4 ms·

Okay, but why use a generic, bloated system like etherium? why not just fork etherium or create a system specificially optimized from the ground up (e.g. nameco

Okay, but why use a generic, bloated system like etherium? why not just fork etherium or create a system specificially optimized from the ground up (e.g. namecoin or something) for namespacing. this only serves to enrich pre-existing etherium owners above all else.

miohtama 4y ago
Few reasons - The largest cost is distributed state and the cost writing key-value in global state will be the same for any blockchain - Maintaining custom block producers is massive overhead - Maintaining custom peer-to-peer network is massive overhead - Maintaining custom node software is massive overhead - Maintaining custom block explorer is massive overhead - Maintaining community and events are massive overhead - Maintaining learning material and educating developers is massive overhead The total cost of ownership (TCO) is much lower for a decentralised application on a generic blockchain than creating your own blockchain.
- cowtools 4y ago
  > -The largest cost is distributed state and the cost writing key-value in global state will be the same for any blockchain Okay but why do it all on the same ledger? All the different applications fighting for the same bandwidth and paying astronomical fees. At the very least, just fork off for each new application like cheapETH (https://cheapeth.org/ https://cheapeth.org/) or something. Token not needed. >- Maintaining custom block producers is massive overhead >- Maintaining custom peer-to-peer network is massive overhead >- Maintaining custom node software is massive overhead >- Maintaining custom block explorer is massive overhead >- Maintaining community and events are massive overhead >- Maintaining learning material and educating developers is massive overhead Maintaining DNS is massive overhead, so it wouldn't kill you to put some work in if you intend to make a solid solution to replace it. Also, documentation and events? Half of what you've listed here is either useless or you also have to do it on etherium anyways so what gives? The only thing you get from etherium is additional bloat. Namecoin works fine and is probably more secure because you don't have to worry about it interacting with "smart" contracts and all sorts of crazy shit. >The total cost of ownership (TCO) is much lower for a decentralised application on a generic blockchain than creating your own blockchain. Hell no it isn't, but that's the narrative that "layer 2" cryptocurrency shills will push.
- rvz 4y ago
  The idea of domains on a blockchain sounds good, but the implementation of many of them and their degrees of 'decentralization' is questionable. ENS is quite frankly a Godaddy-like sub-domain registrar which suffers from the unpredictable gas fee problems on Ethereum as it is implemented on a layer 1 and has centralized key holders for the system and I do not believe that proof-of-stake would be appropriate in being any better than the current system in regards to DNS or domains and have the claims of being censorship resistant. For something that offers sub-domains and is 'decentralized' is the Impervious Registry [0], with it has TLDs anchored on a decentralized root zone, called Handshake [1] which in both cases of the TLD has no central key-holders of the chain. As long as the TLDs are not in the hands of someone else other than yourself, or a bunch of key-holders there is an extremely less chance of the TLDs and domains being censored. Before you say '51% attack', it doesn't apply here in this case, and even if one tried, the domains / TLDs on the chain are unaffected and can't be overridden. [0] https://impervious.domains https://impervious.domains [1] https://handshake.org https://handshake.org
ChadNauseam 4y ago
If you travel down this road you end up with Celestia (with whom I have no affiliation or financial interest). The idea is to support many blockchains on the same data availability layer. There are good reasons for this, but the primary one (as I understand them) is that data availability layers scale well with the number of machines, unlike compute which doesn’t scale at all. Also, it makes it much simpler to have inter-chain trustless clients. Much of the work of writing a blockchain (like writing block explorers, the network stack, etc) can be deduplicated, while still letting you spin up your own low-security chain for a low-security use case.

miohtama 4y ago

Few reasons - The largest cost is distributed state and the cost writing key-value in global state will be the same for any blockchain - Maintaining custom block producers is massive overhead - Maintaining custom peer-to-peer network is massive overhead - Maintaining custom node software is massive overhead - Maintaining custom block explorer is massive overhead - Maintaining community and events are massive overhead - Maintaining learning material and educating developers is massive overhead The total cost of ownership (TCO) is much lower for a decentralised application on a generic blockchain than creating your own blockchain.

cowtools 4y ago
> -The largest cost is distributed state and the cost writing key-value in global state will be the same for any blockchain Okay but why do it all on the same ledger? All the different applications fighting for the same bandwidth and paying astronomical fees. At the very least, just fork off for each new application like cheapETH (https://cheapeth.org/ https://cheapeth.org/) or something. Token not needed. >- Maintaining custom block producers is massive overhead >- Maintaining custom peer-to-peer network is massive overhead >- Maintaining custom node software is massive overhead >- Maintaining custom block explorer is massive overhead >- Maintaining community and events are massive overhead >- Maintaining learning material and educating developers is massive overhead Maintaining DNS is massive overhead, so it wouldn't kill you to put some work in if you intend to make a solid solution to replace it. Also, documentation and events? Half of what you've listed here is either useless or you also have to do it on etherium anyways so what gives? The only thing you get from etherium is additional bloat. Namecoin works fine and is probably more secure because you don't have to worry about it interacting with "smart" contracts and all sorts of crazy shit. >The total cost of ownership (TCO) is much lower for a decentralised application on a generic blockchain than creating your own blockchain. Hell no it isn't, but that's the narrative that "layer 2" cryptocurrency shills will push.
rvz 4y ago
The idea of domains on a blockchain sounds good, but the implementation of many of them and their degrees of 'decentralization' is questionable. ENS is quite frankly a Godaddy-like sub-domain registrar which suffers from the unpredictable gas fee problems on Ethereum as it is implemented on a layer 1 and has centralized key holders for the system and I do not believe that proof-of-stake would be appropriate in being any better than the current system in regards to DNS or domains and have the claims of being censorship resistant. For something that offers sub-domains and is 'decentralized' is the Impervious Registry [0], with it has TLDs anchored on a decentralized root zone, called Handshake [1] which in both cases of the TLD has no central key-holders of the chain. As long as the TLDs are not in the hands of someone else other than yourself, or a bunch of key-holders there is an extremely less chance of the TLDs and domains being censored. Before you say '51% attack', it doesn't apply here in this case, and even if one tried, the domains / TLDs on the chain are unaffected and can't be overridden. [0] https://impervious.domains https://impervious.domains [1] https://handshake.org https://handshake.org

ChadNauseam 4y ago

If you travel down this road you end up with Celestia (with whom I have no affiliation or financial interest). The idea is to support many blockchains on the same data availability layer. There are good reasons for this, but the primary one (as I understand them) is that data availability layers scale well with the number of machines, unlike compute which doesn’t scale at all. Also, it makes it much simpler to have inter-chain trustless clients. Much of the work of writing a blockchain (like writing block explorers, the network stack, etc) can be deduplicated, while still letting you spin up your own low-security chain for a low-security use case.