Topic: 🥊 --------● Solana (SOL) vs. Bitcoin SV (BSV) (Read 15 times)
Solana is note the same calibre because BSV is Bitcoin
Quote
Solana (SOL) vs. Bitcoin SV (BSV)
Solana is one of the very few blockchains that took scalability seriously and produced remarkable results, currently boasting 50,000 TPS at peak load.
Solana is based on a new consensus called “Proof of History” (PoH) which, along with other accompanying designs, enabled parallelization (horizontal scaling). Its apparent success is a concrete proof that horizontally scalable blockchains are superior to blockchains such as Ethereum that cannot be parallelized and thus have to rely on vertical scaling.
However, when compared to Bitcoin SV (BSV), Solana is not only unnecessary but also inferior.
Solana is unnecessary
Every metrics posted by Solana is not only achievable but in fact has already been achieved by Bitcoin SV (BSV).
Nothing that Solana can do cannot be done on BSV.
Just as Ethereum was created due to its founder’s misunderstanding or lack of understanding of Bitcoin’s smart contract capability, Solana was created due to its founders’ misunderstanding or lack of understanding of Bitcoin’s scalability.
In both cases the misunderstanding happened because of misleading information and active suppression of good information.
The reason for Solana’s success in a world where BSV has existed and demonstrated all capabilities is because BSV has been actively suppressed from almost all fronts, including the BTC commune and Silicon Valley-rooted tech-media world, while Solana became Silicon Valley venture capital darling.
Solana is inferior to BSV in multiple critical areas
1.Solana is PoS. In fact, it is further worsened PoS. Solana creates an illusion of decentralization of validators by hiding the fact that PoH is only possible because, at any given moment, a Leader is selected based on PoS to generate the PoH hashing sequence. Once the PoH sequence is generated, all validators do is to verify if the sequence is in order or out of order. The validators can only prove that the order is ‘unchanged’, but cannot provide the ground truth in the creation of the order itself. The Leader, both the election and action thereof, therefore becomes a single point of failure, attack, or corruption.
The election of the Leader is based on PoS. Therefore Solana does not even pretend to solve the problem of PoS, but instead further adds a high leverage with an already corruptible consensus.
For reasons [ur=https://gaoson.medium.com/proof-of-work-pow-is-the-only-way-to-prevent-corruption-9f84e4491dd7l]why PoS does not work, see Proof-of-Work (PoW) is the Only Way to Prevent Corruption[/url].
2.Because Solana uses PoH, it can only achieve parallelization through physically synchronizing all generators and validators. This is a huge price to pay for PoH, something that is unnecessary in a broader sense (in view of BSV) and is only of limited use in a narrow sense.
The price paid is not a trivial one, as it is potentially fatal: Synchronization may fail, and it does and did fail. And the problem can only become worse as the scale increases.
In contrast, because BSV is based on UTXOs, it makes genuine parallelization a natural fit without requiring any synchronization. There is no point of failure with BSV.
3.PoH is a novel concept which may be useful in certain applications, but when used as a general blockchain consensus, is creating one problem in order to solve another. As far as the ‘truth’ in blockchain security is concerned, establishing a ‘time sequence’ (history) is only one way, in fact not the best way, to attain truth.
Bitcoin’s protocol achieves the goal without hard-mandating ‘truth’ in time sequence. What ultimately matters is immutability and prevention of double-spend, and in this respect, Bitcoin blockchain has established an unchallenged record of continuous and unbroken success that is far superior to any other blockchain.
With BSV, nodes do generally observe a rule of not changing the transaction order as the transactions are received, but the absolute truth in that order is not critical in general applications.
On the other hand, should such event order sequences be needed in any case, they can be achieved within the framework of BSV by performing sequential hashes, without unnecessarily affecting anything else beneath or beyond.
In other words, BSV already has PoH, only it has it at an application level, not the blockchain’s base consensus level.
Establishing such ‘truth’ in historical order is in itself not a bad thing. The real question is at what cost.
Considering what BSV has already achieved, PoH implemented as a base blockchain consensus is fundamentally a disruptive waste.
4.Solana does not use UTXO. Although it avoids the global account problem of Ethereum, it manages data using an account-based model, which is both advantageous and limiting.
The fact that Solana does not use UTXO has vastly important implications. First, it means that parallelization is not at the fundamental ‘asset’ level, but rather at a higher ‘transaction’ level. As a result, there is no intrinsic baseline truth in Solana as there is with Bitcoin blockchain. At a specific point of time, as far as transaction verification and smart contract execution are concerned, it may work just as well. But in a broader and more fundamental sense, they’re not the same.
For example, the reason why Solana is able to process transactions in parallel is that Solana transactions describe all the states a transaction will read or write while executing. Compared to Ethereum, this leads to a huge advantage because it allows transaction executions not to depend on a global state (thus making parallelization possible); but compared to Bitcoin, this is a flaw as it fails to create baseline truth regarding ‘assets’, but rather focus on transactions only.
