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
