Bidya logo
  Crypto Coin Prices and News  

RIF Price   

Cap | Volume | High | Low | Old | New | Rare | Vs | Blockchains | Exchanges | Market | News | Dev News | Search | Watchlist
RIF

RSK Infrastructure Framework  

#RIF

RIF Price:
$0.06
Volume:
$1.2 M
All Time High:
$0.46
Market Cap:
$56.8 M


Circulating Supply:
940,060,002
Exchanges:
9
Total Supply:
1,000,000,000
Markets:
14
Max Supply:
1,000,000,000
Pairs:
9



  RIF PRICE


The price of #RIF today is $0.06 USD.

The lowest RIF price for this period was $0, the highest was $0.060, and the exact current price of one RIF crypto coin is $0.06043.

The all-time high RIF coin price was $0.46.

Use our custom price calculator to see the hypothetical price of RIF with market cap of SOL or other crypto coins.


  RIF OVERVIEW


The code for RSK Infrastructure Framework crypto currency is #RIF.

RSK Infrastructure Framework is 4 years old.


  RIF MARKET CAP


The current market capitalization for RSK Infrastructure Framework is $56,812,125.

RSK Infrastructure Framework is ranked #306 out of all coins, by market cap (and other factors).


  RIF VOLUME


There is a big daily trading volume on #RIF.

Today's 24-hour trading volume across all exchanges for RSK Infrastructure Framework is $1,215,513.


  RIF SUPPLY


The circulating supply of RIF is 940,060,002 coins, which is 94% of the maximum coin supply.


  RIF BLOCKCHAIN


RIF is a token on the Rootstock blockchain.


  RIF EXCHANGES


RIF is available on several crypto currency exchanges.

View #RIF trading pairs and crypto exchanges that currently support #RIF purchase.


  RIF RESOURCES


Websitewww.rifos.org
Whitepaperdocs.rifos.org/rif-whitepaper-en.pdf
Twitterrif_os
Redditr/rootstock
Telegramrif_os_community
Discorddiscord.gg/AFy3TJba4V
Mediumiovlabs-innovation-stories
Instagraminstagram.com/rsksmart


  RIF DEVELOPER NEWS



Optimistic State Prefetching (OSP)

A recent paper suggests that the EVM performance can be increased 6x with speculative execution. The idea is to use the information gathered by executing transactions while they are in a node’s mempool to optimistically choose execution paths when the transaction is executed within a block. Vitalik Buterin has questioned this research arguing that this speedup corresponds to the average case, but in the worst case it may be the opposite: a huge slowdown. Attackers can try to create worst-case transactions to delay block processing of competing block producers. While we agree with Vitalik, a new scheme presented in this article enables a comparable speedup (yet to be proven by benchmarks), without the original downsides and with almost no extra complexity. We propose that users creating transactions can specify which storage cells can be prefetched during transaction propagation but instead of giving them explicitly as EIP-2930 access list, we let network nodes compute the access list on-the-fly in the mempool. The users bet that the state addresses accessed will be exactly the same when executing the transaction inside a block. The benefit over access lists is that access lists are costly in terms of bandwidth, so the incentive to provide them is low. We increase the incentive to use implicit access lists. We also add an extra economic incentive not present in EIP-2930: we reward senders that can predict the full set of stat...




EVM blockchain Scalability & ACID Database Properties

The main data structure that holds accounts, balances, code and contract storage in an EVM-based blockchain is the world state trie. The efficient management of this data structure is one of the most important topics in scaling these blockchains. How and where the trie is stored, and how fast it can be accessed and modified are crucial parameters of the performance of the network client. If the trie fitted in RAM, then most of the problems would be solved. But it generally does not, so how the trie is persisted is of extreme importance. Ultimately the trie is composed of nodes that are serialized and stored in a database on disk. We’ll call this state database the statebase, for short. Currently the statebase must be stored in Solid State Drives (SSDs) as hard disks are too slow for scattered reads, as usually required by network clients. During the last years, network clients improved as the block gas limit was increased, but improving the statebase has been challenging. The statebase is currently the main EVM performance bottleneck. For example, the Erigon/TurboGeth team switched statebases 3 times to improve performance. A new statebase (LMPT) was also designed to tackle this problem. The problem has been also tackled from the protocol standpoint. Access-lists (EIP-2930) enable prefetching statebase data to reduce later stress during block execution. EVM state I/O opcodes were repriced several times to account for state...




