Blockchain platforms: the future?
Views on the rise of blockchain platforms and the imminent battle of the platforms. Who will win out? Where are the leaders at the moment and are the pioneers falling behind? Read to find out what awaits blockchain-based technology this year.
Ethereum to be around next year?
Ethereum is still working as it was, with the same limitations that it has always had: low network capacity, restricted scalability, etc. But could Ethereum disappear from centre stage? This isn’t likely to happen in the foreseeable future. On the one hand, its developers are trying to solve the problems the network has, and on the other, none of its competitors (NEO, EOS, Qtum, Apla, etc.) have taken on the role as the platform to kill Ethereum off.
From pilot to production
The most important thing here is to understand that the world is yet to see a blockchain project at production level. Yes, there are projects that are getting close to looking something like a pilot version using Hyperledger Fabric (one of IBM’s blockchain platforms). However, these projects focussed on working in really narrow niches for their application. As such, Fabric isn’t a competitor for Ethereum as a public network. So there really aren’t any working projects at the moment, so it’s not clear what we can call the weak and strong sides of new platforms.
Transaction speed/security trade off
High network transaction capacity is obviously a good thing, but only if security doesn’t suffer. On the other hand, who needs a 100% secure blockchain that can only process a few dozen transactions per second? We can only hope that 2018 will become the year where competition heats up between new public blockchain platforms and not all will survive the heat. However, with most of the fuss being kicked up only at the level of startups, there’s not much to say. One thing is for sure: the factors that decide which protocol wins out all competition will be many and varied, and the protocol to come out on top will probably not be the best in technical terms.
A people’s decision
There has been other solutions that the community hasn’t accepted for some reason or other. It is these reasons that are decisive in which platform gets chosen: different interests in the crypto community. When talking about the blockchain space, we should always take into account that we are not only on about the technology: not just hardware and protocols, but also the people that that set the wheels in motion. This is where Bitcoin deserves a mention. As a community first and foremost; an ecosystem and not a standard database where there’s no problem to replace it with another one which is more secure and faster. We shouldn’t repeat this mistake.
The big boys to take over?
At the moment, where everyone is still in test stage IBM and its Fabric Hyperledger are doing well: several contractors, several channels, but one local problem: the way they’re going about it. Blockchain-based business needs to be globally connected on a single network. This is where a single network like Fabric isn’t of use: it was initially developed to solve private tasks. For the time being businesses and state departments are considering only private networks, but the platform that will emerge as the leader will be the one that manages to connect all of the siloed chains of private networks on to one single network. This platform won’t do this by using bridges between different networks, but via a single protocol.
Uniting the silos
We need something that works well, not something that just looks pretty. We need to be able to process any transaction between any business actors wherever they may be on the planet. If, for example, there is a certain piece of real estate: should we have this registered on a dozen different networks or just one? And then what platform should we have the individuals’ data placed on, the same as that of the real estate or on another? The answer is obvious.
Transactions should be unique and operate on a unique register in a single network
How it should not be done
IBM recently pulled off a pilot version of a supply chain for supplying flowers from Africa to the Netherlands and pork from China to the US. Everything worked beautifully. However, when you want to add cotton from Central Asia to be sent to South America, etc. this should be done on separate blockchains. So how many Fabric channels would we need to set up to deal with all the trade that goes on?
Bitcoin only works because each full node contains an exhaustive set of information about everything that there is and was on the network. This guarantees transaction validation. It’s likely that a solution will come along that will mean we won’t have to store full data sets across all nodes of blockchain networks (sharding will be realised), but there should be only one protocol that links up all nodes. Moreover, this should be accounted for from the start, not by attempts to bridge chains at a later date.
Blockchain for all
If we were to sit here and think about how things should be done in an ideal world then we end up with total blockchainisation. This is not only for the economy, but also for the state (as the regulator of transactions). Here we can draw comparisons with the internet. We could have had special intranets for competing businesses and events, but in the end we solved communication problems by creating a single, unified network with a single protocol. If all actors and property is put on a single, digital sub-space, we will then need to make money completely digital. How far we are from this can be considered from several sides.
We are ready
First and foremost, the technical infrastructure is pretty much ready to go. We need just a political or non-political (some kind of crisis) reason to launch the project and that could take place right now. On the other hand, we can’t be confident right now that we have everything in place for this protocol: we’re missing a network solution. Although, there are some existing platforms are already ready to launch global programs (Apla was initially planned as such). Then again, the blockchain space could be turned upon its head in a month or two by some student who writes a new protocol.
We need a shake up
Another thing we should take into account is the general speed the global economy is developing at. This won’t change until another global crisis takes place. The system should fall before we can build a new one in its stead. If we go off futurologist predictions about tech and planetary singularism, then we need to wait another 5–15 years.
The network should be single, but not homogenous
Decentralisation ≠ Anarchy
The network should be single, but not homogenous. There will be clustering and hierarchical levels, and then a decentralised point of failure (as in technical network decentralisation), without any anarchy in process management.
Hierarchy of control
For some communities of people it is a good idea to have activities on peer-to-peer networks, but this does not mean that all the participants of such a network should interact with each other on an equal footing. Any joint activity should be based on differentiation and managerial hierarchy. Therefore, of course, there will be isolated business nuclei, associations and nation states. Only the principle in which they are organised and interact will alter, but we will need a global crisis for it to get to that.
Need for network
There is a full list of technology that gets mentioned when speaking about the digital economy: the internet of things, big data, neural networks, etc. Each of these technologies could be classified as groundbreaking in its own sphere. However, they may well remain at a level of development where they only solve local tasks if we don’t add network technology to them to facilitate data exchange.
Blockchain is just a special type of IT system, but in linking it with other novel technologies for the extraction, storage, processing and visualisation of data, blockchain could be explosive; black hole like, it is able to suck in all algorithmic tasks within its range.
