Today, some observers argue that blockchains are necessary to structurally realize the Metaverse, while others dismiss such claims as absurd. People still have a lot of confusion about the blockchain technology itself, so it is impossible to talk about a clear understanding of the relationship between the blockchain technology and the Metaverse. Therefore, we can start with the definition of blockchain.
Put simply, a blockchain is a database managed by a decentralized network of "validators." Today, most databases are centralized, meaning that a record is kept in a digital warehouse and managed by a company that keeps track of the information. JPMorgan, for example, maintains a database that keeps track of how much money you have in your account, as well as detailed transaction records to verify that the account balance is correct. At the same time, JP Morgan has many copies of this record (you probably have a copy yourself), and it actually operates a network of different databases. Importantly, Morgan Daddy is the sole manager and owner of these digital assets. The above pattern applies to almost all digital and virtual information, not just bank records.
Unlike centralized databases, blockchain records are not stored in a single location or managed by a single party, in many cases these records are jointly managed by a group of identifiable individuals or multiple companies. The blockchain "ledger" ( ledger ) is maintained by a consensus formed by a network of autonomous computers spread across the world. Each of these computers is effectively competing (and getting paid) to verify this ledger by solving encrypted equations generated from individual transactions. The advantage of this model is that the contents of the "ledger" are very difficult to tamper with. The more the network The larger (that is, the more dispersed), the less likely the data will be overwritten or disputed, because data processing must be agreed by the majority of people or companies in the decentralized network, rather than being decided by a certain person or company.
There are also downsides to decentralization. For example, because decentralized technology requires many different computers to perform the same "job", doing so is inherently more expensive and consumes more energy than using a standard database. Likewise, many blockchain transactions take tens of seconds or longer to complete because the network must first reach consensus. This could mean that information needs to be sent all over the world just to confirm a transaction at a distance of 1 meter. And to be sure, the more decentralized a network is, the more challenging it will be to achieve consensus.
Due to the above problems, most databases using blockchain technology can actually only store as much "data" as possible in traditional databases, rather than "on the chain". It's like how RygenChase stores your account balances on a decentralized server, but stores your account login information and bank account details in a centralized database. Opponents argue that anything that isn't fully decentralized is actually centralized, like in the case above, where your funds are still effectively controlled and validated by Chase.
This can lead some to think that decentralized databases are backwards, less efficient, slower, and still dependent on centralized databases. Furthermore, even if data is fully decentralized, its benefits appear to be very limited. After all, there is little concern that JPMorgan and its free database might get it wrong or steal customers' account balances. It can be said that people may feel insecure when they think that their wealth is being protected by a group of unidentified validators. If Nike proves that you own a virtual sneaker, or that a record that Nike manages and tracks shows that you sold the sneaker to another online collector, who would question or underestimate the fact that it was Nike that recorded the sale What is the value of this pair of sneakers?
So why do people still think decentralized database or server architecture is the future? Because of them, to a certain extent, we can no longer consider NFT, encrypted currency, and no longer have to worry about problems such as record theft. Importantly, blockchains are programmable payment channels. That’s why many are positioning them as the first digitally native payment platforms, while arguing that PayPal, Venmo, WeChat Pay, and others are nothing more than rehash of traditional payment platforms.
Blockchain, Bitcoin and Ethereum, the three mainstreams of encrypted assets
The first mainstream blockchain, Bitcoin, was launched in 2009. The only focus of the Bitcoin blockchain is to operate its own cryptocurrency, Bitcoin. To this end, the bitcoin blockchain is programmed to pay bitcoins as a fee to processors that process bitcoin transactions.
Of course, paying someone or many people to process transactions is nothing new. However, in this case, work and remuneration happen automatically and are uniform. If the processor doesn't get paid, the transaction doesn't happen. This is part of the reason why blockchain is called "trustless". Validators don’t need to worry about if, how, or when they will get paid, or if payment terms will change. Solutions to these issues have been transparently incorporated into payment channels, i.e. there are no hidden fees in the transaction process and no risk of sudden policy changes. Relatedly, users do not have to worry about their data being acquired or stored by individual network operators, or misused later, in addition to the data they have to provide. This is in stark contrast to credit card information stored in a centralized database, which could later be hacked or improperly accessed by employees. Blockchains are also "permissionless": in the case of Bitcoin, anyone can become a validator of the network without an invitation or approval, and anyone can accept, buy, or spend Bitcoin .
These properties constitute a self-sustaining system through which blockchains can increase capacity while reducing costs and increasing security. As the value of transaction fees or the total amount of transaction fees increases, more validators join the network, thereby reducing the price through competition. This in turn increases the degree of decentralization of the blockchain, making any attempt to manipulate the ledger to establish consensus much more difficult (imagine an election candidate trying to tamper with 300 ballot boxes instead of 1 vote box, how difficult it is).
