Polkadot proposes countermeasures: how to solve blockchain management problems
Who has the power to change the public blockchain? This issue has been plagued by top cryptocurrency developers because many available networks are struggling to serve the various and often conflicting token holders in the network. However, this does not mean that there is no normative and best-known sample of blockchain management. Usually, the developers who are writing the code and the computer or node where the code is installed will split around who will perform the software change. .
However, Ethereum cofounder Gavin Wood, one of the leaders of the upcoming blockchain interoperability agreement Polkadot, is using a new blockchain version to change the status of chain management, which directly manages Grant the holder of tokens.
Polkadot's token Dot was sold last year. The blockchain allows its token holders to vote directly to a piece of code, and the code selected after the vote is automatically upgraded to the entire network. This is a way to bypass developers and nodes. This approach is certainly controversial, but its advocates believe that this approach is much more powerful than the services currently available on most blockchains . .
Peter Szaban, head of the Web3 Foundation supporting Polkadot's research and development, told CoinDesk:
The developers originally proposed that the purpose of Polkadot's management must be to try to address the shortcomings of many existing blockchains, because it is these shortcomings that ultimately lead to the formation of a community deadlock and continued fragmentation.
Taking a step back, taking into account the tension brought about by the negative review of the validity of the Ethereum process caused by the restoration of funds, management issues are still at the forefront of Ethereum today.
Gavin Wood said in an interview:
We may have solved the consensus issue on the chain, but we haven't solved the consensus on the blockchain.
Since Parity's fund was frozen in November last year (about 176 million U.S. dollars worth of Polkadot tokens were sold), efforts to recover and redistribute funds have basically been silenced. According to Wood, part of the reason is that the team does not have a clear process to measure and deal with those controversial changes.
Wood said to CoinDesk:
The challenges we have faced recently in the governance of Ethereum have shown that regardless of the specific feelings of community members, it is important to change any irregular agreement to have a clear process, because these updated agreements can add new features or It is to fix the vulnerability.
Explain Polkadot's chain management process
We need to let everyone understand the related concepts of Polkadot's governance methods.
In the long-awaited blockchain blockchain, every change to the protocol, even minor changes, must be voted. This process is actually a Dot holder's vote on a piece of code.
Czaban explained:
It is possible for Dot holders to directly vote for a new piece of code. This new piece of code is used to replace the previous code so that it can eliminate any form of ambiguity.
These voters work with a committee to make rights, and the committee can stop malicious proposals, thus preventing the imbalance of voting results caused by the absence of a large number of token holders. Then, Polkadot's codebase will change only if most people vote.
Due to the differences between Polkadot and those more traditional blockchains, let's look at the differences in which aspects of the performance.
Polkadot will not use nodes. Instead, they are "validator", "nominators", "collators" and "fishermen". Each component is protected in a different way. Network.
Although there are some structures in this blockchain that resemble typical blockchain nodes, the technical nature of Polkadot - the core of the code is custom - ensures that they are not responsible for accepting changes.
Wood said:
Verifiers have no way to stop their personal disagreement with code changes, and they have no control over the web.
According to Czaban, adding the rights of Dot token holders in this framework is a practical choice, and he also stressed that this is an option that can constantly change evolution in the future. He said:
There may be many different potential stakeholders involved in Polkadot's ecosystem, but token holders are the only quantifiable stakeholders we can handle.
Controversy over Token Holders
Due to the above analysis, effective distribution of tokens has become a major factor in avoiding controversy.
In October last year, half of the Dot tokens were sold, and the remaining tokens were distributed on the Web3 basis, and 20% of the tokens would be used for subsequent distribution.
Due closely linked network control and token distribution method, and therefore there must be a certain election commission has the power to veto the code change, Ethernet Square developers Vlad Zamfir told CoinDesk, he will be how this idea in practice Operation is doubtful. He said:
I'm not an expert on the Polkadot management model, but I've had enough to be completely rejected.
At last week's Ethereum community meeting, Zamfir demonstrated his ongoing chain management research, which is a key investigation to build Ethereum's equity certification agreement - Casper.
Zamfir made outspoken criticism of the so-called "chain management". He wrote that the automated decision-making method negates the important role of the node operator, and therefore "this runs counter to the spirit of the public blockchain."
In an email to CoinDesk, Zamfir explains:
I don't believe in token holders, and I don't think they will be more clearly responsible for chain management than other community members.
However, Wood did not waver. He told CoinDesk that the holders of tokens had enough economic incentives to take action in order to maximize the benefits of the Internet. Wood said:
Token holders have clear and great incentives to do things that are good for the network, which means that the price of their tokens will be further raised. At the same time, it is unreasonable to think that those node operators are experts in agreement changes.
a good start
Although this management approach has been controversial, Polkadot's management approach has been designed so that it can be easily adapted, and this is where its creators regard Polkadot as an important asset. Czaban said to CoinDesk:
This is a very pragmatic proposal. We can use existing things to do something and we can also realize some ideas.
Although the token holder is the most easily quantified management participant, the management process may be extended to others in the future. Czaban continued:
People have more research and understanding of different management mechanisms (we may belong to different stakeholders).
The Web3 Foundation will also support the next meeting of the Ethereum Magicians held in Berlin in July. The conference is being promoted by a group of Ethereum developers who are trying to redefine the process of platform change.
