which crypto claim to have solved the crypto trilemma? and is that true that they did or is there a catch?
Which crypto claim to have solved the crypto trilemma? and is that true that they did or is there a catch?
Hunter King
Other urls found in this thread:
near.org
twitter.com
Jacob Phillips
AVAX you dummy.
Adrian Clark
4 ways to scale
>1 - Big blocks
Obviously a retarded idea, the bigger the blocks the more you rely on huge nodes, then fewer nodes due to longer block execution times and not even that can fix scaling since you'd end up with terrabyte blocks at some point.
>2 - Use a DAG
Problem with that solution is that DAGs have the fatal flaw of the "small world" problem in that a killer dapp actually constricts the overall network performance.
This is why DAGs are not used for scaling in high frequency trading/finance, even though the industry tried them out in the 90s... DAGs suck at scaling in production BUT they make for fantastic performance demos and POCs... which is why finance bothered to try them in the first place (this was in the era before the senior leadership at funds were tech/eng types and didn't know better)
>3 - Layer 2
Problem with L2 technologies is that the cost of transactions on the base layer is nearly guaranteed to go up over time as the complexity of those L2 solutions goes up to accommodate more types of transactions/contract interactions.
And anything that settles to a main chain, like the subnets from that one red shitcoin, cosmos, polkadot is all considered L2 and will run into the same problem.
Furthermore, rollups will be app specific, so devs will need to set up their own fucking L2, how is that not a bad idea, also to withdrawal you still need to pay L1 fees.
But wait it gets better, L2 is often centralized, so vitalik's endgame is taking a multibillion-dollar payments layer that's unregulated due to being decentralized and centralizing its payment processing layer (not validation/settlement), to the point that the layer becomes smaller than VISA. And somehow expecting a reg hammer to not drop on it once it goes live. I get that it's maybe possible to keep production censorship-resistant, yet all the "technically" arguments in the world can't stop a regulator with a small, finite list of payment processors to target.
Blake Gutierrez
>4 - Sharding
State Sharding is, in theory, a perfect solution, it's decentralized and infinitely scalable, Sharding has been used to scale databases since forever, so we know it works. It's how Google can index the whole web. They don't store the whole web on one computer. They have datacenters with thousands of computers where the work is spread across them.
Problem however, is that sharding decreases security the more shards are added and would come with scaling constraints if = more shards = more cross shard communication = less scaling.
Because that's what current PoS based sharding projects are running into, harmony/elrond needs a beacon chain to mitigate cross chain scaling problems, and has no solution to security loss, cosmos and dot know that this doesn't work and went with hub-spoke which comes with the same cross chain problems and a bunch more that are similar to L2.
Right now, there is only one project to actually have a sharded chain, that being kadena
Easton Walker
fucked up the graphic, should say this
Julian Clark
AVAX actually did it already.
James Lopez
You know what it is.
Ontop of the trilemma, one needs to have a proper, transparent governance. There is only one.
Lucas Morales
hbar has like 26 nodes, it didn't solve anything.
avax can't scale
Jackson Scott
*sniff sniff*
what's that smell? is that... curry?
Connor Cook
Hbro beat me to it. Hedera has a governing council with many enterprise members, giving some of the benefits of decentralized governance without the problems, while keeping the efficiency of central governance.
Anthony Hughes
If you had a better argument you would have made one.
You can't argue for the fundamentals because you're not capable of actually examining them critically.
Noah Jones
>avax cant scale
Literally the only solution which can scale infinitely. How many thousands do you own?Kek GM ser to you also
Asher Jones
Why don't they just use 3 different chains solving one lemma each?
Charles Long
hard to argue against curry wordsalad
big brain shortcut: collective Ethereum researchers and dev mindshare > you (Ranjesh)
Benjamin Moore
>Literally the only solution which can scale infinitely
Subnets is L2, which will need to settle thought the P chain, which will not scale.
If you had a better argument you would have made one.
Evan Powell
loopring (LRC) solves the blockchain trilemma
>zkrollups
Ryan Sullivan
I just gave you my argument
Q.E.D
moot, please resend my original message to Mumbai, India. It appears it never arrived.
Noah Collins
No you appealed to authority, which isn't an argument.
For your information, the Ethereum Foundation agrees with everything I have said. They want to shard ethereum, they won't, and they admitted that, now they want to use L2 because nothing else can work for them. Which is a bad solution.
I am correct and if you agree with ethereum you agree with me.
Nicholas Sullivan
And 26 nodes it will have for eternity.
Andrew Martin
Correct, because the fundamental consensus does not allow for more nodes.
You can read more about it here near.org
Blake Thomas
see now I know you actually don't know what you're talking about, and I never even had to address your canned curryscented (slight hint of tranny) copy pasta
your honor, I rest my case
Michael Robinson
If you had a better argument you would have made one.
Ryder Gonzalez
i don't think any of them did.
solana is centralized af
ada is decentralized but not scalable
maybe cosmos solved it, but there is only one dex now so it's judge scalability
Tyler Allen
Cosmos is hub-and-spoke, meaning if you want to make a dapp you need to setup and operate a whole blockchain, this is in contrast to ethereum where you just write a smart contract, the benefit is that load on another chain doesn't impact your dapp, problem is if your dapp/chain gets hammered, fees will go up. It's a realistic solution, but not a good one.
Oh and also you're limited to like 100-200 nodes which isn't really decentralized imo, also PoS which is gay.
Jordan Kelly
Yeah you have done 0 research on Hashgraph.
Weak FUD
Kayden Rogers
If you had a better argument you would have made one.
Evan Turner
HBAR solves by sacrificing some of the decentralization embedded in the network itself, but winning it back for all the intents and purposes that really count with the governance model. Crypto ideologues seethe because it *morally* violates their perfect ideal of a maximally-democratic network where every tom dick and harry gets an equal "vote" - but *practically* speaking, a Council of large and sophisticated representative end-users is perfect for achieving the network's goals and is going to seem perfectly obvious to everyone ten years from now.
If the creation of Bitcoin is tantamount to the invention of Democracy, then Hedera has refined it into the Republic.
William Thomas
Guess that Hedera adding nodes is somehow not real?
Path to decentralisation is happening already and at the end of this year, I will be running my own node. And so will many others.
Camden Hernandez
>Path to decentralisation is happening
It's not, it's the biggest lie in nu-crypto, algo, solana, hbar, etc Will not be decentralized, ever.
What might happen is you will be able to run your own node but the real consenus will happen on 100 biggest nodes.
>BFT consensus involves considerable amount of communication. While recent advances allow the consensus to be reached in linear time in number of participants (see e.g. [4]), it is still noticeable overhead per block;
Try to ague against this