While blockchain technology is the core focus for the vast majority of both retailers and companies, there is a competing technology on the rise that is touted by some as the blockchain killer: the Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) structure.
DAG-based projects maintain the industry’s core concepts of decentralization and tokenization — but with a strong technological upgrade.
In this article, we take a deeper look at DAG structures, explore whether DAG-based networks really are a potential blockchain killer and what projects are using the technology for their decentralized projects.
Because of the DAG structure, block times aren’t required. This means that transactions can occur near-instantaneous. Moreover, the problem that blockchains face when two miners find a block at exactly the same time and multiple chains exist until consensus is reached on which blockchain to use and which to abandon, is not present in a DAG structure.
Due to this, DAG-based decentralized networks have a far larger scalability potential than blockchains do, which is important given the current scalability limitations of most large blockchain networks.
Moreover, they are far more energy-efficient than, for example, Bitcoin’s Proof of Work whilst maintaining fully decentralized and thus maintaining the high levels of security enabled by decentralization. There is also no possibility for a 51% attack.
2018/11/30: Though Blockchain has been touted as the answer to everything, a study of 43 solutions advanced in the international development sector has found exactly no evidence of success.
Three practitioners including erstwhile blockchain enthusiast John Burg, a Fellow at the US Agency for International Development (USAID), looked at instances of the distributed crypto ledger being used in a wide range of situations by NGOs, contractors and agencies. But they drew a complete blank.
"We found a proliferation of press releases, white papers, and persuasively written articles," Burg et al wrote on Thursday. "However, we found no documentation or evidence of the results blockchain was purported to have achieved in these claims. We also did not find lessons learned or practical insights, as are available for other technologies in development."
Blockchain vendors were keen to puff the merits of the technology, but when the three asked for proof of success in the field, it all went very quiet.
2018/10/23: The Digital Transformation Agency appears less than impressed with blockchain’s current capabilities after it was given $700,000 in budget funding to investigate the technology.
After its initial research, the federal government’s digital office has found that blockchain is at the “top of a hype cycle” and is currently less effective than other existing technologies in delivering government services.
It would be fair to say that a lot of the big vendors are pushing blockchain very hard and internationally most of the hype around blockchain is coming from vendors and companies, not from governments and users and deliverers of services.
2018/09/22: Satoshi built off the work of previous cryptographic researchers, including Wei Dai’s B-money, and Adam Back’s Hashcash. B-money and Hashcash were the first proof of work protocols in the world.
The bitcoin whitepaper outlines the proof of work system, discussing how one CPU would equal one vote. As long as the majority of CPUs were acting in the best interest of the network, then the network would stay secure. Those CPUs would be motivated to act in the best interests of the network because they receive a reward for doing so and because it costs money to provide proofs of work to the network. This basic, economic system of costs and rewards is what secures bitcoin.
Here’s how Satoshi explains it:
“What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions. The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.”
The network is also secured by a chain of linked signatures. Each block in the bitcoin blockchain contains a secure reference to the block before it and the block after it – a signature. In order to alter the bitcoin blockchain, a malicious actor would need an enormous amount of computing power to change all the blocks in the chain
Today, Bitcoin trades at around $6,500, and Ether at $204. Their combined market caps have shed about $300 billion in value.
That’s basically five Bernie Madoffs worth of losses.
The situation has put crypto investors in quite the bind. As one indicative example, The Wall Street Journal profiled wunderkind crypto investor Olaf Carlson-Wee, who founded Polychain Capital. The fund, which has seen dizzying growth over the past few years turning a few thousand dollars into tens of millions in returns, has lost about 40 percent of its $800 million in capital through investment losses and investor withdrawals.
It’s clear the second blockchain bubble is now complete (the first was the run-up in Bitcoin prices in 2013).
Blockchain’s story so far is the freakish combination of two narratives.
One side, a technology extraordinarily nascent, with limited use cases and almost no ability to scale. The other, a groundbreaking new technology that should be invested in immediately for maximum returns.
The simple answer is that the first is right, and the second is just too early. Much more development is needed to get blockchain where it needs to be, and much more analysis is going to have to be done to figure out where the investment returns are going to be. Search and social ended up being the killer apps for the internet, but the winners in those categories hardly emerged instantly.
2018/08/16: The vision is a radical departure from the one-person, one-vote, once-every-year-or-two trip to the ballot box we are familiar with—and by which, in Siri’s view, we are so ill-served. Users of Democracy.Earth’s one-size-fits-all governance platform—code-named Sovereign—would have infinite flexibility to vote on any kind of topic or person, whenever they log on. In the Democracy.Earth future, every day will be election day, and the ballot will include anything that enough of us think should be there.