Czaban said:
We are indeed very interested in trying to delve into the topic of blockchain management. We need to start experimenting and start making very specific recommendations. At the same time, this proposal seems to us to be a good start.
However, Ethereum cofounder Gavin Wood, one of the leaders of the upcoming blockchain interoperability agreement Polkadot, is using a new blockchain version to change the status of chain management, which directly manages Grant the holder of tokens.
Polkadot's token Dot was sold last year. The blockchain allows its token holders to vote directly to a piece of code, and the code selected after the vote is automatically upgraded to the entire network. This is a way to bypass developers and nodes. This approach is certainly controversial, but its advocates believe that this approach is much more powerful than the services currently available on most blockchains . .
Peter Szaban, head of the Web3 Foundation supporting Polkadot's research and development, told CoinDesk:
The developers originally proposed that the purpose of Polkadot's management must be to try to address the shortcomings of many existing blockchains, because it is these shortcomings that ultimately lead to the formation of a community deadlock and continued fragmentation.
Taking a step back, taking into account the tension brought about by the negative review of the validity of the Ethereum process caused by the restoration of funds, management issues are still at the forefront of Ethereum today.
Gavin Wood said in an interview:
We may have solved the consensus issue on the chain, but we haven't solved the consensus on the blockchain.
Since Parity's fund was frozen in November last year (about 176 million U.S. dollars worth of Polkadot tokens were sold), efforts to recover and redistribute funds have basically been silenced. According to Wood, part of the reason is that the team does not have a clear process to measure and deal with those controversial changes.
Wood said to CoinDesk:
The challenges we have faced recently in the governance of Ethereum have shown that regardless of the specific feelings of community members, it is important to change any irregular agreement to have a clear process, because these updated agreements can add new features or It is to fix the vulnerability.
Explain Polkadot's chain management process
We need to let everyone understand the related concepts of Polkadot's governance methods.
In the long-awaited blockchain blockchain, every change to the protocol, even minor changes, must be voted. This process is actually a Dot holder's vote on a piece of code.
Czaban explained:
It is possible for Dot holders to directly vote for a new piece of code. This new piece of code is used to replace the previous code so that it can eliminate any form of ambiguity.
These voters work with a committee to make rights, and the committee can stop malicious proposals, thus preventing the imbalance of voting results caused by the absence of a large number of token holders. Then, Polkadot's codebase will change only if most people vote.
Due to the differences between Polkadot and those more traditional blockchains, let's look at the differences in which aspects of the performance.
Polkadot will not use nodes. Instead, they are "validator", "nominators", "collators" and "fishermen". Each component is protected in a different way. Network.
Although there are some structures in this blockchain that resemble typical blockchain nodes, the technical nature of Polkadot - the core of the code is custom - ensures that they are not responsible for accepting changes.
Wood said:
Verifiers have no way to stop their personal disagreement with code changes, and they have no control over the web.
According to Czaban, adding the rights of Dot token holders in this framework is a practical choice, and he also stressed that this is an option that can constantly change evolution in the future. He said:
There may be many different potential stakeholders involved in Polkadot's ecosystem, but token holders are the only quantifiable stakeholders we can handle.
Controversy over Token Holders
Due to the above analysis, effective distribution of tokens has become a major factor in avoiding controversy.
In October last year, half of the Dot tokens were sold, and the remaining tokens were distributed on the Web3 basis, and 20% of the tokens would be used for subsequent distribution.
Due closely linked network control and token distribution method, and therefore there must be a certain election commission has the power to veto the code change, Ethernet Square developers Vlad Zamfir told CoinDesk, he will be how this idea in practice Operation is doubtful. He said:
I'm not an expert on the Polkadot management model, but I've had enough to be completely rejected.
At last week's Ethereum community meeting, Zamfir demonstrated his ongoing chain management research, which is a key investigation to build Ethereum's equity certification agreement - Casper.
Zamfir made outspoken criticism of the so-called "chain management". He wrote that the automated decision-making method negates the important role of the node operator, and therefore "this runs counter to the spirit of the public blockchain."
In an email to CoinDesk, Zamfir explains:
I don't believe in token holders, and I don't think they will be more clearly responsible for chain management than other community members.
However, Wood did not waver. He told CoinDesk that the holders of tokens had enough economic incentives to take action in order to maximize the benefits of the Internet. Wood said:
Token holders have clear and great incentives to do things that are good for the network, which means that the price of their tokens will be further raised. At the same time, it is unreasonable to think that those node operators are experts in agreement changes.
a good start
Although this management approach has been controversial, Polkadot's management approach has been designed so that it can be easily adapted, and this is where its creators regard Polkadot as an important asset. Czaban said to CoinDesk:
This is a very pragmatic proposal. We can use existing things to do something and we can also realize some ideas.
Although the token holder is the most easily quantified management participant, the management process may be extended to others in the future. Czaban continued:
People have more research and understanding of different management mechanisms (we may belong to different stakeholders).
The Web3 Foundation will also support the next meeting of the Ethereum Magicians held in Berlin in July. The conference is being promoted by a group of Ethereum developers who are trying to redefine the process of platform change.
Czaban said:
We are indeed very interested in trying to delve into the topic of blockchain management. We need to start experimenting and start making very specific recommendations. At the same time, this proposal seems to us to be a good start.
