Carl Hewitt initially proposed the actor model in 1973, and it has since been effectively used in a number of programmes, including the OTP (Open Telecom Platform), which uses Erlang, and the Akka library, which uses Scala.
Several of the most cutting-edge distributed systems today, like Halo 4, WhatsApp, and LinkedIn—possibly among the world leaders in network design—employ a mathematical justification known as an "actor model."
Large payment processing companies like Visa and Mastercard also utilize it, which will not pique the interest of anybody who thinks cryptocurrencies are a viable substitute for currently used payment and remittance methods.
Sharding is considered one of the many crypto industry holy grails since it releases the ability to segregate traffic holistically rather than dealing with massive volumes of transactions simultaneously in one location. The actor paradigm is inexorably suited to blockchain sharding, with technological principles providing a natural fit to the objective of enormous scalability.
By itself, this model's logic doesn't violate blockchain conventions strictly speaking, but cutting-edge engineering makes it perfectly feasible to scale beyond 100,000 TPS (transactions per second) utilising the basic foundations.
These principles offer a highly contemporary approach for dispersed networks. Engineers using a smartly modified mathematical proof for a massively scalable blockchain may find that they have a considerable edge over their competitors.
Carl Hewitt initially proposed the actor model in 1973, and it has since been effectively used in a number of programs, including the OTP (Open Telecom Platform), which uses Erlang, and the Akka library, which uses Scala. This suggests an extremely flexible mathematical proof if anything.
Although Ericsson spearheaded the adoption of the actor model by deploying it as software on top of hardware routers 40 years ago, neither the tools nor the conceptual vision were available to construct current DLT. But, it's completely conceivable that this was the start of a subtle revolution that led to the widespread adoption of blockchain technology and its incorporation into our everyday lives.
If so, it's useful to understand the actor model's operation in detail. Even someone without a strong background in mathematics or even computer science may quickly grasp the clear logic of applying it to the blockchain.
According to the actor model, each atom of computation on a blockchain is a "actor"—in this case, the user account. We'll refer to the actor as a "account" for the purposes of clarification; in many circumstances, this is also referred to as a "smart contract." Each account has a distinct ID, often known as a wallet address, and message and data handlers for sending this data.
The function of the account enables it to create more accounts, modify its state and behavior, and receive messages. Accounts, the fundamental computational unit in charge of communication, are in charge of choosing how to handle transactions. Also, accounts maintain their own private state in total seclusion from other accounts, thus enhancing the network's security and stability. The incredible scalability of a blockchain using the actor model, which fully exploits the multiple structures of accounts, is perhaps the largest headline benefit.
It is challenging to visualize 100,000 TPS, and it is tough to compute them safely and securely. However, each account in this approach may only transmit 255 messages to other smart contracts, which on the surface, suggests a TPS limit of just a few hundred.
However, with the right engineering, this restriction may be crossed, and the limit can be exceeded. The limit rapidly rises to tens of thousands, if not higher, by using a recursive pattern of sending messages from one account to itself—basically continually applying the messaging process.
Many follow-on messages comprising token transfers, NFT transfers, or any other kind of blockchain transaction may result from a single external message sent to a specific smart contract. Developers may create and deploy smart contracts using the actor model without giving up control of the coordination and communication between nodes in a decentralized network.
This may signal a significant advancement in the CeFi vs. DeFi argument. Finding a viable compromise between decentralized ideas and actually ensuring the technology delivers on its promise is currently a difficulty in the field. This is sometimes accomplished by acknowledging there will be a centralized part and, thus, a main possible point of failure.
When the actor model is used, everything is different. Every account has a distinct address that is deterministically determined as a hash (stateInit), where stateInit refers to the account's starting data and contract data. This information is contained in a unique tree-like data structure known as a "TVM cell."
Imagine the first message coming from a brand-new account. The first message, or transaction, starts a chain that can grow exponentially in response to dataflow needs, leading to an exponential rise in capacity.
A single account may connect with several other accounts on the blockchain and transfer transactions between them, much like a finite rhizome. All of this is done with the intention of building a huge, scaleable network that can, for instance, manage the largest NFT (non-fungible token) drop in history while still managing a sizable amount of cash and information movement in conventional sectors.
Production systems made up of many smart contracts that must connect with one another frequently employ on-chain deployment. Every actor model-based smart contract on such a blockchain can begin the transaction sending process by accepting an external or internal message.
The on-chain deployment of a new smart contract may be started by an account that has the code and initial data by sending a particular deploy message. A massively scalable blockchain must make sure freshly deployed factory contracts are configured in a way that guarantees complete code concordance.
If not, some parts of the blockchain are vulnerable to security threats and, in the worst case, become the target of bad actors who programme smart contracts to behave improperly.
Using the actor approach merely requires a new account to send messages to a smart contract upon registration. If not, their account won't be allowed to deploy and activate. This reduces the danger of attackers modifying smart contracts to behave inadvertently by bringing new accounts into sync with all existing accounts on the blockchain.
Hence, a set of rules for how accounts interact with one another allows for the processing of endless amounts of transactions while gently addressing errors and never putting the network at danger.
The actor model has been quietly powering some of the best distributed networks in the world for many years. Yet when it's used in relation to blockchain, it offers a structure for effective concurrent processing that the sector urgently needs. Yet, this does not address every issue; eventually, consensus and computing power call for equally creative answers.