[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance


View post   

>> No.57883407 [View]
File: 273 KB, 1400x700, heterogenous_networks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>federated network
it's a heterogeneous network. it's superior to ATOM and DOT because it's validator set is close to infinite rather than limited to <200. this allows for a huge number of subnets that each can have a huge number of members, making each subnet maximally decentralizable while simultaneously allowing all subnets to be enclosed within 3 decentralized primary networks(which are essentially subnets themselves, just all encompassing). the sub second transaction speed and MEV immunity(leaderless consensus) is just icing on the cake. also you can add optimizations to the c-chains EVM engine, which is just a consequence of superior engineering(database and network) combined with some fine-tuning to adapt to a superior consensus mechanism which doesn't have to worry about orphan blocks or reorgs.

>> No.57448232 [View]
File: 273 KB, 1400x700, 1_zEtuly_8XsX42GSrhO6sjQ.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>DOT is dead
>Cosmos is stagnant
the subnet vision is becoming a reality, every time I see yet another new L2 I just want to laugh

>> No.56511283 [View]
File: 273 KB, 1400x700, heterogenous_networks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

ETHfags want to squeeze the entire world's security onto a single chain because they're utopian midwits that only pay lip service to the idea of decentralization.
multichain networks like DOT/ATOM/AVAX are the obvious and practical solution, but ETHfags, being homosexual authoritarians, don't like the idea of customizable blockchains. instead they want a pyramidal hierarchy of L2s that all depend on the central ETH chain to function.

>> No.55507937 [View]
File: 273 KB, 1400x700, 1_zEtuly_8XsX42GSrhO6sjQ.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It is the only chain with a pathway to scalability in 10 years

>> No.55368786 [View]
File: 273 KB, 1400x700, heterogenous_networks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

best multi-chain L1 right now. the consensus mechanic blows other chains out of the water, allows for decentralized horizontal scaling without a centralized bottleneck like DOT rely and Cosmos' HUB. also Avalanche consensus gives you sub second finality and MEV immunity for free, no need for added gimmicks or extra complexity, just the base consensus engine by itself is subsecond and leaderless(no 'M' means no MEV). also good biz dev, as Cornell based academic team, Emin and crew are fairly well connected. credentials and academic prestige = easy partnerships, Emin is the only crypto advisor on the CFTC advisory committee. not to mention Emin has technically been in this space longer than Satoshi Nakamoto, he built a PoW-based p2p digital currency called Karma shortly after 9/11, which turned out to be really bad timing since feds didn't want Al Qaeda using it.

So throw money at multi-chain and multi-chain enablers like LINK. unfortunately ETH is going backwards, they are copying EOS' solution to scaling instead of copying Avalanche's consensus and going multi-chain. this goes along with the EF devs' MO of only protecting initial investors and pre-miners, protecting MEV mafia, playing it as safe as possible, going deflationary, etc, to benefit those with the biggest ETH stacks(not such a bad thing if you have a big ETH stack like me, but unsustainable in the future). multi-chain will eat their lunch and there will never be a flippening. ETH's speculative value was always based around the fact that it was dynamic and the devs were willing to explore solutions to scaling, this is simply not the case anymore.

>> No.55067268 [View]
File: 273 KB, 1400x700, heterogenous_networks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

it's one of these, actually all of these. well maybe not DOT

>> No.51084069 [View]
File: 273 KB, 1400x700, 1_zEtuly_8XsX42GSrhO6sjQ.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Are avalanche subnets like cosmos hubs?
no, they are superior.

>> No.50833951 [View]
File: 273 KB, 1400x700, 1_zEtuly_8XsX42GSrhO6sjQ.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

the tech is good but crippled by tokenomics, ATOM doesn't accrue value as good as competitors like DOT and AVAX

>> No.50706471 [View]
File: 273 KB, 1400x700, heterogenous_networks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

it's called horizontal scaling, faggot
now tell us about your scam coin that does 6 gorillion TPS so we can laugh at you

>> No.50567990 [View]
File: 273 KB, 1400x700, 1_zEtuly_8XsX42GSrhO6sjQ.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Subnet design is closer to Cosmos which facilitate DApps as their own chain
Your gibberish talking point from ETH maxis means nothing when the reality is going the other way

>> No.50399839 [View]
File: 273 KB, 1400x700, 1_zEtuly_8XsX42GSrhO6sjQ.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Large validator pool
Seems to handle congestion well
EVM compatible (can handle other VM)
Highest Nakamoto coefficient after Bitcoin
Subnet architecture actually might scale

>> No.50018900 [View]
File: 273 KB, 1400x700, heterogenous_networks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>subnets stolen from Cosmos
Architecture-wise Cosmos and DOT end up looking more similar because Nakamoto consensus scales poorly past 100 validators. This puts size restrictions on zones and parachains. Avalanche is a more dynamic system because not only can you have infinite subnets, but the subnets can scale to encompass every single validator. This was done by design, throwing away the limits of DOT and Cosmos allows AVAX to fully exploit Avalanche's effectively infinite validator limit. DOT and Cosmos simply cannot compete in the same way because they are stuck with a more primitive consensus mechanism, which is why they have evolved in a similar way and have reached the limits of Nakamoto multichain.

>> No.49984279 [View]
File: 273 KB, 1400x700, 1_zEtuly_8XsX42GSrhO6sjQ.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Pretty much the only 3 left from the L1 war in 2021, which one do you think is the best out of 3?

crippling itself with eUTXO, Plutus, Haskell and busy virtue signalling with "peer review"

brute forcing scalability, centralized, unreliable when stressed and goes down weekly

>Harmony and Fantom
basically dead

didn't even enter the race

Don't know much about it but attempting algo stablecoin after LUNA seem relentless and will have some regulatory backlash

>> No.49708855 [View]
File: 273 KB, 1400x700, heterogenous_networks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

AVAX is not one, but two leaps forward in design starting from its foundation. It's the combination of horizontal heterogeneous architecture and the Avalanche consensus engine. The Avalanche consensus engine can scale consensus to millions of nodes, it is leaderless making it MEV immune, has subsecond finality, and has guaranteed absolute finality.
The core fundamental difference, or trade-off, between Nakamoto and Avalanche is that Nakamoto values liveness over finality, so while you are guaranteed that a block will eventually be mined, you aren't guaranteed that that block won't be discarded if another longer chain of blocks comes around. With Avalanche you get probabilistic liveness, but you are guaranteed that the block you see is truly final and there are no longer chains floating around that could potentially be doublespend attack. By trading absolute liveness for absolute finality you also, as a side-effect, remove leaderness, which naturally removes MEV. The removal of leaderness also changes the structure of consensus propagation meaning that N Avalanche validators scale finality time as log(N), which is similar to gossip protocols which are also leaderless. Nakamoto is leadered and has to spread out from a center node, so propagation is fundamentally slower. This means it's finality times scale at N*log(N) which means finality times will explode around 100+ nodes, far less than compared to Avalanche's 1,000,000 nodes.

View posts[+24][+48][+96]