Transformers and Blockchain — Powerlinking
Combining for Power: The Surprising Similarities between Transformers and Modular Blockchain.
As unlikely as it may seem, there are similarities between the Transformers’ ability to combine and the concept of modularity in blockchain technology. To understand this concept better, let me indulge my inner child and talk about Transformers first.
Back in 2004 “Transformers: Energon” was a popular animated series that aired until 2005, and it was a continuation of the “Transformers: Armada” series that had aired the previous year. Energon was the second series in what is now known as the “Unicron Trilogy,” which also included the series “Transformers: Cybertron.”
Energon was eagerly anticipated by fans of the Transformers franchise, who were excited to see their favorite Autobots and Decepticons return in new and exciting forms. The series featured many of the classic Transformers characters, including Optimus Prime, Megatron, Starscream, Jet Fire, and Soundwave, as well as new characters like Wing Saber and Scorponok.
But why am I talking about Transformers’ history in a Blockchain article? One of the most exciting aspects of Energon was the introduction of the concept of “powerlinking,” which allowed the Autobots to combine with other robots to form more powerful beings.
This was a nod to the original Transformers toy line, which featured many combiner robots, and it was a major draw for fans of the series.
Energon was well-received by fans and critics alike, and subsequent Transformers series and media, have continued to explore the concept of combiner robots and the power of teamwork and collaboration.
Now, why am I ‘powerlinking’ Transformers and Blockchain?
In particular, I’m referring to Modular Blockchains, just as how Transformers can combine with other robots to form more powerful and versatile beings, modular blockchain allows different components or “modules” to be combined in different ways to create a customized blockchain solution.
In both cases, the individual components retain their unique identities and capabilities, but by working together they can achieve something greater than what they could on their own. Whether it’s a towering robot made up of smaller robots or a blockchain solution made up of customizable modules, the whole truly is greater than the sum of its parts.
There are considerable debates about modular vs. monolithic blockchains. It’s like arguing whether Vim or Emacs is the superior text editor.
(Hint: It’s Emacs. Fight me!)
But in all seriousness, this is a topic worth discussing. Modular and monolithic blockchains each have their own advantages and disadvantages, and choosing one over the other can have significant implications for your blockchain project.
Let’s start with the basics and talk about Monolithic and Modular Blockchains in brief detail. We’ll then take a look at other types of blockchains such as Hybrid blockchains, Consortium Blockchains and Sidechains.
Monolithic Blockchains
A monolithic blockchain is one where all components of the system are tightly integrated and run as a single unit. Think of it like a big, complicated machine where every cog and gear is connected to every other cog and gear. This can make it difficult to update or change individual parts of the system without affecting the entire machine.
Some Examples of Monolithic Blockchains
Some of the most popular OG cryptocurrencies that you might have heard of like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Litecoin, etc are the best examples of monolithic blockchains. It is important to remember that even Modular blockchains (or any other type for that matter) could also be Private blockchains as opposed to the OG cryptocurrencies mentioned above which are public blockchains.
Examples of private Monolithic blockchains would be Corda and Eris. These are blockchains with a single consensus protocol. These platforms are ideal for trusted private environments where participants transact directly without a central authority. Corda is specific to financial services, while Eris allows companies to build custom blockchain-based applications.
Pros of Monolithic Blockchains:
Security: Monolithic blockchains provide a high level of security by keeping all components tightly integrated and minimizing the potential for weak points in the system.
Simplicity: Monolithic blockchains can be simpler to develop, as all components are developed and tested together.
Performance: With no additional modules to integrate, monolithic blockchains can have faster performance compared to modular blockchains.
Governance: Governance is easier with monolithic blockchains, as all components are developed and managed by the same team.
Reliability: With all components developed and tested together, monolithic blockchains may be more reliable compared to modular blockchains.
Cons of Monolithic Blockchains:
Lack of flexibility: Monolithic blockchains can be less flexible compared to modular blockchains, making it difficult to add new functionalities or modules without rewriting large portions of the code.
Scalability: Monolithic blockchains may face scalability challenges as demand grows, requiring significant resources to scale the entire system.
Innovation: With all components developed together, there may be less room for experimentation and innovation compared to modular blockchains.
Interoperability: Monolithic blockchains may face challenges in interoperability with other blockchain networks and other systems.
Cost: Monolithic blockchains can be costly, especially for large projects, as the entire system must be developed and tested together.
Modular Blockchains
The concept of modularity in tech is not new. Personal Computers are the best examples of modularity of components. There were even attempts to make phones and gaming consoles modular as well, although these projects often failed to gain mass adoption.
