Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions

Varun Srinivasan pfp
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
99 reactions

Varun Srinivasan pfp
Varun Srinivasan
@v
Bitcoin and Ethereum solve this by letting only one node (roughly) earn the right to produce the next block. If everyone knows the change is coming from one place and things are ordered, sync is much simpler. Base and OP Mainnet (on which FC is built) go even further and have a single node produce all the blocks today. This is even more efficient, but one criticism is that you can be censored. This doens't happen as much in practice because there are technical (if not simple) ways to work around this by getting your transaction included into the L1. The existence of this safety valve makes censorship impractical.
2 replies
0 recast
37 reactions

Varun Srinivasan pfp
Varun Srinivasan
@v
Farcaster’s Snapchain is going to have stronger decentralization than L2’s. There will be 10 sequencers chosen by the community that would all have to collude to block someone. And even if they did, someone could post their signed message on X and prove to everyone that Farcaster was censoring them. Censorship will be impractical. We also have short term plans to make the decentralization much stronger.
3 replies
0 recast
11 reactions

Varun Srinivasan pfp
Varun Srinivasan
@v
We can increase decentralization by: 1. Increasing the number of validators (10 -> 100 is feasible with some R&D) 2. Switching to proof of stake — allow people to stake Ethereum to become block producers, so there is no voting 3. Use verifiable compute mechanisms — validators can be asked to include data without knowing the user that sent it We are not locked into a model that isn’t extensible, we have many levers we can pull to keep improving decentralization.
0 reply
0 recast
10 reactions