Blockchain 3.0 = DAG??

[ccryptopark]

Will crypto currencies based on DAG replace blockchain ?  Hard to say.  Although there are obvious advantages when it comes to these DAG systems, they are still far from being a popular alternative, and very few projects are working on it.  Nevertheless, these projects have earned their place in the cryptosphere, especially IOTA, the incoming top-15 crypto currency by market capitalization.

I agree with this. I am very interested in seeing how ITC does with DAG. The tech sounds pretty revolutionary to me. They'll certainly be one of the first to do it.

[1714935215]

1714935215

[1714935215]

1714935215

[1714935215]

1714935215

[Harding Young]

I don't think so.
Blockchain 3.0 = Data + Smartcontract + Cloud None + Open Chaine Access + Blocklet => The presentative is Arcblock.
ARCBLOCK is born to support the blockchain rather than to compete. So this will be a potential project in 2018

[elite2291]

I think in a few years time, DAG will rule the blockchain world. By just looking at what they're working on, this is going to revolutionize the industry. Smaller transactions being able to be facilitated will make projects and their tokens can be used for every day transactions. ITC is very underrated and I plan on buying more. Wouldn't want to miss out on this one

[jack107]

I've been looking into DAG these pst few months and wow. What a technology to get behind. ITC is a good project but more importantly fills a huge need in the market.

[wattcrypto]

dag is the way forward. I think itc will be the first to utilize it well and create the standard

[jjbanks994]

itc is a hidden gem that I suggest everyone jump on.

[awilliams]

Do you guys think DAG will replace ALL blockchains in the future? I'm curious

[singlecrytpo]

dag+pbft consensus is going to change the game. ready for the ITC ride this year. even crypto lark is going to make a video about them

[tonych]

DAG is certainly not Blockchain 3.0, it is not blockchain either.

In fact, there are fundamental differences between DAG and blockchain. Blockchain users only create transactions but have to rely on block producers to add them to the ledger, while DAG users both create transactions and add them to the ledger with no middlemen involved.

This leads to vastly different distribution of power in DAG vs blockchain. One of my recent articles discusses this issue:

https://blog.obyte.org/distribution-of-power-in-dags-and-blockchains-7727ca1a2b6d

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

DAG is certainly not Blockchain 3.0, it is not blockchain either.

In fact, there are fundamental differences between DAG and blockchain. Blockchain users only create transactions but have to rely on block producers to add them to the ledger, while DAG users both create transactions and add them to the ledger with no middlemen involved.

This leads to vastly different distribution of power in DAG vs blockchain. One of my recent articles discusses this issue:

Obyte (Byteball) is DAG project and it does not require mining equipments, electricity to mine blocks and confirm transactions. I care about security of DAG technology and would you mind explaining how DAG can provide a safer technology for users than Proof of Work, Proof of Stake and other algorithms, please.

It is more convenient, more environmental-friendly but how about security?

Any chance to revert its transactions and attack DAG network?

How many confirmations for a transaction by DAG network can be considered as safe?

With Bitcoin transactions, many platforms use 3 confirmations.

[tonych]

DAG is certainly not Blockchain 3.0, it is not blockchain either.

In fact, there are fundamental differences between DAG and blockchain. Blockchain users only create transactions but have to rely on block producers to add them to the ledger, while DAG users both create transactions and add them to the ledger with no middlemen involved.

This leads to vastly different distribution of power in DAG vs blockchain. One of my recent articles discusses this issue:

Obyte (Byteball) is DAG project and it does not require mining equipments, electricity to mine blocks and confirm transactions. I care about security of DAG technology and would you mind explaining how DAG can provide a safer technology for users than Proof of Work, Proof of Stake and other algorithms, please.

It is more convenient, more environmental-friendly but how about security?

Any chance to revert its transactions and attack DAG network?

How many confirmations for a transaction by DAG network can be considered as safe?

With Bitcoin transactions, many platforms use 3 confirmations.

Good question.  In DAGs, every transaction includes hashes of one or more previous transactions.  This makes it impossible to rewrite history and revert previous transactions.

There is no such thing as "how many confirmations" in a DAG.  Once the order of a transaction has been established, it is final.

[vectisitch]

Couple of years ago there was a new Eth alternative called Helios Protocol. It was dag based and each and every wallet had it's own parellel blockchain all connected by DAG. It had massive scalability and even had the possibility for web sites to be hosted on the chain,making ddos impossible ect ect. No one was interested and the dev just lost interested and gave up. Real shame but imo new tech is viewed suspiciously and the eth fan boys would never be persuaded. How are those fan boys getting on now eh??
The code is public so maybe a dev can go look at the github and maybe take it on??

[ryzaadit]

I have a good experience with one of the coin who have "DAG" system.

NANO is my coin a long time ago, but before they using "NANO" as the name of their current is actually named as "Raiblock (XRB)". It's really fund and easily to transaction + cheaper and fast without needed to wait the miners.

But, they using a system 1 transaction for 1 block. Most hating part is keeping the wallet update ~LOL even they provided updating with download mechanism from their site but still is take a lot time for me.

[Abiky]

Lol are you shilling for IoT Chain? DAG is not blockchain and blockchain is not DAG. DAG was working on the different system that has been used the server to validating the transaction. That's obviously centralized coin if the server managed by the developer itself.


instead call DAG as blockchain 3.0 and i was saying if that was another bullshit.

Learn how DAG works and the difference with the blockchain.

Anything that's centralized is NOT a blockchain. It's simply a distributed database controlled by single entity. IOTA, and most other DAG-based cryptocurrencies are centralized by design. They're just like Ripple's "XRP" cryptocurrency (even though this one doesn't use a DAG). Why would you want speed and cost-efficiency when you're missing the most important thing (which is security/reliability)?

