Cosmos
Cosmos (ATOM Token) is a heterogeneous network that supports cross-chain interaction , and it is an ecosystem of applications and services that exchange digital assets and data using the IBC (Inter-Blockchain Communication) protocol.
Cosmos is known as the "Internet of Blockchains" and is also considered to be the 3.0 version of the Blockchain, which aims to solve the problems of blockchain interoperability and scalability.
Cross-chain technology is considered to be the key technology to realize the interoperability of ten thousand chains, and it is a bridge for the outward expansion and connection of blockchains. Since the development of blockchain technology, cross-chain technology mainly includes the following three modes: notary mechanism , side chain or relay chain, and hash lock .
Cosmos is a network of independent parallel blockchains, each powered by the classic BFT consensus algorithm (Byzantine Fault Tolerance). The first blockchain in the network will be the Cosmos Hub, connected to other blockchains through a communication protocol. Tokens can be safely and quickly transferred from one region to another without the need for a liquidity exchange between regions.
Tendermint consensus algorithm : Once the block is completed, the process is irreversible, that is, as long as the transaction is in the finalized state, instant mobile & IoT payment can be realized. Since no confirmation is required, it is called "fast finality".
There are more than 260 Cosmos ecological projects , and the total market value has exceeded 70 billion US dollars , second only to the Ethereum ecosystem , ranking second in the blockchain industry . The core products of Cosmos are Tendermint consensus mechanism, Cosmos SDK and cross-chain IBC protocol .
Advantages and disadvantages of Cosmos cross-chain technology:
Advantage 1. Technological innovation :
Cosmos proposes the Tendermint chain, which is a solution that packages the network and consensus layers of the blockchain into a common engine, allowing developers to focus on application development rather than complex underlying protocols, making it easy to get started. Any type of blockchain can be connected to Cosmos. This is due to the fact that Cosmos utilizes two types of scalability: vertical scalability and horizontal scalability.
2. Safety innovation :
The Cosmos SDK simplifies the process of building top secure blockchain applications built on top of Tendermint BFT. It is based on two main principles: modularity and function-based security.
Disadvantage 1: The inclusion and inclusiveness of the ecosystem need to be strengthened
From the perspective of the entire ecosystem, the number of Cosmos ecological projects has exceeded 260. There are more than 510 Polkadot ecological projects on the same track. Both cover finance, infrastructure, NFTs, wallets, stablecoins, Dapps, and more. Polkadot is more popular in terms of the number of applications, more participants, and higher applicability of the architecture.
2: The technical level is more complex, whether it can be fully implemented
The overall technical structure is mostly new, and the main development team has not so much experience in the industry, and there are not many masterpieces. In the initial stage of construction, a lot of manpower and material resources need to be invested, and in the later stage, it needs to be interconnected with other chains to complete practical applications. The difficulty is indeed not small, and the time line needs to be longer to complete.
3. Whether flexibility and security can coexist
Cosmos focuses on how to reduce the difficulty of asset transfer and pays attention to efficiency. But at present, its cross-chain design is more like a set of framework models, which is idealized. Its security is relatively low, but its level of flexibility is higher.
Polka dot
In addition to the well-known cross-chain properties, Polkadot is a public chain that is compatible with heterogeneous and homogeneous public chains.
Polkadot has also completed the task that Ethereum has not completed - sharding.
The state explosion is not only a problem that Ethereum will encounter, but also a problem that other public chains and even Ethereum alternative chains will encounter.
State explosions cause the following hazards:
The cost of hardware storage is too high, only a few people can afford the cost of nodes, and the network is centralized, which fundamentally affects the security of Ethereum.
State data is the bottom line of node operation. Historical data can be stored elsewhere, such as the Swarm originally conceived by the Ethereum Foundation, but state data cannot. Therefore, nodes can only resist the burden of state explosion.
State Explosion Solution
(1) An official cross-chain bridge is required to transfer coins between Layer2 and the Ethereum mainnet;
(2) It takes at least half an hour for coins to be mortgaged from the Ethereum mainnet to Layer2, and it takes several weeks to unstake from Layer2 tokens.
(3) The transaction speed of Layer 2 is really fast, and Gas is also cheap.
Layer2 improves efficiency and reduces costs, but it does not seem to perform very well in terms of ease of use.
Rollup scheme
Rollup will publish transaction data to Ethereum every time it calls the Layer2 state. Based on these public data, users can trace transaction status and solve Layer 2 security issues.
However, under the premise of ensuring security and decentralization, the Rollup call status is only internal, and the status call status cannot be known from the outside
When Layer 2 settles with Ethereum, it also consumes ETH.
Other consensus schemes
Such as SOL, AVAX, ATOM, MINA, MATIC, etc., are all in the form of an Ethereum alternative chain to solve the legacy state explosion problem. They all lean towards decentralization and scalability.
Sharding - Polkadot's Solution
The idea of sharding is that each node does not process all transactions, but only processes a part of them, and then arranges these transactions together.
The reason why sharding is difficult to implement is that when multiple shards call contracts with each other, they need to solve the problem of sorting and delay.
Competitive ecology
Polkadot (Polca, token DOT) is a scalable heterogeneous multi-chain system . This means that unlike previous single blockchain implementations that focus on varying degrees of potential application functionality, Polkadot itself is designed to provide no inherent functional application.
The number of Comos ecological projects has exceeded 260, while the number of Polkadot ecological projects has reached more than 510, and they all cover finance, infrastructure, NFT, wallets, stable coins, Dapp, etc. Polkadot is more popular in terms of the number of applications, more participants, and higher applicability of the architecture. However, with the rise of Terra, one of the Cosmos ecological applications, the attention of the Cosmos public chain has surged
Cosmos has relatively low security, but a higher level of flexibility.
Polkadot is more secure but less flexible.
Cosmos is more similar to the HTTP protocol and is the glue of multiple chains.
Polkadot is like an ever-changing Rubik's cube, which can be extended into various chain forms.
The ecological and technical teams of COSMOS have become stronger and stronger . After several years of steady development, it has grown from an unknown and somewhat well-known project to the present almost shoulder to shoulder with the Ethereum system . This is a very remarkable thing. Based on COSMOS The built Terra public chain has also entered the top ten in the encryption market in one fell swoop , which is a victory for technology and vision.
Taking a comprehensive look at the current mainstream blockchain platforms, the vast majority of developers prefer Ethereum, Cosmos and Polkadot: Ethereum has a strong developer community, Cosmos runs more independently, and Polkadot is more operable and secure. Strong, developers will make a choice among them according to the needs of their applications.
At present, among the three, Ethereum has the largest ecology, but its bottlenecks and limitations can already be foreseen. The subsequent ecological development and trend of the industry will be more and more inclined to Cosmos and Polkadot. However, the relationship between these three mainstream ecological platforms should be more complementary rather than competitive, and the structure and goals of the platforms should also be explored and developed for the realization of a larger and better Web 3.0 vision.
Based on the historical context of seeking swords, it is generally not a better Ethereum that defeats Ethereum, but a more abstract new paradigm. In Web2.0, innovation is born on the edge, born in making a certain experience to the extreme, while in Web3.0, innovation is born in the transfer of technology level and abstraction and application paradigm.