Categories
- 17.3K All Categories
- 9.5K Mining
- 574 Pool Discussion
- 378 Promotional
- 1.4K General Project Discussion (non-technical)
- 485 Education
- 811 Protocol and Client discussion
- 170 web3-js
- 29 Whisper
- 16 Swarm
- 3 RLP
- 303 IoT & Hardware
- 1.2K Smart Contracts and Dapps
- 28 Serpent
- 359 Solidity
- 664 Projects
- 1.2K Reference clients code and builds
- 249 Eth & AlethZero- Cpp Implementation
- 471 Geth - Go Implementation
- 242 Mist
- 15 Node.js Implementation
- 36 Python Implementation
- 49 Mix
- 36 Other Implementations
- 170 Meetups
- 40 Other Events
- 226 Jobs & Skills
- 281 Press and Articles
- 75 Audio/Video
- 296 Ether Sale
- 1.2K Other Languages
- 96 Chinese
- 255 German
- 33 Italian
- 111 French
- 3 Hebrew
- 42 Japanese
- 75 Portugese
- 46 Romanian
- 185 Russian
- 231 Spanish
- 47 Turkish
- 125 Watercooler
A World of Competing Networks - IBM, Samsung, ETH
I noticed that there was a post on twitter where an IBM exec pointed out that Ethereum "have been great partners" and that "[IBM and Samsung] are forking Ethereum as part of [Adept]", so it occurred to me that IBM and Samsumg rather than relying on the ETH based Ethereum network may build there own, and that miners may potentially have 2 networks to choose from.
So this made me concerned about attack vectors between two networks competing for business, as well as how easy it would be to keep people out of private Ethereum network?
The Ether Product Purchase Agreement states the following:
"the Ethereum Platform software developed may give rise to other, alternative,
Ethereum-based or Ethereum-like networks, promoted by unaffiliated third parties, under which Purchaser’s
ETH will have no intrinsic value"
How do the network(s) that recognize ETH have security over Ethereum networks which do not recognize ETH as the "cryptofuel"?
If Ethereum as an organization have been great partners to IBM, why are the company's representatives choosing to state that they shall fork the Ethereum code before it is even ready and proven to operate rather than being part of a public network?
Are there things missing, needs unfulfilled that would also concern other organizations to create their own forks?
IBM and Samsung provide many solutions for the governments of the world and it would seem that the public network (the ETH network) would lose out to them and other large systems integrators as they have the scale over power non-government finances networks.
Would really love to understand the security concerns of competing networks backed by gov't money, as well as the strategy and thought that resulted in this kind of scenario playing out this way were major partners don't feel comfortable supporting the company's initiative.
Please feel free to correct me in any misunderstanding.
So this made me concerned about attack vectors between two networks competing for business, as well as how easy it would be to keep people out of private Ethereum network?
The Ether Product Purchase Agreement states the following:
"the Ethereum Platform software developed may give rise to other, alternative,
Ethereum-based or Ethereum-like networks, promoted by unaffiliated third parties, under which Purchaser’s
ETH will have no intrinsic value"
How do the network(s) that recognize ETH have security over Ethereum networks which do not recognize ETH as the "cryptofuel"?
If Ethereum as an organization have been great partners to IBM, why are the company's representatives choosing to state that they shall fork the Ethereum code before it is even ready and proven to operate rather than being part of a public network?
Are there things missing, needs unfulfilled that would also concern other organizations to create their own forks?
IBM and Samsung provide many solutions for the governments of the world and it would seem that the public network (the ETH network) would lose out to them and other large systems integrators as they have the scale over power non-government finances networks.
Would really love to understand the security concerns of competing networks backed by gov't money, as well as the strategy and thought that resulted in this kind of scenario playing out this way were major partners don't feel comfortable supporting the company's initiative.
Please feel free to correct me in any misunderstanding.
Comments
Otherwise, really i dont know what IBM is doing. I have difficulty believing that they'd go for decentralized approaches. The Ethereum network might suit them, but they have their own goals that are probably incompatible to Ethereum.(some of those could be bad to users) You could use the blockchain thing so other people can easily access and audit the system, and have certified block creators. That said, you then have to trust those people. If all the certified block creators ignore transactions, or make invalid blocks, and push a corresponding hard fork onto users, the only option you have is to go against the system, creating a hard fork that changes who gets to make blocks. I doubt that would succeed. (Burn-over is a really uncertain option aswel)
Recently, ICANN rejected Amazon, Inc.'s attempt to control the .amazon gTLD.
IBM forked ☰thereum because they realize the battle is not on the right, or the left side ov the dot. IT's all about the "://"
The Network Protocol Wars aren't even here yet, but troops are being ▲ligned. Companies that are blowing millions (in USD) on ICANN's gTLD application fees are missing Thee cl☰ΔrHer viZ☰N. IBM s33s IT, but as Jasper mentions:
"I don't know what IBM is doing. I have difficulty believing that they'd go for decentralized approaches."
