During his Crypto Insider interview, ETC Cooperative Director Anthony Lusardi has also spoken about pressing issues such as the Bitcoin Cash hash wars and the added benefits of having Turing-complete blockchains. However, the most memorable part involves Mr. Lusardi rating other projects that are similar to ETC in their scope.
This segment gives us a unique and fascinating insight on the thought process of a proponent of immutable smart contract platforms. The ratings are harsh and point out to a closeness to the mother ship of ETH. Yet some criticism in relation to projects like TRON or EOS might be regarded as constructive enough to point out to the aspects that these blockchains should improve.
Last but not least, Anthony Lusardi describes the perfect Turing-complete blockchain project, with all the elements that make it truly great. As you’re about to discover, experience and the use of time-tested features are the main criteria to delimitate hype from trustworthy robustness.
If the previous part was more about the differentiating between ETC and ETH in order to give the former an identity of its own, now it’s about expectations and technology.
Watch the full video interview with Anthony Lusardi or read the complete transcript below.
Vlad Costea: Oh yeah, it can be confusing. Just like when Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Diamond, and Bitcoin Gold and whatever. It just takes away…
Anthony Lusardi: And Bitcoin Satoshi’s vision!
Vlad Costea: Oh yeah, we’re gonna have that soon. I guess it’s just going to be interesting. By the way, do you have any preference for any of the sides in the Bitcoin Cash battle? You have Jihan and Roger Ver have their Bitcoin ABC and then you have Craig Wright’s who has the majority of hashing power right now.
Anthony Lusardi: The only preference I have for that disagreement is to see the war is actually play out the way that they’ve been advertised. The, I’m just concerned that there won’t be some crazy hash rate war that, uh, that Craig has been promising unfortunately. Promises. I don’t really don’t really have a sign. I think um, I’ve never been big on Bitcoin Cash. I’m definitely far more Bitcoin than anything, but no, I just don’t. I don’t, I don’t really, really have a preference. I would actually love to see though a miner’s attempting to enforce consensus rules with hash rate because this is something that’s been attempted a lot of times already and his failed each and every time.
And so I would absolutely be, I would be over the moon to see, uh, the worst case scenario where you’re on the socialization side. They don’t even care about losses, they don’t care about any of the economics behind mine that are supposed to make bitcoin work. So that type of thing, if I would love to see it play out just for informational purposes on how well this works because he hasn’t been tested against a med mag yet and I really want to see muddying tested it with a madman and control of it.
Vlad: I guess that would be interesting to observe and we would always have an example and say, “You know, this is why it’s a bad idea”.
Anthony Lusardi: Yeah. But turns out miners can actually win. And that’s a really good piece of information to know because so far they’ve lost every battle.
Vlad Costea: Let’s get back to ETC foror now. Because I guess it’s a more interesting topic, which also has relevance on the long-term, unlike. Oh, okay. Yeah. I said that it has more relevance on the long run on unlike the bitcoin cash debate, which is only temporary and we might have a split, we might not have one, but it doesn’t matter in the end. Let’s talk about something which I’ve learned from Giacomo Zucco was who is one of the few people to openly embrace the label of being a Bitcoin maximalist.
And I told him to rank the top 20 coins from Coin Market Cap from 1 to 10 and he gave a pretty good rating to Ethereum Classic and said that your people actually have an ideological claim which he agrees with, but at the same time he said that Turing completeness on a blockchain is a bad idea and that doesn’t work.
Anthony Lusardi: Yeah, so…
Vlad Costea: I forgot to ask the question. So bitcoin maximalists like Giacomo claimed that anything that material can be also done on the bitcoin blockchain. And why do you think that Turing completeness is important as a way of, you know, refuting his argument?
Anthony Lusardi: Well, yeah, for Turing completeness… so it’s a double edged sword. Obviously you can implement the same exact things directly on the Bitcoin main chain, um, as you could on an Ethereum based chain because you liked that Turing completeness and there’s positives and negatives to lacking Turing completeness. That I’m sure, I’m always very aware of what I think though Turing completeness gives you options to do things that…
So for example, right now Bitcoin will say… Oh well, one of the biggest things that you could use starting completing as far on Ethereum is doing multisig and that doesn’t matter because Bitcoin has M of N multisig, which is one variety of multisig and it doesn’t have other varieties and multisig where you may be, you know, after a certain period of time, fall over to a different owner, give different owners different ways. You could kind of abstract that by giving multiple keys to the same party or something, but it gets complicated. Um, and there’s a variety of other things that are with Turing completeness.
