4 ms·

I did research Hyperledger Fabric and compared to other "Blockchain platforms". My conclusion was that it made a lot more sense to use Ethereum in most cases du

by cateye 8y ago

I did research Hyperledger Fabric and compared to other "Blockchain platforms". My conclusion was that it made a lot more sense to use Ethereum in most cases due to: - Ethereum has a bigger community that is more open and inclusive. While Hyperledger is mainly an IBM and friends like project and a lot of decisions and information is kept inside. Goodluck getting things done without involving consultants from these "supporting" companies. - Consensus algorithm is what makes a Blockchain a blockchain. Hyperledger says something like you can use whatever consensus mechanism you want but in practice there is not a real alternative to proof of work. Relying on a in public production battle tested algorithm will save a lot of effort and headache. - crypto economic incentive is what makes a Blockchain a blockchain. Without having a coin to motivate participants in a balanced way to act in a specific desired way, there will not be any real advantages to use a blockchain platform and it is in most cases smarter to just use a distributed database. Hyperledger doesn't provide a practical way to create an incentive mechanism. - The underlying philosophy of hyperledger is around "federated networks" which means that it is trying to create a controlled environment where transactions take place between authorized participants. This leads to centralization by authority which leads to data immutability according to the degree you trust this entity. This defeats mainly the purpose of Blockchain to create a trustless environment of immutable data record.

lima 8y ago
> Hyperledger says something like you can use whatever consensus mechanism you want but in practice there is not a real alternative to proof of work With the latest crop of PBFT consensus algorithms (notably Tendermint/Cosmos), proof-of-stake is shaping up to be a real alternative. Though I'm a bit worried about the inherent complexity.
- cobookman 8y ago
  If a blockchain has a market cap of 1 billion USD, and uses proof of stake...then someone with <=500M of capital could mess with the chains data. It's already being done to smaller proof of work chains. So in this regard you have similar issues.
  - rcxdude 8y ago
    This is actually worse for proof-of-work chains, though. The cost of a 50% attack on most cryptocurrencies (including bitcoin!) is much less than half the market cap. The main thing which keeps such attacks from happening is that they are hard enough to profit from (it's quite hard to double-spend enough) while being expensive enough to that such an attack is a very risky and almost certainly unprofitable endeavour.
    - dnautics 8y ago
      Not only is it hard to double spend, but if your double spend is found, the liquidation value is likely to plummet from under you in or before the process of attempting to realize the theft.
luma 8y ago
> Consensus algorithm is what makes a Blockchain a blockchain. Hyperledger says something like you can use whatever consensus mechanism you want but in practice there is not a real alternative to proof of work. For public use maybe but for commercial/private use cases it can often be assumed that all parties are trusted in some manner. I think their approach to different consensus algorithms makes sense when you're solving for use cases beyond financial transfers between untrusted parties.
- cateye 8y ago
  If parties are trusted, don't bother with Blockchain. Huge added complexity (which brings security issues) without any benefit. Use for example git or a conventional database.
  - jsutton 8y ago
    Ever try to share a conventional database between multiple different companies or organizations? It's not practical. It seems more complicated than going with a blockchain solution (or will be as blockchain deployment tools mature). The adage that 'if parties are trusted, than go with a conventional DB' doesn't hold water anymore. If you need to share a database with other companies, it inevitably leads to contracting a third party solution to manage the data entry between all parties, which means you now have to trust this one entity and there's a single point of failure. Hyperledger, blockchain, and the like eliminate the need for third party management. A few engineers at each party needs to set up the new service, and now you don't have to worry about central points of failure, you have built in redundancy, and you save money by not having to use a data management service that exists to make money off of you.
    - nearting 8y ago
      > Ever try to share a conventional database between multiple different companies or organizations? It's not practical. Not practical how? It seems like this criticism can only be applied to usability, but that's not a technical shortcoming. > If you need to share a database with other companies, it inevitably leads to contracting a third party solution to manage the data entry between all parties, which means you now have to trust this one entity and there's a single point of failure. This criticism seems a bit underspecified. While it's true that having a single entity to handle data entry results in a single point of failure, but what's the failure model? Do we assume that this single entity might be malicious? Or are we assuming that the entity handling data entry isn't familiar with the types of failures they may encounter, and thus hasn't taken steps to mitigate the effects of those failures? Both of those scenarios, given the context of sharing data among organizations, seems unrealistic. > Hyperledger, blockchain, and the like eliminate the need for third party management. A few engineers at each party needs to set up the new service, and now you don't have to worry about central points of failure, you have built in redundancy, and you save money by not having to use a data management service that exists to make money off of you. The claims you make here are correct: (1) the consensus protocol provides a decent mechanism for writing to the database, (2) redundancy insulates against loss of data, and (3) the open nature of the protocol means you don't have to use a for-profit service. However, there are far more efficient ways to achieve these things without relying on blockchains. If everyone that could write to the database is known, and what you want is simply to guarantee the integrity of the database, there are better data structures than a linear chain of hashed, batched events (which is all that a blockchain is, at its core).
internet_user 8y ago
isn't Vitalik betting the farm on phasing out the proof of work, along with deprecating the CAP theorem?
- random3 8y ago
  Can you point to any reference with statements on deprecating or otherwise working around CAP concerns?
- cateye 8y ago
  No, I think he is smart enough to avoid making statements around depreciating CAP theorem. He actually emphasizes repeatedly the trilemma of blockchain networks with the factors scalability, security and decentralization and talking about that this would bending physics if it could be realized. I think it is very important for Ethereum to research other consensus mechanism as an alternative for Pow. Otherwise it will be the bottleneck if it wants to realize the vision around "worldwide computer". Vitalik has statements related to usefulness of use cases around private/permissioned blockchain networks. I think that will be only useful if combined with a layer 1 network which is public.
brianbehlendorf 8y ago
"While Hyperledger is mainly an IBM and friends like project" IBM must have a lot of friends then, including direct competitors like Oracle and SAP, and lots of small startups. :) IBM is one of over 250 members in the consortium, but in the developer community (where it really counts), they are a substantial contributor - I have no idea how many FTEs but there are dozens of IBM developer names in the changelogs for Fabric, Composer, and others. But there are hundreds of other developers contributing to the 10 different project at Hyperledger, and even on Fabric, they are less than 50% of the contributor base by individual and by pull requests. The development is all done publicly (I challenge the "lot of decisions and information is kept inside" claim) and who you work for does not matter, so it's really on the other companies in this space (large and small) to increase their contribution levels, not on IBM's shoulders to decrease theirs, if this is an important metric. "in practice there is not a real alternative to proof of work" Come back when you've learned something about how blockchains work somewhere other than with cryptocurrencies. There are many other effective consensus mechanisms out there, especially when you're not trying to solve the anonymous participation goal - and much more energy efficient, and with better speed and finality to boot. "crypto economic incentive is what makes a Blockchain a blockchain" No. Perhaps this is a semantics game, as lots of people pretend to be authoritative about this, but there are plenty of intrinsic motivations to developing a common system of record amongst a population of rivalrous nodes, even amongst parties who don't trust each other. If ten banks want to maintain a shared DLT to exchange bank wires, they don't need to pay each other a token to record a transaction. They just don't - the costs of running such an infrastructure are de minimus compared to all the other costs in adoption. "The underlying philosophy of hyperledger is around federated networks" False. Hyperledger, as a project and as a community, is a place for the collaborative software development around open source blockchain technologies. There are five different frameworks, including Fabric, but including others focused on different approaches. All projects have focused on non-POW consensus mechanisms, and most are an implementation of consortium models, what's sometimes called "permissioned" blockchains - pick your metaphor, but a consortium of entities governed by a lightweight governing mechanism, or be it a referee on a football field, is a much closer conceptual model than a "federated" network, for which there are already plenty of options. Again, please do research, talk to people, if you have questions or concerns air them with the project, but please don't just spout what you've heard, or made up after you saw the announcement press release in December of 2015 and paid no further attention to.

