Parity runs a major client of ethereum, which is currently used by about 30% of the network, while ethereum Foundation managed Geth runs about 50% of the full node.
- Technical Guide | Polkadot Wave Card Chain: Building Pre-POC-3 on Substrate
- Technical Guide | A Brief Study of Cross-chain Communication
- 4D long text speaks through the Polkadot architecture
- Polkadot wave card chain: verifier node cloud deployment tutorial
- Popular science | Five differences between Cosmos and Polkadot
- Cosmos and Polkadot: Interoperability of blockchains
This means that Parity has a significant impact on the ethereum network because the two clients must agree, so the two teams must coordinate and agree on the proposal.
This can cause problems because Polkadot is almost a direct competitor of Ethereum.
It's designed a bit like ethereum 2.0, but in Polkadot, you can tweak some parameters instead of the same pieces.
Gavin Wood, who left the Ethereum Foundation in 2016 (pictured left), said that Polkadot will be launched in a certain final state by the end of 2019.
Wood said: "I won't call it 'dummy' or 'stage 0'."
The ethereum itself may exist as a parallel chain on Polkadot, but it must be connected through a bridge. It's unclear how the bridge will work, Wood said, and the end of the year will lack "peripheral and auxiliary materials; bridges, off-chain infrastructure, etc. They will be released when they are ready."
Designing a connection between two different chains in a trustless manner would be a breakthrough, so it is unclear whether the bridge is more like a trusted peg, but they plan to launch A smart contract parallel chain called Edgeware.
As a result, developers can quickly choose to wait for ethereum 2.0, or migrate to Polkadot to launch their own parallel chain (parachain), or build a dapp in one of the parachains.
Polkadot parallel chain release license issue
Starting the parallel chain requires permission from the Polkadot token holder. Maciej Hirsz of Parity Technologies says:
"We can't add an infinite number of parallel chains, so we have to deal with the parallel chains we add, which is all."
In ethereum 2.0, the number of initial fragments is fixed at 1024. It may increase in the future, but the design is not allowed.
Why is the Polkadot license required? There seems to be an attack vector in which the blockers in a parallel chain can influence the consensus of other parallel chains:
"If the consensus mechanism on the Polkadot parallel chain is variable, then a valid but 'collapsed' state on a parallel chain (for example, a dPOS parallel chain with reverse channel collusion or poor distribution) can be connected to other parallel chains, This will effectively damage the consensus values of other parallel chains.
The solution seems to be governing around parallel chain inclusions, but the downside is that it must be managed either passively, or after the destruction is completed, or actively remove the non-licensing features of the network."
This may be why building a parallel chain on Polkadot is not infinite and must be established with the consent of the dot holder.
This may be one of the reasons why some dapp developers want to stick to eth. There is also a built-in governance mechanism that has a committee similar to "power" that can overturn any proposal through consensus.
Three million ETH stakeholder issues
However, a bigger reason may be that in the past 2-3 years, Dapps at ICO in Ethereum may hold nearly 3 million Ethereum.
Aragon itself is Dapp, the fourth largest Ethereum holder. According to Santiment, there are currently 180,000 Ethereum squares.
This is worth about $22 million. If the ecosystem of Ethereum is improved in terms of utility, this number will be “easy” to double or even more.
In addition to being a leader in network effects, dapp development tools, usability tools, etc., this should be a big motivation to prioritize eth development.
This makes Ethereum the second largest community in the blockchain space, with a friendly and generally peaceful community. In Polkadot, at least from some developers, there seems to be a tendency to compete for victory or even provocation:
You will expect more humility in a new project, at least until you get enough attraction, you will become friends with this dominant network.
Instead, we have already said that this chain that does not exist will be better than other chains that do not exist.
This triggered a public relations fire, and you might think there would be water. Instead, we have Parity staff ridiculed very reasonable concerns that a competitor effectively has 30% of the "Board of Directors" seat. (Parity has 30% client share in Ethereum)
Worse. This is like Yahoo has a veto on Google. In fact, if this doesn't seem reasonable, Parity can't decide on any proposed changes, but they have to be prepared before the changes go into production. They have to generate code without bugs and they have to implement something.
For example, they don't work at all on the Beacon Chain. They must get a $5 million grant to develop eth2.0, although they were happy to fund self-financing primarily through venture capital.
Now with Polkadot, they want to get paid, and Parity doesn't clearly explain why they suddenly asked for the money, and they were happy to pay for it before, except for Parity's Pierre Krieger:
“Hiring a full-time developer, spending a few years building an Ethereum client is costly, and I’m not sure if we are losing money when we build pari-ethereum.”
They are now developing an Eth 2.0 implementation using the Substrate framework, but as many other eth 2.0 implementations have made some significant progress, it is unclear why limited resources are available to direct competitors.
For some people in this field, $5 million may not be much, but other projects have nothing, or much less, and these projects have made impressive progress in some cases.
However, in the final analysis, competition can only benefit the end user, but fair competition. Otherwise, unfair competition can cause considerable damage to end users, as unfair practices result in them not getting the best products.
On the other hand, the etheric body is decentralized, and without permission, everyone has a free choice. Parity can build or maintain any product or client they like, depending on whether everyone wants to use it.
Just as anyone can build a better client to run the web, the Ethereum Foundation can also develop a Polkadot client for free.
Why, this is a good question. Just like why Polkadot wants to maintain Parity customers, this is a good question. They even have Bitcoin and BCH customers. If you can let them run, why not influence other blockchain projects as much as possible?
to sum up
The number of parallel chains in Polkadot for a long time was limited and not unlimited. And any team wanting to build a parallel chain on Polkadot needs to be voted by the Dot holder, which determines that Polkadot is somewhat similar to IOS, which is somewhat closed system, compared to the open Polkadot of Ethereum and Cosmos. It is hard to say who to replace.
For many of the ICO projects in Ethereum in the past few years, they were injured with a lot of Ethereum coins. If they abandoned the Ethereum and built Dapp on Polkadot, it would cause the Ethereum to break down and cause their own hands. What about the loss of the Ethereum?
Will the Parity client of Ethereum, created by Gavin Wood's Parity Technologies, occupy 30% of Ethereum's share and threaten and affect Ethereum? William Circle believes that Gavin.Wood does not threaten Ethereum, and the Ethereum client out of the Ethereum Foundation and Parity client also needs other projects to build the Ethereum client to achieve the center. Chemical. For Parity, it contributed to Ethereum and also received the Ethereum Foundation's $5 million award, which also increased Parity's influence in the blockchain industry. If you are interested in Ethereum, you can also have a Polkadot client in the future. Users will choose who will use it. Instead, this competition is what our users like.
Is the two really a strong competitive relationship? To some extent yes. But some reasons are as mentioned in the article are the ridicule of some ignorant company employees on the other products, and some are caused by the media's turmoil in traffic, which many people think is a strong competitive relationship. The Williams Circle believes that both vitalik buterin and Gavin.Wood are using their own ideas to solve the problem of blockchain extensibility, interoperability and asset silos to help and promote the application and development of blockchains. All are worthy of respect. (William coin circle)