RE: Steem Basics: Why Steem is an Application-Specific Blockchain

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Steem Basics: Why Steem is an Application-Specific Blockchain

in steem •  16 days ago

Making the base protocol as simplified as possible, is, in my opinion, the right approach as the rest will be applied via appbase & co, which in return helps to keep the blockchain clean and fast.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I think Steemit is making a huge mistake assuming their bodged Proof-of-Stake (Delegated) is good enough to bolt on the extra requirements of a "second layer" to begin with.

The stop-and-decrypt article is excellent, I suggest reading it here -- https://hackernoon.com/asic-resistance-is-nothing-but-a-blockchain-buzzword-b91d3d770366

So is this article on why PoS is a dumpster fire -- https://medium.com/@hugonguyen/proof-of-stake-the-wrong-engineering-mindset-15e641ab65a2

As you guys bolt more stuff on top of a chain that already had problems dealing with "edge cases", I'm not holding my breath for the next "incident" where its all explained away as something that "doesn't really happen too much".

Its bad base assumptions that trickle up to your upper layers, and will cause all kinds of problems if it ever gains any real usage.

Don't say I didn't warn you...

·

Prime real estate, the top of @steemitblog posts, eh? Anywho, the article on PoS vs. PoW was interesting, but do you know of any written about DPoS vs. PoW? STEEM is not exactly an old-school PoS system, so isn't much of what's discussed irrelevant? Especially the part about what would occur in the event of a total network outage with chains potentially splintering, which could be rectified by witnesses coming to consensus. Even if a consensus was not possible to reach or the outages were so severe that the chains split irreconcilably, it wouldn't be a total cataclysm because applications could be built to effortlessly exchange coins on one chain for coins on the other.

The most enlightening thing about that piece was the tendency of humans to underestimate the likelihood of "edge cases" as you call them: interesting psychology, that. Also, the longer I'm in crypto the more I warm up to the idea that faster, more convenient, easier is not "better" in terms of valuation. Rather, it's the more clunky systems that require more physical energy, higher fees, and longer amounts of time that are likely to remain better stores of value. At least, that is one angle of prediction: a rather materialistic outlook, though perhaps accurate.

I find it exceedingly hilarious that every engineer, programmer, and developer seems to know all the ins and outs of cryptocurrency's future. They point out all the reasons certain systems are "likely to fail" in their view and others are "destined to succeed." Humans, though, have a powerful streak of irrationality, and this extends to the most brilliant thinkers. The brain likes to come to conclusions based on subconscious emotional and intuitive impulses that then become justified with subtle and eloquent-sounding logic.

Especially when it comes to future technological developments like the extremely well-functioning global blockchains we will eventually have, all bets are off. We all hedge our bets where we think the chips will fall, but to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that PoW is superior to PoS, or that PoS is inherently flawed, is an untenable conclusion based on anything I've been presented with thus far.

·
·

The way I look at it Bitcoin will be the dominant Store of Value for a very long time and there is no need to change the POW. You can read https://hackernoon.com/asic-resistance-is-nothing-but-a-blockchain-buzzword-b91d3d770366 for a great reasoning.

POS based blockchains will derive their value out of the problems that they solve and not as SOV.

DPOS based chains will empower the web applications right away without waiting for POW based and POS based blockchains to address their performance issues. Current examples are Steem and EOS.

So I think each of them have their place. We just need to make sure that the spams in each of this category are called out thats all ;)

·
·

Here we go - when confronted with an unpopular post, its "who the hell are you" in spades.

I don't need to qualify myself to you - or anyone, for that matter.

I'll let the market decide, and going by the current Steem price its a rather dismal future indeed.

That is, until the next "oopsie" where the entire chain shuts down. The actual gall of you people to accept this as a failure mode is beyond insane.

You accept that Proof-of-(mis)Stake requires trust in other nodes, which means the developers have to bend over backwards twister-style to make things work.

It introduces needless complexity and further cases where something can go wrong -- but don't worry guys, we'll just add another token and some other watchmen to watch the other watchmen (somehow) to make it all better.

PoS is DOA, you guys just don't know it yet.