Client Performance with Experimental Storage Rent Implementation

Our proposal for Storage Rent in Rootstock (RSKIP240) adds a new field to each node in the RSK Unitrie. The new field, called lastRentPaidTime, is a unix timestamp indicating the last time storage rent was collected for that trie node. Our current implementation introduces new classes of Java objects — e.g. StorageRentManager, Rented Node. These are used for rent tracking, rent computation, and rent timestamp updates — i.e. actions are triggered by trie access (reads, writes, deletes) methods in the Repository. Naturally, these changes will have some impact on the performance of RSKj nodes, e.g. block execution time, disk IO access, disk usage etc. So, we conducted some experiments to measure such impact. — What we expected - We expect storage rent to utilize more RAM and consume more disk space — this is because of the new timestamp adds 8 bytes to each unitrie node. We also expect the rent implementation to run a bit slower. This is because the node tracking, rent computations, and rent updates should lead to longer block execution time and more disk IO. — What we found - We used simple, two-sided, t-tests (at 5% level) to measure if an observed change in a metric was statistically significant. We found that Block Execution time increases by around 10%. An increase of 6% can be attributed to node tracking and rent computations., An increase of 4% can be attributed to rent collection and t...




RSK’s Peg-out efficiency improvement — Segwit (part 3/3)

RSK’s Peg-out efficiency improvement — Segwit (part 3/3) - Co-authors: Ramsès Fernàndez-València and Nicolás Vescovo In the previous posts (part 1 & part 2) on our RSK’s Peg-out efficiency improvement series, I described the main actors of the architecture, the limitations of the current design and a brief introduction to Segwit versions. I also went more in-depth and described the different proposals studied with their corresponding implementation: Segwit v0 and Segwit v1/Taproot (FROST, ICE-FROST and MuSig2). In this last post, I will end up with a comparison of the proposals and a conclusion. — Comparison - — Summary. — — PowHSM Complexity - When we refer to the complexity we are talking about code and data structure. — Segwit v0. — The complexity here involves only code, as the only change involves the fields that now compose the digest of the signature, and where (in the transaction) to put the resulting signature. We consider that comparing the rest of the protocols is a low-effort change, not to underestimate the complexity but to expose it compared to the rest. — Segwit v1. — In both cases, it is easy to see that FROST would be much more complex than MuSig2. In the case of Musig2, it is a “medium” complexity. We can highlight: that the Bitcoin transaction parsing by the powHSM changes (we have to account for witness parsing, which is currently no...




RSK’s Peg-out efficiency improvement — Segwit (part 2/3)

RSK’s Peg-out efficiency improvement — Segwit (part 2/3) - Co-authors: Ramsès Fernàndez-València and Nicolás Vescovo In the previous post on our RSK’s Peg-out efficiency improvement series, I described the main actors of the architecture, the limitations of the current design and a brief introduction to Segwit versions. In this post, I go even more in-depth and describe the proposals studied: Segwit v0 and Segwit v1/Taproot (FROST, ICE-FROST and MuSig2). And I also explain the modifications required to implement each scheme. In the next and last post, I will wrap up with the most interesting part: a comparison of the proposals and a conclusion. — Studied Proposals - — Segwit v0. — This proposal only requires minor changes to the current RSK Peg implementation. That is why we will not do any specific analysis in this section as it won’t require any significant change in the signature scheme. It is still a regular “m of n” multi-signature scheme in which a group of m participants signs the transaction, and the data published on-chain is n public keys and m signatures. The implementation of this proposal involves moving the redeem script and the signatures to the witness data section, which drastically reduces the fee cost of the transaction. The main advantages and drawbacks of this mechanism will be discussed in detail when compared with the rest of the proposals. — MuSig2 (Segwit...




RSK’s Peg-out efficiency improvement — Segwit (part 1/3)

RSK’s Peg-out efficiency improvement — Segwit (part 1/3) - Co-authors: Ramsès Fernàndez-València and Nicolás Vescovo This analysis presents a proposal for the reduction of the peg-out cost and it would also allow increasing the number of pegnatories without increasing the peg-out cost based on the use of Segwit in RSK’s PEG, including a modified digital signature scheme. It also analyzes the feasibility and the effort needed to implement either a threshold or a multi-signature scheme. In this post, I describe the main actors of the architecture, namely: the bridge, the pegnatories, and the HSM. I also introduce the limitations of the current design, in terms of cost and scalability, and provide a brief introduction to Segwit versions. In the next post, I will describe the proposals studied: Segwit v0 and Segwit v1/Taproot (FROST, ICE-FROST and MuSig2). And I will also explain the modifications required by each scheme to be implemented successfully. Finally, in the last post, I will end up with a comparison of the proposals and a conclusion. No more waiting, let’s start introducing the actors of the current RSK architecture. — Actors - — Bridge and 2 Way Peg. — A bridge is a mechanism to transfer value across blockchains by locking assets on one side and unlocking (equivalent value) on the other. In RSK, this is implemented by the Bridge Contract. The Bridge Contract is an unstoppable pre-co...




