>Right. The claim that a mere DAG structure can solve the scalability trilemma is very false. You need to find a way to ensure that not every node needs to verify each transaction.I don't understand why they can't just group transactions into blocks and then have the DAG structure be over blocks, letting clients verify individual blocks with fraud proofs and data availability proofs. That would give them quadratic sharding right there.IMO the desire some people have to make "blockless" consensus algorithms is a huge mistake and step backwards; the way to get scalability is to have more layers of packaging.
>In a sharded chain, scalability of data[storing all the tx data] is going up a lot, scalability of computation[validating all income transactions] is going up but less than scalability of data (and additionally, sharding inherently makes latency of computation go up[nodes must communicate more]), and scalability of state[part of validating transactions - every node must know if a cross-shard tx is valid] is, in the current designs, not going up at all.
Looks like radix is addressing the data salability issue here, and maybe computation. Salability of state - not sure how this is addressed, if at all(will state be sharded as well?). There is nothing magical about DAGs vs blockchains.
Their webpages and whitepaper are so full of buzz terms that its hard to understand what they are actually doing. Some things are too high level, others are too dumbed down. All sorts of crap about atoms and constraints. 0 relevant explanation as to how it solves scaling better than ethereum's plan.
Also what is up with all the hyperbolic claims? 17 sextillion shards? Why would that ever be a good idea? How would you even start to maintain state across that? My BS detector is beeping.