This difference will not only affect the simplicity/complexity of smart contract writing, but more importantly the interactivity of assets, transactions and smart contracts. The non-ambiguous and simple interactivity based on UTXO is a beauty that leads to many important developments and applications, from the simple SPV to capabilities such as Sensible Contracts, and even the esoteric fractal database architecture (as described by nChain Chief scientist Craig Wright during Coingeek Conference 2021 in Zürich).
5.BSV is designed to be the infrastructure of the next generation Internet. The Teranet architecture with regard to data and computation goes well beyond just processing conventional transactions. BSV already shows a clear path to the next generation Internet, through not only decentralization of money/currencies and decentralization of assets, but also decentralization of data (via Metanet and Teranode, see nChain), decentralization of computation (via on-chain virtual state machines; different from distributed computation) and decentralization of AI.
It is unclear how Solana’s data-account structure may extend into those areas. It certainly does not even plan to do so, and it’s likely that the design and architecture may have already pre-excluded such capabilities from the beginning either due to inherent incompatibility, or a lack of such foresight. In fact, there is not even a slight hint of any awareness of such a future of blockchain technology outside of BSV, much less such positive knowledge, let alone any active design for it.
6.At 50,000 TPS, compared to the 5–7 and 15 TPS of BTC and Ethereum, it may seem unnecessary to look beyond. But BSV points to unlimited applications from nano payments to blockchain computation, potentially requiring TPS in millions and even billions. Having already demonstrated 50,000 TPS publicly and 100,000 TPS privately, BSV looks to increase its TPS by a multiple every year from now on. In this regard, BSV is unbounded (and this is not a mere aspiration, but solidly established on the uncompromising parallelization thanks to the UTXO model), while Solana has a theoretical limit (which according to Solana is about 700,000 TPS, but is probably based on ideal synchronization conditions).
In summary
There is nothing that Solana can do but BSV can’t, while there are many things, potentially more and more of them to be revealed with time, that BSV can do but Solana can’t.
But at the same time, Solana is at least a positive and respectable development because it bravely faced the problem of scalability and came up with a solution that is at least honest, and potentially even useful in many cases.
Solana also enjoys its root and favorable environment in the US, including media and venture capital. Solana is likely to continue to enjoy its mostly unchallenged success as long as BSV continues to be actively suppressed by multiple forces. But the world cannot always live on propaganda but eventually will be persuaded by the reality, so the dynamics may change in the near future.
Thanks to Zemes Gaoson source:https://gaoson.medium.com/solana-vs-bitcoin-sv-bsv-ec9cc9a8845d
Solana is one of the very few blockchains that took scalability seriously and produced remarkable results, currently boasting 50,000 TPS at peak load.
Solana is based on a new consensus called “Proof of History” (PoH) which, along with other accompanying designs, enabled parallelization (horizontal scaling). Its apparent success is a concrete proof that horizontally scalable blockchains are superior to blockchains such as Ethereum that cannot be parallelized and thus have to rely on vertical scaling.
However, when compared to Bitcoin SV (BSV), Solana is not only unnecessary but also inferior.
Solana is unnecessary
Every metrics posted by Solana is not only achievable but in fact has already been achieved by Bitcoin SV (BSV).
Nothing that Solana can do cannot be done on BSV.
Just as Ethereum was created due to its founder’s misunderstanding or lack of understanding of Bitcoin’s smart contract capability, Solana was created due to its founders’ misunderstanding or lack of understanding of Bitcoin’s scalability.
In both cases the misunderstanding happened because of misleading information and active suppression of good information.
The reason for Solana’s success in a world where BSV has existed and demonstrated all capabilities is because BSV has been actively suppressed from almost all fronts, including the BTC commune and Silicon Valley-rooted tech-media world, while Solana became Silicon Valley venture capital darling.
Solana is inferior to BSV in multiple critical areas
1.Solana is PoS. In fact, it is further worsened PoS. Solana creates an illusion of decentralization of validators by hiding the fact that PoH is only possible because, at any given moment, a Leader is selected based on PoS to generate the PoH hashing sequence. Once the PoH sequence is generated, all validators do is to verify if the sequence is in order or out of order. The validators can only prove that the order is ‘unchanged’, but cannot provide the ground truth in the creation of the order itself. The Leader, both the election and action thereof, therefore becomes a single point of failure, attack, or corruption.
The election of the Leader is based on PoS. Therefore Solana does not even pretend to solve the problem of PoS, but instead further adds a high leverage with an already corruptible consensus.
For reasons [ur=https://gaoson.medium.com/proof-of-work-pow-is-the-only-way-to-prevent-corruption-9f84e4491dd7l]why PoS does not work, see Proof-of-Work (PoW) is the Only Way to Prevent Corruption[/url].
2.Because Solana uses PoH, it can only achieve parallelization through physically synchronizing all generators and validators. This is a huge price to pay for PoH, something that is unnecessary in a broader sense (in view of BSV) and is only of limited use in a narrow sense.
