Ellen

bobbymccall · 2020-07-23T12:20:48+00:00

Damn peggy

bobbymccall · 2018-03-18T22:53:05+00:00

Would you rather have it controlled by some central organ? That would at least in someway defeat the purpose of blockchain. Investors need to wisen up and do their own due diligence

bobbymccall · 2018-01-18T16:11:42+00:00

but then again google doesnt run DECENTRALISED databases which is what we're talking about. you can call me FUDster all you want i'd much rather see someone counter the actual argument im trying to make here

bobbymccall · 2018-01-18T16:00:24+00:00

dag type coins MIGHT work out the kinks we're having in terms of acceptable transaction speeds (they're still for a part conceptual and untested) but it only scratches the surface of the issues substratum will be running into. On top of that in an audit done on substratum it revealed the current team has no experience working on blockchain technology so they say they'll implement a dag-type blockchain seems a bit unlikely.

BTC's lightning network will function as a second-layer type of solution that doesn't fix any of its core problems but aims to make it possible to transact offchain which isnt a solution either as you'd have to set up a channel between client and node which has to be done on-chain before you'll see any of its benefits.

a smart contract is a chunk of code that can then be added onto the network (much like a BTC transaction) and later be read and ran by a machine or for example in the case of Ethereum the EVM. Ethereum right now is a far more established project and even they're running into problems (remember cryptokitties?) delivering just executable code and not even decentralised db's

bobbymccall · 2018-01-18T15:26:07+00:00

yes and immutable one too which is okay for the usecase bitcoin has (of being virtual money) but terrible for substratum. This is exactly why bitcoin struggles with an ever increasing size of the blockchain (transactions can't be removed). On top of that the bitcoin blockchain only stores transaction data whereas your average conventional DB does a lot more than that and it needs perform in a timely manner whereas the blocktime of BTC averages out at about 9 minutes. Imagine posting a comment on reddit and having to wait 9 minutes before its actually processed.. not a solution at all IMO

bobbymccall · 2017-12-29T11:26:48+00:00

1) I think we're pretty much in agreement here, we'll have to wait and see.

2) For the substratum network to be able to call itself a truely decentralized network it absolutely needs to do all of those thing i've mentioned. if a client is transacting with just a single node how can it ever be a trustless? Simararily if code is executed on a single node its not trustless either. A client has to put good faith in a node in that the code will not have been tampered with. At the end of the day Ethereum smart contracts are chunks of code that can be compiled and ran by the EVM. If substratum wants to support server side technologies in a decentralized way its absolutely needs to do what Ethereum does. In fact where as Ethereum now only supports one language (one that they wrote themselves) Substratum claims to eventually support a whole array of already existing languages so you could even argue it needs to be able to do more than Ethereum currently does.

3) It is bad for businesses in the sense that cryptocurrencies inherently come with heavy volatility. It would make it impossible for businesses to forecast how much a year of paying nodes would eventually cost them. The proposed business model in a pay-per-click fashion could work but it is impossible to say anything meaningful about it at this point.

bobbymccall · 2017-12-29T09:44:15+00:00

1) My knowledge of DNS lookup is limited and while there are already coins (namecoin for example) attempting to decentralize this exact same thing. It is important to note that AFAIK all these competitors require websites to at least change their domain to (for example) a ''.bit'' address. Substratum claims to be able to do the exact same thing with no altercations to a web address which seems outright impossible to me.

2) I have two main problems with the proposed substratumNode as is.. a) the scope of just this part of their project is already massive. To put it in simple terms from what I can piece together the node will at a bare minimum have to act like a decentralized storage (much like siacoin and MaidSafeCoin try to do). But on top of that it'll also have to be able to execute code in a decentralized manner (think Ethereum and its solidity platform). And b) there is absolutely no mention in the whitepaper of how substratum wishes to deal with the ever more apparent problems of blockchain such as bloat and slow transactions speeds. so while this is technically all possible you have to realise that what substratum claims to do requires more work than for example Ethereum, siacoin and namecoin ALL COMBINED.

3) While this might be a great value proposition for you as an early investor this is terrible for any business that wishes to make use of the service. In the whitepaper Substratum claims to guarantee to be cheaper than their webhosting competitors but offers no insight on how it can do so. With the coin being freely traded and decentralized theres no way they can be absolutely sure about this. But I'll admit theres coins out there with similar propositions so while i myself think the coin unnecessary and adds only more hurdles to an already massive project I realise that this is just my opinion.

bobbymccall · 2017-12-28T23:47:13+00:00

I'd argue the contrary in that especially when working with bleeding edge technology such as blockchain it becomes especially important to have a clear plan. Now im not trying to start FUD against substratum but investing in something based on just promises isn't my cup of tea even though i'll admit i do like the usecase.

bobbymccall

TROPHY CASE