3 ms·

Yes, these are the failure scenarios I had in mind when I wrote "the ability to shutdown these apps would rely on somehow breaking the blockchain itself". It's

by v64 5y ago

Yes, these are the failure scenarios I had in mind when I wrote "the ability to shutdown these apps would rely on somehow breaking the blockchain itself". It's possible that bugs in the blockchain software can cause blocks to no longer be produced, essentially halting the network until the problem is resolved. So-called 51% attacks are also a failure possibility.

lumost 5y ago
I'd suspect that the longevity of a cloud provider or self hosted environment would be higher than the time miners are willing to support a new block chain (I'm not paying a btc transaction fee everytime I update an app). How will miners be paid to host apps? Given that app usage concentrates into winner take all groupings wouldn't we except the web 3 winners to be paying for the vast majority of any web 3 mining?
- landemva 5y ago
  Miners don't host the front ends. Miners run whatever contract code is called by anyone who sends a signed transaction.
  - lumost 5y ago
    Wouldn't actions like add to cart, etc all require contract code execution?
- mattwilsonn888 5y ago
  You're getting to a fundamental issue that separates Bitcoin from other chains which strive to push and hold more data on chain: there is no efficient pricing mechanism to host data. What this means is that putting any data on chain at all is either expensive, or limited by hard code. The issue is that the data stays on chain forever yet without any 'rent' associated to it, therefore space is limited or cost is poorly estimated up front (or compromises on decentralization like sharding occur). Bitcoin doesn't technically solve this either, its just that its data growth rate is small enough to be trivial in comparison to storage costs. Ethereum and other classical distributed ledger systems cannot fulfill the true vision of Web3 (it can and will continue to do a fraction of that vision) because they have no affectual economic functions for data rent or data handling in general. Mining/staking is paid for and everything else is an economic after-thought. Ethereum's Infura Problem is a quick way to see the consequences of these poorly suited economic incentives. Bitcoin is about stability, but Web3 is about data, so I believe its fair to say that a distributed ledger technology built for "Web3" (which is quickly becoming a dirty word) will have its economic components focused on data. This is different from keeping the traditional Nakamoto Consensus (which judges value based on somewhat arbitrary measures) but deriving tricks to push more data - this means maintaining or exceeding the security guarantees of Nakamoto Consensus while incentivizing data routing-work and storage rather than number crunching.

by v64 5y ago

lumost 5y ago

I'd suspect that the longevity of a cloud provider or self hosted environment would be higher than the time miners are willing to support a new block chain (I'm not paying a btc transaction fee everytime I update an app). How will miners be paid to host apps? Given that app usage concentrates into winner take all groupings wouldn't we except the web 3 winners to be paying for the vast majority of any web 3 mining?

landemva 5y ago
Miners don't host the front ends. Miners run whatever contract code is called by anyone who sends a signed transaction.
- lumost 5y ago
  Wouldn't actions like add to cart, etc all require contract code execution?
mattwilsonn888 5y ago
You're getting to a fundamental issue that separates Bitcoin from other chains which strive to push and hold more data on chain: there is no efficient pricing mechanism to host data. What this means is that putting any data on chain at all is either expensive, or limited by hard code. The issue is that the data stays on chain forever yet without any 'rent' associated to it, therefore space is limited or cost is poorly estimated up front (or compromises on decentralization like sharding occur). Bitcoin doesn't technically solve this either, its just that its data growth rate is small enough to be trivial in comparison to storage costs. Ethereum and other classical distributed ledger systems cannot fulfill the true vision of Web3 (it can and will continue to do a fraction of that vision) because they have no affectual economic functions for data rent or data handling in general. Mining/staking is paid for and everything else is an economic after-thought. Ethereum's Infura Problem is a quick way to see the consequences of these poorly suited economic incentives. Bitcoin is about stability, but Web3 is about data, so I believe its fair to say that a distributed ledger technology built for "Web3" (which is quickly becoming a dirty word) will have its economic components focused on data. This is different from keeping the traditional Nakamoto Consensus (which judges value based on somewhat arbitrary measures) but deriving tricks to push more data - this means maintaining or exceeding the security guarantees of Nakamoto Consensus while incentivizing data routing-work and storage rather than number crunching.