EOS or Etherium smart contracts?


#1

Does anyone want to start a chat on this topic?


#2

Another area of note is that some of the biggest players in the industry, such as Bitmain (AntPool), Bitfinex and Huobi are running for the block producer election, which gives significant legitimacy to the platform pre-launch.

I am pretty sure the author is a paid shill. Why would anyone trust a project more because of the involvement of the bigger banks? Huobi is essentially a rogue bank that prints it own token (money).

This common criticism depends on your definition of centralized. 21 block producers located in China is centralized, and is not censorship resistant. 21 block producers spread around the world with campaign platforms that cater to diverse topics such as education, hardware and community adoption is much more decentralized.

Corporations are not askig for dApps. No body complains about the performace or efficiency of the current generation of enterprise software.

Censorship resistance demand on the consumer applications can’t be resolved by EOS. Adding 21 more servers into a DNS black list is peanut for the nation state backed forces.


#4

I am pretty sure the author is a paid shill. Why would anyone trust a project more because of the involvement of the bigger banks? Huobi is essentially a rogue bank that prints it own token (money).

What is the difference between large players creating huge mining farms like in bitcoin or large players like Bitmain, Bitfinex and Huobi trying to become block producers on EOS?

I think that the fact that billion dollar companies want to actively be involved in EOS solidify the fact that this it isn’t some wishy-washy shitcoin. I wouldn’t be suprised if they spent hundreds of hours researching into EOS. There’s a reason why hardly any exchanges/big players want to build a node on lux coin or some shit. Huge companies would not be getting involved in a coin they view as going no where,

Censorship resistance demand on the consumer applications can’t be resolved by EOS. Adding 21 more servers into a DNS black list is peanut for the nation state backed forces.

This is an interesting argument sure. But I don’t see why it should cause too much of a problem. Firstly, it’s not like there’s any illegal activity occuring. Secondly, the second one node goes down or behaves maliciously - it could almost instantly be replaced by another node somewhere else on the planet trying to become a block producer.

It’s not like any state backed force can harm EOS anyways. They would need the majority of nodes to do so which I don’t doubt will be spread about numerous different countries.


#5

Folks, let’s be a little more constructive here than just accusing people of being a paid shill.That kind of argument tends to stifle the conversation quite quickly.

As to being constructive, is there anyone in the forum who knows the technical programming “guts” of both of these systems? Can someone make the argument one way or the other that either allows for easier/ faster/ less hardware resources required/ lower cost/ etc.?


#6

The large mining farms are not ideal; either. This is why we don’t need same old situation recurring. The cryptocurrency market is anti-monopoly by birth.

Blocking 21 ever changing IPs does not even require human manual intervention. Nation states censor internet activities due to their own illegal motives. They don’t need to reveal their real purposes.

The ultimate situation for EOS (or any other centralised platforms) will be: Inside censored Internet territory, it might be needed but not accessible; In the free Internet zone, it is not needed but available.


#7

DPOS is a solution to large mining farms. A large mining farm can theoretically perform a 51% attack on bitcoin at any time, whereas in the DPOS model - no entity can have more than 4.76% power over the network.

Not sure what you mean by inside censored internet territory though - I’ll have to look it up :stuck_out_tongue:


#8

Electricity consumption of the cryptocurrency is the fair price to pay to beat the centralised control and corruption. DPOS (or POS) is reinstating the centralisation that the Bitcoin tries to get away from.

Censored internet territory is Iran, Saudi Arabia or North Korea.


#9

This doesn’t make sense. As far as I’m aware - it is PoW based coins who are more likely to be attacked via a 51% and are more likely to be centralized as it is cheaper to attack such a network.


#10

51% attack against POW coins requires much higher cost than the attack on the POS platforms. The mining companies need to spend real money on the miner production or on the hashrate rent.

1% of the EOS token holders have 86% of all EOS tokens. There will be hardly any cost for the token issuer and their friends to collude for instant gains. The ‘community’ can kick out the bad actors, but who is going to follow up with the punishment? Does EOS have a global police force?

Oh, EOS can always hard fork to fix the damage like what the Ethereum team did, right?


#11

51% attack against POW coins requires much higher cost than the attack on the POS platforms. The mining companies need to spend real money on the miner production or on the hashrate rent.

51% attacks on PoW only require buying enough hardware to beat most other hardware which has actually been accomplished in the past.

51% attacks on PoS networks are pretty much impossible. Firstly, getting 51% of the tokens with the low liquidity on exchanges will generally caused a massive rise in price and what would normally be a billion-dollar 51% PoW attack can turn into a an attack which takes trillions.
Not only this, but the second someone is seen trying to perform a 51% attack - their tokens can be destroyed by a vote done across the network. This will mean that a 51% would not occur ( and if it did it would be for a very small time ) and because the tokens would be destroyed from a fork, not only would the attacker have gained literally nothing from the attack - but he would be down trillions, billions or millions of dollars due to all his coins being burnt. This cannot be done in a PoW consensus model as there is no way to stop someone mining.

