Jack Ma is fine but might well be under voluntary house-stay, and being helpful.
Of the 6 coins you watch, I think we need to pay particular attention to
Bitcoin
Ethereum
Casper
Solano, and
Cardano
I believe 2 of the five shall amount to nothing
2 can go either way, but might be profitable to engage and disengage, exercise of agility guided by astuteness, and
1 might thrive big time
So, let us watch & brief
I think I have some of the answers to what you asked, re Ethereum 2.0 PoW / Ethereum 3.0 Casper and Casper
Should know more by end of day
As a BTW, here is a comparison of Casper vs Polkadot and something about SOL, Avalanche
reddit.com
Casper VS Polkadot
We compare Casper, to the web3.0 blockchain Polkadot and argue that with the increased capabilities of bridging between blockchains, the focus should be on developing secure layer 1 chains (potentially with varying characteristics) and then applying bridges between these independent chains.
Read the full article here: ghoststaking.com
Summary
Its clear from reviewing the above that DOT and CSPR are very different projects. The reason for this lays within the motivation for the creation of each project. Whereas CSPR is designed to be an ultra secure layer 1 blockchain that can facilitate both public and private side implementation, DOT was created to facilitate the interplay between future blockchains (Parachains). Its therefore not simple to draw comparisons between the two. DOT requires adoption by the building of Parachains, whereas with CSPR, adoption is achieved via the more tradition dapp development. Its is clear however that in terms of a more traditional layer 1 blockchain, CSPR ranks very highly due to its superior security and also private chain offering. With regard to DOT, its unclear if the need for a internet of blockchains is addressed by the project. Limiting the number of Parachains to 100 and with the addition scaling issues and sheer number of validators required to grow this further, seems to inhibit any future growth. Therefore with inhibited future growth, the projects lacks the endless growth opportunities as seen in the internet, which it aims to replicate. Additionally, in attempting to solve for this, it seems that the projects has introduced many issues, which would not be case if they opted for a more tradition approach but instead focused on building an ease of bridging.
With the increased capabilities of bridging between blockchains, surely the focus should be on developing secure layer 1 chains (potentially with varying characteristics) and then applying bridges between these independent chains. This would then create the building blocks for a future decentralized web without the need for a single controlling blockchain, such as DOT. CSPR provides security through an implementation of CBC and Highway protocols, with the promise of innovative sharding, both a public and private (enterprise) blockchain offering and finally a promise of a gas futures market to ensure that enterprises have a guarantee of future costs. We feel, these are the reason why CSPR will be a dominant layer 1 chain within a future internet of chains, connected via bridging (as opposed to a Parachain implementations).
I would like to conclude with stating that both CSPR and DOT can coexist in the future, with CSPR connected to the relay chain via a bridge.
Looking to stake CSPR? support our research by staking with us at GHOST. ghoststaking.com We run a:
(1) Low fee powerful node
(2) guarantee of no fee increases ever
(3) live node monitor on our website
follow us on twitter for more publications: twitter.com
join our CSPR price chat tg group: t.me
reddit.com
What happened to SOL summer??
I need to re-share this. On one of my previous posts where i compared CSPR to AVAX, someone commented asking why I was focusing on the hardware requirements for validators in the comparison:
reddit.com
We can see now with the disruption to SOL, why you cannot start off too heavy weight in terms of specs required for hardware. Blockchains only grow and so getting the requirements on day 1 just right is more important than most people understand. Have a fancy 2 protocol sharded mechanism to increase throughput is irrelevant when it brings down the entire networks. So to recap...here AGAIN, is our comparison of CASPER VS SOLANA:
ghoststaking.com
Summary:
Network nodes:
The SOL network of 200 physically distinct nodes are all run with GPUs. Where each node requires 256 GB of RAM.
CSPR at present has 100 validators which are able to run on standard servers as the node only required 32 GB of RAM
Commentators have repeatedly highlighted the fact that the cost to run a Solana node is much higher than in other networks.
