The other day we shared a thread on the 5 types of work a Hotspot can perform to mine $HNT. Today we take a look at the work of a Challenger in Proof-of-Coverage (PoC).

Challenges are used by PoC to validate wireless coverage. As a Challenger, your Hotspot is chosen by the network to create a challenge, or encrypted multi-layer packet, over the Internet.
The challenge process begins with the Challenger selecting an initial target Hotspot, followed by a group of Hotspots known by the @helium blockchain to be within range of each other as a result of RF witnessing.
These Hotspots are given a multi-layer packet (think an “envelope of envelopes”) that only they can decrypt to prove they are providing legitimate wireless coverage.
The Challenger could be anywhere in the world and does not need to be co-located near other Hotspots. Challenge requests occur every 120 blocks, and if the consensus group accepts the challenge transaction as being valid, the challenge proceeds.
One very cool thing about public key cryptography is that data can be encrypted for decryption by a specific recipient while only knowing the recipient's public key. This allows the Challenger to encrypt each layer of the packet specifically for only certain Hotspots to decrypt.
The Challenger delivers this multi-layered packet via the Internet #p2p network to the first Hotspot in the challenge path.
Once Challengees and Witnesses broadcast and receive the layers of the packet via RF, they send proof they decrypted their layer of the packet back to the Challenger. The Challenger then bundles the receipts together and submits them to the consensus group to be rewarded in $HNT.
The role of the Challenger is similar to something like the role of a client in the @filecoin network. In that case, the client is asking a miner for proof that the file they are storing is still being stored.
In the case of Helium, the Challenger is asking the miners on the network to prove they are still creating network coverage that can be used by devices.

🎙To learn more, listen to this great podcast episode on PoC with @armanhotspot and @amirhaleem: https://t.co/dUx9eFq06d.

More from Tech

(1) Some haters of #Cardano are not only bag holders but also imperative developers.

If you are an imperative programmers you know that Plutus is not the most intuitive -> (https://t.co/m3fzq7rJYb)

It is, however, intuitive for people with IT financial background, e.g. banks

(2)

IELE + k framework will be a real game changer because there will be DSLs (Domain Specific Languages) in any programming language supported by K framework. The only issue is that we need to wait for all this

(3) Good news is that the moment we get IELE integrated into Cardano, we get some popular langs. To my knowledge we should get from day one: Solidity and Rust, maybe others as well?

List of langs:
https://t.co/0uj1eBfrYj, some commits from many years ago..

@rv_inc ?

#Cardano

(a) Last but not least, marketing to people with Haskell, functional programming with experience and decision makers in banks is a tricky one, how do you market but not tell them you want to replace them. In the end one strategy is to pitch new markets, e.g. developing world

(b) As banks realize what is happening they maybe more inclined to join - not because they would like to but because they will have to - in such cases some development talent maybe re-routed to Plutus / Cardano / Algorand / Tezos

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?