探讨ETH与Solana的真正差异

I've always wanted to write this article. I've been thinking about these issues since I made an in-depth study a year ago and its centralized source at the level. Generally speaking, in my opinion, we seek to achieve better scalability and composability by shifting costs to teams and infrastructure providers rather than users. This is also the source of the value flywheel. If the goal of the chain is low cost, then the token value proposition cannot be a transaction. Cost This is in contrast to the Ethereum. The value flywheel of Ethereum comes from the fact that users need to pay and burn part of each transaction, which makes users pay a high price, but it is good for the holders. On the other hand, you need some kind of value proposition, otherwise your chain will not be able to guarantee security. How to solve this problem? Charge the state rent, that is, the team charges the verifier a voting fee, that is, the verifier must pay to vote on the block. These two characteristics that cannot be found in Ethereum create extra. To some extent, the value driving force offsets the demand from the lack of transaction costs and alleviates some security problems, such as state inflation. Both of these problems tend to limit the fixed cost growth of decentralization as verifiers or restrict autonomy. Because of the invariance of state rent and the difficulty of coordinating payment between communities and developers, the first problem has been pointed out in his wonderful article on, and we have seen at least one problem. During the bear market, the team gave up their problem of putting aside token economics and hardware requirements for efficient verifiers. However, although this is a problem that is constantly emphasized, it is not a centralized problem. Verifiers are decentralized, and how smart contracts work and the ensuing centralized trust problems. Contracts use a literal chain inheritance structure, such as all sub-contracts of the main contract controlled by multiple signatures, which will have obvious trust problems, but this model also has some benefits. It makes the creation of a new contract standard an entrepreneurial activity and reduces the due diligence burden of users. By the way, it is no longer necessary to check the deployment of a single token contract. By the way, this sum model also shows that sometimes the cost is hidden. If there are too many rent-seekers, the user cost may increase, which provides some opportunities in this area structurally, while Ethereum does not have the possibility to tax transactions forever. At the same time, it is cool to make users cheaper and the overall cost is lower, but these reduced costs are passed on to. The team maintains data by paying, which means that it may not pass the Bahamas test just like the state rent problem. If it is more concentrated than Ethereum, it is a huge mistake. This is not a decentralization problem, but an autonomy problem, that is, the review resistance. Ethereum is designed at least in theory to achieve immutable autonomy and review resistance, and correspondingly charges users a high fee, but it is cheap because it transfers more security costs. Marrying a verifier and a provider will generally make it more difficult to minimize trust from the team. The economic scale effect of verification that affects autonomy should be at least greater than that of Ethereum verifiers. In addition, we only care about decentralization because it limits autonomy, so the real problem of high-performance hardware requirements is that verification may be limited to complex data centers that are vulnerable to attacks or seizure, which may lead to censorship. If you believe in the uniqueness of blockchain, The special selling point is anti-censorship autonomy, so it is still a better choice because it is more suitable for the unique purpose served by blockchain. However, what if Ethereum is not very good at anti-censorship? What if Ethereum is not very autonomous in fact? Ultimately, the basis of autonomy in the system is the willingness of the community and the willingness of those verifiers who conduct censorship. Unfortunately, recently, when it comes to other aspects, Ethereum has not shown great determination to impose social sanctions on the business reality. But you are not only a sanction verifier, but also many innocent customers who use pledge as a service will be affected if the verifier is many institutions. So how many Ethereum developers will really sanction millions of dollars of customers comfortably socially because they abide by the smart contract reviewed by the law? I seem to doubt this, and I now advocate privacy pools. 比特币今日价格行情网_okx交易所app_永续合约_比特币怎么买卖交易_虚拟币交易所平台

注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群

文章转载注明 网址：https://netpsp.com/?id=62695