12 kilograms per hectare · 1 lb per acre = 0.01042 grams per sq. ft. · 1 ton per acre = 1 kg per 48 sq. ft. · lbs per sq. ft. x 21.768 = tons per acre · lbs per sq. ft. x 43,560 = lbs per acre · 1 acre = 0.405 hectares · 1 mile = 1.61 km · parts per million (ppm) x 0.00136 = tons per acre-foot To convert a soil test from ppm to lbs per acre. 1. Determine the depth of soil in inches that the soil represents 2. Divide this depth by 3 3. Multiply the result by the soil test result Example: Soil test for nitrate is 9 ppm and sampled depth is 12” (12”/3 = 4, 4 x 9 = 36 lb/ac) Mathematics Chart: Multiply by To obtain Acres 43,560 Sq. -
The International System of Units (SI) - Conversion Factors For
NIST Special Publication 1038 The International System of Units (SI) – Conversion Factors for General Use Kenneth Butcher Linda Crown Elizabeth J. Gentry Weights and Measures Division Technology Services NIST Special Publication 1038 The International System of Units (SI) - Conversion Factors for General Use Editors: Kenneth S. Butcher Linda D. Crown Elizabeth J. Gentry Weights and Measures Division Carol Hockert, Chief Weights and Measures Division Technology Services National Institute of Standards and Technology May 2006 U.S. Department of Commerce Carlo M. Gutierrez, Secretary Technology Administration Robert Cresanti, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology William Jeffrey, Director Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publications 1038 Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Pub. 1038, 24 pages (May 2006) Available through NIST Weights and Measures Division STOP 2600 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 Phone: (301) 975-4004 — Fax: (301) 926-0647 Internet: www.nist.gov/owm or www.nist.gov/metric TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD.................................................................................................................................................................v -
Estta916734 08/20/2018 in the United States
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA916734 Filing date: 08/20/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Proceeding 91243046 Party Plaintiff Telegram Messenger Inc Correspondence BRUCE GOLDNER Address SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP FOUR TIMES SQUARE NEW YORK, NY 10036-6522 UNITED STATES [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 212-735-2972 Submission Other Motions/Papers Filer's Name Bruce Goldner Filer's email [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Signature /Bruce Goldner/ Date 08/20/2018 Attachments Attachment For Suspension Motion opp. no. 91243046.pdf(82121 bytes ) Telegram v. Lantah Complaint USDC SF Division.pdf(3139453 bytes ) IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x TELEGRAM MESSENGER INC, Serial No. 87810181 : Opposer, Opposition No. 91243046 : - v - : LANTAH LLC, : Applicant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x Attachment For Motion For Suspension of Proceedings Opposer, Telegram Messenger Inc (“Opposer”) inadvertently omitted a copy of the Telegram Messenger Inc v. Lantah LLC, Case No. 18-cv-2811 United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Complaint in support of its Motion For Suspension of Proceedings. Opposer submits a copy of the Complaint. Dated: August 20, 2018 Bruce Goldner Kenneth A. Plevan David M. Lamb SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 735-3000 (telephone) (212) 735-2000 (facsimile) Attorneys for Opposer Telegram Messenger Inc By: /Bruce Goldner/ Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing Attachment For Motion For Suspension of Proceedings has been served on Donald A. -
Energy Basics Bioresources Biofuels Petroleum Biomass Energy
Energy Basics BioResources BioFuels Petroleum Biomass Energy Cord Wood: Stack of wood comprising 128 cubic feet (3.62 m3) Standard dimensions are 4 x 4 x 8 feet includes air space and bark One cord contains approx. 1.2 U.S. tons (oven-dry) = 2400 pounds = 1089 kg 1.0 metric tonne wood = 1.4 cubic meters (solid wood, not stacked) Energy content of wood fuel (HHV, bone dry) = 18-22 GJ/t (7,600-9,600 Btu/lb) Energy content of wood fuel (air dry, 20% moisture) ≅ 15 GJ/t (6,400 Btu/lb) Energy content of agricultural residues (varying moisture content) = 10-17 GJ/t (4,300-7,300 Btu/lb) Metric tonne charcoal = 30 GJ = 12,800 Btu/lb Ethanol – Biodiesel Energy Metric tonne ethanol = 7.94 petroleum barrels = 1262 liters LHV Ethanol energy content = 11,500 Btu/lb = 75,700 Btu/gallon = 26.7 GJ/t = 21.1 MJ/liter. HHV for ethanol = 84,000 Btu/gallon = 89 MJ/gallon = 23.4 MJ/liter Average ethanol density (average) = 0.79 g/ml Average metric tonne biodiesel = 37.8 GJ typically 33.3 - 35.7 MJ/liter Average biodiesel density = 0.88 g/ml Areas and Crop Yields 1.0 hectare = 10,000 m2 = 328 x 328 ft = 2.47 acres 1.0 km2 = 100 hectares = 247 acres 1.0 acre = 0.405 hectares 1.0 US ton/acre = 2.24 t/ha 1 metric tonne/hectare = 0.446 ton/acre 100 g/m2 = 1.0 tonne/hectare = 892 lb/acre Target bioenergy crop yield might be: 5.0 US tons/acre (10,000 lb/acre) = 11.2 tonnes/hectare (1120 g/m2) 1.0 US Bushel corn/sorgum = 56 lb, 25 kg 1.0 US Bushel wheat/soybeans= 60 lb, 27 kg (wheat or soybeans) 1.0 US Bushell barley = 40 lb, 18 kg (barley) Fossil Fuel Energy Barrel of oil equivalent (boe) ≅ 6.1 GJ (5.8 million Btu), equivalent to 1,700 kWh.