/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>50550165
I am against this whole narrative, it's a massive cope and since this thread is dead I'd like you to explain yourself a bit.

I get that it says "it's centralized but still censorship-resistant" all over the place, and motivates the claim by saying there's a bunch of future tech and mitigations to avoid censorship...
and yet at the end of the day we're still talking about taking a multibillion-dollar payments layer that's unregulated due to being decentralized and centralizing its payment processing layer (not validation/settlement), to the point that the layer becomes smaller than VISA. And somehow expecting a reg hammer to not drop on it once it goes live.

I get that it's maybe possible to keep production censorship-resistant, yet all the "technically" arguments in the world can't stop a regulator with a small, finite list of payment processors to target My big question is this. Back when ETH 2.0 was first proposed, how to shard a POS blockchain was a completely unsolved problem. Now, however, there is NEARProtocol, which is in production. At least one of the following is true:

A: NEAR makes worse trilemma-addressing tradeoffs than Endgame (e.g. Vitalik thinks NEAR doesn't work)
B: ETH2 sharding isn't ever actually meant to ship and Endgame is the latest 5-year research project to placate the ETH community.
C: ETH2 is suffering from "not invented here" syndrome and won't use NEARs approach because of vanity.

I'm having a hard time coming up with other explanations. For the record, if ETH were sticking with POW for scaling, I'd be saying the same thing but swap NEAR for Kadena's Chainweb.

>>50551012
Bro you're all over the place. But in answer to your question about modular block production it's going to be run by Chainlink DONs running FSS which, if not "too big to fail" are at least "too connected to ban".
Validation still happens in ETH L1 in some instances or doesn't even need to in Celestia's sovereign rollup model.
I will be honest I know jack shit about NEAR but also there wasn't even really a central question attached to that so idk.
I don't really understand your comments about sharding either, considering if you're referring to danksharding it's pretty much a misnomer, probably better called danksampling due to understandable confusion with the old sharding model.
ETH is now optimising for data availability for rollups under an L1/L2 rollup settlement paradigm but if you watch that Dodson talk and the different Celestia frameworks in pic related it's questionable as to whether that conceptual framework is even going to hold up in a year or two.
Just doesn't make sense to throw out the modular approach in general when it's so nascent and so flexible.

So when you say you're "against the whole narrative" are you saying you're, like, ideologically opposed to doing DA, block production, and validation in separate spaces, because that seems like a very strange and absolutist place to draw a serious line in the sand, when the ideas are still this new.

What about ROSE, that is also modular.

>>50551141
>So when you say you're "against the whole narrative" are you saying you're, like, ideologically opposed to doing DA, block production, and validation in separate spaces, because that seems like a very strange and absolutist place to draw a serious line in the sand
In a sense, yes. There are better solutions and ETH people coming up with a narrative to shill their obviously flawed solutions as being better is retarded. Coming up with terms like Monolithic and Modular to make it sound like good and bag guys is really disingenuous. That's my problem with the narrative.
>questionable as to whether that conceptual framework is even going to hold up in a year or two.
True, ETH changes their plans exactly every 2 years. I think we will end up with a new research project in 2024, while still going nowhere tech wise. It will be PoS and L2 will settle to it further congesting ETH and nothing will ever happen

>>50551309
Rose is like cosmos. Low Validator count para chains settling to main chain, not really that groundbreaking

>>50551346
I appreciate that people can have different feelings about this, but at the same time the whole concept is so new I think it's a bit soon to dismiss it out of hand.
Obviously there are huge questions with composability, shared security, and even just problems like how do you incentivise the "boring" parts of the L1 like DA when you have it separated out. But there are Celestia frameworks that don't even use Ethereum so this is more than just a question of what ETH is using as its fundamental meme for the next couple of years.
Considering how quickly good ideas get poached when they actually work, I definitely think there's merit in at least tracking this area. I'm still totally open to solutions that come from the monolithic paradigm, I'm sure as shit not a maxi of something that is this new and untested, but I still think its interesting and look forward to when a few more people on /biz/ are willing to talk about it.

sorry but cardano fixes this it's ultra-modular (says so in the whitepaper, peer reviewed by one thousand phds)

That's cool and all, but WHEN Celestia ICO?

>>50551424
Agree actually.
>>50551575
No it's not, it's a single chain and their L2 solutions is just state channels. Cardano should be off the top 200 by now

>>50551588
Celestia mainnet early 2023 so any time between now and then. And I wish we still did ICOs these days, it will no doubt be some fucking weird convoluted distribution with all the VCs lined up first.

>>50550165
Where can I buy this shit?

fuck all of you fake marketing faggots and commit suicide

>>50551141
So what I'm having trouble understanding is if Chainlink DONs using FSS are going to be facilitating the actual connections to make this modular blockchain world than wtf do we need Celestia for? Is it essentially attempting to replace the layer that ETH is currently taking, except it will handle data availability consensus for other chains in order to form a better foundation for development? I get that ETH is also planning on taking a more data driven role in the ecosystem while allowing rollups to be in charge of execution and that Celestia is supposedly able to achieve this faster as they don’t have to take considerations such as the intricacies involved in planning an upgrade to an almost quarter trillion dollar network. However, if the entire premise for making something like Celestia is to try and decouple from having such an enshrining layer such as ETH which sort of forces rollups to have to execute in a similar manner as they are EVMs, then isn’t this once again literally an issue that CCIP solves? What I'm having trouble understanding is if the entire purpose of the enterprise abstraction layer is to take the complexity of multiple chains and make it a non-consideration for builders who instead only have to interface with that, then what role is Celestia playing in this that Chainlink can't already?

>>50552796
celestia is a meme, you figured it out

>>50552847
Ah, they had a good idea but its a wannabe CCIP. Got it. I'm gonna buy as much as I possibly can because I'm almost certain the Kool Klaus Klub is gonna torture linkies one last run meaning anything that we think is stupid is almost bound to do great.