440,000 transactions/sec Blockchain by University of Sydney @BlockRush
Through the enlightenment era of modern civilization, universities are known as the center for developing and spreading knowledge.
However in the this 21st Century, most universities seem disconnected from reality and become insensitive to the ever changing environment around them.
Schools have become complacent of innovation
The entire schooling system has been criticized as being outdated, while the rising trend of drop millionaire and billionaires has justified the belief that the current educational system is obsolete.
Most of the success entrepreneurs we know of were school drop outs; from the founders of Apple to that of Microsoft to Facebook to the countless thousands of crypto currency developers developing Bitcoin and Blockchain technologies. The founder of Ethreum and is another culprit.
Blockchain technology is the hottest technology in town and has drawn in all of the world's top banks, multinational corporations, governments and even the UN and EU. The Blockchain industry has raised several billions from investors and corporations and is the hottest sector for developers, entrepreneurs and even the media.
Everyone seem to be present in the Blockchain frenzy except of course, the pragmatic educational institutions. However, the University of Sydney has undertaken a project which could change all this.
The need for speed
Did you know that the almighty Paypal was capable of processing only 193 transactions per second?
The volume of transactions per second is what makes or breaks a Blockchain network; it is what has slowed down Bitcoin, Ethereum and every other Blockchain network as transaction volume increased.
Bitcoin which is the king of crypto currencies has a terrible transaction volume of less than just 10 transactions per second, that is very bad. Then comes Ethereum with on all its hype of being the decentralized cloud computer, its only capable of less than 25 transactions per second, again also very bad.
Both Bitcoin and Ethereum are the largest cyrpto currencies which have seen massive investments, command the largest developer base and promise to be capable of scaling up to global needs.
The result is that the Bitcoin network is only getting slower whiles Ethereum is getting congested with the release of every Ethereum based smart contract.
More recently, we have seen the launch of #EOS, a new decentralized could computer OS which is a direct alternative to Ethereum. EOS raised over $150 million in its ICO, however even EOS has not overcome the challenge of speed.
The Red Belly Blockchain
Researchers at the university of Sydney believe they have uncovered how to build a Blockchain system capable of over 440,000 transactions per second on upto 100 connected machines! The system is called the Red Belly Blockchain.
Aside from having an unparalleled volume speed, the Red Belly Blockchain is also capable of operating simultaneously in both private and public modes. This is the first Blockchain network which is a hybrid of both private and public Blockchain systems.
Such a system would allow multiple parties to use the same Blockchain privately with each having its own walled garden for its users with no possibility of data leakage from one to another. This system will eliminate the need for people to create a new Blockchain system for every new project, as they could simple create their own private "sidechain" or "child-chain" securely on the same network instead.
There is more! Red Belly Blockchain does not support forking meaning double spending will be impossible. This is a good thing as forking(SegWit) has threatened to destroy Bitcoins just has the TheDAO initiated fork did to Ethereum.
Back to School!
While till date no conventional or Blockchain based transaction system is even capable of 100,000 transactions per second, the University of Sydney have developed a system capable of processing over 440,000 transactions per second while operating on both private and public modes!
This time the universities have vindicated themselves and proven their worth. Perhaps dropping of school was't that fun after all, we could use that university graduation from the University of Sydney after all!
Recommended posts
- Is Wildspark the Steemit Killer? @BlockRush
- $150 million flaw? Could Bancor suffer the fate of TheDAO?
- What is the "Block Rush"?
- Must read for every Steemian: Free promotion and support group!
- Quick reminder: What is the value of Bitcoins?
- A brief overview of the #EOS project.
- Accounting for the total amount of Bitcoins.
- 4 reasons why why you should still use Bitcoins.
- Check our second post: A minute's guide to Bitcoin and Steemit.
- Crypto-currency investor read: the no-brainier guide to investing.
@BlockRush is an informational site about Bitcoins/Blockchain technologies and industries. We features news analysis of major development in the Bitcoin and Blockchain and outline their potential impact on the economy and society.
Follow@BlockRush and we will follow you back! Join our Facebook group at www.facebook.com/groups/blockrush to promote your posts for free!
Do not forget to upvote and resteem this post if you found it helpful so other can find it. If you have any opinions about this article, please let us know by commenting below.
I didn't have time to study the paper, so could you describe in layman terms how there "are no forks", as they state? I don't see how that can be promised. What if the world splits in half, like behind the great firewall of China? Isn't that a fork? How is consensus reached once they connect again?
