Original link:
Original link:https://hackmd.io/@gavwood/HJrgddTxD
Translation: Phala Team
Translation: Phala Team
Recap:
Recap:
Obviously,
Obviously,avalanche protocol[1] The community seems to have some concerns about Polkadotmisunderstanding[2]. I hope this article can make everyone in the avalanche protocol understand.
about:
Polca has only 100 parachains (assuming these parachains correspond to 1000 nodes)
You only have 100 parachains (assuming that these parachains have 1000 nodes operating at high speed on the relay chain)
Polkadot is expected to have 1000 validators, I hope your staid consensus will work - so much time is not spent on consensus but on validating blocks
Even if 100 parachains are not a hard limit in themselves, in the final analysis each parachain needs someone to be a validator. This may be a hard limit, involving scalability. Perhaps Polkadot parachains can be a little more than 100 , but what’s the use, 100 application chains are really not too many”
The design expectation of Polkadot is,each blockAll can execute 100 parachains/parallel threads in parallel.
Regardless of the meaning of the abbreviation,GRANDPA[3] The consensus is not rigid. On the Kusama network with 400 validators, GRANDPA can achieve sub-second block confirmation speed. And thats just 400 validators. According to our calculation, 1000 verifiers are easy to achieve.
Given that the complexity of these core functions is currently within a controllable range, with the improvement of the network and the optimization of the development language, this number will definitely increase benignly after the threshold is lowered. By then, there will be far more than 1,000 validators and parachains with far more than 100 slots joining the Polkadot network.
about:
“node-to-node communication will become increasingly difficult, block sizes will increase, bandwidth requirements and processing requirements will increase, leading to centralization of node operators (like Solona)
The design of Polkadot is very clean, and there will be no subsystems (mainly the GRANDPA consensus and other parts that ensure availability) that will consume a lot of communication resources. The bandwidth requirements of these modules are also not high, either very low, or if they increase, they increase linearly. Maybe this does not guarantee 100% that all parachains are safe and sound, but we have reason to believe that Polkadots transaction throughput can increase over time.
It would be misleading to think that Avalanche, like Polkadot, allows any number of chains to be connected. Polkadot parachain slots (much like Eth2.0 sharding) mobilize the ability of the entire network to ensure security. While Avalanche may allow more chains to be connected (like Cosmos), these connected chains are generally far less secure than the central chain.
A useful cross-chain application should not worry about security risks at the consensus level when running cross-chain. This means it either runs on an extremely secure chain in the central part (only slightly more secure than our current solution), but is limited by efficiency; or allows inter-chain applications to only run on the least secure chain (There is a possibility of being attacked, so it is only slightly safer than our current sidechain bridging scheme).
Avalanche Protocol is not the first project to subvert the concept of scalable and many chains. A truly scalable consensus system should be able to perform state transitions with the same quality of security, while also being decentralized and Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT). If you can complete Turings complete state transition at a speed close to local computing like Polkadot, then you are really great.
Unfortunately, the avalanche protocol cannot currently do this.
about:
The confirmation time of the relay chain is 12-60 seconds. But it must be more than that, because the Fisherman node still has a challenge time, and the white paper says that it also takes 60 seconds.
Then their (referring to the Polkadot team) goal is 60 seconds (which is still very high). Its just that this may be adjusted through the Fisherman node (this is their trick, because they did not specify the block confirmation time of the Fisherman node). Therefore, although the probability is not high, the confirmed blocks may be reversed in GRANDPA (as mentioned in the video on Polkadot’s official website)
Parachain transaction confirmation takes about 60 seconds, which is a few seconds slower than the relay chain. But unlike bridge networks, cross-chain sharding is completely secure and zero-latency.
Judging from the recently released design update, we have introduced an explicit secondary confirmation mechanism from the validator module. Because we have introduced explicitly appointed secondary inspectors from the set of validators, fishermen are no longer required to obtain our baseline security guarantees (see Section 4.4.2, “Effectiveness and Availability” in the overview document). However, Fisherman nodes will be retained as they help strengthen the security of the entire network.
In practice, if your transaction is small or the risk is not that big, the confirmation time you need will be far less than the theoretical maximum. Bitcoins confirmation mechanism is divided into three levels, memory pool (transactions that feel similar to buying a bottle of beer), 1 block (transactions that feel similar to online shopping), 6-12 blocks (all other types of transactions) . This is all the block confirmation levels, which represent different economic costs. For example, the confirmation of 12 blocks means reversing the cost of 12 blocks, which is essentially the ability to mine 13 blocks within the same time (ie, 51% attack). To reverse a block, you need to be able to mine 2 blocks. If you want to reverse a transaction in the memory pool, you only need to replace it with another transaction before it is packaged by the miners. This layer is relatively easy.
It can also be said that Polkadot has a secondary confirmation stage, depending on the situation, the rollback cost is also different. The finality of blocks is generally not theoretically confirmed, but is confirmed by specific circumstances and in terms of certain specific economic costs. For example, if you already have 5 Lamborghinis and now you want to buy the 6th one, you need to wait about 60 seconds for the transaction to be confirmed on the relay chain. And if you just want to buy a cup of coffee, obviously the transaction only needs to be confirmed in the mempool or PoV block of the parachain, which only takes a few seconds.
