Total migration to the new network

Sorry man, if i had a link i would provided it in the first message. But the bottom line there consists of 2 things: authors analysed current Defi users, transactions volume, number of wallets etc and came to the conclusion that even with todays numbers eth 2.0 will enter the same death spiral of gas prices. They will just be lower (at least for a while). And that’s not even counting if all other current defi chains users will throw part of their tx volume back to eth. Second line is that evm/smartcontracts will be handled only by a part of future system, which will result in high congestion in that part. To summarize it’s like - simple payments will be ok, but still not enterprise-grade and still not cheap enough for buying cup of coffee.
Thats where we are getting to the second part - every move on Hopr require tx: Open channel - tx, Close channel - tx, Payment for cover traffic - tx, etc… So, the system is based on micropayments and must be cost-effective to work and be usable.
So here we getting to the next balance - cost of tx, throughput and decentralisation aka number of validators/nodes. Eth 2.0 will be fine with 2 and, maybe 3, but still not cheap enough. And yes, Bsc - if you are using it you must be aware of problems it’s experiencing lately. Basically, same as eth, just at lower prices and latency. So it will be fine with 1 point, but not 2 and 3d.
My bottom line is that in ideal situation you need chain not congested by other usage and very cheap and properly decentralised. Because if Hopr will get adoption and will get used, it will probably cause high load on any chain

I think you misunderstood how the payments work in a hopr node. The only transactions required are the ones to open or close a payment channel. Once a channel is open, it can be used to make an arbitrary number of small payments which each won’t require a transaction on the blockchain. Ideally, the node would open a few channels and then keep those open for weeks or months, collecting payments along the way. Only when you want to cash out you need to have another transaction to close the channel. The whole point of payment channels is to not require a transaction for each payment.

The topic of this DAO experiment: DEX Liquidity Distribution. Not discussions about changing the network for the HOPR token or Node.

This post should be moved to the general section so as not to distract from the DAO.

1 Like

Hi, migrating to BSC is not an option and team will definitely discourage this. I think the only way to migrate potentially would be polygon/matic.

Hi. We’re Dao. How will we vote so it will be😉

If the admins thought it necessary to move this topic, they would have done it already. I don’t mind, I don’t mind

1 Like

Actually, no. We’re the HOPR DAO v0.1 and we are given a small (but of course still important) amount of power to see what we would do with it, as an experiment. We can only decide on one specific thing for the moment.

Yep, maybe i misunderstood something. But i have 2 considerations about this: 1) imagine growth of the protocol when many nodes join and leave every day 2) imo, to make this more secure/untraceable nodes need to swap open/closed channels frequently. After a certain amount of time established channels become more traceable, generally. But, again, maybe i’m misunderstanding something

Regarding 2): You may indeed have a good point there! I suppose this is something the dev team would need to comment on.

Yes, I understand you perfectly. This topic was created to understand and raise the general level of knowledge of the people of our community. Knowledge of how the blockchains of various platforms are arranged. Their advantages and disadvantages.
For myself, I concluded that it is good at the moment that the team gives us the opportunity to solve minor problems.