·
·
·

I'm not asking to you to qualify yourself, but rather your argument, which seems to hinge on "blind machine logic is superior to the conjunction of machine and human validation." If I'm wrong, I'm open to learning from your point of view.

going by the current Steem price its a rather dismal future indeed.

Would you feel the same way with a 20x price in the bull market, or just now, near the trough of valuation? My guess is yes, since your issue with PoS seems ideological (though also logical.) The funny thing is, it's the opposite with many other people, who see PoW as antiquated and inefficient. I don't know enough to conclude either way yet.

What do you mean by needless complexity?

If you're right and I lose all my money in STEEM, I'll save up more and buy DASH or Monero next time. ;-) Or hell, maybe even clunky ol' BTC.

·

The POS post you shares ignores the delegated in steem, which makes a big difference. In case of a network partition we have many backup witnesses that can immediately take over. Also stakeholders can change their votes to elect other witnesses. The "POS does not handle partition well" point is one that in my opinion especially steem counteracts very well.

So far to my knowledge we never had one such event in the wild so we don't know how it plays out in practice.

·
·

If you're convinced, that's all that matters, right?

This entire platform is a cheerleading squad, I never see anything to the contrary.

This monoculture needs an infusion of reality.

·
·
·

Well you should come up with something better then :) Makes me wonder what makes you stay here.

·
·
·
·

Right, because when someone brings up the ugly underside to Steemit -- hell no, he's gotta go!

I'm here to witness the implosion, if you really want to know. A cursory look at my last blogposts would've told you that.

I'm glad Steemit exists, it will be one of the many examples of why Proof-of-(mis)Stake is flawed. So even failure can be instructive.

·
·
·
·
·

Can you really say Steemit is rigidly PoS? The platform doesn't feel so rigid (IMO). The witnesses are there as a leverage and the team looks competent with frequent updates (HF) that encourage docility in operations to adapt to any changes needed for the growth of the community (or communities).

Should the community grow large enough (and/or maintain an active user-base), few policy changes can see Steemit implement PoW (if need be).

Don't you think they have enough assets for that?

·
·
·
·
·
·

If I FEEL my car's brakes are okay, but they're a dripping screeching mess, does that postpone the time when they finally fail?

As for transitioning to another mechanism, I doubt they could do so easily - especially with an inherently inflationary token like Steem.

·

Thanks for sharing these links. I found both are good reads.

Posted using Partiko iOS

·

I see you've been a user of this blockchain for over a year. Thanks so much for participating in our experiment and contributing to the discussion!

·
·

If it isn't outright cheerleading, its passive-aggressive responses that don't help anything.

If you believe in Steemit, great - because I prefer seeing both sides of the coin, instead of just posting snarky replies.

This monoculture needs a reality infusion.

·
·
·

You say "I prefer seeing both sides of the coin", but you throw only tails. My bet is on the truth lying somewhere in the middle of your extreme negative position to those in the "outright cheerleading" group, as is usually the case in these type of arguments.

Another way of saying this: money talks and bullshit walks. If you're so certain of Steem's inevitable failure, you surely must be shorting the hell out of it, yes? If not, you aren't really convinced of the certainty that you're trying to convey here.

·
·
·
·

Thanks for making my point for me.

Wrongthink gets penalized, shouted down, dismissed.

This monoculture needs a reality check. Luckily the market is good at providing it.

·
·
·
·
·

Hey, I'm open to debate about the true value of Steem or DPOS in general. That said, the debate is DOA when all you can provide is an argument against POS and then retorts against valid arguments that point out certain safeguards that DPOS provides over POS along the lines of "Wrongthink gets penalized, shouted down, dismissed.", which aren't really retorts, if you catch my drift.

It's more changing the topic, which makes it look like you don't have a valid retort.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Moving the goalposts, eh? Fine, do what you want.

My final retort will be when the Steemit blockchain seizes up. Keep on pushing the hopium, because its not going to make a difference.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Thanks for proving my point. Ya got nuttin', punk.

As long as we have fungibility and privacy.

the box of unlabeled legos allows for creativity to be the limitation...

It's like Arabic numerals vs Roman numerals or the Metric system vs Imperial systems. Complexity can get in the way instead of helping the project.