The Absence of Forking & The Consensus Algorithm Dilemma

The biggest flaw and most complicated predicament to resolve is the fact that the Lucid blockchain’s Genesis block doesn’t include specified block numbers in which forks are enacted to substantially increase the difficulty of producing new blocks. The result of this is no ceiling limit for the max token supply, so essentially there is an endless supply of coins. This is a fatal shortcoming from an economic perspective as the value of each respective coin decreases as time moves on and more blocks are mined. There is, however, an implemented algorithm in which mining difficulty increases as the network hash rate increases; however, this gradual increase in difficulty does not mitigate the deficiency of having an unlimited currency supply. The decision not to implement a forking schedule was made on the basis of 2 viewpoints.

The first is the reality that a newly constructed blockchain has to advance through the creeping process of adoption. The truth is, there isn’t an abundance of miners waiting to mine on the blockchain while it’s still in its infantry. Had a forking schedule been in place since the first block, the mining difficulty would’ve increased faster than the cumulative mining power. The consequence of this is that the network difficulty would increase exponentially relative to the network hash rate, and the block timing would also increase exponentially since network difficulty and block timing are directly related. With a skyrocketing block timing, the speed at which new blocks are created decreases substantially, increasing the time in which transactions are confirmed. Having transactions take an exorbitant amount of time would’ve been more fatal to the future of this blockchain.

The second aspect of why a forking plan wasn’t implemented is the goal of being an environmentally friendly blockchain. Many legacy blockchains these days remain on the Proof-of-work consensus method and are facing increased scrutiny over their massive energy consumption, which is a terrible circumstance for our planet. The revelation is that the extensive power usage stems from the immense network difficulty conceived due to forking. As aforementioned, the Lucid blockchain doesn’t incorporate forking, which practically means that it consumes close to nothing in terms of electricity. However, the Proof-of-work algorithm that the Lucid blockchain possesses can never be both economically feasible and environmentally sound; it’s impossible to balance the two.

So why was the Proof-of-work consensus method adopted in the first place if it was known that a primary intention of the Lucid blockchain was to be eco-friendly? Well, it’s absolutely imperative that the community is able to obtain tokens from the get-go without an authoritative entity signing coins in essentially a giveaway process. Decentralization is the vital feature that the Lucid blockchain must sustain, so a Proof-of-authority algorithm was ruled out. Instating a Proof-of-stake algorithm from the start would’ve been remarkably challenging without the community already being coin holders, so a giveaway system would’ve also been necessary to support that consensus mechanism which would’ve also degraded the Lucid blockchain’s bottom line of decentralization.

The operation that can be done to resolve the blockchain’s financial practicality is splitting the blockchain into a new chain that incorporates a custom-designed forking schedule based on numerous trends regarding mining, only if the adoption of the blockchain is substantial enough. As previously discussed, though, the Proof-of-work algorithm is inherently non-eco-friendly, which raises the possibility of adopting a new consensus method such as Proof-of-stake. With there being countless coin holders in the community, the process of minting (not mining) and thereby block validation is possible. The Proof-of-stake consensus method operates by utilizing an algorithm that selects participants with the highest stakes as validators because the highest stakeholders are incentivized to ensure that a transaction is processed. The idea is that those with the most coins in circulation have the most to lose, so they are positioned to work in the interest of the network. The number of coins that a network requires changes similarly to difficulty in a Proof-of-work mechanism, so a blockchain on this algorithm can be both economically viable and environmentally sustainable.

Whichever consensus mechanism the Lucid blockchain splits onto in the future can be decided by a governance plurality vote in which each wallet’s token volume is the power of the vote. Nevertheless, what lies ahead in the future will be faced at the appropriate time, so let’s focus now on the adoption of the Lucid blockchain so remarkable things can happen in the future!

ASIC Resistance & Mining Equitability

A meaningful upside to the Lucid blockchain is its inherent resistivity to ASICs (Application-specific Integrated Circuits). ASIC miners are designed and manufactured for one purpose and one purpose only: to mine tokens as fast as possible. The problem with admitting ASIC miners into a network is that they accumulate a considerable portion of a network’s mining capacity due to their raw processing power. The consequence of this is the concentration of mining power into the hands of fewer entities, centralizing the blockchain. In smaller blockchains with lower network hash rates, ASICs are fatal to the chain’s integrity as they empower malevolent entities to perform “51% Attacks”. With a single entity controlling the majority of a network’s mining power, they are capable of rewriting the blockchain and supplying themselves with unlimited tokens. ASICs wouldn’t possess the drawback of centralization if they were both readily available to the general public and reputable hardware; however, there are additional complications associated with ASICs. The immense mining capabilities of ASICs spur a rapidly increasing network difficulty which demands more processing power and electricity to mine each block. In this day and age, it is championed that blockchains are efficient in their energy consumption, and ASICs utterly aggravate the environmental concern. Furthermore, the growing network difficulty forces CPU and GPU miners out of the network as their processing power can no longer keep up with the enormous mining difficulty. With a network dominated by ASICs, the average miners who congregate the backbone of a network are pushed out of the mining process, diminishing the network’s scope.

In an emerging blockchain, it’s all about offering freedom and equitability in mining. It brings confidence to typical miners to compute hashes using their ordinary hardware and trusting their investment won’t be betrayed. Advocating for mining approachability will ultimately form a more robust community which naturally leads to a blockchain’s success. It presents everyone an equal chance to shape a secure, decentralized, distributed, and easily accessible network. In the end, the community is solely responsible for the success of a blockchain which is why ASIC resistance was a crucial measure in the configuration of the Lucid blockchain.