I really hope that DeFi and it's inevitable future of having to deal with these kind of "problems" will finally make people understand why it is a bad idea to build decentralized systems that try to establish a shared perception of time among all nodes.
It doesn't just severely limit scalability but it also creates these really tricky problems where even if you build a system that is "secure" and where the participants are incentivized to behave "honest", it ultimately doesn't matter because at the end of the day every ...
... block producer runs an algorithm and there will always be people that will study these algorithms and try to game them to their advantage.
As soon as you give "somebody" (no matter how honest) control over how others perceive time you are in for some serious problems.
I have time and time again heard self-proclaimed DLT-experts state that the biggest "breakthrough" of Blockchain was that it gives us a decentralized and trust-less perception of time. I could not disagree more.
I think that it is exactly the opposite! One of the biggest problems of DLT and "for that matter" blockchain is that it requires nodes to establish a shared perception of time through one single longest chain.
We already know that this is not how the universe works (time is relative), so why are we trying to build the decentralized future of humanity on these fundamentally flawed ideas?
The future of decentralization is in the "parallelization" of state changes and not in building better "sequentially processing" machines.
Since I am still waiting for my internet connection to recover I thought that I could at least write down the basic ideas behind the Multiverse consensus:
Blockchain tracks a single ledger state of a single longest chain.
Blocks are only valid if they contain no double spends and the block producers act as gate keepers who control which transactions are added to the ledger state. Nodes track the "outcome of consensus".
In a DAG based DLT like the one used by IOTA there are no block producers ...
... and anybody can add anything to the underlying data structure at any given time without asking anybody else for permission - even double spends. Every double spend introduces a different version of the ledger state that might or might not be compatible with other ...
If you are a DLT researcher, then you have most probably dreamt of a consensus mechanism:
- without miners
- that doesn't require nodes to query each other
- where nodes "magically" reach consensus in less than a second without wasting network throughput on voting
- that supports an unlimited amount of nodes and validators
- works equally well with a small permissioned set of validators
- that is compatible with PoS, PoW, VDF's and so on ...
- where you can reach finality in 1-2 seconds
- where the chance for an agreement failure is 0
- that doesn't need reattachment or reorganization of the underlying data structure
- where sending a transaction just requires you to gossip your transaction and be done
- where nodes collaboratively validate transactions instead of only the highest weight nodes making decisions
IOTA (much like the universe) doesn't have a total order of events. But in the same way as the universe still allows you to have a total order of events within a "frame of reference" IOTA also allows you to have a total ...
@facemrook@Adrian_Midas@IOTAFanClub@Vrom14286662 ... order of events when it comes to a particular chain of spends. Colored coins allow you to create a traceable and non-forkable chain of spends which creates something like a "frame of reference" in which total order can exist.
Ich möchte mich hiermit öffentlich dafür Entschuldigen dass mein letzter Tweet etwas provokant klang. Ich hatte weder die Absicht @blocktrainer öffentlich anzugreifen noch in irgendeiner Weise bloß zustellen.
Crypto ist ein unglaublich komplexes Thema und man kann nicht ...
... erwarten dass eine einzelne Person über alle Details eines jeden Projektes bescheid weiß. Gerade wenn man über mögliche Auswirkungen von gewissen Unterschieden in der Funktionsweise philosophiert kann es durchaus sein, dass man mal etwas sagt was diskussionswürdig ist.
Roman spricht in seinen Videos frei und ohne Skript und aus eigener Erfahrung weiß ich das Dinge manchmal einfach anders rüber kommen als man sie meint oder man vlt. im Eifer des Gefechts einfach nicht die richtigen Worte findet.
@blocktrainer Ich habe mir gestern mal dein neuestes Video angeguckt und ich muss sagen, dass du da ein paar Sachen erzählt hast die totaler Blödsinn sind.
1. Ein DAG-based DLT bewahrt Daten genauso global auf wie eine Blockchain (inklusiver voller Historie und aller Balances).
Sharding und Snapshotting sind unabhängig davon ob du einen DAG benutzt und das von dir diskutierte NANO hat keins von Beidem.
2. Niemand zahlt in Bitcoin jemals dafür Daten für immer aufzubewahren. Die gesamten Fees gehen an die Miner und nicht an die Nodebetreiber.
Das Netzwerk bezahlt sich also nicht selbst und sorgt dafür dass die Kosten der Nodebetreiber gedeckt sind und in der Tat nutzen Miner ASICS ohne Festplatten, die weder Daten für andere Nodes zur Verfügung stellen noch in irgendeiner Weise die "Infrastruktur" unterstützen.
One that is collaboratively validated by the economic actors of the world (coporations, companies, foundations, states, people) or one that is validated by an anonymous group of wealthy crypto holders?
The problem with current DLTs is that we use protection mechanisms like Proof of Work and Proof of Stake that are inherently hard to shard.
The more shards you have, the more you have to distribute your hashing power and your stake and the less secure the system becomes.
Real world identities (i.e. all the big economic actors) however could shard into as many shards as necessary without making the system less secure.
Todays DLTs waste trust in the same way as PoW wastes energy.