Recently, we have seen some revisionist memes around decentralization & security. I think we need better awareness of what these have always meant. Attempt:
Decentralization: ease & cost of verifying transactions
Security: risk-adjusted difficulty to compromise the network
Decentralization: ease & cost of verifying transactions
Security: risk-adjusted difficulty to compromise the network
Possible metrics:
- Decentralization: how much money do you have to spend on hardware that can verify transactions reliably? Lower is better.
- Security: PoS - how many entities own enough tokens to compromise the network? PoW - cost of acquiring hardware. Higher is better.
- Decentralization: how much money do you have to spend on hardware that can verify transactions reliably? Lower is better.
- Security: PoS - how many entities own enough tokens to compromise the network? PoW - cost of acquiring hardware. Higher is better.
Of course, there are many nuances: multi-clients? slashing? nature of delegation (plutocratic? randomized?)? Staking queues? Battle-tested? Etc. Which is why people can exploit the complexity with populist revisionist memes.
Thoughts? Is the above over-simplification helpful?
Thoughts? Is the above over-simplification helpful?
Note: with DA layers, decentralization and throughput grow together. So, compromising on decentralization is very silly. For high scalability for rollups, you need high decentralization on the DA layer.
So, a lot of the "spectrum" debates only apply to monolithic L1s.
So, a lot of the "spectrum" debates only apply to monolithic L1s.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