Proponents of blockchain also like to emphasize the fact that its trustless, permissionless model means that the "revenue" and "profit" of its payment network operations are determined by the market. This is different from the traditional financial services industry, which is controlled by a few decades-old giants, and since they have few competitors, they will not consider lower renewal fees.
Ethereum is a decentralized network that automatically pays its operators remuneration. These operators don't need to sign a contract to get these fees, and don't need to worry about payment of fees. This competition also increases Ethereum's performance as they compete with each other for rewards, attracting more users and generating more transactions to manage. In addition, with Ethereum, anyone can write their own application on the network, and at the same time can design this application to pay their contributors and, if successful, create certain value. All these processes take place without a decision maker or governing body. In fact, such a person or institution does not yet exist, nor can it exist.
The decentralized approach to governance does not prevent Ethereum from making revisions or improvements to its underlying procedures. However, the communities in which they operate are in control of these changes, so any amendments must be made for the collective benefit of community members. Developers and users need to ensure that the company launching Ethereum will increase transaction fees or impose new fees on Ethereum, refuse to adopt an emerging technology or standard, or launch the first to compete with the most successful decentralized applications. One side service etc. Ethereum's "trustless" and "permissionless" design may actually encourage developers to "compete" with its core functionality.
Ethereum also has naysayers, who cite three overarching arguments against it: its processing fees are too high, its processing time is too long, and its programming language is too difficult to master . Some developers choose to address one or all of these issues by building competing blockchains. Other developers have built so-called "layer two" blockchains on top of Ethereum (layer one). Layer two blockchains operate efficiently as "mini blockchains" and use their own programming logic and network terminal management trade.
Some "layer 2 scaling solutions" batch transactions instead of individually. This naturally leads to delays in payments or transfers, but these transactions don't always need to be processed in real time (just like you don't have to pay your wireless provider for service at a certain time of day). Other "scaling solutions" hope to simplify the transaction verification process by polling part of the network rather than all. There is also a technique that allows verifiers to initiate transactions without proving that they have solved the underlying encryption equation, and at the same time guarantees the authenticity of the transaction by providing bounties to other verifiers if the latter proves that the transaction is untrustworthy Yes, the bounty is mainly paid by untrusted validators. Both “scaling solutions” and offering bounties reduce the security of the network, but many see them as a compromise suitable for small transactions.
Some see layer-2 blockchains as a patchwork solution because developers and users are better off working on higher-performing layer-1 blockchains. These folks are probably right in that a developer can use a layer 1 blockchain to bootstrap a current blockchain and then take the layer 1 blockchain off of it by using or even building a layer 2 blockchain. Separated from existing users, developers and network operators. More importantly, the "trustless" and "permissionless" design of the first-tier blockchain means that more competitive first-tier blockchains can be "connected" to the upper-tier block chains, so that In doing so, developers and users can permanently transfer their tokens to another blockchain.
Dapps that allow anyone to become a shareholder without permission
Unlike mainstream blockchains, many Dapps are only partially decentralized. The founding team of Dapps tends to hold most of the Dapps' tokens (because they already believe that the Dapps will be successful and have an incentive to continue to hold these tokens), so they may have the ability to change DappS at will. However, the success of a Dapp depends on its ability to attract developers, network contributors, users, and often funders. Instead, the founding team sells or gives away coins to outside groups and early adopters. In order to gain community support, many Dapps promise so-called "progressive decentralization", and their design is sometimes deliberately aligned with the "trustless" nature of the blockchain.
This seems like a traditional way to start a business. Most apps and platforms need to keep developers and users happy, especially at launch. And over time, their creators (founders and employees) see their equity diluted. These startups also sometimes go public, “decentralizing” the app’s governance so that anyone can become a shareholder without permission. But this is where the nuances of blockchain come into focus. The more successful an application is, the greater its control usually is. We can see this from the development of Hongmeng, Android, and iOS operating systems. Many technologists see this phenomenon as the natural progression of a profitable tech business that leverages its growing potential to aggressively target developers and users as it accumulates users, developers, data, revenue, etc.
These blockchains will effectively maintain what is valuable to Dapps developers - their digital coins, while users keep their data, identities, wallets and assets (such as photos) in custody through records on the blockchain . In short, a fully blockchain-based social software will never store users' photos, manipulate their accounts, or manage their likes or social connections. The service cannot influence, let alone control, how this data is used. The fact that competitors can take advantage of this data as soon as the service is launched puts pressure on market leaders. This blockchain model does not mean that applications have been commoditized.
We already have a simple understanding of blockchain operation, functionality, and principles. However, the performance of this technology is still far below expectations. For example, today’s blockchain-based social software may store almost all things outside the chain, and each photo takes ~2 seconds to load. What's more, history is littered with technologies that might disrupt existing conventions but ultimately lose hope or potential for growth. Might there be a better future for the blockchain?