3 ms·

I quote the founder of ethereum(one of the very few people I trust to actually not be scammer and be level-headed about blockchain stuff): >Right. The claim th

I quote the founder of ethereum(one of the very few people I trust to actually not be scammer and be level-headed about blockchain stuff): >Right. The claim that a mere DAG structure can solve the scalability trilemma is very false. You need to find a way to ensure that not every node needs to verify each transaction.I don't understand why they can't just group transactions into blocks and then have the DAG structure be over blocks, letting clients verify individual blocks with fraud proofs and data availability proofs. That would give them quadratic sharding right there.IMO the desire some people have to make "blockless" consensus algorithms is a huge mistake and step backwards; the way to get scalability is to have more layers of packaging. >In a sharded chain, scalability of data[storing all the tx data] is going up a lot, scalability of computation[validating all income transactions] is going up but less than scalability of data (and additionally, sharding inherently makes latency of computation go up[nodes must communicate more]), and scalability of state[part of validating transactions - every node must know if a cross-shard tx is valid] is, in the current designs, not going up at all. Looks like radix is addressing the data salability issue here, and maybe computation. Salability of state - not sure how this is addressed, if at all(will state be sharded as well?). There is nothing magical about DAGs vs blockchains. Their webpages and whitepaper are so full of buzz terms that its hard to understand what they are actually doing. Some things are too high level, others are too dumbed down. All sorts of crap about atoms and constraints. 0 relevant explanation as to how it solves scaling better than ethereum's plan. Also what is up with all the hyperbolic claims? 17 sextillion shards? Why would that ever be a good idea? How would you even start to maintain state across that? My BS detector is beeping.

DocSavage 7y ago
Scalability of state seems to be addressed by minimizing the need for nodes to retain the full state, and the main mechanism is shards. From whitepaper: “A further benefit is that any Atom that performs an inter-shard transfer is present in both the previous owner's and new owner's shards. This, in part, eliminates the need for a global state and mitigates any expensive inter-shard state verification operations needed to prevent "double spends".” I’ve only skimmed the whitepaper and the consensus check against conflicts seems to be a series of methods with escalating computational cost. I think they assume Atoms (e.g., Transfer Atoms) won’t grow so big that they span massive numbers of shards. I agree about the proliferation of buzzwords. Why not use Ledger instead of “Universe”? Not sure how the eventual consistency model works in an economic context, although that’s how ATMs work.
- jmeyer2k 7y ago
  Sharding in this context is different from the sharding Vitalik is talking about. In their whitepaper, they're talking about splitting up the state storage so that nodes don't need to retain the full state. However, Vitalik is talking about splitting up the computation so that all nodes don't need to verify every single transaction. ETH 2.0 (or Phore Synapse which I work on), splits the chain into many different "shards" which are basically lower-level blockchains. Then, validators get assigned various tasks to validate these subchains. (Verify these 50 blocks are valid). There are also mechanisms for ensuring that somebody stores blockchain history/state for a certain amount of time (proof-of-custody).
repomies68 7y ago
Well I don't know why you would trust anyone in the crypto world not to be biased towards their own project. I think Vitalik is shilling Ethereum pretty regularly while dissing other projects.

DocSavage 7y ago

Scalability of state seems to be addressed by minimizing the need for nodes to retain the full state, and the main mechanism is shards. From whitepaper: “A further benefit is that any Atom that performs an inter-shard transfer is present in both the previous owner's and new owner's shards. This, in part, eliminates the need for a global state and mitigates any expensive inter-shard state verification operations needed to prevent "double spends".” I’ve only skimmed the whitepaper and the consensus check against conflicts seems to be a series of methods with escalating computational cost. I think they assume Atoms (e.g., Transfer Atoms) won’t grow so big that they span massive numbers of shards. I agree about the proliferation of buzzwords. Why not use Ledger instead of “Universe”? Not sure how the eventual consistency model works in an economic context, although that’s how ATMs work.

jmeyer2k 7y ago
Sharding in this context is different from the sharding Vitalik is talking about. In their whitepaper, they're talking about splitting up the state storage so that nodes don't need to retain the full state. However, Vitalik is talking about splitting up the computation so that all nodes don't need to verify every single transaction. ETH 2.0 (or Phore Synapse which I work on), splits the chain into many different "shards" which are basically lower-level blockchains. Then, validators get assigned various tasks to validate these subchains. (Verify these 50 blocks are valid). There are also mechanisms for ensuring that somebody stores blockchain history/state for a certain amount of time (proof-of-custody).

repomies68 7y ago

Well I don't know why you would trust anyone in the crypto world not to be biased towards their own project. I think Vitalik is shilling Ethereum pretty regularly while dissing other projects.