https://blog.obyte.org/dag-vs-blockchain-as-individualism-vs-collectivism-1235efb9be7
Due to the differences in the distribution of power in the two types of distributed ledger, DAG is pro-individualism while blockchain is pro-collectivism.
Topic: Blockchain 3.0 = DAG?? (Read 470 times)
My article discussing ideological differences between DAGs and blockchains:
https://blog.obyte.org/dag-vs-blockchain-as-individualism-vs-collectivism-1235efb9be7
Due to the differences in the distribution of power in the two types of distributed ledger, DAG is pro-individualism while blockchain is pro-collectivism.
https://blog.obyte.org/dag-vs-blockchain-as-individualism-vs-collectivism-1235efb9be7
Due to the differences in the distribution of power in the two types of distributed ledger, DAG is pro-individualism while blockchain is pro-collectivism.
I think people, who speculate about advantages of DAG, misunderstood the concept of the blockchain network.
I cannot speak for all DAGs but Obyte DAG has.
Thanks for bringing this up. Never thought a DAG-based cryptocurrency with an incentive mechanism existed until now. All that OBYTE needs is some mass adoption by validators worldwide, and it should become a "force to reckon with".
Honestly, I don't think any DAG-based crypto is as serious about decentralization as OBYTE these days.
L2 scaling solutions, sharding, and ZK-Proofs are great, but they do not address the same problems that DAG does.
If you mean solving scaling and privacy problems, then traditional blockchains can already do that with the aforementioned methods.
I think even better because blockchains are more focused on decentralization and censorship-resistance.
DAG is more focused on decentralization of power and censorship-resistance than blockchain (again, I'm speaking of Obyte DAG only). In DAG, users have the power to add transactions to the ledger themselves while in blockchains they have have to rely on block producers. And block producers can collude to censor certain users.
I cannot speak for all DAGs but Obyte DAG has.
Thanks for bringing this up. Never thought a DAG-based cryptocurrency with an incentive mechanism existed until now. All that OBYTE needs is some mass adoption by validators worldwide, and it should become a "force to reckon with".
Honestly, I don't think any DAG-based crypto is as serious about decentralization as OBYTE these days. I've stumbled across IOTA, Constellation, and even Hedera Hashgraph but I've found that nodes are largely controlled by a few players. They're faster and cheaper than traditional blockchains networks, but they're very weak in terms of security/reliability. I'm starting to believe DAGs are experimental and not ready for mainstream use. Maybe someday coins built on this tech will rise all the way to fame?
L2 scaling solutions, sharding, and ZK-Proofs are great, but they do not address the same problems that DAG does.
If you mean solving scaling and privacy problems, then traditional blockchains can already do that with the aforementioned methods. Off-chain scaling, ZK-Proofs, and Sharding will make traditional blockchain networks as comparable as DAGs. I think even better because blockchains are more focused on decentralization and censorship-resistance. The new tech is just starting to blossom, so I'd give it some time to see what happens.
I guess the damage made by IOTA to the DAG space is still felt.
No, other DAG based ledgers are not necessarily centralized by design. As my article argues, the right DAGs are even more decentralized (in terms of distribution of power) than blockchains.
No, other DAG based ledgers are not necessarily centralized by design. As my article argues, the right DAGs are even more decentralized (in terms of distribution of power) than blockchains.
If I'm not mistaken, DAGs don't have any sort of incentivization mechanism.
Without rewarding the validators' hard work and effort, how could we expect underlying cryptocurrencies using the tech to remain decentralized?
Validation is not such a hard work.Making sure that transactions are valid before you accept them, or before you add your own on top of them, seems like a sufficient reason to validate.
IOTA announced its intentions to become decentralized by removing the "Coordinator" on the "Tangle" chain
They've been announcing that since 2017, maybe even 2016.Again, don't take IOTA as a fair representative of DAG tech.
There doesn't seem to be much interest into DAG-based cryptocurrencies among investors and traders alike
Unfortunately that's true but we are here to build decentralized tech, not to be liked by investors and traders. I believe they'll eventually catch up.With L2 scaling solutions, Sharding, and ZK-Proofs, who needs DAGs anyways?
L2 scaling solutions, sharding, and ZK-Proofs are great, but they do not address the same problems that DAG does.I guess the damage made by IOTA to the DAG space is still felt.
No, other DAG based ledgers are not necessarily centralized by design. As my article argues, the right DAGs are even more decentralized (in terms of distribution of power) than blockchains.
No, other DAG based ledgers are not necessarily centralized by design. As my article argues, the right DAGs are even more decentralized (in terms of distribution of power) than blockchains.
If I'm not mistaken, DAGs don't have any sort of incentivization mechanism. Without rewarding the validators' hard work and effort, how could we expect underlying cryptocurrencies using the tech to remain decentralized? IOTA announced its intentions to become decentralized by removing the "Coordinator" on the "Tangle" chain, but I'm yet to see how that would work in the long run. There doesn't seem to be much interest into DAG-based cryptocurrencies among investors and traders alike, so it's likely they will fade away into oblivion soon. With L2 scaling solutions, Sharding, and ZK-Proofs, who needs DAGs anyways? Just my opinion
Advantages include quick transactions, no mining required, and can handle small payments. I've been getting into projects that include DAG networks such as IoT Chain because I truly believe the future of blockchain will be DAG.
