DAGS. D’ya Like DAGS?
Directed Acyclic Graphs or DAGS, is the third generation of decentralized ledger technologies. Its anticipated arrival rumbled across the vast expanse of the crypto-verse with thunderous intensity. Commonly referred to as Tangle, it is arguably the most popular codified architecture to enter the crypto arena as DAGs are purported to be the force that finally breaks the Blockchain.
The DAGs architecture identifies with the topological sequencing of its transaction process where vertices or connecting nodes are paired with edges transacting in a specific direction — directed graph. For an operation to be validated on the DAGs ledger, it must first approve two previous transactions for the new one to be verified.
Through node validations, combined with the non-circular (acyclic) nature of its data structure, implies an impossibility for nodes to encounter the same node twice, suggesting a technically sound process that departs from traditional blockchain mechanics, negating the need for mining while simultaneously creating blistering transaction speeds.
In the age of connectivity, the new breed of innovators lead the present generation via a techno-mantra of disruption. It is a common sight in the world of new-age technologies that while a digital citadel is being taken, another starts to take over at mid-siege. Exciting times.
Disrupting the disruptor
DAGs have distinct differences in utility and purpose, at least in the ecosystems that presently exist, but within these individual systems are some shared commonalities: the independence from block-size nuances which enables unrestricted optimisation of transaction process, unlimited scalability, zero-cost transaction, and the abolition of mining.
Out of all the DAG-based technologies available, IOTA and its Tangle infrastructure sum-up the majority’s interest in considering the blockchain variant. Understandably, any technology designed to facilitate the interoperability of the Internet-of-Things (IoT) has a lasting impact on future-centric societies as it sparks curiosity and intrigue towards its applicability.
However, a few of the DAGs defining improvements on the blockchain have been subject to scrutiny by the many keenly observant. Revisiting the days of pre-emptive strike, let’s start where they went for the jugular — the Coordinator.
The Tangle innovation implements a network-assist or “training wheels’’ called a Coordinator. Now before anyone point and scream “Centralised,” it has been expressively stated and reiterated that the Coo is a temporary consensus protocol until sufficient activity through adoption is established.
Let go of the pitchfork for a minute and I will elaborate.
The primary purpose for a Coo is to protect against any malicious attacks while the technology is still in its infancy and will be disabled upon reaching a capacity where it can run fully unassisted. A logical explanation prioritising safety and security for its community. However, this presents a rather complicated scenario going forward.
Despite claims of a fully decentralised network and that the Coo utility technically exists as entirely optional, it is still, at least for the time being, a central point of failure as approvals conducted by a single server and “checkpointing” proves the stated claims otherwise.
Notwithstanding the assertions, many still attest to the credibility of the DAGs infrastructure as an innovative blockchain solution, which Tangle is to achieve upon the shut-down of its Central Coordinator — indicative of a point where the technology meets its desired adoption.
Stated in the FAQ section of the IOTA website:
The most critical factor needed for the removal of the Coordinator, for example, is the greater adoption of the IOTA technology increasing the throughput of transactions on the network to meet the fundamental security assumption — that the cumulative throughput of honest transactions is large compared to that which an attacker could feasibly produce.
Contrary to what you may expect, as those countless many forums bombarded with incessant queries of — “when?” — I remain optimistic towards the Tangle’s full unassisted capacity and defiantly ask — “why not?”
As for now, the blockchain takes the cake on decentralisation.
However, it is not without high hopes for a 2018 fruition where the Tangle “wheels” can finally come off and bring about a bright new world of Markov Chain Monte Carlo and Random Walks – it already sounds beautifully snazzy, I can taste the coastline of the Côte d’Azur. Let me grab my sunglasses.
Parity of Scalability: Blockchain and DAGs
Among the many amazing features of DAGs, its one silver bullet against the blockchain beast is scalability. It is widely known in the crypto sphere that scalability presents an arduous task to developers due to the blockchain’s limits in its scaling capacity. Several proposed solutions have been presented over the years from Segwit to Sharding to Plasma; a meticulous search for one that will preserve the blockchain’s philosophy of decentralisation.
In the meantime, DAGs data structure has scalability as its nonpareil. It finds improving functionality parallel to an increasing volume of transactions as no theoretical limit exists in the DAGs throughput capacity — Tangle’s technical superiority in design over the blockchain.
There is, however, a rather interesting argument presented by Lior Yaffe, Co-Founder and Managing Director of Jelurida. Ardor and Nxt core-developer. In his article, he talks of the DAGs possible weakness on scalability:
To summarise, I suspect that the ability of a DAG to confirm transactions as they arrive causes it to become more sensitive to transaction propagation latency and the order in which transactions arrive at a node, which under load may cause accumulation of unconfirmed transactions and growth of the DAG into a cloud like shape where acceptance of transactions referring to old tips is not an exception but the norm and ever increasing number of tips remain unapproved.
Predictive to this point, his presented scenario of 1000 simultaneous transactions per second (TPS) on the DAGs infrastructure briefly states that as nodes on the network have inherently varying speeds in processing transactions, remote nodes will lag in confirming transactions as compared to more central nodes, a difference that will be largely reflected when throughput increases due to high volume transactions. This results in a consistently growing pool of unconfirmed transactions that will eventually exhaust node resources and create chaos in the network.
Put down the knife. My name is not Lior.
We go to the judge’s scorecard
The chasm between DAGs and Blockchain, along with all its architectural dualities is a contention that should be celebrated. Viable technologies that complement each other, two towering sentinels safeguarding our future – one is an evolving precursor that paves the way for other data structures and the other is poised to aide and facilitate the demands of the near future.
The rigid dichotomy between DAGs and Blockchain technology represents a fundamental divergence that generates creative momentum. Given that technological variances may manifest into transient discord amongst involved communities, it nonetheless promotes a competitive race for innovation with real-world applications solving real-world problems.
Provided that we “keep it clean” no rabbit punches and “hitting below the belt”, the spirit of rivalry intrinsically creates an environment where competing technologies provide innovations which consequently sets new heights in quality and standard, compelling all other innovators to reassess focus and not drown in obsolescence. As we know, many of the profit-driven technologies of 2017 will perish under this murderous market condition – a simple process of codified natural selection.
As a favourable result, it will leave us the visionaries like those that built the blockchain and Tangle innovation. Critical thinkers and solutionists that will continue to provide enhancements to life’s quality and give the present generation the tools and processes needed for the future.
Thus, under the blinding lights of the crypto arena, and in the famous words of the great referee Joe Cortez:
“I’m fair but I’m firm. Touch ‘em up.”
