Polkadot vs Cosmos

by

As an experienced analyst, I believe both Polkadot and Cosmos represent significant strides forward in the realm of blockchain technology. Their shared goal of enabling communication between different state machines through an interface is a testament to their visionary design. However, the unique approaches they take to achieve scalability and interoperability set them apart.

As a crypto investor, I’m always on the lookout for innovative blockchain projects that offer unique value propositions. Two such projects that have caught my attention recently are Polkadot and Cosmos. These protocols share a common end goal – enabling communication between different state machines – but they approach this objective in distinct and fascinating ways.

As a blockchain analyst, I’ve come to recognize that the future of this technology lies in the interconnection of multiple chains. This realization led to the development of Polkadot and Cosmos. Instead of focusing on isolation, these platforms prioritize interoperability, allowing different blockchains to work together seamlessly and efficiently.

Polkadot vs. Cosmos: Sharded Model vs. Horizontal Scalability

Let’s explore how each protocol handles scalability, starting with Polkadot. Polkadot implements scalability through a sharded system, where each segment, referred to as a shard, has its unique state transition function (STF). Polkadot employs Web Assembly (WASM) as an underlying protocol. In Polkadot, these segments are called parachains. When a parachain undergoes a state transition, it submits a block along with a proof of state. These proofs are confirmed by validators on the Polkadot network and finalized for the Relay Chain, which serves as the primary chain. All parachains in the Polkadot system exchange and submit their state information, resulting in the need for a consensus update if any single parachain undergoes reorganization, affecting all other parachains and the Relay Chain alike.

In contrast, Cosmos employs horizontal scalability through app chains. The Cosmos Network encompasses over 100 interconnected chains via the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) Protocol. These include Osmosis, Celestia, dYdX, v4 Chain, Injective, and Cosmos Hub. Each chain independently secures itself with a decentralized validator set, but they can also tap into the collective security of the Cosmos Hub. Chains on Cosmos communicate via IBC, maintaining separate states to prevent re-organization of one chain from affecting others.

Polkadot vs Cosmos: Architecture

In the Polkadot network, the Relay Chain serves as the principal chain, hosting all validators. Parachains, on the other hand, have collators that create and propose blocks to these validators. These collators can submit one parachain block for every six seconds of the Relay Chain’s progression. After submission, validators carry out verification checks to ensure both availability and validity before committing approved blocks onto the main chain.

In the Polkadot network, there are a finite number of available parachain slots. Aspiring projects vying for these slots need to join an auction process. Should their bid be victorious, they will secure the right to occupy a parachain slot for a maximum duration of two years.

In simple terms, Cosmos relies on CometBFT for reaching consensus within its network, employs Cosmos SDK as its virtual machine, and utilizes the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol to enable seamless collaboration among different blockchains.

Polkadot vs Cosmos: Consensus

As a researcher studying the inner workings of Polkadot’s consensus mechanism, I can explain how it employs a hybrid approach, incorporating two distinct sub-protocols: BABE and GRANDPA.

In simpler terms, Cosmos relies on Tendermint for immediate confirmation of transactions. With both block creation and confirmation processes occurring in unison, Cosmos is capable of generating and finalizing a single block at a time.

Polkadot vs Cosmos: Staking Mechanics

As a crypto investor, I’d describe it this way: In the world of Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies, Polkadot and Cosmos each have unique staking mechanisms. Polkadot employs Nominated Proof-of-Stake (NPoS), where validators are chosen using the Phragmen algorithm in a sequential manner. The size of the validator set is determined via governance procedures. For those who don’t prefer managing validator nodes, they can nominate up to 16 trusted validators instead.

In the Cosmos network, a type of Delegated Proof-of-Stake called Bonded Proof-of-Stake is employed for selecting validators. Stakers on Cosmos need to bind funds and initiate a delegate transaction for every validator and the quantity of tokens they intend to delegate. The Cosmos platform aims to accommodate up to 300 validators, while Polkadot intends to host around 1000.

Polkadot vs Cosmos: Prioritizing Interoperability

Polkadot operates under the belief that both scalability and interoperability hinge on a unified verification mechanism for establishing a trustless ecosystem. With an increasing number of blockchains emerging, it’s essential that their security shifts from adversarial to collaborative. Polkadot offers this shared security and validation functionality, enabling seamless communication between chains.

In the process, Cosmos employs the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol to link chains with distinct assurance systems. As data is transferred between these chains, trust in the originating chain is essential. Each blockchain within the Cosmos network boasts its own security measures. Yet, they can also capitalize on the security provided by the Cosmos Hub as an alternative.

Read More

2024-06-12 21:05