No mining required? Then who will be keep running their wallets or full nodes to make transactions travelling from one peer to another? In a decentralized environment, you cannot expect volunteers to contribute consistently which is the reason mining was introduced. We may assume that out of tens of thousands of people, at least some 10% will open and run their wallet which will be enough to transmit a transaction but there will be no guarantee that to happen all the times. For a working system, we need assured contribution which ended up as incentivized mining.I am not believing into blockchain 2 or blockchain 3; honestly what were the projects which were based on blockchain 2? They are still successful and up till date?
Anything that's centralized is NOT a blockchain. It's simply a distributed database controlled by single entity. IOTA, and most other DAG-based cryptocurrencies are centralized by design. They're just like Ripple's "XRP" cryptocurrency (even though this one doesn't use a DAG). Why would you want speed and cost-efficiency when you're missing the most important thing (which is security/reliability)?
I guess that's why DAG-based cryptocurrencies are below the top ranks in market cap. Solana which fares worst than the aforementioned coins, is still at the top because whales are keeping it that way. But it could die soon, if it continues to be an unreliable cryptocurrency for mainstream payments. I think Blockchain 3.0 will consist of L2 scaling solutions, ZK-Proofs, and cross-chain transactions. The rest is just noise. Who knows what the future holds for the industry? Just my opinion
Is it different than centralization of Ethereum and Binance Smart Chain networks?I guess that's why DAG-based cryptocurrencies are below the top ranks in market cap. Solana which fares worst than the aforementioned coins, is still at the top because whales are keeping it that way. But it could die soon, if it continues to be an unreliable cryptocurrency for mainstream payments. I think Blockchain 3.0 will consist of L2 scaling solutions, ZK-Proofs, and cross-chain transactions. The rest is just noise. Who knows what the future holds for the industry? Just my opinion
Other smart contract networks are centralized too and they can be stopped anytime by their teams like Terra, Solana when problems occur. I agree that it is hard to have decentralized networks for alternative cryptocurrency and impossible to have another decentralized network like Bitcoin network.
People want to have decentralization and say this project, that project is bad because its network is so centralized. However they are really ready to use Ethereum, its network, ready to use centralized exchanges when they see benefit.
They are easily to ignore risk when they see profits are bigger.
I guess there are other reasons make DAG-based projects don't have good adoption and don't attract investors.
...
IOTA, and most other DAG-based cryptocurrencies are centralized by design.
...
I guess the damage made by IOTA to the DAG space is still felt.IOTA, and most other DAG-based cryptocurrencies are centralized by design.
...
No, other DAG based ledgers are not necessarily centralized by design. As my article argues, the right DAGs are even more decentralized (in terms of distribution of power) than blockchains.
I have a good experience with one of the coin who have "DAG" system.
NANO is my coin a long time ago, but before they using "NANO" as the name of their current is actually named as "Raiblock (XRB)". It's really fund and easily to transaction + cheaper and fast without needed to wait the miners.
But, they using a system 1 transaction for 1 block. Most hating part is keeping the wallet update ~LOL even they provided updating with download mechanism from their site but still is take a lot time for me.
NANO is my coin a long time ago, but before they using "NANO" as the name of their current is actually named as "Raiblock (XRB)". It's really fund and easily to transaction + cheaper and fast without needed to wait the miners.
But, they using a system 1 transaction for 1 block. Most hating part is keeping the wallet update ~LOL even they provided updating with download mechanism from their site but still is take a lot time for me.
I'm glad that you had good experience with Nano, however note that Nano is not really a DAG. A majority of Nano's Representatives can collude to censor someone's transactions -- simply by not voting for them. Like block producers in blockchains, Representatives are powerful -- every transaction needs their approval to be added to the ledger. In a DAG, as noted in this article, users have the power to directly add transactions to the ledger.
Lol are you shilling for IoT Chain? DAG is not blockchain and blockchain is not DAG. DAG was working on the different system that has been used the server to validating the transaction. That's obviously centralized coin if the server managed by the developer itself.
instead call DAG as blockchain 3.0 and i was saying if that was another bullshit.
Learn how DAG works and the difference with the blockchain.
instead call DAG as blockchain 3.0 and i was saying if that was another bullshit.
Learn how DAG works and the difference with the blockchain.
Anything that's centralized is NOT a blockchain. It's simply a distributed database controlled by single entity. IOTA, and most other DAG-based cryptocurrencies are centralized by design. They're just like Ripple's "XRP" cryptocurrency (even though this one doesn't use a DAG). Why would you want speed and cost-efficiency when you're missing the most important thing (which is security/reliability)?
I guess that's why DAG-based cryptocurrencies are below the top ranks in market cap. Solana which fares worst than the aforementioned coins, is still at the top because whales are keeping it that way. But it could die soon, if it continues to be an unreliable cryptocurrency for mainstream payments. I think Blockchain 3.0 will consist of L2 scaling solutions, ZK-Proofs, and cross-chain transactions. The rest is just noise. Who knows what the future holds for the industry? Just my opinion
I have a good experience with one of the coin who have "DAG" system.
