kia on Warpcast

Content pfp

https://warpcast.com/~/channel/fc-devs

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

androidsixteen pfp

@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

9 recasts

38 reactions

androidsixteen pfp

@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

2 reactions

kia pfp

PoA is awfully prone to censorship

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

androidsixteen pfp

@androidsixteen.eth

Give examples where the validator set is a decent size (10+) and are controlled by reasonably distinct entities?

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

kia pfp

your argument being that you can't just have stake to write and would need to have consensus between all write hubs to publish a block. thus, system is still prone censorship by whoever has more ETH?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

androidsixteen pfp

@androidsixteen.eth

No, I'm just saying PoS using ETH in a system where ETH is not the native asset forces you to use a bridge, and now we're back at square one re: who validates the bridged events and/or assets

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

kia pfp

why do you need a bridge? and where is this a bridge to? why can't staking just be done on OP or L1 and hubs rub those nodes to verify?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

androidsixteen pfp

@androidsixteen.eth

So now you're expecting hub nodes to run another chain's node -- that's called a bridge

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

kia pfp

don't they already have to do that because FIDs are on OP? how's this different?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

androidsixteen pfp

@androidsixteen.eth

It’s the same: https://warpcast.com/cassie/0x8f2a569e Except now you’ve moved consensus into this scheme, which is a greater risk. Also if you want slashing for faults, you need bidirectional bridging to send slashing messages to eth / op / xyz L2

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

kia pfp

so, seems like it's not a big departure. then do you disagree that PoS is more censorship resistant?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

androidsixteen pfp

@androidsixteen.eth

It is a big departure — did you not see the point about having to bridge messages back to Eth? Also if you think PoA is censorship resistant, you should dislike the current scheme because it *is* PoA unless you can figure out the bidirectional bridging

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

kia pfp

you don't need the message back to eth to be SR tho. you need the message back to eth for slashing. idk why you even need slashing in this case but you don't need slashing to work for this to be SR.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

androidsixteen pfp

@androidsixteen.eth

What is SR? How do you make PoS enforceable without slashing?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

kia pfp

sr: sensorship resistant depends what you need PoS for, right? in something like ethereum PoS is for consensus, i.e. make sure the new block doesn't double spend (in accordance to history of the chain). thus it's important to not do an invalid block to doublespend. thus slash if anyone does. in farcaster idk if you need consensus in that sense. the content of the casts and thus the content of a block don't need to be verified against all previous casts to ensure, idk, @randomerror.eth is consistent in his shittalk positions. idk lol. so idk what the condition for slashing would even be. even if you do need slashing for a reason that i'm not seeing, idk if you need slashing to work to be SR. to be SR, i need to be able to have the right to write. ps: this is just my current understanding/thinking. open to be convinced otherwise.

3 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

androidsixteen pfp

@androidsixteen.eth

My guy did you just play a trap card? What do you need PoS for, if you're not going to be able to verifiably impose an economic penalty on the staked assets for a negligent / malicious block producer? Sounds like you're actually arguing for PoA

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

kia pfp

what is a negligent / malicious block in farcaster? like what is invalid about the block? in Ethereum they need blocks because the need transactions to be ordered for the ledger. i.e. wrong ordering of transactions makes transactions invalid. in Farcaster we need blocks not because wrong ordering of casts make the casts invalid. but because we need casts to be packaged and ordered to sync better. i.e. if an ordered block is missing from being synced it's obvious whereas currently a single cast being lost isn't immediately obvious.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

androidsixteen pfp

@androidsixteen.eth

The bridged message bro... I feel like I'm talking in circles here If you use PoS via an exogenous asset, you need to ensure that bad inbound messages don't get committed Otherwise you've compromised your consensus

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction