Farcaster

Farcaster Devs

The snap chain design is cool, but its weak point is validator election.

My concern is that once we move to system where 10 or 20 people or entities have the power to censor the network, it will eventually happen. Once we get there it will only be a matter of time, for someone to suggest that validators must censor topic A or fid B, and use social, legal or regulatory pressure to do so. 

I even guess that from day 1, there will be some geographies that implicitly or explicitly won't be able to host validators. China? Russia? Does the EU live up to the standards of the 10 voters?

Do we really think that the 6 validators (even if they are not located in the US) will not comply with a decision of a US court or regulator that asks them to censor any FID associated somehow with an OFAC-sanctioned wallet? And do we want them to have to fight this fight?

I have huge respect for the people that worked on the design, this is not an attack, but we have to have this discussion. I want to be convinced that I'm wrong.

@vrypan raises an important point about the tradeoffs of snapchains design. If we only have 10 nodes that can validate messages isn’t that bad for decentralization? 

Let’s start with the problem that Snapchain is solving. Our deltagraph network lets any hub add a new message at any time. As the network grows, failures between nodes increase and delays become inevitable. 

You have to be able to “check” your sync state with a large percentage of the network in a short amount of time and this breaks down quickly. When it does, users will complain about messages moving very slowly between apps, which will make them less likely to use Farcaster, and less likely for apps to be built.

Technowatermelon. Elder Millenial. Building Farcaster. 

nf.td/varun

For inclusion into a block, you only need 1 honest validator. Then if 2/3rds of validators collude to reject the block, you have signed messages as proof of rejecting/skipping a valid block. 

What is the benefit for colluding at the validator level to censor messages? Snapchain does not hold value, It's not like you're preventing access to the user's funds. The user can easily post the signed message to any other social network/github/eth/btc and get their voice heard. 

A typical farcaster message is ~150 bytes, small enough that for the small number of users at such extreme risk of censorship, the protocol could support nodes updating user state by listening to calldata on an L2, or blob storage on eth L1.

I was wondering about this. The hubs are just the canonical way to write messages, but there doesn't seem to be any reason you can't write a copy of your messages somewhere else?