Does Constellation solve Atomic Composability?

#Constellation #DAG Yes, I did take a look while researching other layer 1 network. Constellation DAG is a bit different to a "common" layer 1 network. Basically, it is a peer-to-peer network to send messages through it (finalized on a ledger). A simple message can be a token transfer, the validators enforce that there are no double spends. But more complex messages are also possible. However, they have not really a concept of decentralised smart contracts, but basically they use "state channels" as kind of smart contracts. State channels basically are subnets or just one single node acting as an endpoint / client in their network. Meaning you can send messages to state channels and receive messages. That's how they implemented a "dex" - as state channel which is running on centralised nodes (controlled by one party / team). You can swap via the network (by something like a swap message: I get 10 DAG for 0.1 WDAG), but e.g. providing liquidity isn't really decentralised. Overall, it is more like a p2p network for decentralised applications where the messages are verified by consensus. There are usecases sure, but I don't think they really compete with networks where smart contracts run really fully decentralised on ledger. Also you can't easily compose different statechannels together in an atomic way in one single transaction like you do on Ethereum (e.g. creating a transaction which takes out a flashlona on Aave on one state channel and then swapping on Uniswap as dex on another state channel). Therefore not really suitable for DeFi. They also try to push the narrative that they are the "layer 0" for other networks. However, if you take a more critical perspective their "layer 0" network is kind of a layer 1 network where you can wrap other tokens like BTC or ETH -> this is what you can do on any other network too. Be it Ethereum, Cardano, Polkadot, Elrond or whatever. You only need a bridge. Besides that, I first thought they have a cool bridge solution, but in the end their approach is simply a centralised bridge (like any other bridge out there at the moment - even RenVM is still centralised right now - though they are closest to their goal of a decentralised bridge). They are proposing something like there are 3 nodes for each layer 1 network they support which are offering the bridge/wrapping via a state channel. E.g. 3 validators for Bitcoin (controlled by one party - also in control of all private keys for the BTC wallets). You can checkout this video where the founder talks about the cross-chain bridge (in the beginning - very insightful to watch): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T7zcv_ieTc Ah, and I am blocked in their TG group, because they didn't like that I said that their layer 0 is actually a layer 1 with a centralised bridge and wrapping tokens (which you can do anywhere). Overall, their "layer 0" is more marketing than anything else. Also on a sidenote while the tech founder is knowledgable the other members of the founding team are really lacking technical and just following their hero without questioning anything he says. This can be quite an execution risk.

That summary is in one very big aspect not correct. State Channels can be centralized, distributed (= permissioned) or completely decentralized - this is up to the State Channel creator!

"Also you can't easily compose different statechannels together in an atomic way in one single transaction like you do on Ethereum (e.g. creating a transaction which takes out a flashlona on Aave on one state channel and then swapping on Uniswap as dex on another state channel)." Kannst ja die Frage stellen wie das mit komplexeren Transaktionen siehe das Aave/Uniswap Beispiel, über mehrere Smart Contract hinweg über verschiedene Statechannels ("shards") aussieht.

This depends on the Channels itself correct - but we will also of course provide a standard which makes inter State Channel communication as simple as with Ethereum smart contracts (L0 tokens for example will be one)

This is stupid lol not all state channels are centralized.. but then since there are not smatcontracts you need to set up a bunch of nodes just to make a decentralized state Chanel right?

Its nor my statement

Ik it's that radix guy

Unfortunately the way you posted that comment, which apparently belonged to another, will likely garner some pushback from community. You might wish to edit it.