It is worth mentioning that everyone understands that PoW chains such as Bitcoin only have probabilistic confirmation, but PoS chains, even chains that claim to be instantaneous confirmation, cannot fully guarantee that there will be no problems. And in fact, all token economic consensus systems (whether it is blockchain,DAG[4] or others), the ultimate protection comes from its economy itself. Their security actually comes from economic considerations, because an attacker is generally an economically rational individual, or he cannot afford the cost of the attack at all. If the above guarantees are not established, then your consensus algorithm is meaningless no matter how fancy it is.
about:
The number of slots is limited, so 100 parachains must be rolled in
Polkadot will provide two market economy-style mechanisms to make buyers parachain experience safe and sound:
1. Buy out the slot lease right for 6-24 months at one time.
2. Borrow parallel threads and only pay a small fee each time the blockchain logic iterates.
All systems require some degree of anti-wool and anti-spam mechanisms, so we charge for it. Market-determined charging standards and market-oriented enforcement mechanisms are also very typical and common in the encrypted economic ecology.
According to our preliminary estimates, the initial version of Polkadot can process 4,000 times as many transactions per second as Ethereum. Since the supply has increased by 4,000 times, in the sense of traditional economics, the transaction price will also decrease accordingly.
about:
When the relay chain cannot verify the block, it is equivalent to being censorable
This could lead to an audit
I dont know how you came to this conclusion. It is wrong.
about:
“Could end up paying a huge service charge”
Parachain slots do not charge service fees, but there will be opportunity costs and deposits for fair auctions based on market demand.
about:
Must participate in an auction every few years, otherwise (your slot will be taken) and the whole solution will not continue to work
You must be forced to pay huge fees to continue running your project on Polkadot. Either you have to win the involution, and you must always be prepared to migrate to a new chain in case of emergency...
Parachains can only be bought out for 24 months at a time. If you want to renew the lease, you need to renew the lease 18 months in advance. Therefore, a parachain has an 18-month reminder period. If you dont win the auction once during those 18 months and dont end up taking the slot, your deposit will be released back to you. You can use the money again to participate in the next bidding.
Moreover, even if you dont get a slot, there is no need to migrate at all. While we cant predict what the slot market will be like at the moment, well do our best to ensure that parathreads are a perfect candidate.
Suppose we have 70 parachain slots, then:
The cost of leasing any of these slots will not exceed the bidding price for the 70th slot The rental cost of any parachain will not exceed 1/70 of the Polkadot maintenance cost, and Polkadots shared security is very efficient. According to the number of validators, the maintenance cost is lower than other non-cross-chains.
The latter two points mean that with the same throughput, using Polkadot will be cheaper than using other non-cross-chains.
Here, it can be foreseen that the cost of the parallel chain will only be a small part of the payment for Polkadots security and interoperability.
about:
When crossing chains to other ecosystems, such as ETH and BTC, you need to use parachains every time (slots will be more difficult to grab)
When cross-chaining with BTC and ETH, because there is a parallel chain in the middle, the block confirmation time will be greatly increased
It is unlikely that a bridge will take up the resources of an entire parachain. Especially for bridges with low TPS chains like Bitcoin, the workload will not be very large, and it may only occupy a parallel thread, or it may only be used as one of many bridges on a certain parachain.
about:
The confirmation time of ETH 2.0 is 6 minutes. Polkadot says it only takes 12-60 seconds (actually it may be longer...because the Fisherman node has to confirm it again, and it may cause the confirmed block to be rolled back...
Even if you claim to have a TPS that exceeds VISA, it is of little practical value if the confirmation time is 60 minutes.
no. Small transactions can be confirmed in seconds. If its 100% safe, you might want to wait 60 seconds (although this is not common in normal operation).
about:
On the Avalanche protocol, you have complete sovereignty over your own blocks, you can send chains, and you will not be extorted to verify your blocks.
The confirmation time of the Avalanche protocol is less than 3 seconds. And since everyone can verify with the subnet, it is an absolutely safe and excellent cross-chain operating environment.
The so-called subnet security of the Avalanche protocol is completely different from Polkadots shared security. How about a performance comparison.
In effect, the Avalanche protocol acts like a centralized universe, with overlapping sets of elected validators acting as subnetwork security.
This will lead to a great disparity in the security of the various chains in the entire system. Cross-shard attacks are possible because messages from one (less secure) chain can cause state transitions on another (more secure) subnet. In this way, the security of the entire network is equivalent to the chain with the worst security.
As with the Cosmos problem, any solution that attempts to design a central area to enforce sensitive logic will encounter scalability bottlenecks and degrade some chains into second-class citizens whose state transitions cannot be trusted.No matter which chain the program is executed on, it has the same level of security guarantee. This is a scalable system.
About Phala
About Phala
Phala Network is a private computing parachain on Polkadot. Based on a pow-like economic incentive model, it releases the privacy computing power of countless CPUs and applies it to the Polkadot parachain, thereby serving other applications such as Defi and data services on Polkadot. The Phala-based applications pLibra and Web3 Analytics have received grants from the web3 Foundation. In March 2020, Phala became one of the first projects to join the Substrate Builders Program. In July 2020, Phala was awarded the Privacy Computing Emerging Original Force by the computing power think tank.
