What an interesting road we keep going down.
Many of us feel that Hive is far ahead of everyone else when it comes to the Web 3.0 infrastructure. As we are seeing with Elon Musk and Twitter, there are many forces out there who want to control the narrative. It appears this is extending to government and Presidential administrations. Through social media, they want certain topics/authors banned.
This is not what blockchain and Hive stands for. The idea behind a permissionless blockchain is that anyone can utilize it. At the same time, with Hive being a home for decentralized text data, it brings an element to the table that cannot be matched in too many places.
Hive is the epitome of combining censorship resistant social media with finance. Both are outside the reach of governments. The base layer of Hive is structured in such a way that gaining control over the ecosystem is very difficult (if not impossible). Many safeguards were put in place to deter that from happening.
We also have the base layer coin, $HIVE, that utilizes a reward system for distribution. Each day, thousands of people are able to get rewarded in the coin, a move that gives them a bit influence over the network.
This provides a powerful foundation that is unrivaled.
So what comes next?
From what we can see, it appears the next step is to "build Hive on top of Hive". Having a decentralized layer 1 is not enough. The process is already starting of how to construct a similar second layer.
Therefore, we see software and development emerging that is laying the framework for a layer 2 decentralized node system. This means that any applications tying into this have the benefit of two decentralized layers.
At the core of this is resiliency. Systems that are vertical in nature can be taken down. We know they can be toppled when the right threat emerges. Powerful forces have historically undermined even the biggest of organizations. This is what happens with the hierarchical framework.
Hive seeks to go the opposite direction. Decentralization means spreading things out horizontally. We see this in the node system that runs the blockchain along with the coin distribution. Anyone can enter and start filling their wallets simply by the activity they undertake.
This is complimented by duplicating the same concept at the second layer. Of course, this is not limited to just one project. The creation of a number of node systems of this nature would only benefit (and insulate) the base layer.
Here we can see how "building Hive on top of Hive" is the only sensible move.
The switch by Ethereum from proof-of-work to proof-of stake revealed a major flaw in that system.
Since that took place, it is evident how centralized things are becoming. From the start, a couple of node operators took control. This is because the staking provides block producers with the opportunity to validate based upon the percent of stake controlled. Couple this with the fact that the original distribution meant there were a number of large ETH holders who are basically able to control much of the chain.
Nobody is guaranteed block production hence it is on a probability basis. However, if one pool is controlling 60% of the stake, it is likely that, over time, it will produce that many blocks. The percentage might be up or down a few points but it will be in the range.
Hive does not have this. The Top 20 witnesses have the opportunity to produce the same number of blocks, regardless of the stake voting them. As long as they are in the consensus pool, the production is equal.
This means no block producer handles more than 5% of the activity. It is actually reduced a bit since there is a 21st node that is involved on a rotation basis.
Having this at the base layer is appearing to be very rare. Duplicating something similar, i.e. a decentralized node system, at the second layer is unheard of. This is helping Hive to lap the field when it comes to resiliency.
Base layer feeless transactions is crucial. This is something that is overlooked throughout much of the blockchain world. While Bitcoin and Ethereum are the two biggest chains in terms of market cap, they also can carry some high fees when it comes to transactions.
This resulted in many efforts to alleviate the traffic on the base layer. Essentially, development teams are working on layer 2 networks that move the transactions to the second layer. Lightning is an example of this.
What this means is the transactions, which are designed to be decentralized and censorship resistant due to blockchain characteristics, are being removed. Instead, they are on layer 2 solutions that insert counterparty risk.
It is ironic is that Hive might end up being a solution here. In the next few months, we might see technology roll out that allows for the transferring of both BTC and ETH using a wrapped token. Ultimately, this means that BTC could be sent from one wallet to another using this system yet without the massive fees periodically associated with the main chain.
Also, unlike Lightning, once fully tested, larger amounts of BTC can be sent.
We should not overlook the ability to transact in a fast and feeless manner. That is something taken for granted on Hive yet is also a rarity in the rest of the cryptocurrency world. Many chains are looking at reducing the transaction fees. This occurred with some of the EVM forks. However, when analyzed, most of these are not even close to being decentralized.
With Hive, we are looking at the ability to put immutable data on top of immutable data. Just consider the implications of that for a moment. This extends far beyond anything else that is out there.
The revelation about the direct influence over social media accounts will take on even greater meaning when we add the financial component. With Hive, not only can one enjoy immutable text storage, we also have full control over the wallets along with money housed in them.
It does not appear this will be the case with traditional social media.
If you found this article informative, please give an upvote and rehive.
gif by 
logo by 
