Ethereum co-founder Joseph Lubin: EOS is too central, only Ethereum can be used as a global settlement

According to Trustnodes' April 6 report, Joseph Lubin, founder of ConsenSys and co-founder of Ethereum, gave a speech at the Deconomy conference.

In the speech, Joseph Lubin elaborated on Ethereum's vision as a global settlement, and in the process Ethereum will eliminate the existing closed wall (also known as walled garden or closed ecosystem, which is a software system). In this system, the carrier or service provider will control the application, content and media, and limit access to unauthorized applications or content. This type of platform is in stark contrast to the open platform, open On the platform, users often have unlimited access to applications and content.

(Source: trustnodes )

The following is part of the speech.

• Viewpoint | Vitalik: Radical Market, ZK, Privacy and more
• Talk about (public key) cryptography entry materials
• The crisis of money: What is the meaning of understanding? What is the relationship with Bitcoin?

People's reliance on any centralized trust will allow certain intermediaries to get a lot of value from the transaction. But the trust revolution will change everything that exists.

The trust characteristic of a blockchain is derived from its degree of decentralization. Even if up to half of the nodes are malicious, some blockchain networks cannot be mishandled or deceived.

Centralized closed platform is not conducive to ordinary users

Settlement is the act of completing a transaction or transaction. In stock or stock trading, settlement between brokerage clients can occur at the brokerage level, while other types of settlements may need to occur at the base level.

Around the world, these foundations are called centralized depositories. In South Korea, it is the Korean Securities Depository.

In fact, there is no globally unified financial system. The current financial system is a closed system of its own: brokerage firms serving in different jurisdictions, central savings institutions in various countries, and banks. Take the example of a bank. If a bank wants to handle business and complete transactions nationwide, it needs to enter the closed platform from its own closed platform through correspondent banks and related relationships.

Similar settlement mechanisms exist on all platforms outside the financial industry. Ebay, PayPal, MasterCard and Amazon can be viewed as a clearing platform for certain transactions. Google Play and Apple's App Store can also be used as a billing platform. Of course, there are travel websites and so on.

The main concern of these platforms is not how to bring more benefits to consumers, but to find ways to maximize the value of users. These platforms will protect the pricing power of their products, limit the user's freedom of use, and choose as a priority for their consideration.

It can be said that the traditional economy is equivalent to creating the deepest and widest moat, which protects competitive enterprises.

Service providers such as software and game developers, doctors, musicians, teachers, and Uber drivers are also experiencing attacks on these platforms in their respective industries.

For decades, software developers have had to deal with platforms such as AOL, CompuServe, Windows, Mac, and now closed platform networks: iOS, various Android, Facebook, App Store, and Google Play.

In the game field, the platform on which the game depends, that is, their settlement layer has always been private, which makes the game studio very vulnerable.

From the platform's rise and dominate the console wars, to Facebook to push the game developers out of the market by changing the platform's economic and data access methods, and now to the application store that plays the same powerful intermediary role, we see A series of problems brought about by centralization.

Throughout history, in order for users to get more benefits, they must pay a price. Currently on some blockchain platforms, developers can deploy or use software in seconds without paying a few cents. It can be said that there was a breeze in the hot summer. Ethereum allows development studios to bring their own scalable solutions, such as Loom or Axie Infinity, which can be anchored to the Ethereum blockchain: this is a completely decentralized platform, and the user is all it is. By.

IBM Fabric, Corda is not the best choice for the global settlement layer

Suppose we think that freedom, choice, and trust maximization are good things. So what is the best choice for a global settlement that we can build on our industry and collective efforts?

Maybe IBM Fabric? No, in my opinion, IBM Fabric is unlikely to have any development beyond the relatively small private and licensed system network. Fabric can issue a pass, but only for limited circumstances. Fabric's technology facilitates the locking of the platform.

R3's Corda is a blockchain-inspired software that is primarily used in the banking industry. It gives more peer-to-peer trust than shared trust. Corda can issue a pass, but it is limited to a limited number of circumstances, and Corda as a technology also promotes the platform's locking capabilities.

EOS is not so decentralized, it has a lot of problems

What about EOS? As people have been arguing, a platform dominated by 21 large cryptocurrencies is less decentralized. If these super nodes are willing, they can collude and review the blockchain. In addition, the government and other resource-rich participants can bribe these super nodes or force them to violate their will, ultimately affecting the interests and security of the platform users.

Some people may say that if these super nodes do not perform well, they will be voted out, which is the main reason for the decentralization of the system. But unfortunately, for anyone, they don't have a good way to find out if these super nodes are colluding with each other, or have been corrupted, or forced to take some inappropriate action.

If the game field uses EOS as a platform, I believe that games with high value certificates will not choose EOS, because it is really easy to get stolen on this platform.

The Polkadot team is strong but is a highly controlled blockchain

The Polkadot system is built by Parity (the developer of the Parity Ethereum client). Parity is a very strong team.

Polkadot will achieve its scalability through a main chain (Relay Chain) and multiple parallel chains (parachains). At the same time, Polkadot plans to launch its relay chain mechanism in the third quarter of 2019.

Polkadot believes that through the bridge, Ethereum can be connected to the trunk chain of Polkadot to pass the data or information on the Ethereum to other parallel chains. In addition to Ethereum, existing blockchains can be connected to the Polkadot network via a transfer bridge.

Any parallel chain, like the trunk chain connected to Polkadot, must be voted by the holder of the DOT (Polkadot System Pass). In addition, holders of these DOTs may choose to suspend the parallel chains or remove the parallel chains from the system when they are deemed to be inconsistent with the wishes of the majority.

In fact, this is a licensed system, and whitelisting and blacklisting the entire parallel chain network is the core principle of the Polkadot chain governance system.

We can imagine a parallel chain that can choose not to allow anyone to upload Dapp, but ultimately the holder of the DOT may object to this and ultimately make a decision. Therefore, for a parallel chain, providing such a policy may be too dangerous.

Polkadot is likely to be a licensed, highly controlled blockchain platform.

Cosmos and Dfinity lack flexibility, Ethereum will be the best choice for the global settlement layer

Cosmos also has a very strong development team, but it does not really propose a basic layer of trust, it seems to be more focused on allowing different independent platforms to interoperate in parallel. And in the next few years, there seems to be little interoperability between platforms, except that the pass can be freely transmitted over network boundaries.

The Cosmos team believes that the transfer of the pass will be the primary, or most important, interoperability use case. I hope Cosmos has a good practical value as a second-tier solution that links to the underlying trust layer when necessary. Cosmos also hopes to connect with Ethereum through a universal bridge.

Dfinity has a very strong team. At present, because Dfinity is a closed system controlled by a small number of investors and holders of the license, although these people said that they will open source projects, it is hard to say that in my opinion they are not interested in whether the project is open source or not. As a global foundation of trust and agreement, it is more like a decentralized alternative to AWS.

In the end, Dfinity seems unlikely to be the basic trust layer of the world, because it and Costa Rsmos's basic design choice will ban this. Both Dfinity and Cosmos prefer security or consistency, not usability and flexibility.

Therefore, I admit that perhaps my opinion is somewhat biased, but as a layer of trust, that is, the Earth's global settlement layer currently has only one viable option, then Ethereum.

We will continue to update Blocking; if you have any questions or suggestions, please contact us!