Venkatesh Rao ☀️
@vgr
The basic way you do “decentralized” or “distributed” is to avoid ever having a single point of failure (SPOF) for anything (the difference between the two I think boils down to how easy it is to assemble 2 or more fully redundant manifestations of a full system but the distinction is irrelevant for discussing SPOFs) But critical path theory/theory of constraints suggests that any system with a closed boundary (closed in what sense? 🤔) will always have a bottleneck. At best you can make sure it moves around, which is an indicator of growth. Can you be truly SPOF-resistant? Or will you always have things like Infura or L2 sequencers etc, to take Ethereum as an example.
2 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
One way to model this is that adding additional cross-checks/validators just adds resilience to that SPOF. The chain is still a SPOF with many validators, it's just harder to fail. Your node is still a SPOF if you self-host, you just don't have to trust someone else's infra. Also, cross-checks always add latency, which cannot be regained by adding protocol. This is maybe while I believe that in addition to SPOF-resilience measures (like democracy), I have made a personal focus on SPOF-mobility. Delegation/revocation, permissionless interfaces, these can be used to nimbly adapt to SPOF failures when they do happen.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Caira.degen.eth🎩🎭ツ
@caira
While decentralization can significantly reduce SPOFs and make a system more resilient, achieving complete SPOF-resistance may be impossible in practice due to inherent system constraints 🤔
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
