At the risk of getting downvoted due to the overwhelming popularity of EOS on Steemit, I would still like to discuss this topic in a hopefully objective way.
Recently the EOS team has announced the consensus protocol for EOS to be DPOS+BFT, which is a version of DPOS where 2/3rds of the network nodes determine consensus. This is identical to NEO's already existing dBFT. EOS is often heralded as the next generation Ethereum-killer, but is it really?
DISCLAIMER
Before I get attacked, let me state that I have invested in both EOS as well as NEO. And contrary to most EOS investors who have only been recently holding, I have actually been holding EOS since it hit the markets on Bitfinex last year. My buy-in price was $1.92, and I have been holding all the way down to $0.50 and back up. I have only recently broke even in terms of BTC value. I say this, to make clear that I am in no way in opposition of EOS and in fact a true hodler of EOS and I want to see it succeed.That being said, I also own NEO and I own quite a lot more of it than I own EOS.
BYZANTINE FAULT TOLERANCE
EOS announced it's using a DPOS+BFT consensus mechanism. This stands for Delegated Proof-of-Stake + Byzantine Fault Tolerance.NEO, by comparison, uses what they call dBFT which stands for Delegated Byzantine Fault Tolerance. I don't have a handy video on that, but found a nice explanation on Reddit which you can read here
It's not just the name that sounds similar: the actual consensus mechanism seems identical as well. In both cases there are network nodes and 2/3rds of them vote for consensus.
EOS SALES PITCH
EOS is 'Ethereum on Steroids', is something you'll often hear. It's the Ethereum-killer. The Next Generation Platform Blockchain.Why? Because it offers:
- Free transactions
- High tps
- an improved consensus protocol over regular PoS
The last point now seems a bit less revolutionary. There's not much 'next generation' in using the same consensus protocol of an existing blockchain such as NEO which has been around for a long time.
That leaves us with free transactions and a high tps, both excellent features to have. But, as you may know, transactions on NEO are already free and have been for a long time. There is a theoretical GAS cost associated with transactions in the future, however it is very unlikely that the consumer will ever pay for this should it ever be instated by the nodes. Instead it will be corporations who will purchase the required amount of NEO in order to provide all the GAS they will ever need for their dAPP's network usage. In essence, once they're 'bought in', running the NEO blockchain runs for free on the GAS their buy-in provides. Service to consumers is free and the company foots any bill there is, is where we are headed with NEO.
In the meantime though, the point is that NEO transactions are already free.
A high TPS is excellent, definitely! This allows for scalability on-chain! I am reading (realistic) estimates of 20K to 100K transactions per second. NEO on the other hand currently has 1K tps and will scale up to 10K tps. That makes EOS about 10x faster than NEO. Wow!
But at what cost?
The main reason for the faster tps seems to be the higher hardware specs of running an EOS node. This allows for faster computations and thus a higher tps. But looking back at the Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash split, the core underlying difference of opinion was that Bitcoin Cash wanted bigger blocks and core argued that higher specs would be required for bigger blocks, thereby centralizing the network.
If it is true that a higher hardware spec for running a node makes it so that only corporations can run a node, as is argued with Bitcoin Cash, how does this apply to EOS vs NEO where EOS requires a higher investment to run a node?
Though, admittedly, NEO nodes will not be ran by smalltime home-miners either. It's just as likely that it will be corporations running NEO nodes mainly (as is the case with Dutch telecommunications company KPN recently).
And what happens when NEO increases their hardware spec as well? It sounds like it would be easy to scale the tps this way, if they should choose to. Not to mention the off-chain scaling solutions that are coming to NEO such as Trinity, which is similar to Bitcoin's Lightning Network.
'ETHEREUM KILLER', OR 'NEO OF THE USA'?
People like to think in comparisons. EOS is an Ethereum-killer, and NEO is 'the Ethereum of China'. But I can't help but be a bit disappointed by the recent developments around EOS' consensus protocol. It seems to me much more that if NEO is the 'Ethereum of China', then EOS must be trying to be the 'NEO of the USA'.As I said earlier, I hold both crypto's in my portfolio and want to see both of them succeed. But I am starting to wonder if EOS is truly a third generation platform, or if it's just a second generation one that's late to the party? If it's just basically the same as NEO except with better hardware, then I'm not sure that's going to be enough :(
I know that this post/title in combination of me posting with the #eos tag is probably going to draw attention to this from some of the EOS supporters, to which I say: Excellent!.
Please DO engage with me in conversation and tell me where I am wrong! I would love to be educated on this!
I would very much like to be reinvigorated with my love for EOS, and see the errors of my logic! I am not trying to spread FUD, but I also have yet to find a satisfying answer to my questions regarding these issues.
Please though, try to keep it civil.
In closing: Long Live (N)EO(S)!!!!!!
