Grats @dankrad @karalabe.eth you got me to interrupt my work on EIPs and make a twitter response that turned into an unscheduled poast 😀

Grats @dankrad @karalabe.eth you got me to interrupt my work on EIPs and make a twitter response that turned into an unscheduled poast 😀

https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2024/05/17/decentralization.html

Thanks. In exchange let meg interrupt my shit-posting to write an EIP (brain-dump) :)

Thanks. In exchange let meg interrupt my shit-posting to write an EIP (brain-dump) :)

https://x.com/peter_szilagyi/status/1791589527452336341

And tries to fork away from it, the other half thinks you haven't crossed the line, and keeps building on it. And so you get two halves of the network (even if temporarily) going in different directions.

I'm unsure this is an attack though. If I am a malicious validator that try to mess with my own block, I could try and time the propagation to split the network, but the effect is that my block might get reorged out f 50%+ don't attest. If 50%+ does attest, the block remains. But I don't see a split here. 1/2

It's an interesting proposal! I think the biggest challenge with this kind of approach is intentional "edge attacks" to try to split the network. So, suppose you have X+1 proposer slots in a row. You send a tx right on a slot boundary, and don't include it X+1 times. Half the network thinks your last block is censoring