by cateye 8y ago

lima 8y ago

> Hyperledger says something like you can use whatever consensus mechanism you want but in practice there is not a real alternative to proof of work With the latest crop of PBFT consensus algorithms (notably Tendermint/Cosmos), proof-of-stake is shaping up to be a real alternative. Though I'm a bit worried about the inherent complexity.

cobookman 8y ago
If a blockchain has a market cap of 1 billion USD, and uses proof of stake...then someone with <=500M of capital could mess with the chains data. It's already being done to smaller proof of work chains. So in this regard you have similar issues.
- rcxdude 8y ago
  This is actually worse for proof-of-work chains, though. The cost of a 50% attack on most cryptocurrencies (including bitcoin!) is much less than half the market cap. The main thing which keeps such attacks from happening is that they are hard enough to profit from (it's quite hard to double-spend enough) while being expensive enough to that such an attack is a very risky and almost certainly unprofitable endeavour.
  - dnautics 8y ago
    Not only is it hard to double spend, but if your double spend is found, the liquidation value is likely to plummet from under you in or before the process of attempting to realize the theft.

luma 8y ago

> Consensus algorithm is what makes a Blockchain a blockchain. Hyperledger says something like you can use whatever consensus mechanism you want but in practice there is not a real alternative to proof of work. For public use maybe but for commercial/private use cases it can often be assumed that all parties are trusted in some manner. I think their approach to different consensus algorithms makes sense when you're solving for use cases beyond financial transfers between untrusted parties.

