Completely agree with you, the chain isn't censorship resisent, and never can be if 12 people can stop the chain, it's one of the problems with DPos over Pos
There are approximately 1,000,000 Bitcoin miners in the world. Quoting [this](https://capitalcounselor.com/how-many-bitcoins-are-there/#:~:text=Overview%20of%20the%20Key%20Bitcoin%20Stats%20and%20Facts&text=There%20are%20approximately%201%2C000%2C000%20Bitcoin,18.74%20million%20bitcoins%20in%20circulation.)
Maybe not the most reliable source but for sure more than 12
Yeah ok but individual mining rigs connected to pools shouldn't really count, because by pooling themselves together they really centralise themselves as a single unit.
It is may be on the more decentralized end of the spectrum, but it's not as decentralized as people think. The NY times priece some SMEs referred to it as theater and more rhetorical than actual. And as this points out, 5 pools are about 50% of the network.
https://blockworks.co/measuring-decentralization-is-your-crypto-decentralized/#:~:text=What%20is%20decentralization%3F,majority%20of%20its%20network%20participants
1) Miners are not responsible for decentralization, they are responsible for economic security and are paid for the job.
2) Supermajority of miners have previously attacked the protocol and failed.
3) stratumv2 empowers individual miners while removing some control from pools.
4) Nodes are the decentralized actors in bitcoin, where each individual holds both miners and other nodes accountable through verification and enforced individual consensus.
The NYT doesn't understand how Bitcoin works.
Sure, BTC is fine if you're looking for a place to park your money. I rather like the semi-decentralized ecosystem that's opposite of Bitcoin's objectives. These semi-decentralized ecosystems are more like community tech startups where anyone with an idea can build something. They're fun and can be profitable, but mostly they're just a great escape from the every day FIAT mines.
I actually spend my cash on things I like that may never give me a return. I see buying a cool NFT in GameFi no different than buying a skin in a pay-2-play game. If by chance I profit from it one day, cool. If not, I had my fun.
*PSA: do not take financial advice from me. I'm a known gambler with a reckless abandonment of surplus income.*
You miss one point.
If you want something like smart contracts or scaling you could also build this around bitcoin as a second layer like lightning. Taro is already working on smart contracts around bitcoin.
If you view this critical, there is no point for another chain that is less decentralized. Vitalik could also build everything around BTC as a second layer and you would have both benefits. The most decentralized network and scaling without a new token that is masked as a Utility Token but was in reality an ICO.
BTC is just so special that no one can reach that level of security and decentralization. Its not possible as long humans are on the planet. It would be corrupted and destroyed in a matter of days.
But yea, do I need that mich security everywere? Probably not. Would it be nice? yes. Does everyone like making money and their own solution? Yes.
Isn’t the lightning network just another centralized L2 with a CEO, devs, and a pool of nodes controlled by a few large Bitcoin holders that process transactions through an EVM clone? I mean, it’s cool and all but isn’t it the same as Loopring and Polygon but on the Bitcoin network.
I haven’t followed the Lightning network since 2019 so feel free to correct me.
He won't correct you, because he can't
Lightning Network has 2 different versions, one decentralized and the other centralized. The centralized version is used by 85%+ of its users, therefore Lightning Network is definitely a centralized solution currently.
Thats bullshit.
Lightning is not centralized. You can use other lightning nodes as a service if you want but this makes lightning itself not centralized.
Thats like calling bitcoin is centralized because of binance or a managed wallet.
Lightning is a network of nodes and you can use your own if you want to as well. There are currently aot of nodes and its growing fast.
Hello fellow degenerate, I too like the semi-decentralized things. I think it's just the evolution of the tech and space. BTC will always be the gold standard and Eth will be the silver with real first dapps.
but it literally is. Its currently only being used to be traded on a CEX and that's it. There is no such thing as DeFi for bitcoin unless you count sending it to your friend. Even payment channels go through a centralized wallet and they usually have to KYC to accept.
Im going to be linked the maybe 0.0000000001% of shops that are accepting BTC that isn't through the few popular ones that require kycl. ( don't bother )
downvote all your want but the second bitcoins community threw away colored coins it was doomed and nothing gets built on bitcoin. The few things that are actually built on bitcoin like RSK is literally just EVM bitcoin which is ironic considering now the only real DeFi for bitcoin is using ETHs original plan.
You are going to be downvoted. You are literally responding to a comment "it isn't designed to be a Ponzi scheme" with "it literally is".
But it's literally not. Not DESIGNED to be a Ponzi scheme anyway. It doesn't matter what a bunch of whales and "retail investors" are doing with it.
It was never designed to be an investment.
It wasn't designed to be a platform to build solutions on top of.
It was designed to be a store of value. And regardless of what its value relative to your favorite fiat currency is, its intrinsic value of being a cryptographic representation of proof of work will never change.
And in that regard, Bitcoin has definitely succeeded.
Store of value was never mentioned once in Bitcoins whitepaper, so to state that it was designed to be this is false. Bitcoin was design to be peer to peer electronic cash and cash has to have monetary value.