They do enable you to a do more complex operations, whether you should or not is obviously up for debate, but what I think having that Turing completeness there gives you is you don’t need to use it, but you can use it so, um, majority of transactions on ETC.
For example, our value transfer and they don’t require a Turning completeness. But what I need to completeness, it’s there and available and I think what we’re going to see for ETC is you’re going to see the ability to not use the Turing completeness all the time. You’re going to just use it whenever you need to. You’re maybe going to start seeing languages where they’re not. They don’t compile to a Turing complete.
So they compile the EVM, but they don’t do Turing complete loops, which is basically all the majority of what you need for Turing completeness. So, um, yeah, I don’t really, I don’t see Turing completeness as a bad thing. I see it as a good and useful thing in some cases. And what’s going to be important is educating developers on when you need it and when you don’t.
For example, I deployed a multisig a while back where we just skip the Turing completeness. We just unrolled the loop because we knew what the loop would be each and every time. So there wasn’t a necessary need for it, but we still had the ability to do things that we wouldn’t have been able to do on Bitcoin. Like… it was a multisig where you could, you needed a certain number of people to withdraw funds, but for small amounts on any one of those signers go withdraw that small amount daily. And that’s just something you can’t do on Bitcoin right now. So yeah, just having the EVM in general, whether it’s complete or not, a is still very useful. but it’s a complicated topic that can’t just be easily reduced to garner bed.
Vlad Costea: I understand. A lot of people just claimed that you don’t really need Turing completeness on blockchains. And one of the biggest claims and proposals for Ethereum Classic is that you have a truly decentralized Turing complete blockchain, unlike all the other alternatives which try to run the apps and smart contracts.
Anthony Lusardi: Yeah, absolutely.
Vlad Costea: You mentioned earlier the involvements IOHK, and I’ve known Charles Hoskinson is also on the page of people involved with the Ethereum Classic Cooperative. And would you say is the relationship between Classic and Cardano?
Anthony Lusardi: There’s not too “too much” right now. Obviously, IOHK works on both and we think that’s great because they’ve got quite a lot of very academic programming talent that uh, is rare to come across in blockchain as far as ETC and Cardano, though they are working on enabling the ability to do atomic swaps between ETC and ADA.
So I think that’s interesting, especially just from an educational perspective on how you could do it. You know, IOHK has some very interesting work on Nipopows which exploit some certain properties of Proof of Work to maybe allow you to skip some of the work in order to get better interoperability between main chains side chains between, different cryptocurrency networks. So I can’t say whether or not you lose any of the total strength of the work set because I’m not qualified to. But yeah, they’ve got a lot of very interesting things there. I just wouldn’t say that there’s too much stuff where Cardano and ETC are working directly. It’s more just a IOHK is working towards interoperability and I think that’s great.
Vlad Costea: Would you like to play a little game in which you rate oldest smart contract platforms which are listed in among the first ones on Coin Market Cap?
Anthony Lusardi: Sure. Like what, a number rating or what? Okay.
Vlad Costea: Like what rating would you give to Ethereum?
Anthony Lusardi: On what scale? From one to 10? One to 10… Um hmm. That’s a tough one. Uh, on immutability I would give Ethereum a one right now because they haven’t forked to fix the Parity issue, which I actually argue they should for a variety of reasons, but I don’t know. I would give Ethereum like a six, six–seven.
Vlad Costea: Six or seven overall? Because you established a criterion and you just said “Okay, on immutability, I’d give it a one”. So there has to be another one on which you’d give it a bigger grade. So you have an average of six or seven, I guess.
Anthony Lusardi: Uh, yeah, I would, excluding the immutability issues and other principals, I would give him Ethereum a six or seven. I just think those principles are crucial. So it’s very hard to rate. Like, I feel like without those principles it just doesn’t work out well. So yeah, I’d give it a… let’s just say a six.