Decentralization:
SOL’s degree of decentralization is still very much up for debate. To become a validator on Solana, an individual would need to shell out thousands of dollars in hardware. This is in contrast with other blockchains including CSPR where anyone can become a validator for much less.
With regard to the tokens:
60% of SOL are controlled by the project’s founders and the Solana Foundation.
This compares with CSPR which totals 24% (where the team hold 8%, advisors hold 6% and CasperLabs Holdings AG holds 10%).
Throughput:
This we feel is the key to the comparison. SOL is able to achieve 50k tps (transactions per second) utilizing an expensive network of very high powered GPUs across 200 nodes. This compares with CSPR which is currently achieving 2.5k transactions per block (100 WASM deploys per block) by utilizing only 100 low power validator nodes (with a possible increase of x5 throughput being tested at present). The way that SOL achieves the high throughput is by the implementation of its parallel PoH protocol. As this is not part of its security consensus protocol, but a mechanism to simply increase throughput, it can be considered in the same way has many sharding methodologies being researched currently. As we are aware (from the final section of our sharing article here), CSPR is currently researching a proposal on how to multi thread (parallel processing) transactions. To summarize the proposal: CSPR Sharing – Transactions will list all spaces in memory (shards) which they require and each block is given a limited amount of sequential computation time. When a block includes a bunch of transactions instead of specifying a transaction order, it specifies a computation schedule. This schedule uses times from 0 to t where t is our bound on sequential compute time. Each transaction is assigned a sub-interval of this window with the length of the sub-interval given by the computation bound specified by the transaction. Furthermore, the intervals for any two transactions that share a shard are not allowed to overlap. Distinctions could also be made between reads to a shard and writes to a shard and allow several transactions to simultaneously read from the same shard so long as none write to it.
You can see from the above that it is inappropriate to compare the throughput of SOL with that of CSPR as without sharding implemented – the comparison is not like for like. A more direction comparison on throughput should be made post the implementation of sharding on the CSPR network. It should be noted however, that once sharding is implemented, high throughput will be achieved on CSPR without the need to expensive GPU infrastructure.
Security:
Security is one of the most fundamental aspects of blockchain technology, as without sufficient security, no utility can be generated. On this point, I would like to refer the reader to our extensive commentary of the CSPR CBC protocol and Highway protocol. These two protocols in conjunction provide by far the most superior security consensus of any PoS blockchain. No statistical methods are used and security is not affected via conflicting messages. .
Solana’s PoS system relies on a Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) mechanism called Tower Consensus. Tower Consensus leverages PoH as a global source of time before consensus is achieved in order to reduce latency. Any validator node is eligible to be chosen as the PoH leader. If there is any failure detected with the PoH generator, then the validator node with the next highest voting power will be chosen to replace the original leader.
Slashing:
Slashing is implemented within SOL. A malicious vote will remove a validator’s bonded tokens and add them to the mining pool. Slashing also occurs if a vote is cast for an invalid hash generated by the PoH generator.
Slashing will not be implemented in CSPR. Instead malicious validator node behaviour will be punished with severe jail time
Enterprise adoption:
At present there are is no focus on Enterprise adoption with SOL. This is in contrast with CSPR where CasperLabs have aggressively targeted and pivoted towards the running of both a public and private blockchain. Read more here
Future Proof:
CSPR has been designed and engineered such that it is a fully future proof blockchain. It has achieved this by ensuring all components (Execution Engine, Network Engine, Consensus Layer) are all pluggable. This allowed the blockchain to be upgraded with relative ease. In comparison, SOL has taken the stance to create a protocol which is theoretically designed to scale with Moore’s Law, doubling in capacity every two years with improvements in hardware and bandwidth.
reddit.com
How does Casper compare to Avalanche?
The price of Avalanche has seen some sizeable rises of late, potentially due to its unique statistical consensus protocol...but how great is it really? We have conducted a deep-dive and compared it with CSPR.
