Wake up, babe. New spicy post dropped: https://cassieheart.substack.com/p/crypto-unchained

BDFL of Quilibrium, Eng @ Farcaster, ex-Coinbase, always opinionated, never hydrated

/quilibrium

i) I’m not dismissing them, rather I’m pointing out that they aren’t quite a blockchain as it is, which is a reason they are not seeing the same scalability problems.

ii) larger block sizes are one of the ways more data can fit, but those with max caps never reach them, because other forces are slowing things do

Mina is unique (and has some really cool ideas!), and it gets closer to what I will be talking about in the next post. Very similarly to how I characterize Solana and others, it’s different enough that I wouldn’t call it a pure blockchain (and again, I consider that a _good_ thing).

Thanks Cassie really enjoyed it. Two questions:
i) why do you dismiss solana, and other "not-quite-a-blockchain" protocols? 
ii) the article doesn't seem to cover what the cracks are with larger block size. how's you summarize?
ii) selfishly curious what your view of Mina is in this landscape.

Engineer, chef. Ex-AWS, Snap, Pinecone.io. nf.td/rohit

They’re not the same, but effectually have the same outcome — the current shard proposal has receipts landing on the beacon chain so that they can be used for cross-shard transactions. Guaranteed locality grows implausible as the number of shards increases.

Are shards and roll ups the same thing? I can understand roll ups means publishing to the L1 block chain - but do shards necessarily need that? I’m comparing to shards in regular dbs- the only time you need dist txn is if you cross shard boundaries, but if you can guarantee locality, it is avoidable.

TL;DR: you can’t shard/rollup your way out of _blockchain_-based transactions being slow.

TL;DR - distributed transactions are slow?

Awesome blog posts so far! Really left us hanging at the end -- can't wait for the next part.