Topic: Is Blockchain technology becoming obsolete? (Read 229 times)

Without a whitepaper, it's impossible to say. But the lack thereof tells us something about them - i.e they didn't peer review, which is a bad sign.

Hi,
what do you think about Dagger (XDAG). They proclaim themselves as the first mineable DAG coin. I thought DAG was supposed to have no blocks.

Do you think they're legit?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-xdag-new-community-based-cryptocurrency-first-mineable-dag-2552368

The blockchain is not absolutely obsolete ..... on the contrary, I think it is the key turning point of our generation. In fact all the major world companies want to adopt and use the blockchain ..... like NASA, UNICEF and other big companies ........... the blockchain is a FABULOUS paradigm

I believe that blockchain technologies do not become obsolete, but move to a new stage of development. It is possible to involve bots and artificial intelligence in the creation and construction of chains will become a new phase for blockchain solutions

Neither Iota, or raiblocks have decent enough security models to challenge bitcoin. Iota is completely centralised and raiblocks cannot withstand bootstrap poisoning.

The true successor to bitcoin is yet to emerge, and the technology isn't quite there at the moment. It's an unsolved problem.

The scaling and security issue is not only  speculative, but also bitcoin's technology is fundamentally strong and secure. The building blocks of both technologies are built on the workings of cryptography, so inherently they are already far more secure than most similar systems.  The problem isn't in the technology itself but the services built on top of them that are the problem with security and vulnerabilities.

Hashgraph is an interesting consensus protocol that has been shown to yield high throughput. However this has taken place in a static and private testing environment, it does not mirror real usage. It may be fast, fair and secure within the limited environment within which it operates, however, if and when used in a public setting, Hashgraph will face the same issues that other public blockchains are facing today and may not be able to maintain its security and performance.

Scalability is still an open problem for public blockchains - a much more developed technology. Think of POS for Ethereum, NEO with dBFT, EOS with dPoS, or the concept of sharding. All the different solutions that have been proposed by each ecosystem are interesting, but none has been widely adopted and certainly they are far from perfect.

Also we should consider what we are trying to scale with blockchain? Users, network, or the sheer number of transactions able to take place simultaneously? If we were to design a network, like Hashgraph, that could provide infrastructure for thousands of transactions simultaneously, would that be the end of scalability? Where does the limit lie when we say a solution is scalabe? Does 24k/second like VisaNet count as scalable? If so have we managed to reach it? Hashgraph, as it stands, only scales in the number of transactions, but what about the number of nodes/size of network, or the number of users?

The road to adoption with any new technology is tough. Blockchain is far from obsolete, Hashgraph is just getting started.

I was hoping to see some discussion about hashgraph on this topic, but ill just leave the concept here for people to find and come back to discuss further if others find it interesting.

The blockchain is just getting into mainstream use and we are sure going to be using it in for everyday use , besides comparing these new projects to bitcoin is not the best comparison as bitcoin is a first generation blockchain product which isnt all perfect but good news is that its soon getting an upgrade to bring faster and cheaper transactions. As for energy consumption thats pretty much a project for miner makers to solve this problem.

I don't think that those technologies provide the security of PoW algorithms and if you are going to use that cryptocurrency as a global currency then high level of security is very reasonable.

There is also a networking effect going on here, where bitcoins are being accepted more and more which makes them even more useful and drives even bigger adoption. I don't think that improvements of these new technologies are definitive enough nor big enough to overthrow Bitcoin from the top.

I think it is a lot risker to invest in altcoins than in Bitcoin currently.

There are emerging cryptocoins which don't rely on the 'old' blockchain technology. The most known of them are IOTA and NANO (raiblocks).
I have never used these coins so far, but their developers state these coins can provide a lot of improvements and better features than traditional blockchain-based cryptocoins like Bitcoin. For example, faster and cheaper transactions, less energy consumption and so on. So do you think blockchain-based cryptocoins are doomed and the future will be favorable to these emerging technologies?