Reliability of Blockchain

In the future this blockchain will become the “head” of several blockchains. This blockchain will be the main one in the system, providing the maximum reliability, but for a cost: transactions fees will be higher and you will be forced to move to a cheaper (and less reliable) blockchain if your have little money on your account.

Does this matter much? If you are poor, will anyone want to break the cheap sidechain in order to steal from you?

Cheap sidechains may probably be somehow bound to regions: a separate shard for China, a shard for USA, a shard for UK, etc. This will make our financial system non-expensive for users and working fast.

This blockchain will be much more reliable that its predecessors such as Bitcoin and Ethereum: In these older chains if somebody seizes (or binds a trust with others) to control over a certain amount of a certain token (e.g. >50% of Bitcoins), the blockchain breaks.

The “smart” (scriptable) blockchains like Ethereum are in a big danger: them use only one cryptocurrency for funding transactions costs (hardware, network, electricity, and computer engineers), but indeed produce many other tokens. So the value of the blockchain may go up much faster than the cost of payments; so making it easier for big consorciums of thieves to seize control over operations, breaking the entire system. In this blockchain, on the contrary, every token has a value of being able to be used to fund transactional costs, so this problem is non-existing.

Moreover in the Ethereum’s system, even if there were no thieves, the cost of the transactions may go down too low, causing the system lose reliability, grow too big DB, slowing down operations, and even make the real-world price of “gas token” zero, making further transactions impossible, because the payment processors cannot work for free. Again, here we don’t have this trouble.

In our blockchain we will modify Uniswap/Blancer algorithm to make impossible the total monetary value (“market cap”) of a token to go above a certain threshold, making this attack impossible or much harder (TBD: research).

Yet another trouble with Ethereum is that they have no way to stop their DB to keep growing, until it will become so big, that the business will stop operating Ethereum transactions because of too high cost of disks to store it (or at least the price of transactions will become high). We, a future Polkadot parachain don’t have this trouble, because Polkadot’s engineers have already solved it. An even better solution is in considerations (TBD).

Victor Porton

By Victor Porton

I am the chief editor of this journal and creator of this site.

2 comments

  1. My system of paying scientists proportional to number of their citations can be easily exploited by paying writers to publish 1000000 scientific but meaningless (useless and not interesting) articles citing (directly or indirectly) exploiter’s article, and thus sucking money from the system. This makes my science salaries system meaningless.

    The solution is however easy: for example, we could take square root or even logarithm from the number of citations – make this attack not profitable.

    What to do for dependencies count for software packages? For that, it would be still profitable to attack… need to think.

    1. Square root has also the following consequences:

      – It gives priority to young scientists.

      – For senior scientists, it would be reasonable to get a degree based on citations count in my system. So, contrary to blockchain philosophy, it makes sense to collaborate with traditional academia.

      For software packages we need some form of peer review like scientific articles, to make forging the citations index harder.

Leave a Reply