I think many tweets in this thread are wrong. Let me go through some of them.
Layer two scalability solutions are not an alternative to scaling the base layer. If every Facebook user maintained a channel once a year with an on-chain transaction, you still need 70 tx/s, 20x higher than what Bitcoin does. And not to mention UX issues.
Nope, it's because reasonable people realise that only scaling layer 1 or layer 2, and not both, is dumb. Only in the Bitcoin space there are 'layer 1' and 'layer 2' opposing tribes in the community.
That's not the security model of sharding (at least in Eth 2.0); all shards should have almost uniform security roughly equivalent to the entire consensus set, due to random sampling, and fraud+availability proofs.
The quadratic scalability property of sharding does limit the number of shards you can have, but I'm skeptical of these numbers. 100 * 32 = 3.2kb of block headers and ~500KB of data availability proofs for 100 shards is doable.
That's just... not true, I don't know where that came from. Block producers use stateless validation (ethresear.ch/t/the-stateles…).
Assets in Eth 2.0 will move atomically using a mutex-based cross-shard transaction scheme (ethresear.ch/t/cross-shard-…). In general, there are also transparent schemes for sharding that abstract the complexity for developers (arxiv.org/abs/1708.03778).
Proof-of-stake does have a weaker security model than proof-of-work; most notably the synchrony assumption needed to prevent long-range attacks. IMO this isn't critically weaker in practice, and is worth it over the waste of proof-of-work.
Also, one can argue that proof-of-stake is more decentralized than proof-of-work anyway since the barrier to staking is lower, so there are trade-offs to consider.
Not really, proof-of-space is just replacing the computational work in proof-of-work with storage, which is still a waste of physical resources and suffers from the same centralization issues, albeit it shifts the energy costs to other physical costs.
(I say that somewhat proactively given Bram is working on proof-of-space so probably has thought-out rebuttals, but I also say that with the same level of provocation of Bram's inaccuracies about sharding.)
No, Nakamato consensus doesn't replace governance, it replaces courts, by having a decentralized arbiter of transaction ordering (& consequently execution). You still need to decide the rules of the arbiter, which are the protocol rules decided by Satoshi.
If your governance is, for example, that the rules decided by Satoshi in 2009 are set in stone, that's not eliminating governance, that *is* governance.
And also at @VitalikButerin already pointed out, the MakerDAO.com protocol isn't backed by a legal entity.
@VitalikButerin On another note, it's good that there are debates about blockchain design choices.
But it worries me how outsiders perceive it. If two engineers disagree with each other on the structural plans of a bridge, it doesn't instill much confidence in the construction industry.
But it worries me how outsiders perceive it. If two engineers disagree with each other on the structural plans of a bridge, it doesn't instill much confidence in the construction industry.