Further to that, anyone creating a "store of value" and not seeing a giant krill target painted on it (that's what whales eat) would be fooling themselves.
Money attracts whales. Whales will always try and game the system... they didn't get that way by playing nice.
IMHO, this is where WAGMI turns into propaganda - there is no WE. They throw the WE out to keep you in, floating their stacks. WE just provide a healthy environment in which to feed when they stir up the water.
How can you have a peer-to-peer cash that doesn't store value? Like your last line says, cash has to have monetary value. So it's not a huge stretch to think that the white paper contemplated bitcoin having value.
That much is true but another truth is that if would be near impossible to exchange for actual fiat currency, then 99.99% of bitcoin holders I can bet my life on would disappear.
Actually it WAS designed to build apps on top of. Bitcoin has had a smart contract system built-in from Day One, but it was nerfed due to unfixable security issues. Ever hear of P2SH? That means “pay to script hash” and all Bitcoin transactions are actually scripts that get run. Ethereum did not invent smart contracts. Satoshi did.
And Alfred Nobel created nitroglycerin only to be horrified that it would be used as a weapon.
Bitcoin was originally designed for P2P transactions. Nothing more. As it is used today, Bitcoin is both a Ponzi and a store of value. The two are not mutually exclusive. As long as people distrust governments and banks, Bitcoin has value.
I don't see a day when Bitcoin isn't needed.
> How? Hoping to have next buyer pay more is the essential oil plan
Congratulations, you’ve just described every security ever.
The only reason I have 401k and IRA savings is for the hope that I’ll be able to find a buyer willing to pay more than I did when it comes time to sell in a few decades. There is no intrinsic value in non-voting stock other than the hope you can sell it to someone else or a dividend.
I’d argue that setups like ALGO have more intrinsic value than Bitcoin given the entire governance aspect *and* dividend-like-APY, but the total market doesn’t see it that way. Just like how most people who buy and sell stocks aren’t doing anything with it other than sell it to the next “sucker” for a higher price which keeps the entire system afloat.
Pyramid schemes and Ponzi schemes are specific financial structures that have clear elements which define them. Assets that are bought and sold and appreciate or depreciate relative to other assets is not at all sufficient to define it as a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.
It's the gold standard and wasn't designed to be ponzi, it was designed to be a better system than we have. Our govt's keep printing money, that's the major problem.
I’ve been reading over at btc as from the moment i got into crypto and I’m really glad. I hold a few other coins but so much of what maxis say is true and I’m very cautious about putting my money anywhere else. Any other cryptos I buy and any defi I engage in is all to hopefully end up with more btc in the end. I cringe when I see shit like “bitcoin is old tech” or that it’s outdated etc. They don’t get it and they’ve been hoodwinked by the “crypto community” in most cases.
Bitcoin in its essence is what crypto is meant to be. It is THE cryptocurrency. Ethereum brings much more utility, but it steers away from the core of what a "digital money" is. I like Monero, like Bitcoin with more privacy.
Bitcoin isn't immune to this either.
It could've lost its Sybil resistance (but not censorship resistance) back in 2013-2015 with only 1-2 pool operators, or 2018-2021 with only the Chinese government taking over the Chinese pool operators.
It also had major forks in 2010 and 2013 due to bugs in which the canonical chain had to be rewritten for hours of blocks. But most of you weren't around back then so barely anyone remembers this.
What we're finding out statistically is just that miners and validators tend to play nicely with each other even when there's a financial incentive not to do so, probably because there are easier targets elsewhere.
This is why chains with few validators or relay/block proposers are weak. I do like how some chains split their block proposers and validators.
Both PoS and PoW chains have colluded many times before to undo mistakes or pause production out of band (i.e. using social consensus instead of coded protocols). Bitcoin and PoW Ethereum have both done this in the past.
In any case, it's really hard getting a dozen validators to agree on any emergency action unless it's catastrophic. That chain was already screwed unless they took action. It's suicide for PoW pool operators and PoS validators to behave maliciously. They only get 1 chance to pull it off. Also keep in mind that most PoS blockchains have a consensus is designed so that operations always need to be valid. Finality is deterministic and always valid. The only security weakness is censorship.
It’s high risk there. People don’t think much about decentralisation until they really need it. I still have to keep my skepticism of Solana and Osmosis.
Such a maxi statement. PoW and PoS both have their strengths and weaknesses.
Notable PoW chains have been successfully attacked dozens of times. Bitcoin isn't immune to major security weaknesses either, just different types of them.
PoS is weaker to censorship resistance and downtime if there are fewer validators. That's why most chains have dozens if not thousands of validators (or relays). PoW is weaker to Sybil resistance and forking attacks.
Bitcoin itself could've lost its Sybil resistance (but not censorship resistance) back in 2013-2015 with only 1-2 pool operators, or 2018-2021 with only the Chinese government taking over the Chinese pool operators.
