The token is used to pay for the transliterations.
Pretty much. I’m assuming transliterations in this case means Blockchain A (in whatever language) —> hyperconnected via ICX —> Blockchain B (whatever language). So the value of the token is to be able to do that, buy the ICX token.
And really, I guess the value (if there is any in this whole thing years from now), is that the simultaneous network of payments, smart contracts, transliterations, etc grows BIG enough that it is more valuable to transact and communicate on this network over something like Biztalk. Because if there isn’t then yeah, a business would look for the cheaper solution.
So really, it’s not that much different to Microsoft Biztalk, but built on an open ledger.
Pretty much. Biztalk but with cryptocurrencies, but with these cryptocurrency transactions on an open ledger - yes. That’s pretty much the model with everything in crypto. Some business model + cryptocurrencies
If the token price gets too high, it is trivial to move to a competing process that can cost less.
True, but I would presume that due to the centralized nature, the foundation will find a way to reduce fees to incentivize businesses to use the network.
This of course is dependent on if they can even execute this in a timely fashion (probably 3-5 years) or another solution like Hyperledger doesn’t do it better than them.
The second issue I see with ICX is the execution of the transliterations happens on nodes, if there is not an autoscale of nodes available to perform the tasks (which costs money), then the process will not execute fast enough (queue too long on busy periods), again leading businesses to look elsewhere.
I’m assuming they’ll just increase the nodes to handle the throughput if they think that will happen. And in terms of the cost, I am also presuming that the rewards for running a node will outweigh costs.
The third issue is, what happens if a transliteration was in mid-stream and the node fails?
Good question. I am assuming they will build some kind of confirmation mechanism before it processes and confirms. That’s probably like the #1 thing they will test for, so I can’t imagine that that question is NOT addressed.
If nodes are being run in peoples outhouses, there is going to be computer failures.
Well yeah, but I am sure atleast for getting the basic network up, there will need to be a period where we see that the blockchain runs smoothly (no errors, attacks, etc.) Transliterations seem like something that would occur years down the rode.
So after looking at the code, they do need to address failure detection and remediation code. Business are not going to monitor it, they are going to expect the people they are paying to take care of the service so that it is 100% reliable to use. It is far from 100% reliable where systems that don’t live in controlled datacenters or built for high availablity with redundant network links are running the software.* ”
Agree. I’ve seen code reviews that said their code is not up to par at the moment. And it could be because what they on their Github is outdated. But a lot is unfinished. And you are right, if the network gets that big I would presume that they have in house engineers monitoring it for any failures. But that is part of the “vision” that may happen 3-5 years from now.