[ 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   
File: 661 KB, 1848x708, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
51151797 No.51151797 [Reply] [Original]

Probably one of the worst L1s out there, rivaling fantom and, I want to say harmony (but that one had the right idea at least) Unlike fantom it actually doesn't bring even one of the 3 trilemma points to the table. Scale.
Its main innovation is using a consensus that sacrifices liveness, good economics, security, technical risk, for, and I'm not making this up, faster confirmations. This sounds horrible doesn't it, why would anyone ever do this. Well, it makes VCs interested and that's really all this project is trying to do. Appeal to VCs to make some money under the guise of a blockchain revolution. Imagine that, make huge events and deliver nothing that actually improves this space. A real life grift. This is what this space is about, using credentials and highly unproven tech to make people buy into vaporware.

Alright, high fees and not much decentralization, not really as secure as traditional chains. What do? Well ava labs thinks their way out is Subnets. They are on the right track, L2 does work for a bit so why not. Just a bummer that they couldn't even make that work properly. They will likely just copy some ethereum rollup solution if they want lower fees, Subnets are a total scam due to the fact that security varies wildly between them making them absolutely useless, an insult to investors to even suggest something like that. But the real investors don't care and retail is too dumb to know.

With nothing to offer, nothing solved, and no future prospects, what does the future hold for AVAX?
Really makes you think.

>> No.51152987
File: 33 KB, 590x512, WolffAngry-1980954.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
51152987

The fall of Harmony was specially sad.
Right ideas, decent community and a team that walked their talk, just for it to crumble because of a fucking phising attack draining the bridge lmao

>> No.51153212
File: 47 KB, 460x444, 1625607449264.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
51153212

>>51152987
>Right ideas
>a team that walked their talk
I mean, no, not really. The tech was completely flawed and the team knew this, which makes them borderline scammers imo.
It's like saying a group of college kids making a presentation on fusion reactors is "the right idea". But where the harmony team went wrong is in actually trying to build it without the knowledge in distributed systems or scaling cloud databases, I think that's a good comparison. So in a sense they had the right ideas but so does anyone else who can use google and figure out that sharding is how you would traditionally scale a database

>> No.51154049
File: 73 KB, 929x1175, ɹǝƃƃᴉu ʎǝɥ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
51154049

>>51151797
hey nigger, looks like you made a few mistakes in your analysis. Let me help.
>high fees and not much decentralization
c-chain fees are sitting around a penny since subnet implementation and AVAX has always had the highest Nakamoto coefficient of every competitor PoS(currently NC=32) including Ethereum Beacon at 2nd place which sits around 26.

>sacrifices liveness
probabilistic liveness means that AVAX will reach consensus at the same probability of a hash collision aka 99.9999999999999999999...9% of the time. When hit by a 51% attack liveness gets taken out before security, but that is still objectively superior to Nakamoto consensus where security goes down before liveness.

>sacrifices good economics
6% inflation from staking rewards which decreases over time. Tokenomics are ultimately deflationary due to fee burning + hardcapped supply. 2000 AVAX tokens are needed to run validators which are needed to run subnets, so there will always be a demand for AVAX.

>sacrifices security
has never been hacked. highly decentralized so 51% collusion attacks don't happen. Bridges have never been hacked either since SGX enclaves are superior to multi-sig multi-jeet employees that will get spear-phished(Ronin Bridge, Matic soon)

>technical risk
Nearly two years ago early on in development there was a minting bug caused by a race condition between the P and C chain. It printed 470 AVAX(then about 28k USD) and took one of the three primary chains down for about 24 hours. For perspective minting bugs have occurred in BTC twice and ETH once, so they are known to be fairly common, even expected in crypto projects. Since then AVAX has had 100% uptime which is more than can be said for its main competitors SOL, MATIC, and FTM.

>> No.51154129
File: 116 KB, 750x1366, 189945432133.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
51154129

>> No.51154136

>Avalanche is bad because pajeets spam bad things about it on /biz/ and le heckin' epic Twitter!
EXTREME cringe.

>> No.51154198

The worst thing is pajeets claiming this (false) accusations are anti-crypto, as if they even understand the core values of crypto and the fact the existence of their shitcoin is existential threat for crypto as a whole

If any, Avalanche should team with Ethereum and Bitcoin core to finally purge all the vaporwares that add zero value value and destroy the market structure

This is the correct take from the guy i respect the most at Avalanche:
https://twitter.com/Tederminant/status/1564144468009177089

>> No.51154482

>>51154198
I hold BTC, ETH, and AVAX and I wish to see the first two transition over to Avalanche consensus. This could be done through subnets, or independently of AVAX via hardforking their own chains. BTC and ETH would keep what makes them most valuable, their excellent token distribution and community and ETH's large smart contract infrastructure.
The upgrade would essentially be a free subsecond finality, MEV immunity, and an easy transition from PoW to PoS with no validator limits.
The unfortunate truth is that this will never happen because all developers are humans and have egos, yes even autistic Vitalik. Everyone wishes to implement their 'own design' no matter how flawed it is.

>> No.51154681
File: 109 KB, 1920x1080, 05XcQOF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
51154681

>>51154482
Listen EjmYn, fast finality is not needed, BTC with 10 minutes has already one of the fastest settlement speeds on the planet. Proof of Stake is also not needed because PoW was invented to solve PoS. It's crazy to me how nu-crypto fags got mindfucked into thinking PoS, the one system that we wanted to get away from, is now suddenly the future of finance combined with deflationary scam tokenomics. In general, until crypto swallowed the theme of PoS-or-Bust, having a fixed supply of tokens in a system where inflation wasn't centrally controlled was ample scarcity. It was only with the advent of PoS, wherein any non-staked tokens would lose value quickly, did the notion of additional/imposed/artificial scarcity become a virtue that projects signaled. In the end, I feel that this scarcity signaling was more about trying to find some fundamental to pin "we will 10x in 1 year" claims to as a differentiator vs something valuable to add to the fundamental economy. While the scarcity signally may work in favor of token returns in the short term, in the long term it may have it's own problems derived from the over complication.