4

What could be the challenges associated with something like this?

3

It would take quite a bit of development, but there is nothing technically impossible about this. Note that because SCP is an alternative to mining, validators won't get rewarded for executing smart contracts, so you'd probably want to flesh out your model a bit more to see if it makes sense, but it might well.

| improve this answer | |
  • I understand the tokenomics changes necessary. Can you elaborate on this with some details on how one could go about it and potential challenges one might face? – tatepairing Sep 17 '18 at 5:43
  • Not really because I don't know what you are trying to achieve. Right now the incentives to run a Stellar a validator are a) you want a complete local copy of the ledger, or b) you want to protect yourself against double redemption/spending as an asset issuer or exchange. Part of why this works is that it is very inexpensive to run a validator. If you create a blockchain with an expensive virtual machine on top of SCP and that virtual machine makes it significantly more expensive to run a validator, then you need to figure out if the incentives are still adequate. – user3188445 Sep 17 '18 at 16:14
  • I am referring to details of implementing a VM not tokenomics. Tokenomics is a different problem. How would you go about implementing a VM for smart contracts on top of Stellar? – tatepairing Sep 19 '18 at 10:46
  • Other than tokenomics, why would a VM for SCP be any different from a VM for PoW or Casper? – user3188445 Sep 20 '18 at 0:25
  • The current lack of my expertise on it is the problem. Can you suggest a couple of resources to explore in that direction? – tatepairing Sep 20 '18 at 11:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.