Farcaster

@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.

Very interesting conversation between @v and @vrypan.eth. Here are some thoughts and questions:

Technowatermelon. Elder Millenial. Building Farcaster. 

nf.td/varun

Dad, geek, conversation liquidity provider. vrypan.net (home), /weatherxm (work), @l--o--l (fun). Also https://paragraph.xyz/@purplesubmarine


Crypto native strategic thinker since '14 (https://radx.eu). Contrarian with a built-in band pass filter for noise. | DYOR | Casts are not financial advice!

IMO, the number of validators is not a good metric (even though 10 is sub-optimal) but @vrypan does have a point about the governance aspect. 
A low number of validators puts a lot of strain on the mechanism by which these are elected. More info on that would be welcome as I couldn't find much.

Having a receipt and the ability to retrieve it from the client could solve the warpcast centralization issue. 

IMO provability is key here. 

If the client doesn't show the receipt, it's the client that can't be trusted. If there's a receipt but the message is not propagated, the validator is suspect.

With regards to posting the signed message on X: 

Not sure if there will be a receipt ( or similar e.g. gossip ) upon announcing the message to the network ? 

If not, sharing a signed message doesn't prove much.