In this perfect world, Siri argues, the supposedly unhackable and absolutely transparent blockchain will ensure that no centralized election authority is required to tabulate a vote, and no corrupt politician or gridlocked legislature can interfere with the popular mandate. But coming up with a superior form of voting technology is just the beginning; the larger, far more revolutionary goal is to devise a decentralized decisionmaking process that eliminates the necessity for any kind of central government at all.
“We are not in the business of selling e-voting machines or helping modernize governments with internet voting,” Siri says. “We want to empower people down to the individual level without asking for the permission of governments.”
The proposition that new solutions are necessary for our strange new world is hard to argue against. The problem lies in proving that something as complex as Democracy.Earth fixes more than it breaks.
What Siri seemed to be saying is that Sovereign isn’t really intended as a replacement for how the United States elects a president or California passes an initiative. Instead, it's really an exercise in figuring out how to use the blockchain to make group decisions in the crypto-digital domain. Sovereign, in other words, represents government of the crypto-people, by the crypto-people, and for the crypto-people.
2018/06/05: the recurring, “flow”, payments to miners for running the blockchain must be large relative to the one-off, “stock”, benefits of attacking it. This is very expensive! The constraint is softer (i.e., stock versus stock) if both (i) the mining technology used to run the blockchain is both scarce and non-repurposable, and (ii) any majority attack is a “sabotage” in that it causes a collapse in the economic value of the blockchain; however, reliance on non-repurposable technology for security and vulnerability to sabotage each raise their own concerns, and point to specific collapse scenarios. In particular, the model suggests that Bitcoin would be majority attacked if it became sufficiently economically important - e.g., if it became a “store of value” akin to gold - which suggests that there are intrinsic economic limits to how economically important it can become in the first place.
DRC produces roughly two thirds of the world's cobalt, whose price has soared by 180% in the past three years. On paper, this would mean that DRC is sitting on a gold mine, but the reality is slightly different. On the one hand, experts talk about supply shortage. But even more disturbing is the link between cobalt mining and child labor.
Children like Lukasa, 15, who begins his 12-hour shift at the mine at 5 a.m. every day. He walks for two hours to the mining site, before spending eight hours mining this grayish metal that keeps our phones (and lives) moving. On a good day, he makes $9. Little does he know about the multibillion-dollar scramble underway.
The demand for cobalt has only just begun. Cobalt is also crucial for the global transition to renewables. Each electric car will need over 1,000 times the amount of cobalt a smartphone does.
Companies and NGOs are far from finding a solution that would end child labor without taking away from thousands of families their only source of income. Some argue thatblockchain could be the solution.
Inquadrando il QR Code stampato sull'etichetta siamo in grado di conoscere tutta la vita del prodotto che stiamo acquistando, risalendo l'intera filiera fino allo scaffale.
The Ixo Foundation's "proof of impact" protocol wants to give investors knowledge that their money is working-and save organizations time and money in evaluating if their programs are working.
Cut through the tantalizing visions of cars with wallets trading with each other, and you'll find debates taking shape over nitty-gritty details.
Startups-and big companies like IBM and Walmart-are betting that blockchain technology will change how goods travel around the world.
2018/06/09: Blockchain is a promising technology that is still shock full of hype. Farming is a literally vital component of society that is in dire straits worldwide. What happens if the two try to work together?
The hype around blockchain is massive. To hear the blockchain hype train tell it, blockchain will now: What the heck is a blockchain, anyway? And can it really do all these things? Can blockchain
.. your whole current lifestyle, basically.
I am intrigued by blockchain technology and in the future use of smart contracts. Here, when I say "blockchain" I refer a secure, trustless,
Blockchain has become one of those buzzwords that commands attention and carries a powerful social glow, yet in the likes of similar buzzwords that have attained such a prized status, it has lost much of its meaning. Blockchain has become a catchall term for just about any digital ledger system regardless of crucial variations in its design. With so many blockchain projects ranging from social impact initiatives to opportunistic marketing ploys, it can be difficult to discern which projects hold real potential.
An article at CoinDesk this week provides an excellent example of such a case, describing how collaborative development and agreement on data and other standards will be essential before the securities industry buys into the concept of using blockchains to support trading. As noted in the article:
Agriculture reinvented through the blockchain
An inherent property of asymmetric cryptography is that it supports billions, trillions, quindecillion, accounts by johan-nygren