Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
androidsixteen
@androidsixteen.eth
Reading the Snapchain doc: https://warpcast.notion.site/Snapchain-Public-0e6b7e51faf74be1846803cb74493886 Going to cast all my stupid questions in this thread as they come up 🧵👇
15 replies
12 recasts
71 reactions
androidsixteen
@androidsixteen.eth
> Proof of Stake — Another approach is to follow Ethereum’s staking model. Anyone can run a Hub by staking ETH on a contract I think PoA would be better than this — this turns validator elections into an ETH bridging / event messaging problem, which is arguably worse
3 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
Cassie Heart
@cassie
The problem with PoA is the question of credible neutrality. Short term while we make sure we nail down the right approach it makes sense, long term it is not aligned to a fully decentralized protocol (unless the A in PoA is governance driven, and that's its own can of worms)
1 reply
0 recast
7 reactions
androidsixteen
@androidsixteen.eth
Agreed But if we need some form of validator elections, would suggest: - native asset 🫢 - using sybil-resistant identity based elections (qDAUs?) The latter seems like the more interesting approach but essentially becomes corp gov
2 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
EulerLagrange.eth
@eulerlagrange.eth
I’m opposed to native asset if it’s purely for consensus. Unless you want users/apps to pay in the token, it’s purely inflationary. Dubious the incentive for an app to stay decentralized and pay network fees is strong enough either way
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cassie Heart
@cassie
Either of these are complicated, but I would have to defer to @v regarding an answer to these
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