By 2020, TOWOS companies and organizations will have had no other choice but to DECENTralize themcellves internally, and join The NEOS (New Earth Operating System). By then though, their '฿est & ฿rightest' Ðevelopers will have already moved on and into the ☾ryptoϟphere; APPlying their TAGS (Talents Abilities Gifts & Skills) towards Renaissansical Vndertakings, such as ☰thereum.
Th33 Meaningfool VVeb.. The Ðecentralized Web.. whatEVEr VV☰ choose inÐiviÐually and collecktively to call this thing, can not be stopped. Our natural ☰volution ov conscious KINecktivity (as a living ϟpecies) is driving Vϟ to-wards abϟoulute Δuthenticity, Δutonomy, and ▲nonymity.
Things that hierarchically $inTrollLIES'd, technofascist monopoLIES simply can not fit into...
Let's start with the obvious: forking in the crypto space has very negative connotations. After all, we ourselves have stated that if we didn't do a good enough job as custodians of the concept, forks will ensue (and rightly so!). So people hear the work 'fork', and some panic that somehow IBM is attempting to 'kill' Ethereum, or steal all the ether or some other nonsensical theory. Nothing could be further from the truth, here's why.
Let's rewind a bit. IBM has a group called the IBV - you can read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Business_Value. I probably oversimplify, but in a nutshell it's an R&D driven department studying what the future will look like, and deploying PoCs for shows/press as needed. This is useful for IBM of course, since if they can identify trends that eventually pick up, they'll have a leg up and can release commercial software faster. Nothing new here though: Google, MS, Cisco, well, just about everyone big enough has some form of think tank of that nature in order to insure they stay relevant at all times.
A while back, a team within this group identified decentralized technologies such as Ethereum as something that could add value, and in fact could maybe even 'reboot' the Internet of Things. That's a very accurate view in my opinion, and we've seen projects such as Cubespawn (www.cubespawn.com) showing an interest in Ethereum for that very reason. I recommend you read the full paper from IBM, located here: http://public.dhe.ibm.com/common/ssi/ecm/en/gbe03620usen/GBE03620USEN.PDF - it's a very readable and interesting document.
Said team subsequently decided to build a prototype. When you build a PoC with a deadline (their demo is due at the CES in Jan), you don't want to reinvent the wheel. Furthermore, you want to go and experiment with the maximum amount of tech that's available today to make sure your concept has legs. And that's exactly what they've done, and also it was around that time they got in touch with us. What did they want? Well, nothing sinister I assure you. Just basic info on where we were going with the software, to see what version of Ethereum they could/should leverage for their research. In particular, installing on Beagleboards and Raspberry pis.
This has been a very 'light touch' series of contacts, and from our discussions they decided that PoC5 was the most suited to their needs. As most of us here know, trying to keep up with the bleeding edge of Ethereum can sometimes take quite a bit of building/rebuilding the clients, not something you'd want to deal with when you have a deadline looming. PoC5 C++, to install properly on some devices, required some modifications. So at that point, they took the source code for the release and 'forked'. I think it was the correct technical decision, as we're talking about a prototype with a deadline here. If they later on decide that they want to build fridges that interact with grocery retailers, there will be plenty of time to leverage a newer version of Ethereum, if that's the technology they choose to use.
I hope this clear things up. This also explain why they refer to both Telehash and Bittorrent in their paper. Why not Whisper and Swarm instead? Well, both are at the draft stage and they needed something they can refer to today authoritatively, in time for their demo at the CES. What are they working on exactly, and what do they need from Ethereum? Well, and I quote " The changes we have made are primarily focussed on enabling interoperability with other parts of the stack, obtaining some additional information from the blockchain etc."
TL;DR:
- IBM is not trying to kill Ethereum.
- Forking means nothing: they even mentioned that "The intent is to share the code on git post PoC implementation", so there's a good chance you'll be able to play with that in the near future.
- It's a very good thing(tm) that such a major player indirectly validates our theories around decentralization
Now that gives me a clearer picture. I've worked with IBM in the past on smart grid / smart metering projects and I know exactly what you mean about them needing to keep the environment stable for POC.
I definitely see technologies like Ethereum, Bitcoin, Maidsafe, their clones, and whatever else comes along as the future peer2public infrastructure that will scale to meet local needs without the overhead of centralized planning and decision making. And that means that big SI's like IBM, Samsung SDS, Siemens, HP, Logica, Fujitsu and the many other will be interested in leveraging this technology.
If the project has now already done so I would highly recommend that a few people spend some time reaching out to similar R&D and corporate VC units in those to introduce Ethereum.