Top Tweets for #ObjectChain

BTC & ETH could adopt the best scaling technologies, but that is not happening Instead, they deny the tech even though it is groundbreaking! From parallelization, sharding, DAG, ZK & modular scaling! As these five scaling methods are inevitable the future of cryptocurrency: 🧵 Parallelization: Allows all computer cores/threads to be used in parallel, utilizing processing power that would otherwise be wasted. As all modern computers today are multi-core & parallelization can take advantage of that fact. It is pathetic that BTC & ETH are mostly single-threaded & that there are no efforts underway to change that. That is why all chains should implement this tech, as the trade-offs are negligible. Prominent examples include SOL, APT, SUI & SEI. Sharding: Takes this principle of concurrency a step further & splits the workload not only within a single computer to utilize multiple cores but also between multiple distinct machines/parties. This allows for true horizontal scaling; as with this technology, you can feasibly increase capacity without increasing node requirements. This is why I consider sharded chains to have effectively solved the classical blockchain scaling dilemma. The primary trade-off compared to a purely parallelized chain is that cross-shard messaging sacrifices some speed, as it adds a few seconds to confirmation times. I would also include enshrined roll-ups within this category, as they are functionally the same. Prominent examples of sharded chains are: TON, NEAR, EGLD & XTZ. Direct Acyclic Graph (DAG): Instead of a chain of blocks, or in the case of sharding; multiple chains, DAGs visually more closely resemble a tree-like structure with multiple branches. This tech is theoretically capable of "infinite" scalability & is also very fast. Still, it comes with other major trade-offs, such as an inability to track a single composable state. It is possible to "enshrine" some branches, fixing this issue (FTM's solution). However, in that case, you end up with some of the same limitations compared to a non-DAG structure. Some prominent examples of DAGs include: AVAX's X-chain, FTM, KAS & NANO. Zero Knowlege (ZK): Uses cutting-edge cryptography to drastically increase efficiency by only putting the proofs into the chain instead of all the data. This breakthrough has massive potential to revolutionize the blockchain scaling field, as it also solves the blockchain scaling trilemma. However, we are still very early in the development process; as far as I am aware, not a single L1 has fully implemented this tech. There are L2s such as Matic's ZKEVM, but it only posts the proofs to ETH & does not actually use it for consensus, so it is not strictly speaking an L1 scaling solution. ETH researchers have been investigating the possibility of fully implementing a native ETH ZKEVM, but if it is ever released, this will take at least five years. This is because using ZK as an L1 scaling solution still depends on either cryptography or hardware breakthroughs, as the compute time is still far too long for it to be used as a true scaling solution today. Modular (L2): Also splits the workload between multiple chains; however, unlike sharding, the additional chains can have their own rules in modular scaling. This is why this type of scaling can be seen as a form of heterogonous sharding, as opposed to homogeneous sharding (what we covered earlier). However, for the sake of clarity, I refer to this as modular scaling here. As it is a distinctly different approach, opting for the market to build out these additional chains on top instead of it all being part of the core protocol. The trade-off here is fragmentation, to what degree depends on the implementation details. To highlight the importance of these details; I am not even putting ETH style "L2 scaling" into this category, as it lacks a common interoperability protocol. Even though "L2 scaling" is technically a form of modular "scaling"; it fails so spectacularly in that goal that I do not consider it a legitimate scaling tech at all, explaining the use of quotation marks in this case. Unlike chains that were designed from the ground up with a modular scaling approach in mind; as such chains are, in fact, much closer to achieving the goal of true scalability. Because, ETH now faces major coordination problems in attempting to implement specific major changes at such an advanced stage, such as shared sequencing, something that true modular chains have already built in from the beginning. However, even with a seamless interoperability protocol and potentially even shared security, there is still a UX trade-off compared to a homogeneous sharded chain. It is nowhere near as bad as "L2 scaling," but it is still not insignificant. Because these different chains can have different rule sets, which therefore require additional input from users, as some of these rules can be detrimental. This is what makes the UX worse, as users do need to be aware of what chain they are in, unlike sharding. However, DOT's research into "accords" could lessen some of these pain points in the future. Prominent examples of modularly scaled chains include DOT, ATOM, AVAX & ICP. Conclusion: There are many ways that blockchains can scale; making the future of cryptocurrency incredibly bright. As long as we acknowledge that progress is being made & do not resort to tribalisticly defending outdated technology. That is what makes BTC's & ETH's refusal to implement any of these technologies so damning. Especially when core developers claim that on-chain scaling is impossible, using that claim to justify the no-scaling or "L2 scaling" path. All while there are hundreds of chains proving them wrong every single day, that is necessarily the false assumption that "L2 scaling" is built upon. Even though this list covers 99% of cases, let me know what methods I missed; if you can think of a unique scaling tech (broadly speaking) that this list does not cover, then please respond with a comment below! Hope you found this informative & remember: Scalability is worthless without decentralization & the reverse is also true!