Also they achieved the thoughput on Amazon servers presumably in one location, which doesn't represent reality on a global scale. However, very impressive indeed!
Certainly we cannot guarantee 100% accuracy but here is our take:
naturally once communication is cut between the connected nodes, perhaps the disconnected nodes should stop mining and when they re-join the main network again, they should continue from where the main network has reached.
since they did not mine while they were disconnected, they would not have any new "foreign" blocks to impose on the main network
the research believes all forkable blockchains are vulnerable to a "balance attack" where double spending can occur since nodes can independently mine on their own and then try to impose their new "foreign" blocks on the main network.
if they are denied access by the main blockchain when they try to impose their new "foreign" blocks, then there is loss of their blocks, which could contain some genuinely good information, resulting in the loss of digital assets.
the paper which address this concern is > http://poseidon.it.usyd.edu.au/~gramoli/web/doc/pubs/balance_attack_long_version.pdf
I read the paper, and it seems to me that it boils down to choosing consistency over availability. That's a tradeoff, which results in the majority of the network getting consistency and high throughput, while the minority getting nothing in case they are cut off or experience significant delays. Very interesting.
That would mean that the minority chain (since they don't call it a fork), would have to acknowledge that they are indeed a minority, and cease all block production. Or wait, they used a DAG, didn't they? In that case, wouldn't each actor have to individually evaluate whether they are cut off or not? That seems like a problematic situation to me.
I'm disappointed that such papers never mention DPOS which apparently doesn't tend to fork. According to Larimer, DPOS doesn't fork because witnesses collaborate instead of competing. What that means at a deeper level I don't understand, but seems like something to dig into. However, I'm sure this Red Belly Blockchain isn't the final word on the subject.
I disagree with your analysis. EOS will be able to scale to unlimited number of tx per sec by implementing parallel processing. 50,000 tx/sec is just a test on a single thread to validate the speed of WebAssembly langage. Also, EOS is a blockchain operating system and a development Platform. The blockchain implementation is only an aspect of EOS. While I respect the work done by University of Sydney, I want to emphasis that comparing EOW and RBB (Red Belly Blockchain) is innapropriate and shallow.
Thanks @whyknot, for letting us know about the possibility of EOS being able to scale up to unlimited transactions per second by implementing parallel processing, you would amend the article to that effect
@whyknot, can you please tell use of your comment on your response to Ripple's comment about Blockchain being too slow for banks? > https://steemit.com/steemit/@blockrush/blockchain-too-slow-for-banks-ripple-blockrush
Everybody should look how the real white papers should look ( check research section for Red Belly Blockchain ). Thanks for the info, fantastic post.
thank you @behamot, due to a suggestion by @whyknot we have amended the part of the article on #EOS.
@blockrush, I think you need to do more research before publishing these articles. EOS is not running an ICO and it has raised more than you've quoted. It is also still underway and will be for almost a year.
With a suitable governance architecture, hard forks are not the calamity everyone makes out....look at steem and the DPOS consensus design. Hard forks are bad for BTC and ETH because they have poor governance desgins.
Running 440000 tps on 100 machines is very different to what has been achieved with graphene based blockchains, live, globally, already. The university of Sydney have not necessarily proven anything. Also, if you read Dr. Craig Wright's transcript from the future of bitcoin conference, he talks about the problems of *edit
scalingsecuring side-chains.Anyway, you could put their claim into greater context by including more facts. Without those contextual facts, the article feels sensationalist and as if there is an agenda to knock one project in favor of something new and I hope you are aiming a bit higher than that.
I hope the feedback is of some use. I am keen to support news and analysis of a very high caliber, all else is a waste of time.
@benjojo, thank you for your positive critical reviews, however @BlockRush has no biased interest in ANY Blockchain network nor are we experts in the technicality of Blockchain technology. As you said, we may be sensational because we are simply enthusiasts, not developers and we only publish our *opinions on developments in the Blockchain industry and could be wrong a few times!
It's good we have the likes of you around to correct us when we are wrong, and your advice is heeded, we will do more research next time! Anyway tell us what you think of Meta Mask and Ethereum > https://steemit.com/ethereum/@blockrush/metamask-and-ethereum-are-absolutely-amazing-blockrush
hello @benjojo, would you mind reading our proposal about how a Blockchain powered internet could make the internet free while also resolving net neutrality? > https://steemit.com/steemit/@blockrush/how-steemit-inspired-free-internet-can-resolve-net-neutrality-blockrush