Cryptix Your Digital Currency for the Future Launch Now !!!

[HoosatNetwork]

A Hoosat blogger is using multiple accounts to post fake comments.

That's a false statement, I don't use alt accounts nor my blog writings are fake. Go on and read and learn something. Will be visiting more of the of Cryptis false claims in my medium. Two more posts in the pipeline at the moment. Disinformation is best defeated by rigorous fact-checking.

[ptaank]

🦉 Multi-signature wallet security? 🦉

Here is a blog post about multi-signature wallet security, how 2-of-3 is more dangerous than 2-of-2, because the escrow could be impersonating to be the buyer or seller. I use Cryptis Networks exchange, which is breaking MiCA as an example how 2-of-3 multi-signature wallet escrow service should be third party actor.

https://medium.com/@toni.lukkaroinen/multi-signature-wallet-security-7ddadeb0a615

You should work on your broken hash first and focus on your project. Are you a developer or a blogger ? Your actions are all childish. Stop spreading false info, dex is running fine and technicals are already explained before by cryptis. Quite bothering us. Go touch some grass.

[ptaank]

Read: https://cryptix-network.org/hfa-fastchain-technology

Introducing HF-A (Fastchain) 🚀

While other chains compete on confirmation speed,
Cryptix makes transactions usable in milliseconds (10ms - 150ms)

[gwestcot]

Read: https://cryptix-network.org/hfa-fastchain-technology

Introducing HF-A (Fastchain) 🚀

While other chains compete on confirmation speed,
Cryptix makes transactions usable in milliseconds (10ms - 150ms)

I mean, it is possible to do instant finality in other ways via POS, Masternodes, or an avalanche pre-consensus. This method has serious tradeoffs in exchange integration and how costly it is to run a full archival node. I'm not saying it is definitely bad but everything has tradeoffs in this space.

[ptaank]

Read: https://cryptix-network.org/hfa-fastchain-technology

Introducing HF-A (Fastchain) 🚀

While other chains compete on confirmation speed,
Cryptix makes transactions usable in milliseconds (10ms - 150ms)

I mean, it is possible to do instant finality in other ways via POS, Masternodes, or an avalanche pre-consensus. This method has serious tradeoffs in exchange integration and how costly it is to run a full archival node. I'm not saying it is definitely bad but everything has tradeoffs in this space.

Fair point, but HF-A isn’t trying to do instant finality like PoS or Avalanche-style systems.
There’s:
no second consensus
no validator trust assumptions
no liquidity or channel requirements

Basechain still handles all final settlement.

HF-A is only about making transactions visible and usable early, not final.
So it avoids trade-offs like:
validator centralization
complex setups for users
and harder integration for centralized exchanges

It’s not replacing consensus, just improving UX without adding those downsides

All-in-all, this is just the first step towards integrating Fastchain technology.

[HoosatNetwork]

🦉 Kaspa transaction visibility ~1 second, what is Cryptix Claiming?🦉

HF_A is only a method to slow down mempool transaction propagation, because of a misunderstanding in Kaspa technology. I'm stopping giving free audits to Cryptis technology stack for now, but if he continues lying to his community about anything and spreading false statements of Hoosat Network I have more topics to audit and fact checks in the pipeline waiting.

Read more: https://medium.com/@toni.lukkaroinen/kaspa-transaction-visibility-1-second-what-is-cryptix-claiming-f23b0f0b21cd

[red12345678]

HoosatNetwork is spreading false information and hate about other projects.
Perhaps, because his own project has completely failed.

A chart speaks louder than thousand words:
https://www.gate.com/de/price/hoosat-network-htn

[ogrvar]

HoosatNetwork is spreading false information and hate about other projects.
Perhaps, because his own project has completely failed.

A chart speaks louder than thousand words:
https://www.gate.com/de/price/hoosat-network-htn

He spreads hatred towards false claims, liars and anonymous scammers.

[FreshEgg95]

You don’t need to deal with bloggers.

[gwestcot]

Read: https://cryptix-network.org/hfa-fastchain-technology

Introducing HF-A (Fastchain) 🚀

While other chains compete on confirmation speed,
Cryptix makes transactions usable in milliseconds (10ms - 150ms)

I mean, it is possible to do instant finality in other ways via POS, Masternodes, or an avalanche pre-consensus. This method has serious tradeoffs in exchange integration and how costly it is to run a full archival node. I'm not saying it is definitely bad but everything has tradeoffs in this space.

Fair point, but HF-A isn’t trying to do instant finality like PoS or Avalanche-style systems.
There’s:
no second consensus
no validator trust assumptions
no liquidity or channel requirements

Basechain still handles all final settlement.

HF-A is only about making transactions visible and usable early, not final.
So it avoids trade-offs like:
validator centralization
complex setups for users
and harder integration for centralized exchanges

It’s not replacing consensus, just improving UX without adding those downsides

All-in-all, this is just the first step towards integrating Fastchain technology.

Ya but you are trading possible centralization for validators and just having a guaranteed centralization of node operators. Instant finality with a service layer seems ideal for real world usage so long as you have enough participants. The hard part is some of the sliders like the percentage of block reward split, collateral, etc. If you mess that up then yes, it can cause issues.

[HoosatNetwork]

I'm not lying about anything, because logic does not change. Kaspa mempool blocks are visible in matter of ~5ms on another node and does not add artificial delay which your microblocks does. You guys can scream all you want, but logic and Cryptis won't change. As you guys don't heed my warnings, i'm going to release another piece in a moment.

[HoosatNetwork]

🦉Does Lazy Validation of transactions Weaken “On-Spend” Attacks? 🦉

This piece talks little bit about how block rate affects Quantum onspend attacks that attack ECDSA transaction signatures and how FastChain which is decoupling block acceptance from transaction validation is in higher danger of "on-spend" attacks even if it did 100,000 Blocks per second, compared to Kaspa or Hoosat which do sub second block times with full block validation.  

https://medium.com/@toni.lukkaroinen/does-lazy-validation-weaken-on-spend-attacks-a9b1cc8e31a2

[ptaank]

I'm not lying about anything, because logic does not change. Kaspa mempool blocks are visible in matter of ~5ms on another node and does not add artificial delay which your microblocks does. You guys can scream all you want, but logic and Cryptis won't change. As you guys don't heed my warnings, i'm going to release another piece in a moment.

I think you’re mixing two different design goals here.

Systems with instant finality (PoS, masternodes, Avalanche-style) achieve that by introducing:
- validator sets
- economic assumptions (collateral, reward splits, etc.)
- and often some degree of coordination or centralization

HF-A is not trying to solve that problem.
 It doesn’t provide instant finality
 It doesn’t introduce validators or service layers
 It doesn’t change the basechain security model

Basechain still handles all settlement.

HF-A is only about propagation and early usability, meaning transactions can be seen and acted on earlier, while finality remains unchanged. However Finality will come down (in ms) after Fastchain is fully functional in future.

So instead of: “guaranteed instant finality”

It’s: “early visibility + normal on-chain settlement”

That avoids the trade-offs you mentioned (validator coordination, collateral complexity, centralization pressure), but of course introduces a different challenge: handling pre-confirmation safely.

All-in-all, it’s not competing with instant-finality systems - it’s exploring a different approach to improving real-world UX.

[HoosatNetwork]

No i'm not confusing anything. HF_A is only doing mempool transaction propagation and slower than Kaspa at that. I read Cryptis yesterdays code. Cryptis is bulling definitions out of his ass, as visibility of transaction is in two layers, visibility in a mempool and visibility in a block. The mempool transactions can not be cryptographically confirmed or finalized, as in settled. Confirmation and finalization requires addition to a block. Cryptis is comparing his HF_A mempool transaction visibility to Kaspa transaction social finality. As transaction in Kaspa are socially finalized in ~1s as it will have most likely have 10 confirmations, or at least 1 confirmation at that point.

Why to change practically instantenous mempool transaction propagation which is only affected by real world latency into microblocks and intents which contain those mempool transactions and delay their propagation to 50ms batches?

The next time Cryptis spreads bullshit about myself or Hoosat Network. Remember that he started CYTX copying HTN vision (Cryptis first research on Quantum safe mining (midstate hashing) is even based on my patent application) and that I'm publicly more experienced software developer, someone who is the first to implement DAGKnight to public testnet (open source, free of charge, in Golang).

[Cryptix-Network]

Hello Tonto from Hoosat. Your AI-generated Grok Medium article about HF-A is very embarrassing, because he clearly doesn’t even understand how it works—even though I explained it in detail.

You talks about a “quantum attack,” but there is no real attack surface. What is a quantum computer supposed to do—create transactions? Fine, that just means more fees for miners. Or a transaction-based DDoS attack? The system already accounts for that, and nothing significant would happen. In case of suspicious activity, the system would simply reject it. That’s exactly what the benchmark mechanisms are for.

You genuinely hasn’t understood what this is or how it works. That’s mainly because you doesn’t know Rust—it’s too difficult for you, and ypu only knows Go. On top of that, your Grok AI seems to have misled you. And since your English isn’t strong, you likely couldn’t even understand the documentation properly.

Your write:

"One of its core innovations is decoupling block acceptance from full transaction validation"
Complete Bullshit, HFA is a parallel, adaptive, optional way - its not a other way. Or how we could use it now without a Hardfork? The Consens is the same. He dont understand anything, its to high for him and his Grok AI. Can't you think that far ahead?

But ok, i explain it for non-developer like you:

The description of our HFA path as “lazy validation” is not accurate.

In our implementation, HFA does not lock first and validate later. The base transaction is fully validated before lock assignment:
- `rpc/service/src/hfa.rs` explicitly marks “Full base transaction validation” and calls `validate_mempool_transaction(...)` before status transitions to `Validated` and then `Locked`.
- `FastConfirmed` is a microblock-cadence state transition, not a bypass of transaction validation.

HFA also does not replace normal chain admission:
- After `submit_fast_intent`, we still submit through the normal basechain transaction path in `rpc/service/src/service.rs` (`submit_rpc_transaction(...)`), and set `basechain_submitted = true` on success.
- Normal submit/replacement paths enforce HFA fast-lock conflict checks, preventing conflicting spends while a lock is active.
- Active intents are revalidated and can be dropped if state changes invalidate inputs.

If the concern is about staged consensus processing, that is a separate pipeline behavior (`StatusHeaderOnly -> StatusUTXOPendingVerification -> StatusUTXOValid`) in consensus, and should not be attributed to HFA as “lazy transaction validation.”

So the precise characterization is: HFA is parallel/staged fast-intent processing with pre-lock full tx validation and ongoing revalidation, not lazy validation.

Now ask your Grok AI again, maybee you understand it then.

[Cryptix-Network]

Next, there is a starting argument and an option:

--hfa-microblock-interval-ms-normal=
Defines the HFA microblock interval in milliseconds while operating in normal mode
Default: 50

That's the default value, why? So that weaker nodes can participate, but there's also the option to set it to 0ms, i.e., disable it. That's why it's a starting point. On our nodes/seeds, it's 0ms. This means, no, it doesn't slow things down. It's simply a safeguard for weaker systems; this is how you develop professionally, taking weaker systems into account.

And no, it's not a mempool; Furthermore, there would then be no 4000 lines of code for the system, as a mempool is already included. I clearly stated that. And no, it's not slower than other things. It's maximum speed. Why not measure it? Use the correct configurations and run a local test; then you'll see how fast it is. There is currently no transaction visibility system worldwide that is as fast as HFA. You need to read the code and use a better AI. Grok isn't very helpful for understanding it. Or you could try learning programming languages ​​so that you can actually understand code correctly.

I have better things to do than argue with incompetent wannabe developers who can't program. Focus on your Hoosat project; people have been waiting for years for your promised features like the marketplace, which doesn't have a single line of code. Or deal with the frozen wallets because you centrally interfered with the blockchain and stole millions of coins from users.

You're upset because I broke your hash, because I achieved a faster hash integration in my mining software in three hours than you did in a year. Because I showed how bad you are and that you don't even understand your own hash. And because I publicly documented the difficulties with the hash. That's the only reason you're so upset now.

But you should learn to program and work on your project, not write blog posts, Medium articles, and Bitcointalk articles. You won't make any progress on your project that way. And constantly writing about other people's projects? Your project is already practically dead; do you want to destroy what's left? Because that's exactly what you're doing. So sit down and learn to program and work on your project. And if you're going to use AI, use decent AI. A free version of Grok won't help you with things like this.

No i'm not confusing anything. HF_A is only doing mempool transaction propagation and slower than Kaspa at that. I read Cryptis yesterdays code. Cryptis is bulling definitions out of his ass, as visibility of transaction is in two layers, visibility in a mempool and visibility in a block. The mempool transactions can not be cryptographically confirmed or finalized, as in settled. Confirmation and finalization requires addition to a block. Cryptis is comparing his HF_A mempool transaction visibility to Kaspa transaction social finality. As transaction in Kaspa are socially finalized in ~1s as it will have most likely have 10 confirmations, or at least 1 confirmation at that point.

Why to change practically instantenous mempool transaction propagation which is only affected by real world latency into microblocks and intents which contain those mempool transactions and delay their propagation to 50ms batches?

The next time Cryptis spreads bullshit about myself or Hoosat Network. Remember that he started CYTX copying HTN vision (Cryptis first research on Quantum safe mining (midstate hashing) is even based on my patent application) and that I'm publicly more experienced software developer, someone who is the first to implement DAGKnight to public testnet (open source, free of charge, in Golang).

[HoosatNetwork]

Cryptix you are one of a kind of retard and next piece of your failures comes tomorrow.

You just proved that you don't even know how to read the blogs. FastChain decouple transaction validation from block acceptance, not HF_A. As your HF_A is only your mempool transaction propagation code which is slower than Kaspa mempool transaction propagation as you are adding little bit more validation and data types to mempool transactions propagation, which are validated completely when added to a block. As in it does not matter that even if you made the delay 0ms it would be slower than Kaspa mempool transaction propagation, because more code and complexity.

Your FastChain is more suspectible to “On-Spend” quantum attacks beacuse of the transaction lazy loading, when pushing more blocks.  

Stop pulling things apart and learn that you are one of a kind retard with your research lies and grow which you kinda have done a little bit by writing your own miner. Don't go spouting bullshit that your slow mempool propagation method is faster than something where transactions can be settled in a block in less time of than 100ms.

And no, it's not a mempool; Furthermore, there would then be no 4000 lines of code for the system, as a mempool is already included. I clearly stated that. And no, it's not slower than other things. It's maximum speed. Why not measure it? Use the correct configurations and run a local test; then you'll see how fast it is. There is currently no transaction visibility system worldwide that is as fast as HFA. You need to read the code and use a better AI. Grok isn't very helpful for understanding it. Or you could try learning programming languages ​​so that you can actually understand code correctly.

You're saying that it's not a mempool? You are injecting the intent transactions into peer nodes mempool, as in another method of mempool propagation. Just your supported stated that the transactions are not settled in your HF_A before inclusion to blocks. Your speed in HF_A is false statement as that moves more data than Kaspa mempool transactions which are visible on another node practically instantly. As in you cant do something faster by adding complexity. Retard.

I'm not upset, because you've falsely broken my hash, you have not even implemented 100% working one of it. There's coming a post about that once you get your Hive scripts to work. I'm upset because you are spreading false claims because of your continued fallacies in cryptocurrencies and trashing the one's who are years further than you. I mean who creates two hidden premines? I did not. Sompolinsky did not. Who thinks that GhostDAG blocks are processed in single linear line? I do not. Sompolinsky does not.

Also my answers to your bullshit research about Hoohash:
https://medium.com/@toni.lukkaroinen/cryptis-analysis-is-pure-fud-every-single-claim-is-factually-wrong-misleading-or-deliberately-274513b7470d
https://medium.com/@toni.lukkaroinen/cryptis-lies-about-hoohminer-6a44b7c46804

You can't even answer this: Why to change practically instantenous mempool transaction propagation which is only affected by real world latency into microblocks and intents which contain those mempool transactions and delay their propagation to 50ms batches? You have no answer to that because it's reason is in your writings that you are confusing transaction settlement to visibility and trying to compete with Kaspa and Nano transaction speeds.

By the way if my blogs are written by Grok, then even that knows that Cryptis your logic fails you.

[HoosatNetwork]

And no, it's not a mempool; Furthermore, there would then be no 4000 lines of code for the system, as a mempool is already included. I clearly stated that. And no, it's not slower than other things. It's maximum speed. Why not measure it? Use the correct configurations and run a local test; then you'll see how fast it is. There is currently no transaction visibility system worldwide that is as fast as HFA. You need to read the code and use a better AI. Grok isn't very helpful for understanding it. Or you could try learning programming languages ​​so that you can actually understand code correctly.

Cryptis here you are handling the intent which contains mempool transactions and running the transaction submit validation.

https://i.postimg.cc/906zP0c7/Screenshot-20260401-093558.png

Here you are handling intent which contains mempool transactions that came from another node, which are requested after receiving microblock.

https://postimg.cc/hQ0ScSzD

The fun side is that the handle_fast_intent function only does your extra validation and passes it to submit_remote_fast_intent which adds it again to the mempool with validate_and_insert_transaction_batch function.

Then round and round it goes in nodes, mempool transaction propagation.

Here is the hilarious thing in your statement, basically you say that you did not disable the normal Kaspa mempool propagation on Cryptix? Which means you could have duplicate transactions in the mempool and your testing results might not even be because of your code, but because of the Kaspa mempool propagation.  

https://i.postimg.cc/2yHjTxhH/Screenshot-20260401-100354.png

How can you be sure your implementation of mempool propagation is the fastest ever on the planet, when you don't know which implementation you are actually testing?  

Want me to stop diving deeper. Cryptis apologize to your community with your continued lies. That is when I stop pointing out the mistakes in your logic.

[red12345678]

Cryptis here you are handling the intent which contains mempool transactions and running the transaction submit validation.

https://i.postimg.cc/906zP0c7/Screenshot-20260401-093558.png

Here you are handling intent which contains mempool transactions that came from another node, which are requested after receiving microblock.

https://postimg.cc/hQ0ScSzD

The fun side is that the handle_fast_intent function only does your extra validation and passes it to submit_remote_fast_intent which adds it again to the mempool with validate_and_insert_transaction_batch function.

Then round and round it goes in nodes, mempool transaction propagation

...

Don't you have anything better to do than spread misinformation and hate against other projects?
If you put that same energy into working on your own project, it would be perhaps successful.

A diagram is worth a thousand words:
https://www.gate.com/de/price/hoosat-network-htn

[HoosatNetwork]

I'm not spreading misinformation. I'm spreading the truth, the code speaks, the logic he writes speaks.

I just told you that Cryptis has not actually tested which mempool propagation is faster as he has both of them enabled on the Cryptix node at the moment.