Vlad Costea: Okay. What about, EOS?
Anthony Lusardi: I give it a zero. Yes, EOS is bad. EOS isn’t a blockchain.
Vlad Costea: Okay, but they did launch their main net and it’s a blockchain which is governed by their federation of block producers. Right?
Anthony Lusardi: Yeah. I guess, uh, I feel like in order to be a blockchain you need to at least be able to sign transactions and have that stored so that people can validate who actually sent or didn’t send transactions. And on EOS you can’t actually do that. So I feel even at a technical level it doesn’t qualify as a blockchain. I would give EOS a zero.
Vlad Costea: What about Cardano?
Anthony Lusardi: Does Cardano do smart contracts yet?
Vlad Costea: I’m not sure. I haven’t tried, so I don’t know.
Anthony Lusardi: I don’t think they do smart contracts yet. I think they are still are waiting on it, so I may not be able to rate that.
Vlad Costea: Okay. Then you have to rate TRON.
Anthony Lusardi: Oh god. Oh, just copy and pasted Ethereum code. I give it a negative one. That’s ridiculous.
Vlad Costea: But they scale so well! They can handle hundreds of thousands of transactions, right?
Anthony Lusardi: TRON is a great example of a tech versus marketing. Like when you look at TRON’s market cap, you can see the amount of money that just raw marketing and a messed up a coin distribution can get you in terms of market cap. So yeah, I give TRON a negative one.
Vlad Costea: Well, okay, what about Tezos?
Anthony Lusardi: Tezos I actually found interesting. I wouldn’t give it maybe like… again, I’m not sure if Tezos does smart contracts though they’re planning to. But um, I would give the idea of it like maybe like a three or so. I’m not too much of a fan of it anymore. I think I was more a while back, but they’ve had so many issues right now that it’s just, it’s a little bit concerning. Obviously there are things they can work through, but yeah, right now I would give it a three and a, that’s a hesitance, right? Because I haven’t seen too much from it yet.
Vlad Costea: Do you think that NEO is any better?
Anthony Lusardi: No. NEO is centralized, so NEO just doesn’t have decentralization. So I don’t don’t like NEO at all. At least, uh, at least most other blockchains are, with the expection of EOS and TRON, are attempting to be decentralized. But I give NEO a zero.
Vlad Costea: Zero…It’s still better than a negative one, I guess.
Anthony Lusardi: Yeah, it’s better than a negative one.
Vlad Costea: Mm, let me see. Another one, IOST.
Anthony Lusardi: I don’t know what that is.
Vlad Costea: It’s supposed to be similar, but I don’t know what makes it distinguishable in the crowd. And there’s also NEM which does smart contracts.
Anthony Lusardi: Yeah. NEM does smart contracts. But NEM confuses me because it has no volume and I can never find anybody ever using them. So I don’t know. I give NEM a zero too.
Vlad Costea: Well, it’s still better than the minus one.
Anthony Lusardi: It’s better than a minus one, they’re better than TRON.
Vlad Costea: This was fun to do, but do you think that Ethereum Classic is closer to a 10 right now? Or how would you rate it?
Anthony Lusardi: I would give ETC a seven. I think there’s still quite a lot of improvement to make. You know, I’m very passionate on ETC and in just believing about the blockchain in general. But I think there’s still definitely, with all blockchains, there’s room to grow. So yeah, I would say we’re a solid seven right now.
Vlad Costea: And how would you describe a perfect ten?
Anthony Lusardi: A perfect 10 blockchain that’s Turing complete is 20 or 30 years out and has had some very brilliant mathematicians make major breakthroughs in mathematics to say “Hey guys, we can actually scale much higher than presently possible by doing x, y, and z. And all the math is there and they’ve just discovered it this year and it’s been tested for 30 years into the future. So yeah, I don’t think we’re anywhere near a perfect 10 blockchain. Especially Turing complete.
The post ETC Coop’s Anthony Lusardi on Turing Completeness and other smart contract platforms appeared first on Crypto Insider.