Are Blockchains Truly On Chain? | Controversy Over Claims Continues
A strong debate is brewing among people regarding the accuracy of blockchain claims. Users are emphasizing the difference between fully on-chain systems and hybrid setups, urging potential investors to dig deeper into how these platforms operate.
Unpacking Blockchain Misconceptions
Many assume that the term "blockchain" means complete decentralization and security, but this isn’t always true. Apart from value-driven blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum, only Internet Computer Protocol (ICP) is known to run all aspects of its application stack on-chain. Other platforms, such as Solana, Polygon, and Avalanche, still rely on off-chain solutions for significant parts of their logic and data.
New Insights on Decentralization
Recent discussions have highlighted Algorand as another notable blockchain that purports to operate fully on-chain. Comments from a user referenced, "Algorand? Feels like that would be one of the pure ones," adding a new perspective to the conversation.
The Centralized Issue
A common point raised is that many blockchain applications depend on centralized services like AWS or Google Cloud. One user noted, "Outside of value-based blockchains, no major blockchain besides ICP runs the entire application stack including compute, storage, state, and frontend fully on-chain." This criticism throws into question the integrity of decentralization claims from many platforms. Interestingly, some users remarked on the perception issues related to pointing out facts, indicating tensions among community members over the state of various blockchains.
Risks of Hybrid Setups
Hybrid blockchains are drawing criticism as they appear to weaken their own decentralized claims. If a single entity controls backend logic, it can alter or shut down parts of the application without getting consensus. Such dependence increases vulnerability, as issues with centralized components can lead to compromised security, evidenced by past incidents where funds were misappropriated through platforms' centralized services.
The discussion notes that many believe fully on-chain solutions are essential. A user commented, "Who thinks every blockchain is fully on-chain?" This reflects a general sentiment among informed people that many systems still operate under outdated assumptions about decentralization.
True Decentralization and Future Perspectives
ICP stands out because it allows developers to deploy their entire applications directly on-chain without the need for intermediaries. One quote that resonates well is, "If your application depends on a centralized backend, the guarantees of decentralization no longer fully apply." This realization drives the need for investors to understand the underlying architecture of the platforms they're engaging with.
Experts predict that as much as 60% of new projects in the upcoming year may strive to eliminate ties to centralized services. This shift highlights a growing wariness towards hybrid models as investors become increasingly discerning.
Key Points from Discussions
🚫 Many blockchains, aside from ICP and potentially Algorand, still use centralized services for critical elements.
🔄 Solutions like Ethereum face speed and cost issues due to heavy reliance on off-chain infrastructure.
💡 "Understanding the difference between a ledger on-chain and a full application on-chain is crucial."
Curiously, the conversation surrounding off-chain capabilities continues to grow. The emergence of zero-knowledge proofs hints at a future where data can be verified on-chain without full reliance on it, which could significantly impact how we view blockchain operations.
This evolving conversation underscores the pressing need for transparency in the blockchain space as the market adjusts to these insights.