Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions
Varun Srinivasan
@v
@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.
5 replies
29 recasts
185 reactions
Varun Srinivasan
@v
cc @vrypan.eth
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
Have you considered doing something like an L3 and leveraging existing consensus rather than building your own? For example, nodes could race to commit a merkle root of messages for the next epoch, let the rollup consensus decide who wins.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
This is a good read, particularly the NoLeader aspect: https://x.com/sreeramkannan/status/1841716929821856007
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Varun Srinivasan
@v
Most of the complexity of consensus lies in getting agreement on who gets to commit the merkle root and whether messages are valid
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction