,
24 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ In this thread we compare @storecoin with @0Chain. The trigger for this comparison came from the following tweet.
2/ At a high level, both projects looks similar. They both address the need for a *decentralized* cloud that facilitates the development of next generation applications.
3/ They both separate consensus engine from storage for high throughput. They both claim zero-fee primitives for resource use. There are also some common terminologies used — such as dStorage — so on surface, the two projects look more alike than different.
4/ In this thread, we highlight the differences based on our analysis of the following resources. 1) Economic model - drive.google.com/file/d/1I463d-…, 2) Consensus - drive.google.com/file/d/1KcfkQ1…
5/ First, the zero-fee primitives. In 0Chain, "clients lock the requisite number of tokens over a period of time during which services are available to them". This model is similar to EOS'. Clients don't need to *purchase* tokens to avail services, but they need to *bond* tokens.
6/ In Storecoin, clients do not lock any STORE tokens to send transactions. Storecoin miners (we call them dWorkers) are paid with a low annual inflation of STORE tokens in the form of block rewards for securing settlement transactions.
7/ We addressed the myth that transaction fees (or even requiring *locking* tokens for the duration of the service) deter DDoS and spam attacks here — storecoin.com/blockfin/ddos-…
8/ Second, how services are made available. In 0Chain, storage is provided by "blobbers", who seek payment in tokens for providing storage and bandwidth. Clients select a blobber from whom they want to receive services and lock tokens as determined by blobber’s ask prices.
9/ This model is similar to other decentralized storage models (Filecoin, Storj, etc.) where a marketplace matches storage providers and users. The user experience for a user wanting to store files or videos will also likely to be similar.
10/ In Storecoin, storage is provided by Messagenodes. There is no runtime price matching or shopping for cheaper providers. App developers host their apps on Storecoin in return for revenue sharing with *datacoins*.
11/ Datacoins represent tokenized data and are backed by data. They are *not* utility tokens, payment tokens, or work tokens and derive their *intrinsic value* from data. If data is the new oil, datacoins will become *programmable* money.
12/ 0Chain appears to use file metaphor for storage (from "Upload photos, videos or documents and track where your data is stored" on their website) whereas Storecoin is designed to process queryable, rich dataset.
13/ Third, the consensus. There are 4 actors in the 0Chain system. 1) Miners who run the consensus protocol, 2) Generators who propose new transactions, 3) Sharders who store blockchain history, and 4) Blobbers, who provide storage.
14/ Storecoin's Validators can be equated to 0Chain's Generators. Storecoin Messagenodes cover the other 3 roles. This itself is not such a big difference, but our design is to separate *compute* (Validators) from *storage* (Messagenodes) so each can be independently optimized.
15/ oChain Miners form a "committee" for running consensus. They are elected from the client pool every epoch to run consensus in that epoch. So, the *security* of the network depends on the *size* of this committee and is *limited* to the committee.
16/ In Storecoin, *all* Messagenodes run the consensus and the resulting block is validated and approved by *all* Validators. The two tiers are *cryptographically* tied to ensure security. In Storecoin, the Byzantine tolerance is *across* the entire network.
17/ 0Chain uses "squared staking" approach to select Miners to ensure that one client doesn't use multiple identities to secure multiple representations in the Miner set. This is very clever!
18/ Storecoin uses "one entity, one vote" approach to ensure that the voting power is *not* proportional to the size of dWorker stake. It achieves identity verification with a process called "Know Your Voter", which is a series of trust-building steps, where . . .
19/ . . . voters verify the identities of other voters in a truly decentralized fashion. The peer-approved voters become Storecoin dWorkers.
20/ 0Chain's approach may have one potential problem -- "each client’s chance of being selected is *proportional* to the square of
their total staked tokens". Clients who own proportionally large stake will get elected more frequently, so cartel-forming is possible.
their total staked tokens". Clients who own proportionally large stake will get elected more frequently, so cartel-forming is possible.
21/ Finally, since there are no committees or leaders elected in Storecoin consensus -- research.storecoin.com/BlockfinBFT -- *all* dWorkers share the block rewards for *every* block they help build, validate, and approve.
22/ We call this "equitable economic incentive", which ensures that there are no economic upsides to defeat the protocol.
23/ There are other subtle differences (and similarities!) between the two projects, but the differences discussed in this thread demonstrate that the two projects are more different than similar.
24/ And, finally a nitpick. From 0Chain's Github — github.com/0chain/docs — the highlighted sentences below will *not* provide Byzantine Fault Tolerance. This document may be old, but wanted to highlight on the BFT *safety*. 