Homomorphic signatures

Approaching the topic and the main proposals. — The author thanks Janko Ferlic and Unsplash for the image — Brief introduction - Essentially, in a homomorphic signature scheme, a user Alice signs some dataset D using her secret key and uploads the signed data to an untrusted third party (either a server or a smart contract, for instance). This third party can run some computation f over the signed data and homomorphically derive a short signature σ_[f, y], certifying that y is the correct output of the computation f. Anybody will be able to take the tuple {f, y, σ_[f, y]} and get convinced, using Alice’s public key, that y is correct without having to retrieve the underlying data. — Basic definitions and concepts - A homomorphic signature scheme is a tuple of polynomial-time algorithms: Set(𝜆, n): it takes as inputs a security parameter 𝜆 and an integer n > 0. The output is a key pair (sk, pk). It also determines the space of messages M, the space of signatures S and the set F of admissible functions f: Mⁿ → M., Sig(sk, 𝜏, m, i): it takes as inputs a secret key sk, a tag 𝜏 ∈ {0, 1}^𝜆, a message m ∈ M and an index i ∈ {0, …, n}. The output is a signature σ ∈ S associated with the ith message m of the data set tagged by 𝜏., Vrf(pk, 𝜏, m, σ, f): it takes as input a public key pk, a tag 𝜏 ∈ {0, 1}^𝜆, a message m ∈ M, a signature σ ∈ S and a function f ...




Blind Signatures

You did “not” see such a good introduction coming. — The author thanks Unsplash and Osarugue Igbinoba for this image — Basic definitions and proposals - Blind signatures are an extension of digital signatures which provide privacy by allowing a user to obtain a signature from a signer on a message without the signer being able to see the contents of the blinded message. If the signer is later presented with the signed document he cannot relate it neither to the signing session nor to the user on behalf of whom he has signed the message. A blind signature scheme is a tuple of polynomial-time algorithms {KeyGen, Sign, Verify} such that: KeyGen is an algorithm that on the input of a security parameter, outputs a pair of keys pk and sk., Sign is an interactive protocol between a signer S and a user U. The input of S is a secret key sk, whereas the input of U is a public key pk and a message m ∈ M from a message space M. The output of S is a view 𝜈 (seen as a random variable) and the output of U is a signature 𝜎., Verify is a verification algorithm that outputs 1 if 𝜎 is a valid signature and 0 otherwise., Security in blind signatures is captured by two concepts: blindness and unforgeability. Blindness prevents a malicious signer from learning information about a user’s message. On the other hand, unforgeability ensures that each completed Sign execution yields at most k signatures after k interact...




Porting a ZK Rollup Payments Solution from Ethereum to RSK

By Raúl Laprida, Julian Len, Shreemoy Mishra, and Diego Masini The need for cheap and fast payments Over the past couple of years DeFi protocols have dominated the scene compared to other use cases of public blockchains. In the case of Ethereum, the growth of DeFi has even priced out some other applications. The RSK ecosystem has also experienced its share of growth of DeFi projects. Despite the striking growth, current DeFi protocols — with leveraged trading, automated market maker pools, yield farming and so on — remain quite complex for regular people to use in their daily lives. IOV Labs is targeting the development of simpler financial products including those for cheap and fast P2P payments. For a long time, payment channels were thought to offer the best approach for P2P payments. However, despite their technical maturity, projects such as the Lightning Network on Bitcoin or the Raiden network on Ethereum have not gained mass adoption. Similarly, on RSK, the Lumino project also struggled with adoption. The challenges are not purely technological. For instance, in a recent blog post, developers of the Breeze wallet suggest that payment failures in the lightning network frequently arise due to liquidity issues. This is not to say that payment channels are a dead end. On the contrary, there is a lot of renewed interest in using them to support stablecoin payments. One prominent example is a new proposal call...




On UC non-interactive, proactive, threshold ECDSA

A presentation of the scheme, and a bit more — Introduction to threshold schemes - An (m, n)-threshold signature scheme is a digital signature scheme where any m or more signers from a group of n signers can produce signatures on behalf of the group. This signature can be later verified with a public group key, which is generated after combining the public keys of the participants. In general, a threshold signature does not reveal the actual group members that have cooperated to produce it. The goal of a threshold signature scheme is to enforce control over the signing capability (by setting m > 1), to eliminate single points of failure (by setting n > 1), or both. Each group of signers can be managed by a trusted group authority, which oversees joining and leaving the group. Many groups can choose to be managed by the same trusted group authority, or a group can choose to fully distribute the group management among its members such that every member is involved in all management operations. Any subset of m (or more) out of n members of a group G can produce a signature. To do so, each member contributes a partial signature to a designated combiner, and the combiner derives the intended threshold signature from the partial signatures. Everyone who has access to the public group key of group G can verify the threshold signature. The designated combiner can be a real entity such as the trusted group authority, or ...




