I think for a cryptocoin to be useful in the real world, scaling and quick transaction times has to be a priority from the start of the design. Its not something you can fix, as an afterthought. That's why I like xrp. Low transaction times, and it scales well. It is permissioned in the sense that every validator-node needs to keep a list of all the other validator nodes it trusts. Which means validators without a rep…
It's easy to scale when your transactions are basically only tcp/ip messages between trusted nodes. There has to be a bettwer way...I'm personally in favor of dPoS (delegated proof of stake) networks, that can have high throughput without sacrificing decentralization, with consensus achieved by representatives that can be changed by everyone in the network. Still, xrp might have applications in the banking world, time will tell.
Man the TC website sure is terrible to use on mobile. Everything keeps flying around, there's a white banner in the way of the video with an X that appears to behave as a back button when you click it??
Cardano has stalled for so long that I stopped waiting. I hear great things about EOS from people I trust, though, I need to look into that.
The launch of EOS has not been very well received at all. Lots of mistakes and the governance is a mess.
Indeed, EOS relies on a constitution with human interpretable rules [1]. Not sure how that fits into the crypto sphere, where governance should be done be algorithms and code.
Great to see these young guys attempting to tackle these huge problems out of their believe that they can make "the world a better place". Not sure DLT will live up to its promise, but these guys truly believe the world is better off with trustless systems. And I cannot blame them, intermediaries, wether it be Google or Facebook, standing in between the user and the content creators, or banks, standing between credit…
Offtopic. DLT is basically a marketing fraud. Both "permissioned" and "permissionless" DLT are packed into one term. Problem is - they are vastly different. Permissioned DLT is not interesting at all from technical and social point of view. We knew how to do them for a long long time. Openness, permissionless is the key innovation introduced with Bitcoin. "Permissioned blockchains" are just repackaged tech with lot o…
>Openness, permissionless is the key innovation introduced with Bitcoin.
Can you think of non currency, voting, or timestamp applications for this?
People pay extra for currency verification, I cant imagine they'd pay extra for social media picture verification.
I think for a cryptocoin to be useful in the real world, scaling and quick transaction times has to be a priority from the start of the design. Its not something you can fix, as an afterthought. That's why I like xrp. Low transaction times, and it scales well. It is permissioned in the sense that every validator-node needs to keep a list of all the other validator nodes it trusts. Which means validators without a rep…
XRP is a currency, ETH is supposed to be a smart contract platform.
I believe in cryptoCURRENCY, as people do pay extra for validation in currency. XRP and Monero are both designed for payments.
ETH, is being used as a currency, but this is a mistake. ETH is designed to run apps, and is doing that poorly.
Great to see these young guys attempting to tackle these huge problems out of their believe that they can make "the world a better place". Not sure DLT will live up to its promise, but these guys truly believe the world is better off with trustless systems. And I cannot blame them, intermediaries, wether it be Google or Facebook, standing in between the user and the content creators, or banks, standing between credit…
Offtopic. DLT is basically a marketing fraud. Both "permissioned" and "permissionless" DLT are packed into one term. Problem is - they are vastly different. Permissioned DLT is not interesting at all from technical and social point of view. We knew how to do them for a long long time. Openness, permissionless is the key innovation introduced with Bitcoin. "Permissioned blockchains" are just repackaged tech with lot o…
100%: Bitcoin was the first known solution for the double spend problem in a permissionless network while DLT doesn't have any dependency to this innovation.
What companies want to sell for DLTs is the vision of a "API 3.0" where different organizations make agreements with smart contracts instead of negotiating bilateral or multilateral protocols. The truth is that the hard problem here is the political and organizational agreements between parties and this cannot solved by technology.
Offtopic. DLT is basically a marketing fraud. Both "permissioned" and "permissionless" DLT are packed into one term. Problem is - they are vastly different. Permissioned DLT is not interesting at all from technical and social point of view. We knew how to do them for a long long time. Openness, permissionless is the key innovation introduced with Bitcoin. "Permissioned blockchains" are just repackaged tech with lot o…
I use the term DLT as, for example, DAGs are not exactly blockchains if I'm not mistaken. They have no blocks, just transactions. It had nothing to do with permission.
Not all DAGs have blocks however many DAGs do have blocks. BlockDAGs are usually considered blockchains.
Ethereum is novel and ambitious technology. In my mind, and I think in the minds of most in the community, scaling had always been the big, important challenge on the horizon - but it builds confidence to see just how far the devs (and community) have brought it till now. It's like everything is in place for that final push over the mountain.
I think people are overtly positive about ETH because they missed out on BTC and believed in ETH. But dApps are unused. Customers are not paying 7x the price for decentralized verification. Centralized servers can be tampered with, but no one cares about your 4th of july pictures or saved games. Unless currency, voting, or a timestamp is involved, you dont use expensive verification methods. The sheer cost of blockch…
plenty of what you say is just not right (or plain wrong).
btc = monetary/value transactions. i read the paper as early and 2008 and didn't miss out on it, i just didn't care then same as i don't care now.
eth = dapps. just because dapps didn't take off immediately doesn't mean they aren't beginning to get used, increasingly so, and that there isn't a lot of valuable, useful, interesting and innovative applications being built and experimented with.
btc and eth are two different things. if how much something can possibly enrich you is all you care about, that doesn't mean that everybody else is necessarily on that page.
that being said, it's true - ethereum is basically useless for a lot of otherwise really interesting possible use cases and applications (which is why we got things like IOTA, something that i'm sure everybody here has nothing but hate towards, for whatever reasons).
then ethereum classic, too, is something just as different.
and i couldn't help but notice how most innovation is being done by people of russian or eastern european origin, or israelis, while the vast majority of silicon valley only chase the dollar bill and base their entire business models on how they can possibly screw the user.
much as i sometimes find valuable threads here on hackernews, i don't really take much of what you people say seriously.
Ethereum is talking about 2020 as its target for scaling upgrades. There are other projects that haven't launched yet that probably have an advantage over them, as so long as it can integrate with Ethereum rather than claim it can totally supplant it. There are projects like Cardano and Zilliqa, but then there are some like Orbs that are using blockchain virtualization claiming it can work in tandem with Ethereum. I…
Ethereum has the massive advantage of having nurtured a certain culture and community around it. that's why, regardless of all else, there is a list of really interesting experiments taking place on Ethereum and applications that could cement its future.
The launch of EOS has not been very well received at all. Lots of mistakes and the governance is a mess.
Indeed, EOS relies on a constitution with human interpretable rules [1]. Not sure how that fits into the crypto sphere, where governance should be done be algorithms and code. [1] https://github.com/EOSIO/eos/blob/5068823fbc8a8f7d29733309c0...
and it's also supposed to be hashed in each "legitimate" transaction. while network resources are so scarce as to stir rampant speculation. idk - the only thing about EOS that i have noticed is how overtly it screams of greed. the people that jumped in on that bandwagon did so for no other reason but hoping it would make them rich (cos Daniel Larimer said "you can run Ethereum on a single EOS smart contract", lol).