I guess that's why DAG-based cryptocurrencies are below the top ranks in market cap. Solana which fares worst than the aforementioned coins, is still at the top because whales are keeping it that way. But it could die soon, if it continues to be an unreliable cryptocurrency for mainstream payments. I think Blockchain 3.0 will consist of L2 scaling solutions, ZK-Proofs, and cross-chain transactions. The rest is just noise. Who knows what the future holds for the industry? Just my opinion

[tonych]

I have a good experience with one of the coin who have "DAG" system.

NANO is my coin a long time ago, but before they using "NANO" as the name of their current is actually named as "Raiblock (XRB)". It's really fund and easily to transaction + cheaper and fast without needed to wait the miners.

But, they using a system 1 transaction for 1 block. Most hating part is keeping the wallet update ~LOL even they provided updating with download mechanism from their site but still is take a lot time for me.

I'm glad that you had good experience with Nano, however note that Nano is not really a DAG.  A majority of Nano's Representatives can collude to censor someone's transactions -- simply by not voting for them.  Like block producers in blockchains, Representatives are powerful -- every transaction needs their approval to be added to the ledger.  In a DAG, as noted in this article, users have the power to directly add transactions to the ledger.

[tonych]

...
IOTA, and most other DAG-based cryptocurrencies are centralized by design.
...

I guess the damage made by IOTA to the DAG space is still felt.

No, other DAG based ledgers are not necessarily centralized by design. As my article argues, the right DAGs are even more decentralized (in terms of distribution of power) than blockchains.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

Anything that's centralized is NOT a blockchain. It's simply a distributed database controlled by single entity. IOTA, and most other DAG-based cryptocurrencies are centralized by design. They're just like Ripple's "XRP" cryptocurrency (even though this one doesn't use a DAG). Why would you want speed and cost-efficiency when you're missing the most important thing (which is security/reliability)?

I guess that's why DAG-based cryptocurrencies are below the top ranks in market cap. Solana which fares worst than the aforementioned coins, is still at the top because whales are keeping it that way. But it could die soon, if it continues to be an unreliable cryptocurrency for mainstream payments. I think Blockchain 3.0 will consist of L2 scaling solutions, ZK-Proofs, and cross-chain transactions. The rest is just noise. Who knows what the future holds for the industry? Just my opinion

Is it different than centralization of Ethereum and Binance Smart Chain networks?

Other smart contract networks are centralized too and they can be stopped anytime by their teams like Terra, Solana when problems occur. I agree that it is hard to have decentralized networks for alternative cryptocurrency and impossible to have another decentralized network like Bitcoin network.

People want to have decentralization and say this project, that project is bad because its network is so centralized. However they are really ready to use Ethereum, its network, ready to use centralized exchanges when they see benefit.

They are easily to ignore risk when they see profits are bigger.

I guess there are other reasons make DAG-based projects don't have good adoption and don't attract investors.

[RealMalatesta]

Advantages include quick transactions, no mining required, and can handle small payments. I've been getting into projects that include DAG networks such as IoT Chain because I truly believe the future of blockchain will be DAG.

No mining required? Then who will be keep running their wallets or full nodes to make transactions travelling from one peer to another? In a decentralized environment, you cannot expect volunteers to contribute consistently which is the reason mining was introduced. We may assume that out of tens of thousands of people, at least some 10% will open and run their wallet which will be enough to transmit a transaction but there will be no guarantee that to happen all the times. For a working system, we need assured contribution which ended up as incentivized mining.

I am not believing into blockchain 2 or blockchain 3; honestly what were the projects which were based on blockchain 2? They are still successful and up till date?

[Abiky]

I guess the damage made by IOTA to the DAG space is still felt.

No, other DAG based ledgers are not necessarily centralized by design. As my article argues, the right DAGs are even more decentralized (in terms of distribution of power) than blockchains.

If I'm not mistaken, DAGs don't have any sort of incentivization mechanism. Without rewarding the validators' hard work and effort, how could we expect underlying cryptocurrencies using the tech to remain decentralized? IOTA announced its intentions to become decentralized by removing the "Coordinator" on the "Tangle" chain, but I'm yet to see how that would work in the long run. There doesn't seem to be much interest into DAG-based cryptocurrencies among investors and traders alike, so it's likely they will fade away into oblivion soon. With L2 scaling solutions, Sharding, and ZK-Proofs, who needs DAGs anyways? Just my opinion

[tonych]

I guess the damage made by IOTA to the DAG space is still felt.

No, other DAG based ledgers are not necessarily centralized by design. As my article argues, the right DAGs are even more decentralized (in terms of distribution of power) than blockchains.

If I'm not mistaken, DAGs don't have any sort of incentivization mechanism.

I cannot speak for all DAGs but Obyte DAG has.

Without rewarding the validators' hard work and effort, how could we expect underlying cryptocurrencies using the tech to remain decentralized?

Validation is not such a hard work.
Making sure that transactions are valid before you accept them, or before you add your own on top of them, seems like a sufficient reason to validate.

IOTA announced its intentions to become decentralized by removing the "Coordinator" on the "Tangle" chain

They've been announcing that since 2017, maybe even 2016.

Again, don't take IOTA as a fair representative of DAG tech.

There doesn't seem to be much interest into DAG-based cryptocurrencies among investors and traders alike

Unfortunately that's true but we are here to build decentralized tech, not to be liked by investors and traders.  I believe they'll eventually catch up.

With L2 scaling solutions, Sharding, and ZK-Proofs, who needs DAGs anyways?

L2 scaling solutions, sharding, and ZK-Proofs are great, but they do not address the same problems that DAG does.