There's been a very useful discussion in the XC thread on differences between the Blocknet and SuperNET.
I thought I'd copy it here:
//
Thanks very much for the sustained clarification here. This is quality discussion.
To address your points in order:
I've been reading about the blockNET and I feel like superNET is being misrepresented in your marketing copy. I didn't want to bring this up in your blockNET topic or make a new post out of it but I'd like to hear your opinion on why you chose these three particular points:
1. The way you've represented it makes it sound like BTCD is somehow above all the other coins in superNET. BTCD is to superNET as XC is to blockNET. In superNET BTCD provides the Teleport technology and jl777 as developer. In blockNET XC provides the Xbridge technology and atcsecure as developer. Nothing other than BTCD providing an essential part of the anonymity tech of superNET makes BTCD special.
The XBridge protocol is not part of XC and does not run inside XC.
It's open source and will be integrated into all coins on the Blocknet.
It's required for every Blocknet transaction, not just those involving XC.
In contrast, BTCD and NXT are core technologies in the Supernet, and pretty much nothing can be done without them. Check out the following quotation from the
SuperNET newsletter:
"Imagine a new country, spread out in front of you. Scattered around the landscape is everything you might want or need. Stores, selling anything you could ever hope to buy. Exchanges, financial services and trading posts. Casinos and other entertainment centres. News and information outlets. These are like the services offered by SuperNET. Incredibly, although the cryptocurrency world offers so many remarkable businesses, no one has thought to link them before. They are just a set of isolated organisations, operating in their own niches, or competing with each other.
BTCD is like the highway that connects everything. The infrastructure it provides will enable communication between you and all of the different services, through what it shaping up to be one of the most secure comms links ever developed. It’s like a network of roads, tunnels and bridges that enables you to go anywhere and do anything – and do so in complete privacy.
To complete the analogy, Nxt is the sophisticated engine that gets you around this network of roads and to the services you can find there. It’s a 2.0 car that’s designed to do far more than drive from A to B. NXT doesn’t just allow you to transact; it houses the Asset Exchange and many of the other services that will allow you to interact meaningfully with others on your way around in SuperNET – the whole Super Network of integrated coins and innovative services."
2. I'm also curious about the p2p claims that are written. Maybe I'm missing something here and if you could enlighten me I would appreciate it. But SuperNET is using an implementation of Kademlia for p2p nodes, which is the same technology that Bittorrent is built on and as far as I know using such a protocol would quality as 'true p2p'.
Kademlia... that's distributed hash tables, aka DHT. DHT uses servers to lookup and locate nodes. Therefore it's not truly distributed, thus not P2P.
In contrast, the Xnode protocol, upon which the XBridge is based, is completely serverless in operation and truly distributed.
3. The intention of superNET isn't to have a single centralised enity holding 10% of each coins money supply. SuperNET is intended to be a decentralised organization controlled by shareholders, not one single person. And those coins are meant to be held indefinitely via multiple people using multisig technology. It should function in a similar way as I'm understanding your blockNET foundation to hold.
The idea of holding 10% of the money supply of any participating coin is, in my opinion (though I admit a debatable point), risky and centrist.
Even if the controlling organisation is somewhat decentralised and the funds held in multisig addresses, it's still the case that it acts with its own mandate and is directed to its own ends
And if it owns enough of the money supply to control the price of a currency, that's a problem.
Given that it's not necessary for this arrangement to be in place, I don't see why the benefit of pumping a coin's price is worth the centralisation risk.
Better to have Xmixers or something, which also reduce the amount of coins in circulation, but do so in a decentralised manner.
?