So when it comes to Blockchains, a Modular blockchain is one where the system is broken up into discrete, independent modules that can be added or removed without affecting the rest of the system. Think of it like building with Lego blocks, where each block can be swapped out or added without disrupting the entire structure.
Pros of Modular Blockchains:
Flexibility: Modular blockchains allow for greater flexibility by enabling the addition of new modules and functionalities without disrupting the existing system.
Scalability: It is easy to scale modular blockchains as new modules can be added to address increased demand without disrupting the system.
Interoperability: Modular blockchains allow for greater interoperability between different blockchain networks and other systems.
Innovation: With modular blockchains, developers can experiment and innovate more freely, leading to new and exciting use cases.
Cost-Effective: Modular blockchains can be cost-effective, especially for smaller projects, as the development process can be broken down into smaller, more manageable parts.
Cons of Modular Blockchains:
Complexity: Modular blockchains can be complex to develop, requiring significant technical expertise and resources.
Compatibility: Modules developed by different teams may not be compatible with each other, which can lead to integration challenges and delays.
Security: With the addition of new modules, the potential for security vulnerabilities may increase, requiring additional testing and security measures.
Governance: Governance can be challenging for modular blockchains, as it requires coordination and decision-making among different module developers.
Speed: With the addition of new modules, the speed of the system may decrease, requiring optimization and performance tuning.
Some Examples of Modular Blockchain
- One example of a modular blockchain is VeChain — A blockchain platform that uses a modular architecture to enable the creation of customized smart contracts and decentralized applications. It provides businesses with an easy-to-use platform for supply chain management, allowing for the secure and transparent tracking of products from origin to destination. VeChain’s modular approach allows for the creation of custom modules for identity verification, data storage, and more. The platform also has its native token, VET, which is used to power transactions and incentivize users to participate in the network
- Another example of a modular blockchain is Polkadot. It is designed to be a “heterogeneous multi-chain” system, allowing multiple different blockchains to connect and communicate with each other. End result is greater flexibility and interoperability between different blockchain networks. The only drawback here I could think of would be the issue of interoperability between chains which is addressed in Polkadot with a complex governance and coordination mechanism.
- Apart from these, when it comes to private Modular Blockchains, two of the best examples of this type would be Hyperledger Fabric and JP Morgan’s Quorum. Both designed for enterprise-grade applications with a focus on data privacy and security, offering modular architecture, scalability, and customizable consensus protocols.
So which one is better?
Well, it depends on your specific use case. Monolithic blockchains tend to be more secure and reliable because all components are tightly integrated and can be optimized to work together.
However, they can also be less flexible and slower to adapt to changes in the market.
Modular blockchains, on the other hand, are more flexible and adaptable but can be less secure if the modules are not designed properly.
What other types of Blockchains Exist?
These days new projects are often coming up where the underlying tech stack is a combination of multiple blockchains if not a single kind. Some of the clearly distinguished types of Blockchains are as follows.
- Consortium Blockchain: A blockchain that is controlled by a group of organizations or companies instead of a single entity.
- Federated Blockchain: A blockchain that is operated by a group of organizations or companies in a federated network.
- Permissionless & Permissioned Blockchain: Blockchains that allow either anyone or a select few to participate in the network.
- Sidechain: A separate blockchain that is connected to a main blockchain and is used to handle specific functions or transactions.
- Multi-Chain Blockchain: A blockchain that is made up of multiple interconnected chains, each with its own specific purpose.
- Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG): A blockchain architecture that uses a graph-like structure to store transactions, creating fast, scalable, and decentralized networks for various applications.
Blockchains are like ice cream flavors — there’s a ton of ’em, and everyone has their own favorite!
So before it gets any further convoluted, let’s end this article here.
(Honestly, all this talk of Transformers is making me nostalgic and I’m craving to watch a couple of episodes from the Armada series)
To wrap up, we’ve clearly understood the basic differences between a Monolithic blockchain and a Modular one. We’ve seen various examples of each and discussed the pros and cons of them both.
Next, I’ll be writing a mini-series of articles where I would dive into each of the 6 types of Blockchains I have mentioned above with examples. And if you particularly enjoyed my previous article where I dissed the P2P exchanges, you might want to keep an eye out for the last piece of this series where I diss Blockchain itself.
It’ll be fun! (in a serious way)
If you have kept track of my articles here on Medium, I mostly write on fintech subjects related to the cryptocurrency economy. I feel like it is imperative for everyone to understand the underlying technology before they invest their time and money into that tech.
Furthermore, I’ll be branching out into personal finance guides with the web3 world in view and I’ll be writing about my various travels and vacations. I have a few more interesting niches that I’d like to write about, so if you’re up for all of that, do follow my Medium profile and stay tuned for the next one.
And for all you Transformers geeks out there... ROLL OUT!!
