Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Quintus
@quintus
Maybe I missed the discussion on this but it feels like one underrated benefit of ET is that you’re probably reducing the number of individual parties that can cause a liveness fault (from proposer & bb to only bb) (Those who believe ET will still be filled by sth like the PBS market on Ethereum will disagree)
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Barnabé Monnot
@barnabe
Yep strong assumption that ticket holders will be the same entities as builders... Otherwise do you mean liveness fault = missing payload? Now you can have consensus liveness without execution liveness :)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Quintus
@quintus
Yes I meant missing payload thinking is that the ticket holder will most likely not end up in a market structure in which they completely delegate block building rights but are also required in the “critical path” to building a block Either they completely outsource or they are able to push it through alone
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Quintus
@quintus
Then, if they outsource, i’d say the same is true for the agent outsourced to
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Quintus
@quintus
To put it differently: why would we recreate a market with multiple single points of failure
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Barnabé Monnot
@barnabe
If we can do otherwise then let's :) But "number of points of failure" is only one metric we could be optimising for. There may be more or an equal number of points of failure, but I believe ETs would allow for the introduction of missed slot penalties in a much fairer way than now
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Barnabé Monnot
@barnabe
So we may be adding new points of failure, yet if there is reason to believe the PAPs between them are diminished by additional mechanisms, we could believe the system is more robust as a whole.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