  RIF NEWS


IOVLabs' “Everyday DeFi” Aims To Onboard The First Bil...

    The security of Bitcoin's network, paired with smart contracts, paves an exciting future for decentralized finance. IOVLabs, with the help of Rootstock technology, will bring Everyday DeFi to a global audience. Onboarding the first billion users is the primary objective. The Promise of Everyday DeFi It sounds very appealing to see more decentralized finance opportunities for everyone. Despite the industry's popularity, it primarily caters to existing cryptocurrency users and holders, whereas the rest remains a bit left out. That is unfortunate, as over a billion people are still unbanked or underbanked today. A viable solution needs to be found between the two industry segments, although it has proven tricky so far. The IOVLabs team has a plan to change that narrative for the better. The team will leverage the Rootstock ecosystem and enhance it to bring Everyday DeFi to those who need it the most. Making DeFi accessible and usable is a big step forward. More details on this new initiative will be unveiled during the Consensus 2022 conference in Texas this month. IOVLabs CEO and RSK Co-Founder Diego Zaldivar adds: “Current DeFi solutions are too complex for regular users. That’s why it has only been used by an elite of advanced users. At IOVlabs, we created and continue to contribute to decentralized technologies like the Rootstock Blockchain and the RIF platform that enable Decentralized Finance to be easy to use and affordable. We are building a DeFi ecosystem fo... read More



Blindex Brings Two New Stablecoins to RSK and Bitcoin DeFi

    [PRESS RELEASE - Gibraltar, United Kingdom, 25th April 2022] The Rootstock ecosystem continues to gain momentum in attracting DeFi protocols to the Bitcoin network. Blindex is one of the latest protocol developers to integrate their protocols with RSK. Now, the Blindex team launches two algorithmic stablecoins to the broader ecosystem - $bGBP (Great British Pound) and $bXAU (gold) Rootstock has brought smart contract functionality to the Bitcoin network. The advent of Bitcoin DeFi has attracted attention from other projects seeking to leverage Bitcoin's network security and RSK's functionality. Blindex sees merit in this approach for stablecoins. The new $bGBP and $bXAU currencies will elevate Blindex to a new level. As a producer of multi-currency stablecoin algorithms, Blindex wants to help stabilize the fiat money circulating worldwide. Fiat currencies are volatile and subject to depreciation, requiring a different approach to the current system. The integration of Blindex protocols with the RSK platform marks a crucial milestone toward achieving that goal. Fiat currencies play a crucial role in cryptocurrency trading and other finance verticals. Blindex's approach aims to remove the inherent volatility of currency assets like the US dollar, British Pound, or Euro. The team can achieve that goal through non-currency asset tokenization. Blindex Contributor Omer Paz explains: 'What Blindex really is, is a mechanism for stabilizing digital assets at its core. The only thing t... read More



RSK Is Transforming The Bitcoin Network Into A Go-To Destination For Sta...

    In recent years, stablecoins have become wildly popular throughout the crypto universe due to their inherent feature that safeguards investors from the volatility of the crypto market. They are used for various use cases and exist across different blockchain platforms. Until recently, stablecoins, decentralized finance (DeFi), non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and other similar smart contract-powered primitives weren’t available on the Bitcoin network. However, with the emergence of RSK, the first smart contract platform secured by the Bitcoin network, Bitcoin die-hards can now access the limitless opportunities in DeFi, including stablecoins, without needing to switch to another blockchain. Bitcoin (BTC) is currently considered the most liquid cryptocurrency in existence. It already has the largest market capitalization and the largest user community. Accordingly, by using BTC as collateral, stablecoins can leverage the inherent features of the Bitcoin blockchain, which include decentralization, censorship resistance, immutability, and unparalleled security. Additionally, with BTC as collateral, the counterparty risks associated with stablecoins can also be minimized to an extent. RSK: A Goliath In The Making RSK is one of the platforms that level the playing field for Bitcoin enthusiasts as open finance (OpFi) continues to grow. There was a significant increase in the number of users joining RSK's smart contract ecosystem in 2021, sending the amount of BTC pegged into RSK f... read More



More RSK Infrastructure Framework (#RIF) News

RIF vs INJ | A-Z | Topics | ISO 20022


Privacy | Terms | Contact | Powered By LiveCoinWatch


bidya