"What do you think of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs)? They really have the ability to replace Is an open and decentralized blockchain? Or is it simply a fool? " I don't think this is a question of choice. I do n’t think directed acyclic graphs, tangles, or other similar ideas can replace proof-of-work, Decentralized blockchain. I think this is because the proof of work has something very special It is also very precious in nature. No other consensus algorithm has these properties. Or at least no one can prove that other algorithms possess those characteristics. Immutability is a big problem; That is (in other mechanisms) historical records can be secretly rewritten without being noticed, Or new nodes in the network are not capable of checking the incorrect history from the correct history. On a broader level, I think that in an open, decentralized network, the proof of work of anonymous participants Make cryptocurrency can effectively resist coercion, management regulations and censorship system. I think these are important abilities. The techniques I have seen that use directed acyclic graphs are essentially It is a hybrid of proof of stake (PoS) or proof of authority system.
Proof of equity is to control the network based on the currency holdings. We have not seen a large number of proof of rights under the coercion of power Examples of decentralized and effective resistance to censorship mechanisms can still be maintained. More importantly, I think the proof of authority, which is what you see in some blockchains-such as IOTA, Their mechanism is to check whether the node is trustworthy. This is not a decentralized way, this is a centralized system.
Centralized systems are vulnerable to coercion and censorship mechanisms. So I want to emphasize again that many people show some "evidence" to show "the best new things since Bitcoin", "The latest improvements after bitcoin", "something better than proof of work". This is not new. This was at the beginning of Bitcoin. As soon as people saw that it was valuable and feasible, they began to imitate it. At the beginning, everyone tried to do the same thing in other ways. This is not a bad thing, it is good. This is the source of innovation. No one has given a proof that can replace the workload And still maintain the same immutable system; Or a substitute for decentralized open mining and proof of work, And still maintain a decentralized system that does not rely on a centralized role.
A centralized system may look the same at first (and decentralized), But once the system has a lot of value and runs many interesting applications, There will be pressure, coercion and censorship mechanisms from the government's continued growth. The real test is whether you can resist those things. I think directed acyclic graphs are interesting, but I do n’t think they have the potential to replace Open and decentralized blockchain. But this is not to say that they have nothing. This is not a question of choice. They are just another consensus mechanism. If decentralized proof-of-work mining is not implemented, then blocks are not actually needed. It is only necessary to directly link the transactions, which is the basis of the directed acyclic graph.
But it seems to me that something has been sacrificed like this. What you sacrifice is decentralization.