Grats @dankrad @karalabe.eth you got me to interrupt my work on EIPs and make a twitter response that turned into an unscheduled poast 😀

Grats @dankrad @karalabe.eth you got me to interrupt my work on EIPs and make a twitter response that turned into an unscheduled poast 😀

https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2024/05/17/decentralization.html

Thanks. In exchange let meg interrupt my shit-posting to write an EIP (brain-dump) :)

Thanks. In exchange let meg interrupt my shit-posting to write an EIP (brain-dump) :)

https://x.com/peter_szilagyi/status/1791589527452336341

It's an interesting proposal! I think the biggest challenge with this kind of approach is intentional "edge attacks" to try to split the network. So, suppose you have X+1 proposer slots in a row. You send a tx right on a slot boundary, and don't include it X+1 times. Half the network thinks your last block is censoring

And tries to fork away from it, the other half thinks you haven't crossed the line, and keeps building on it. And so you get two halves of the network (even if temporarily) going in different directions.

If we want to do "anti-censorship fork choice", then there are ways to mitigate edge attacks; they end up looking either like this https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2018/08/07/99_fault_tolerant.html or like random timers (eg. VDF-based schemes)

BTW I do think that "ILs are not AA-friendly" is a misconception. They're actually not that hard to make compatible, and if some account's validation conditions are too crazy, ILs would fail in the direction of not giving them censorship resistance, and not in the direction of splitting the network.