The price paid is not a trivial one, as it is potentially fatal: Synchronization may fail, and it does and did fail. And the problem can only become worse as the scale increases.
In contrast, because BSV is based on UTXOs, it makes genuine parallelization a natural fit without requiring any synchronization. There is no point of failure with BSV.
3.PoH is a novel concept which may be useful in certain applications, but when used as a general blockchain consensus, is creating one problem in order to solve another. As far as the ‘truth’ in blockchain security is concerned, establishing a ‘time sequence’ (history) is only one way, in fact not the best way, to attain truth.
Bitcoin’s protocol achieves the goal without hard-mandating ‘truth’ in time sequence. What ultimately matters is immutability and prevention of double-spend, and in this respect, Bitcoin blockchain has established an unchallenged record of continuous and unbroken success that is far superior to any other blockchain.
With BSV, nodes do generally observe a rule of not changing the transaction order as the transactions are received, but the absolute truth in that order is not critical in general applications.
On the other hand, should such event order sequences be needed in any case, they can be achieved within the framework of BSV by performing sequential hashes, without unnecessarily affecting anything else beneath or beyond.
In other words, BSV already has PoH, only it has it at an application level, not the blockchain’s base consensus level.
Establishing such ‘truth’ in historical order is in itself not a bad thing. The real question is at what cost.
Considering what BSV has already achieved, PoH implemented as a base blockchain consensus is fundamentally a disruptive waste.
4.Solana does not use UTXO. Although it avoids the global account problem of Ethereum, it manages data using an account-based model, which is both advantageous and limiting.
The fact that Solana does not use UTXO has vastly important implications. First, it means that parallelization is not at the fundamental ‘asset’ level, but rather at a higher ‘transaction’ level. As a result, there is no intrinsic baseline truth in Solana as there is with Bitcoin blockchain. At a specific point of time, as far as transaction verification and smart contract execution are concerned, it may work just as well. But in a broader and more fundamental sense, they’re not the same.
For example, the reason why Solana is able to process transactions in parallel is that Solana transactions describe all the states a transaction will read or write while executing. Compared to Ethereum, this leads to a huge advantage because it allows transaction executions not to depend on a global state (thus making parallelization possible); but compared to Bitcoin, this is a flaw as it fails to create baseline truth regarding ‘assets’, but rather focus on transactions only.
This difference will not only affect the simplicity/complexity of smart contract writing, but more importantly the interactivity of assets, transactions and smart contracts. The non-ambiguous and simple interactivity based on UTXO is a beauty that leads to many important developments and applications, from the simple SPV to capabilities such as Sensible Contracts, and even the esoteric fractal database architecture (as described by nChain Chief scientist Craig Wright during Coingeek Conference 2021 in Zürich).
5.BSV is designed to be the infrastructure of the next generation Internet. The Teranet architecture with regard to data and computation goes well beyond just processing conventional transactions. BSV already shows a clear path to the next generation Internet, through not only decentralization of money/currencies and decentralization of assets, but also decentralization of data (via Metanet and Teranode, see nChain), decentralization of computation (via on-chain virtual state machines; different from distributed computation) and decentralization of AI.
It is unclear how Solana’s data-account structure may extend into those areas. It certainly does not even plan to do so, and it’s likely that the design and architecture may have already pre-excluded such capabilities from the beginning either due to inherent incompatibility, or a lack of such foresight. In fact, there is not even a slight hint of any awareness of such a future of blockchain technology outside of BSV, much less such positive knowledge, let alone any active design for it.
6.At 50,000 TPS, compared to the 5–7 and 15 TPS of BTC and Ethereum, it may seem unnecessary to look beyond. But BSV points to unlimited applications from nano payments to blockchain computation, potentially requiring TPS in millions and even billions. Having already demonstrated 50,000 TPS publicly and 100,000 TPS privately, BSV looks to increase its TPS by a multiple every year from now on. In this regard, BSV is unbounded (and this is not a mere aspiration, but solidly established on the uncompromising parallelization thanks to the UTXO model), while Solana has a theoretical limit (which according to Solana is about 700,000 TPS, but is probably based on ideal synchronization conditions).
In summary
There is nothing that Solana can do but BSV can’t, while there are many things, potentially more and more of them to be revealed with time, that BSV can do but Solana can’t.
But at the same time, Solana is at least a positive and respectable development because it bravely faced the problem of scalability and came up with a solution that is at least honest, and potentially even useful in many cases.
Solana also enjoys its root and favorable environment in the US, including media and venture capital. Solana is likely to continue to enjoy its mostly unchallenged success as long as BSV continues to be actively suppressed by multiple forces. But the world cannot always live on propaganda but eventually will be persuaded by the reality, so the dynamics may change in the near future.
Thanks to Zemes Gaoson source:https://gaoson.medium.com/solana-vs-bitcoin-sv-bsv-ec9cc9a8845d
What are your opinions?
Jump to: