Wed. Sep 22nd, 2021
    Ton Surf, RSquad, True NFT

    About True NFT from a technical and non-technical point of view. About how NFT is not just “cryptocats” and “cryptopunks”. About converting NFT using a blockchain-to-blockchain bridge.

    You can read the first part of the AMA session here.

    True NFT technology is already in Surf

    • Can you tell us more about True NFT and its structure?

    Anna: We have a joint AMA session with Surf and the True NFT team. So maybe Roma or Margarita will tell us something about it?

    Roman (RSquad): TrueNFT is a concept or technology that can be interpreted in totally different ways. Like the term NFT itself. From a non-technical point of view, True NFT is a regular NFT that allows you to store the content of this NFT directly on-chain without resorting to any services like IPFS or others. 

    Subsequently, I hope it will be stored on the drivechain. So far, the solutions are a little different. For text content, they are obvious and for more or less heavy content, they are slightly different.

    Stay tuned for updates — it will be awesome.

    Technically, True NFT is, first of all, a very interesting product in terms of search indexes. TIP-31, a technology that offers a very similar concept of search indexes, came out. We have finalized this concept. We came up with an idea with distracts: we didn’t create containers, as suggested in TIP-31 with set-codes, instead we created distracts.

    What was our main motivation? What was wrong with NFT in TIP-3? The main problem is optimization for mass adoption. We wanted the solution we were developing to comply with the principles of Surf in simplicity, in the clarity of many things. And I really would not want to explain to the user that he has some additional wallets in which something will be additionally stored. So we tried to find the easiest way (both in terms of integration and in terms of the user solution) that one NFT would transfer to another user as part of the correction, just by knowing the address of the recipient. For me, technically, this is the coolest feature that turned out as a result of development.

    I will add that you should not consider NFTs NFTs as “cryptocats” or “cryptopunks”. It’s more than that. A technology that allows you to create full-fledged projects — physical digitized objects.

    A series of articles will be published on the topic of True NFT technology. There is already an article on Free TON House that I authored. It contains an interesting overview of the technical and non-technical solutions of our product.

    We will continue to talk comprehensively about the concept of working within distributed ledgers. We will talk about what features and advantages of the Free TON blockchain allow us to work within distributed ledgers. One of the articles will focus on practical applications: let’s create a simple True NFT system right inside the article — 50 lines of code. It’s easy enough to do.

    We’ll also talk about more complicated things, like media loading and stuff like that. I think it will all be out within a month. After all, sometimes you need to write not only text but also code. Please understand.

    Why is it True. Because it is an NFT that is created, stored, searched, and managed entirely and completely decentralized on a blockchain. And this is very awesome, unlike current similar implementations.

    True NFT compatibility with TIP-3 and ERC721
    • Is there any extension in your roadmap? Are you planning to do it? Are you planning to do something like this inside?

    Evgeny: Yes, there is. It’s been ready for a long time, but we don’t plan to release it yet. Release extension for the sake of extension? It seems like a strange story to us. Most likely, its release will be associated with one of the major projects to be implemented soon.

    Ilya: How does True NFT relate to TIPs?

    Evgeny: It doesn’t.

    Ilya: I’m talking about compatibility.

    Evgeny: They’re not compatible at all. TIP-3 has nothing to do with it. These are completely different things.

    Ilya: Got it. A clarifying question, then. When we implement any NFTs, we try to make them compatible with other interfaces that are available in other networks. I see this in other blockchains. To what extent is True NFT backward compatible with the same ERC721 in terms of interfaces?

    Roman (RSquad): I still recommend that you read the material we published. But I will give my brief comments even now. First of all, TIP-3 itself is not particularly compatible with ERS721, as in principle the concept of TON is very far from the concept of Ethereum.

    You can’t compare True NFT and ERC72 — these are different technologies that do different things.

    True NFT is just as capable in terms of business functionality as the ERC721, but this does not mean at all that it is the same thing. They are just different technologies, different things that can’t have a similar interface. At least because True NFT is not just one contract.

    Ilya: It is clear that there is more than one contract. Storing data on the blockchain is conceptually not unique for Free TON. My fighters have already done such a thing on Tezos. A similar thing can be done on Near. With some limitations. The same Near and Tezos share the same concept of methods: the same balance of or owner by ID.

    Roman (RSquad): I’ll explain it to you. This technology has a basic interface specification, but it does not interfere with such methods. Is it possible to make a transfer? It is possible. This is clearly stated in the description.

    Algorithmic implementation of transfers and other things should be preserved, and the function interface can be absolutely any, depending on the business problem. 

    It was just attached to the concept of NFT and True NFT. These are completely different things, first of all, because it is TON. It is conceptually different from the things you are talking about. And this concept of TIP-31 decentralized ledgers, which we use to find all the NFTs of one user within the entire blockchain — imposes a certain structural change. I find this to be a separate concept.

    Protection From The Sybil Attack

    Ilya: I heard that there are plans to adapt new users with the help of DeBot, which will fund the creation of a new wallet. Are you considering protection against a Sybil attack? After all, Near already has such an experience, have you examined it?

    Evgeny: Of course, currently it will work on mobile devices on a basic level. There is basic protection against farms. The amount that will be received will only be enough to activate the wallet. That is, from a financial point of view, it is not very reasonable. But if someone wants to have fun, then okay.

    NFT Conversion Using Bridge. Myth Or Reality?

    Ilya: How possible is the following case: we mint a token in Free TON, convert it into Open Source, and using the bridge — to Ether. Has this case been worked out?

    Roman (RSquad): There was no such task before us. But NFT Subgovernance is now running a contest to design a similar bridge. If there is someone from NFT Subgovernance — colleagues can reply.

    Pavel: I can comment on that. Using a bridge it is possible to enter True NFT, i.e. transferring a picture and converting NFT to True NFT format is one direction of movement. It is logical. Because you get your object from some data. And the reverse movement in the same mode is impossible.

    But the idea is this: you can issue a certificate on the Ether and by mapping it using a bridge, you can get True NFT. The trick is that you can issue a certificate from Free TON to Ethereum, which the bridge sort of swaps to True NFT ownership on the reverse move. Important: using this certificate you can find the address, see True NFT and get all the data. It will be an Ether token, with which it will be possible to see all the data in Free TON and download it.

    Ilya: The question is whether we will create a new bridge. We won’t be able to use the current bridge, which is already being tested, for this. Right?

    Pavel: Let’s just say that when I asked BROXUS if they wanted to do it, they said no. There is no time. So NFT Subgovernance took over. After all, two bridges are better than one. The main thing is that they work.

    Ilya: But it turns out that we will be developing an already well-developed technology from scratch?

    Pavel: Therefore, the first stage there is architecture. Someone might say, why we are making this up, let’s take the DeFi bridge?! No one is stopping you from entering the contest and saying: “Here’s our bridge, we changed something in it a little bit and it works for the NFT”.

    Roman (RSquad): I think it will be so. In Open Source, there is a bridge that will simply be finalized… Why invent a new bicycle when all you have to do is change the diameter of the wheels.

    Ilya: Conceptually, it will be possible to use two bridges. It is possible to use the experience of Near.

    Pavel: There is a nuance. Near is in control of such a bridge anyway. But here anyone can control it.

    Ilya: That’s the thing: nobody controls the bridge in Near.

    Roman (RSquad): Ilya, do I understand correctly? You are saying that Near has one bridge. And that means they have a single Relayer network for all blockchain networks. Near has a single off-chain layer that allows transfers from Near to other blockchains. I don’t know how the bridge is set up there, but for the most part, if we’re talking about the Relayer network, then naturally the context is that there is only one bridge. I think it’s about the Relayer network, which is basically the off-chain part.

    Ilya: I can’t say for sure about the Relayer network. I can say that it does not matter who will launch this Relayer. One bridge means this: there are contracts on both sides of different blockchains that implement thin clients of opposite blockchains. And all Relayer has to do is transfer data from one side of the network to the other.

    Pash: The question is, what prevents other people from launching the same bridge. If it prevents it, then it is a centralized solution. If it doesn’t, then it is possible to run such a bridge.

    Roman (RSquad): The phrase “one bridge” in the context of having a single Relayer network for all networks is one approach. If we are talking about the fact that they have a single Relayer network and some set of smart contracts in the end networks, which the thin client implements, then here is the answer.

    Pavel: Is it possible to launch another bridge? If it is possible, then it is a centralized story. If their architecture is such that the bridge is embedded in the node (and this part is as if it is one) is another story.

    Roman (RSquad): I agree, Pavel, I’m just answering Ilya’s question.

    Ilya: As far as I understand, the bridge is not embedded in the node. This is a kind of smart contract, which, as a smart contract, can be centralized or decentralized. You have to look at if it has an administrator.

    Roman (RSquad): The bridge is always more than one smart contract, the bridge is always a synthesis portal. There are at least three smart contracts. When we talk about transferring ERC20 synthetic tokens, that’s one thing. When it comes to 721, it’s a different set of contracts anyway.

    Will someone write a set of contracts, put it on the Ether, and say to the Relayers network that you can look not only in this contract but also run NFTs under this contract… I think the answer is obvious. The question here is: to run another bridge means to run another Relayer network. And anyone can do it whenever they want. I don’t see any limitations. In terms of implementation of the contract itself: to fit into one contract the implementation of synthesis reception and for ERC20 or TRUE NFT in ERC721 … In any case it should be implemented separately. This will not be a single synthesis. It works the same way in Near.

    I say again, anyone can set up the Relayer network.

    Pavel: This is a social issue. Are they on the same network or is it more than one bridge? One bridge or more is a matter of social consensus. In Near the social consensus is governed by the Near team — that’s one situation. It is difficult to comment on how they implemented it.

    If the NFT Subgovernance decides that they have sufficient authority, a resource to run their bridge, they can run it. Or they’ll say, no we don’t want to endanger the bridge if someone then stops supporting it… Then let’s team up with DeFi and we’ll have a shared bridge. This is a social issue. Two bridges are better in terms of stability and reliability.

    Roman: A separate meeting should be devoted to this topic. We’ve all gone too deep. Thanks, everyone for the cool questions. Let’s say goodbye. We’ll hear from each other again in a month.

    Useful True NFT Links:
    Website | Telegram chat | GitHub | Article | Video presentation

    Proposals for debot interfaces:
    Surf UI Kit: