Modify🔸(⋈, 🤖)

DFINITY says $NEAR copied its signing tech. Here is what actually differs. 👇 Think of musicians using the same theory book. Shared theory does not make every arrangement a stolen recording. You still credit the influences. Chain Signatures lets a group of computers sign transactions for other chains. Dominic Williams alleges NEAR used specific DFINITY inventions without permission. So compare the actual machinery: 1. Different signing engine. NEAR's ECDSA code derives from Cait-Sith, an open-source library by Lúcás Meier. ICP uses its own distributed-signing stack. The documented starting point is Cait-Sith, not ICP's entire implementation. 2. Different math at the disputed step. Each signature uses a one-use secret number called a nonce. When using stored, partly prepared signatures, the two constructions refresh that nonce differently: • DFINITY's paper: old nonce + fresh random value • NEAR's code: old nonce × fresh random value Why multiply? Cait-Sith prepares secret shares of the nonce's inverse in advance. Multiplication lets NEAR update those pieces locally by dividing them by the public multiplier. An additive change needs different treatment of those shares. That changes the construction, not just the variable names. 3. Different way to finish the signature. NEAR's selected signers send weighted partial answers to a coordinator, which adds them. ICP's signers produce verifiable numerator and denominator shares. Those are reconstructed separately, then divided. Both ultimately produce standard ECDSA signatures. Different machinery underneath. An independent Trail of Bits audit documented the multiplication-versus-addition difference in March 2025. It reviewed NEAR's proof only at a high level and recommended further peer review. NEAR also credited the research in an August 2024 PR, saying its model "deviates substantially" from Groth and Shoup's. My NEAR take: these are not identical signing constructions. There is acknowledged research influence, not evidence here that the whole ICP implementation was copied. That is not blanket legal clearance. Claims about specific inventions still need evidence of the protected right and its infringement. Read the receipts: NEAR's engine and ancestry: github.com/near/mpc/blob/9a8… NEAR's math and signing flow: github.com/near/mpc/blob/9a8… ICP's math and share handling: github.com/dfinity/ic/blob/c… Independent audit, pages 8-9: github.com/trailofbits/publi… August 2024 attribution: github.com/near/mpc_old/pull… Citations are not confessions. 🎹📖🔎⚡️ Learnt something today? Follow for more!