Bitcoin vs Algorand vs Coinflux vs Avalanche - Technical Discussion

[Anonymous No.27384762]

You idiots always complain how there's no technical discussion on 4Chan anymore. Well here you fucking go. If this thread dies with 0 responses then you know the reason why nobody bothers with technical discussion anymore. It's because nobody fucking cares.
Though there are seemingly abundant blockchain or cryptocurrency protocols, most of them only present a sketch of their protocols and do not offer practical implementation or evaluation results. Moreover, among those who do provide results, most are not evaluated in realistic, large-scale (hundreds to thousands of full nodes participating in consensus) settings.
Therefore, we choose Algorand and Conflux for our comparison. Algorand, Conflux, and Avalanche are all fundamentally different in their design. Algorand’s committee-scale consensus algorithm is quorum-based Byzantine agreement, and Conflux extends Nakamoto consensus by a DAG structure to facilitate higher throughput, while Avalanche belongs to a new protocol family based on metastability. Additionally, we use Bitcoin as a baseline.
Both Algorand and Avalanche evaluations use a decision network of size 2000 on EC2. Our evaluation picked shared c5.large instances, while Algorand used m4.2xlarge.
These two platforms are very similar except for a slight CPU clock speed edge for c5.large, which goes largely unused because our process only consumes 30% in these experiments.
The security parameters chosen in our experiments guarantee 12 a safety violation probability below 10^−9 in the presence of 20% Byzantine nodes, while Algorand’s evaluation guarantees a violation probability below 5×10^−9 with 20% Byzantine nodes.

[Anonymous No.27384784]

>>27384762
Neither Algorand nor Conflux evaluations take into account the overhead of cryptographic verification. Their evaluations use blocks that carry megabytes of dummy data and present the throughput in MB/hour or GB/hour unit. So we use the average size of a Bitcoin transaction, 250 bytes, to derive their throughputs. In contrast, our experiments carry real transactions and fully take all cryptographic overhead into account.
The throughput is 3-7 tps for Bitcoin, 874 tps for Algorand (with 10 Mbyte blocks), 3355 tps for Conflux (in the paper it claims 3.84x Algorand’s throughput under the same settings).
In contrast, Avalanche achieves over 3400 tps consistently on up to 2000 nodes without committee or proof-of-work. As for latency, a transaction is confirmed after 10–60 minutes in Bitcoin, around 50 seconds in Algorand, 7.6–13.8 minutes in Conflux, and 1.35 seconds in Avalanche.
Avalanche performs much better than Algorand in both throughput and latency because Algorand uses a verifiable random function to elect committees, and maintains a totallyordered log while Avalanche establishes only a partial order.
Although Algorand’s leadership is anonymous and changes continuously, it is still leader-based which could be the bottleneck for scalability, while Avalanche is leader-less.
Avalanche has similar throughput to Conflux, but its latency is 337–613x better. Conflux also uses a DAG structure to amortize the cost for consensus and increase the throughput, however, it is still rooted in Nakamoto consensus (PoW), making it unable to have instant confirmation compared to Avalanche.
In a blockchain system, one can usually improve throughput at the cost of latency through batching. The real bottleneck of the performance is the number of decisions the system can make per second, and this is fundamentally limited by either Byzantine Agreement (BA∗) in Algorand and Nakamoto consensus in Conflux.

[Anonymous No.27385001]

>>27384762
Once Pangolin launches in a matter of days, then anons will see AVAX in action. There will be no denying it’s a tech leap ahead of the competition.

[Anonymous No.27385210]

>>27385001
One billion times more efficient than bitcoin.

One million times more efficient than ethereum.

[Anonymous No.27385310]

pls repost my avax pepe thx
tfw stack not big enough yet

[Anonymous No.27385832]

Bro, I tried deploying a smart contract on Ethereum mainet, and it cost me $80 in gas fees. I was already all-in AVAX before that, but once I realized HOW FUCKING EXPENSIVE gas fees are, I realized that there is no way a normie will choose to use that. To deploy the very same contract in AVAX costs like 0.01 AVAX and it takes about 3 seconds

[Anonymous No.27385951]

>>27384784
Pretty neat analysis. Just listened to an interview with Emin, so fucking bullish.
>>27385310
Will do fren

[Anonymous No.27386100]

>>27384762

[Anonymous No.27386146]

>>27385832
Further expanding, I agree that pangolin will probably be a game changer for Avalanche

[Anonymous No.27386637]

Next time, please post the source of your pasta. Thank you.

https://files.avalabs.org/papers/consensus.pdf