The table above represents my "first impressions" summary of qualitative differences between ASERT and Grasberg. Some more words below it.
UPDATE: The table below is now slightly out of date as ABC is continuing to modify the Grasberg implementation quite extensively. I will wait for their code to stabilize (or better yet - for them to produce a specification) before I re-do this comparison.
This is based on discussions in various places and a bit of feedback from some (thanks to them!)
I'm putting it out here for general discussion in large part because I did not get see any replies on questions and comments posted by myself and others in the comments section on the G'berg announcement. But I think it is crucial to discuss the pros and cons openly.
My views above are open to discussion with any civil participants in the comments here. And of course if you want to discuss with me on the BCHN Slack I'm more than happy to chat about it. I don't claim my view be "the right one" on each point. Certainly some of it is subjective, but I'm entitled to my subjective opinion :-)
I also don't claim it's a complete picture -- it was just what I came up with and I hope you will add any missing bits in the comments.
BTW, I did not color in the "attempt to compensate for drift" boxes because that's just a requirement that exists in one and not the other, I would not color it subjectively in this overview because that requirement deserves a whole discussion to itself (and much more will be said about it).
I look forward to more quantitative analysis of Grasberg, which I know people are working on.
freetrader
Lead image: Painting by Willard Metcalf, "The Bower", 1907
good
Even though this type of discussion is very deep, I can understand that there's some comparison to the both of the parties who proposed their proposal, with that it is crucial to every one of us and all we can do now is have each other's back. At times like these we should all be more understanding and disagreement should be avoided. Because if not, it can lead to a huge chaos in the community or worse a split. And we don't want this to happen since many of us believe in BCH. I think we just hope for better outcome.
Keep sharing
How do you get up to $21 am a new user be nice
Nice article btw where did you collect this information ?
Trying to understand this
Wow .so nice .. it's really helpful for us..I learn here something .
good
GREAT 💯💯💯
Keep sharing
I will be awaiting the results and the discussions before the approval of any algorithm.
nice
Good
Attempts to compensate for earlier drift in emission
It should be emphasised that the EDA-era drift will be fully compensated (i.e. BTC block height overtakes BCH block height again) soon enough with both the current DAA and with ASERT, simply because we now have an average block time of 10 minutes whereas Satoshi's original DAA has a smaller average block time.
So this difference is really only about the BTC DAA drift.
Good job
which one do you prefer?
Keep sharing
Wow lovelyu
Good update
its lovely artical.
Thanks for this great technical review. However it seems like that ABC is not willing to participate in any kind of discussion. The silence after throwing a bomb from ABC is turning into a recurring trend and it's very unprofessional and unhealthy for people who are supposed to be trusted as protocol developers.
I love this article. Its very helpful for us Keep going Be unique
Awesome review! We needed this. It's too bad the "Grasberg" DAA was just sort of sprung on us without any conversation.
[Removed comment]
I do not know which of the two is better.
What I do know is that if the BCHN and ABC developers don't come to an agreement and there is another split, it will be a huge setback for Bitcoin Cash and in the worst case it will be its end.
Let's hope the worse scenario will not happen
Nice
While this is certainly true for block confirmation time, this may be different for transaction confirmation time because more transactions are issued in longer block intervals. Jonathan Toomim has shown these to differ substantially in case of oscillating block times, with the current DAA having a 1257 seconds average transaction confirmation time, which ASERT reduces to 638 seconds. Grasberg will likely score somewhere in between, but exactly where is hard to tell due to the absence of Grasberg simulations.