Please read the full article here: ghoststaking.com
Summary below:
Network nodes:
Avalanche makes it very easy to run a node. On their home page there are instructions on how to run a node (1) from a home computer (2) from AWS and (3) from Azure. The node running from home is aimed at using VirtualBox to setup a partition on your home PC to install Ubuntu. The minimum requirements for an Avalanche node is 16GB RAM.
CSPR at present has 100 validators which are able to run on standard servers as the node only required 32 GB of RAM.
The key differences here is that AVAX is promoting running a node from home (with the increased downtime risks due to power or network connectivity issues), whereas CSPR is promoting the use of stable bare metal servers for their nodes. So why is this? The CSPR network wants to ensure that nodes have the maximum possible uptime due to the fact the consensus protocol is reliant on the view from all validators whereas with AVAX, the strategy is to grow the physical number of validators to as large as possible as the snowball consensus relies on a more statistical means for validating transactions. Which is better? The answer lays with which consensus protocol is safer (discussed in the security section below).
Decentralization:
AVAX will have over time, significantly more validator nodes than CSPR, due to the ease in joining the network.
The risks with the AVAX model however lays with the subnets. We have learnt from above that it is possible to launch a subnet (bespoke blockchain) within the Avalanche infrastructure. The goal of the project is to have an interplay between various subnets. The problem arises however when we consider the validator nodes within each subnet. This population will be considerably smaller than the global population of nodes on the primary network as we know that all subnet validators are also required to approve transactions on the primary network.
With the above - we can consider a simple scenario where there are 10 subnets running on the primary network. Each subnet having 50 validators. Now when considering the primary network, we would see 500 validators, however each subnet is only using 50 and therefore the network as a whole should not be considered as decentralized as the total node count implies. This will also have quite severe and asymmetric risks across the network. Discussed in a section below.
CSPR is currently running 100 validator nodes across its network, with an option to increase this if needed.
Throughput:
This is an interesting comparison. We know that in using the snowball algorithm, Avalanche can achieve over 4500 transactions per second and also boasts impressive finality (as acceptance / rejection of blocks are final).
This compares with CSPR which is currently achieving 2.5k transactions per block (100 WASM deploys per block)
The key to understanding this difference is in understanding how the snowball algorithm works and what is being compromised to gain this increased throughput. Discussed in the 'security' section below
Security:
The security and finality of the CSPR network has been covered in these two articles: CBCand Highway. From the articles its clear that CSPR is a powerful non-statistical method to guarantee security and finality given a threshold of malicious nodes.
For AVAX, the network us built across parameters which can be customized (n:, k, a, ß). This means that for AVAX, security is in fact optimal and not guaranteed. Lets look into this a little further:
With the parametrization in the Avalanche paper, specifically with alpha=0.8, Snowball can stall (loosely defined as still being in the state of unstable equilibrium after 500 iterations) with just 17% malicious actors. And the only action that the malicious actors need is to split into two equal groups and always respond with the same state within each group. With lower alpha’s the percentage is higher, but the number of steps to converge in normal circumstances also grows rapidly. Read the full critique here.
We have already touched upon the issue where a subnet is only as secure as the number of validators in the subnet. The implications of this are that this results in materially different levels of security across the chains within the system. Inter-shard attacks become feasible, as messages from one (less secure subnet) may be able to effect a transition on another (more secure) subnet. In effect, the entire system becomes only as secure as the least secure subnet.
Slashing:
Both CSPR and AVAX do not impose any fine for maliciously nodes.
CSPR implements jail time.
Enterprise adoption:
Both CSPR and AVAX offer private chains.
The focus from AVAX seems to be very specific and niche to the field of asset trading, whereas CSPR is targeting a more general market.
Future Proof:
CSPR has been designed and engineered such that it is a fully future proof blockchain. It has achieved this by ensuring all components (Execution Engine, Network Engine, Consensus Layer) are all pluggable. This allowed the blockchain to be upgraded with relative ease. In comparison, AVAX has taken the stance to implement a statistic method within its consensus protocol meaning that it can scale in size, however to the detriment of security.
|