cateye 8y ago
If parties are trusted, don't bother with Blockchain. Huge added complexity (which brings security issues) without any benefit. Use for example git or a conventional database.
- jsutton 8y ago
  Ever try to share a conventional database between multiple different companies or organizations? It's not practical. It seems more complicated than going with a blockchain solution (or will be as blockchain deployment tools mature). The adage that 'if parties are trusted, than go with a conventional DB' doesn't hold water anymore. If you need to share a database with other companies, it inevitably leads to contracting a third party solution to manage the data entry between all parties, which means you now have to trust this one entity and there's a single point of failure. Hyperledger, blockchain, and the like eliminate the need for third party management. A few engineers at each party needs to set up the new service, and now you don't have to worry about central points of failure, you have built in redundancy, and you save money by not having to use a data management service that exists to make money off of you.
  - nearting 8y ago
    > Ever try to share a conventional database between multiple different companies or organizations? It's not practical. Not practical how? It seems like this criticism can only be applied to usability, but that's not a technical shortcoming. > If you need to share a database with other companies, it inevitably leads to contracting a third party solution to manage the data entry between all parties, which means you now have to trust this one entity and there's a single point of failure. This criticism seems a bit underspecified. While it's true that having a single entity to handle data entry results in a single point of failure, but what's the failure model? Do we assume that this single entity might be malicious? Or are we assuming that the entity handling data entry isn't familiar with the types of failures they may encounter, and thus hasn't taken steps to mitigate the effects of those failures? Both of those scenarios, given the context of sharing data among organizations, seems unrealistic. > Hyperledger, blockchain, and the like eliminate the need for third party management. A few engineers at each party needs to set up the new service, and now you don't have to worry about central points of failure, you have built in redundancy, and you save money by not having to use a data management service that exists to make money off of you. The claims you make here are correct: (1) the consensus protocol provides a decent mechanism for writing to the database, (2) redundancy insulates against loss of data, and (3) the open nature of the protocol means you don't have to use a for-profit service. However, there are far more efficient ways to achieve these things without relying on blockchains. If everyone that could write to the database is known, and what you want is simply to guarantee the integrity of the database, there are better data structures than a linear chain of hashed, batched events (which is all that a blockchain is, at its core).

internet_user 8y ago

isn't Vitalik betting the farm on phasing out the proof of work, along with deprecating the CAP theorem?

random3 8y ago
Can you point to any reference with statements on deprecating or otherwise working around CAP concerns?
cateye 8y ago
No, I think he is smart enough to avoid making statements around depreciating CAP theorem. He actually emphasizes repeatedly the trilemma of blockchain networks with the factors scalability, security and decentralization and talking about that this would bending physics if it could be realized. I think it is very important for Ethereum to research other consensus mechanism as an alternative for Pow. Otherwise it will be the bottleneck if it wants to realize the vision around "worldwide computer". Vitalik has statements related to usefulness of use cases around private/permissioned blockchain networks. I think that will be only useful if combined with a layer 1 network which is public.

brianbehlendorf 8y ago

"While Hyperledger is mainly an IBM and friends like project" IBM must have a lot of friends then, including direct competitors like Oracle and SAP, and lots of small startups. :) IBM is one of over 250 members in the consortium, but in the developer community (where it really counts), they are a substantial contributor - I have no idea how many FTEs but there are dozens of IBM developer names in the changelogs for Fabric, Composer, and others. But there are hundreds of other developers contributing to the 10 different project at Hyperledger, and even on Fabric, they are less than 50% of the contributor base by individual and by pull requests. The development is all done publicly (I challenge the "lot of decisions and information is kept inside" claim) and who you work for does not matter, so it's really on the other companies in this space (large and small) to increase their contribution levels, not on IBM's shoulders to decrease theirs, if this is an important metric. "in practice there is not a real alternative to proof of work" Come back when you've learned something about how blockchains work somewhere other than with cryptocurrencies. There are many other effective consensus mechanisms out there, especially when you're not trying to solve the anonymous participation goal - and much more energy efficient, and with better speed and finality to boot. "crypto economic incentive is what makes a Blockchain a blockchain" No. Perhaps this is a semantics game, as lots of people pretend to be authoritative about this, but there are plenty of intrinsic motivations to developing a common system of record amongst a population of rivalrous nodes, even amongst parties who don't trust each other. If ten banks want to maintain a shared DLT to exchange bank wires, they don't need to pay each other a token to record a transaction. They just don't - the costs of running such an infrastructure are de minimus compared to all the other costs in adoption. "The underlying philosophy of hyperledger is around federated networks" False. Hyperledger, as a project and as a community, is a place for the collaborative software development around open source blockchain technologies. There are five different frameworks, including Fabric, but including others focused on different approaches. All projects have focused on non-POW consensus mechanisms, and most are an implementation of consortium models, what's sometimes called "permissioned" blockchains - pick your metaphor, but a consortium of entities governed by a lightweight governing mechanism, or be it a referee on a football field, is a much closer conceptual model than a "federated" network, for which there are already plenty of options. Again, please do research, talk to people, if you have questions or concerns air them with the project, but please don't just spout what you've heard, or made up after you saw the announcement press release in December of 2015 and paid no further attention to.