For example, an attack on Ethereum classic using PoW may only takes $55 million and would result in a billion in profit ( Source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/ethereum-classic-51-attack-would-cost-just-55-mln-result-in-1-bln-profit-research ). However, $55 million is barely 3% of the total market cap of the coin. Meaning that if an attacker were to buy at the current price he would only get 3% of all coins. If we’re being realistic here - it would actually turn out much less since the attacker buying would also caused prices to sky rocket. I assume he wouldn’t even get 1% of all coins.

1% of the EOS token holders have 86% of all EOS tokens. There will be hardly any cost for the token issuer and their friends to collude for instant gains. The ‘community’ can kick out the bad actors, but who is going to follow up with the punishment? Does EOS have a global police force?

Doesn’t take much to copy the chain with those people having 0 coins and have that chain be the real EOS. After all, I doubt dapps will want to build on a centralized network. Them colluding will essentially cost them billions and will not help them.

If someone were to have a scarily large amount of eos, they would likely be voted out. The constitution states that no one can ever have more than 10% of the total supply anyways.

As an EOS investor, I will get coins on all blockchains that launch anyways. None of this really bothers me.

Oh, EOS can always hard fork to fix the damage like what the Ethereum team did, right?

Block.one only provides the EOS.io software - nothing else.


#12

The 1% of the EOS token owners could have spent nothing on their tokens, hence the collusion would have cost nothing.

Plus, why would a unified ‘smart contact’ platform more secure and attractive to the business? Introducing a third party into a simple contract that is already under the protection of the law benefits whom exactly?

Bitcoin aims to fix a real problem in a democracy (central banks’ irrational behaviours); ‘EOSs’ proposes to replace the judiciary, legislative and executive powers(which still work most of the time) with a piece of software. It’s a little radical to put it mildly.


#13

The 1% of EOS token holders likely spent a shit ton getting that money. Colluding and making the network useless would result in so much financial loss. It would be dumb of them to do something like that anyways :stuck_out_tongue: No doubt massive selling if they were colluding.

EOS’ third party is the token holders who vote for delegates. It’s not so much a third party as a decentralized mass of voters.

Bitcoin is currently controlled by 3 entities. EOS just proposes a different way to stay decentralized, low latency, and scalable so that dapps can be built on it which are free for the user.

To make things not clear - the delegates themselves do not control the network. It is the people who vote for them.


#14

You don’t know how much an EOS whale has spent on its token. I would not believe him even if there is open audit on paper.

As I stated EOS suggests an online democracy to fix the problems of a real world democracy. The outcome can only be that it inherits the same problems from the real world.


#15

Well if an EOS Whale has any significant supply - than it must be a lot of money.

EOS is as much as a democracy as Bitcoin anyways. Both have a way of reaching consensus in the end. Just by different means.


#16

Bitcoin (and other POW money coins) does only one thing: transfer value against censorship. It aims to fix only one specific problem in a democracy.

'EOS’s want to replace the real world democracy without the powers of the democratic branches of the real world. Without these real powers, the ‘balance of power’ is just hot air.


#17

Bitcoin reaches consensus through mining.
EOS reaches consensus through people voting for delegates who produce blocks.

pretty much what I meant about democracy. If someone wanted to, they could possibly use bitcoin to replace real world democracy - especially if the LN and RSK works out.


#18

If voting in the real world did not stop the establishment corruption, why would it work in the virtual world?

It does not cost millions to control 21 EOS node owners if a nation state gets really desperate. It is almost impossible to destroy Bitcoin now.


#19

I don’t think all 21 nodes will reside in a single nation state. From the nodes that I’m currently aware of - they’re located in many different countries/nations.

However, if a state gets really desperate - they could easily throw a couple hundred million into a mining farm or seize all already existing ones in their country and perform a 51% attack. In the case of Bitcoin - nothing could stop them doing this since no one can vote out someone’s hashing power.

This idea works for all cryptocurrencies. Atm if a large nation wanted to - they could attack any coin successfully. However DPOS and POS are just more resistant to these types of attacks.

And it does cost more than millions to control 21 EOS nodes. Why are you assuming all nodes will be located in a single nation lol

It seems that most of your arguments refer to nodes being corrupt and colluding. Yes that can happen. Bitcoin mining farms can also collude. However in bitcoin’s and ethereum’s case it requires a lot less entities colluding than eos.

Ethereum’s PoS solution will stop that and might actually make eth really decentralized :slight_smile:


#20

Professional agents don’t recognise national borders. Plus many EU nations do not control border at all.

POW coins can fork out of 51% attacks. Many rogue nations do participate in the bitcoin mining, but they are relying on its value and censorship resistance feature to survive.

The danger of POS is that the corruption among the consensus node owners stay unknown for years, which is the same problem inherited from the real world.


#21

POW coins can’t fork out 51% attacks. The second they fork, the attacker can just move onto that chain. The 51% attack can seemingly go on forever.

Professional agents can also visit any company’s headquarters. China has strict internet laws but I don’t see any proof of agents being sent to kill google off. Professional agents can also target mining companies on bitcoin.

The danger of POS is that the corruption among the consensus node owners stay unknown for years, which is the same problem inherited from the real world.

This is the same for any consensus algorithm. Who’s to say all the big miners in btc aren’t being corrupt and haven’t colluded together for years? There is as much danger of collusion in POS as there is in PoW. Except, if found PoS has a way to deal with corruption.