NANO is my coin a long time ago, but before they using "NANO" as the name of their current is actually named as "Raiblock (XRB)". It's really fund and easily to transaction + cheaper and fast without needed to wait the miners.
But, they using a system 1 transaction for 1 block. Most hating part is keeping the wallet update ~LOL even they provided updating with download mechanism from their site but still is take a lot time for me.
NANO is my coin a long time ago, but before they using "NANO" as the name of their current is actually named as "Raiblock (XRB)". It's really fund and easily to transaction + cheaper and fast without needed to wait the miners.
But, they using a system 1 transaction for 1 block. Most hating part is keeping the wallet update ~LOL even they provided updating with download mechanism from their site but still is take a lot time for me.
Couple of years ago there was a new Eth alternative called Helios Protocol. It was dag based and each and every wallet had it's own parellel blockchain all connected by DAG. It had massive scalability and even had the possibility for web sites to be hosted on the chain,making ddos impossible ect ect. No one was interested and the dev just lost interested and gave up. Real shame but imo new tech is viewed suspiciously and the eth fan boys would never be persuaded. How are those fan boys getting on now eh??
The code is public so maybe a dev can go look at the github and maybe take it on??
The code is public so maybe a dev can go look at the github and maybe take it on??
DAG is certainly not Blockchain 3.0, it is not blockchain either.
In fact, there are fundamental differences between DAG and blockchain. Blockchain users only create transactions but have to rely on block producers to add them to the ledger, while DAG users both create transactions and add them to the ledger with no middlemen involved.
This leads to vastly different distribution of power in DAG vs blockchain. One of my recent articles discusses this issue:
Obyte (Byteball) is DAG project and it does not require mining equipments, electricity to mine blocks and confirm transactions. I care about security of DAG technology and would you mind explaining how DAG can provide a safer technology for users than Proof of Work, Proof of Stake and other algorithms, please.In fact, there are fundamental differences between DAG and blockchain. Blockchain users only create transactions but have to rely on block producers to add them to the ledger, while DAG users both create transactions and add them to the ledger with no middlemen involved.
This leads to vastly different distribution of power in DAG vs blockchain. One of my recent articles discusses this issue:
It is more convenient, more environmental-friendly but how about security?
Any chance to revert its transactions and attack DAG network?
How many confirmations for a transaction by DAG network can be considered as safe?
With Bitcoin transactions, many platforms use 3 confirmations.
Good question. In DAGs, every transaction includes hashes of one or more previous transactions. This makes it impossible to rewrite history and revert previous transactions.
There is no such thing as "how many confirmations" in a DAG. Once the order of a transaction has been established, it is final.
DAG is certainly not Blockchain 3.0, it is not blockchain either.
In fact, there are fundamental differences between DAG and blockchain. Blockchain users only create transactions but have to rely on block producers to add them to the ledger, while DAG users both create transactions and add them to the ledger with no middlemen involved.
This leads to vastly different distribution of power in DAG vs blockchain. One of my recent articles discusses this issue:
Obyte (Byteball) is DAG project and it does not require mining equipments, electricity to mine blocks and confirm transactions. I care about security of DAG technology and would you mind explaining how DAG can provide a safer technology for users than Proof of Work, Proof of Stake and other algorithms, please.In fact, there are fundamental differences between DAG and blockchain. Blockchain users only create transactions but have to rely on block producers to add them to the ledger, while DAG users both create transactions and add them to the ledger with no middlemen involved.
This leads to vastly different distribution of power in DAG vs blockchain. One of my recent articles discusses this issue:
It is more convenient, more environmental-friendly but how about security?
Any chance to revert its transactions and attack DAG network?
How many confirmations for a transaction by DAG network can be considered as safe?
With Bitcoin transactions, many platforms use 3 confirmations.
DAG is certainly not Blockchain 3.0, it is not blockchain either.
In fact, there are fundamental differences between DAG and blockchain. Blockchain users only create transactions but have to rely on block producers to add them to the ledger, while DAG users both create transactions and add them to the ledger with no middlemen involved.
This leads to vastly different distribution of power in DAG vs blockchain. One of my recent articles discusses this issue:
https://blog.obyte.org/distribution-of-power-in-dags-and-blockchains-7727ca1a2b6d
In fact, there are fundamental differences between DAG and blockchain. Blockchain users only create transactions but have to rely on block producers to add them to the ledger, while DAG users both create transactions and add them to the ledger with no middlemen involved.
This leads to vastly different distribution of power in DAG vs blockchain. One of my recent articles discusses this issue:
https://blog.obyte.org/distribution-of-power-in-dags-and-blockchains-7727ca1a2b6d
dag+pbft consensus is going to change the game. ready for the ITC ride this year. even crypto lark is going to make a video about them
Do you guys think DAG will replace ALL blockchains in the future? I'm curious
itc is a hidden gem that I suggest everyone jump on.
dag is the way forward. I think itc will be the first to utilize it well and create the standard
Jump to: