The approach that a couple of currencies have taken (including the one I lead) is to make a separate blockchain entirely dedicated to their app. And I think that's a far better choice than anything out there, though it comes with the glaring downside of needing to build and run your own blockchain, which is a very difficult thing to do.
Most of the apps we are seeing today don't make any sense anyway. Very much smacks of the dotcom bubble, where people who suspected that the Internet would change the world were absolutely correct, but then the companies and ideas they put their money behind were missing the mark by miles.
We've got the same issue today. Most successful ICOs are going to fail very hard, due to known impossibilities, known poor uses of the technology, etc. It's just a general fever that has a lot of new entrants in the space innovating in the wrong direction.
It will get better. Dapp platforms will appear that make sense, have good foundations, and are easy to setup and use. But it's not around the corner, it's probably 3-5 years away.
This is the crux of the problem. The cryptocurrencies with the highest valuations right now are ones with serious technical and social flaws--people are investing in cryptocurrencies based on hype rather than merit.
Ethereum is the most egregious example: the idea that a JavaScript-like language is what you'd want to write your security-intensive code in is mind-boggling-ly stupid, and after the community showed themselves to be willing to perform a 51% attack on their own blockchain to fix a problem with the DAO, it's not even decentralized any more. So technically you have all the downsides of writing secure software in JavaScript, and socially you have all the problems of centralization AND all the problems of decentralization. The security flaw this thread is about would be a critical vulnerability to any competent security developer, but it's really minor compared to the more fundamental flaws.
But even in competently-developed cryptocurrencies, the problems are still there because people don't understand or value decentralization, which is literally the entire reason Blockchain is worthwhile. The number of people who buy cryptocurrencies and then leave their coins sitting on an exchange is incredible. You're literally donating money to the world's biggest bug bounties when you do that.
The only reason you think the cash in your portemonai is worth something is that everybody else things the same. As soon as everybody stops believing it, the paper in your wallet can still be used to make fire. Same goes for authorities. Judges, policemen, presidents are what they are because everybody believes it. We have already an informal consensus of who is a policeman and who is not. Most of the time it resolves to whether somebody wears the uniform. Crypto tech promises to make this verifiably. No need for uniforms.
Huh? No. Distributed consensus was formalized in 1978 by Leslie Lamport and the first version of Paxos was introduced in 1989. If you're okay with centralization, Paxos or it's successor, Raft, are much faster and more scalable algorithms than blockchain, and have a wide variety of mature implementations.
This cannot be stressed enough. But, I disagree that building your own blockchain is the answer in comparison to using EVM. The amount of blockchains and services people might end up needing will be huge. So, it seems the correct usage for blockchain is still far out.
Bitcoin could easily be extended to have an EVM
are you talking about Script, or some other approach I don’t know about? I think it’s pretty optimistic to put the word “easily” anywhere near a proposed use of Script.
lots of resources here, also recommend mentioning the discord here
This is where the primary technical discussion happens, and where all the devs hang out. Our company is here, mobile wallets are our first product :)
https://github.com/CityOfZion/OzoneWalletIOS https://github.com/CityOfZion/neo-swift
The truth is that the EVM is perfectly secure and the problems with Solidity are due to the fact that any new smart contract development environment was bound to have problems at the initial stages.
Solidity is being rapidly improved and there are several other programming languages under development for the EVM as well.
As for market significance, Ethereum is the only smart contract platform that's relevant.
There are now over a million MetaMask installations that can interact with any Ethereum Dapp, and millions of MEW wallets that can hold ERC20 tokens.
Ethereum-based tokens saw their share of the total token market cap grow from 73% to 92% from July 2017 to January 2018. The platform has 30X more developers working on it than the next most active one.
That means that almost all of the decentralized exchanges and other value-adding applications are compatible with the ERC20 standard, creating a positive feedback loop of encouraging new projects to build on Ethereum.
Ethereum is more likely than not going to be the platform for smart contract development.
Qtum sounds like the thing you could be looking for. To TL;DR; it, Qtum is a smart contract platform on an independent blockchain that supports PoS (not DPoS, true PoS) and designed to support multiple smart contract VMs. Right now it only supports the EVM and thus can only run Solidity smart contracts, but later this year we'll release a new VM based on the x86 architecture so that it will be possible to use mainstream languages like C++, Rust, Go, etc...
Anyway, ending the whole description bit, we built it because of similar thoughts as you. Tired of seeing the only suitable smart contract platform (Ethereum) be treated like some philosophical research project, rather than a platform that businesses and people stake hundreds of millions of dollars on. Everything we design is intended to be practical to not just use, but also implement. We pride ourselves in never missing any deadlines we set for ourselves, and in never having some pipe dream project that won't be ready to use for 5 years.