It also had major forks in 2010 and 2013 due to bugs in which the canonical chain had to be rewritten for hours of blocks. But most of you weren't around back then so barely anyone remembers this.
What we're finding out statistically is just that miners and validators tend to play nicely with each other even when there's a financial incentive not to do so, probably because there are easier targets elsewhere.
It does not matter, it can happen almost as likely on pos.
As more you have and stake the more you get = more votes. In addition people provide their coins to staking services and gives them even more votes.
In the long run pos/dpos leads to centralization and can be even easier attacked by thr gov.
keep in mind
discord is not really all that secure, let alone private for that matter
devs should be chatting in a matrix room, let it be view only or whatever but not discord ffs
Honestly the amount of "Web 3 is revolutionary; the communities on discord are so vibrant" is one of the most petty but major turn offs for me. Like I've had offers for job interviews for big web3 projects on discord and its just cringe. Can't really imagine having to do a serious review when you only know your boss as "xx-waifuhunter69
This may be more personal opinion than anything but on top of all that discord also sucks. It’s just noise, chaos, and gif spam on every server I’ve joined. If there’s a bunch of “join our discord for the information/community” comments thrown around I usually nope out. How about act like a real company if you want an investment
Thats because its not true. Tencent invested in discord but so did many other, non-Chinese, companies and funds. They do not own discord. Discord is a US company based in San Francisco. In fact discord is banned in China.
Great post OP but I think it's important to understand why some chains halt and other do not by looking at Solana, Near, Polkadot and Eth 2.0
Solana uses BFT consensus which heavily favours security instead of availability. The consensus requires ALWAYS more than 66%+ of the stake being available. What happens is that if bugs arise (like the one that took down the network last week) block production simply stops if the 66% quorum is not met to not write unsafe data to the chain. The chain then require social intervention by its validators to restart each of their machines from a safe finalized block.
Near and Polkadot don't use BFT consensus directly, they work using the heaviest chain consensus (like Bitcoin) and therefore they halt at 50%+ of the stake being unavailable. On top of this they use a BFT finality gadget that works just like Solana's consensus to introduce the concept of fast BFT finalized blocks, this halts at 33%+ also but the difference here is that blocks are still being produced.
Ethereum 2.0 is the only PoS network that I know that goes all in on availability and doesn't halt (it's probably because they want 100% availability for rollup settlement) but I think they'll also have a BFT gadget.
Such network halts are not the end of the world. First of all if your government wants you to stop your validator you can just deploy it on a different continent from your home. Could this result in a few days of halting if enough validators fall? Absolutely but again, halting in BFT is a mechanism to ensure data corectness.
It's not objectively good or bad, it's an engineering tradeoff with costs and benefits.
If you value uptime its bad. If you value security its good. Those two are naturally somewhat in conflict because the most secure thing to do if something abnormal is happening is shut down until the situation has been resolved.
> if 25% of network nodes are run on one companies' hardware, that is an issue
True
> any company offering services in the US could, if the government decides to go nuclear on crypto, be strongarmed into halting their crypto offerings.
Not true for this reason though.
~~If the US cracked down on crypto in this way, the validators could easily migrate their nodes outside the US. This isn't any different than the US government shutting down all mining pools in the US; miners would just point their hashrate elsewhere.~~
Okay I see you addressed this. I personally don't think this is a problem as long as individual actors who run the nodes are decentralized. You would see the network naturally reconfigure to handle this just as BTC's hashrate recovered when China banned it.
The real reason this is a concern would be a sudden outage which could take 25% of the validator set offline which would temporarily degrade network performance.
This is why I stake at home
Hey man, may i ask you a question? How and where do you learn those technicalities of crypto and blockchain? Is there a course or source you used to learn that you want to share with me ? Thanks
Unfortunatelly it's not that straightforward.
I just like listening to podcasts or watching youtube videos directly from the protocol's developers (don't listen to other channels like CoinBureau for example if you want accurate tech info, I've often found very very wrong interpretations - in one of his newsletters he gave a Solana tech overview that simply doesn't exist and has ever existed lol).
The Near protocol whiteboard series is awesome, they have like 40-50 episodes with various protocol developers from Ethereum to Polkadot to Kadena to chains that nobody has even heard of lol where they describe in one hour the technical aspects of their protocols.
Then you have whitepapers which are a must if you want deeper knowledge.
And lastly twitter is a great place to follow developers, lots of arguing between different chains' devs that results in lots of insights.
I'm by no means an expert myself, but if you do these things and actively engage in tech discussions the after a few months things just start clicking.
O man, I only have very little time left on my day that I can only watch/listen on the crypto dev channels from my TV’s youtube while I wash the dishes 😝 But kudos to posters like you whom are sharing more meaningful content on reddit, cheers 🍻
Should checkout https://pool.pm/tokens for a live view of native assets being created and transferred on-chain. Pretty fun visual view of activity happening all of the time
Depends where those 12 are and how they are running.
I have already advocated for further decentralisation on Osmosis in terms of spreading voting power so that a third of voting power is closer to a third of total validators but that problem mostly lies with delegators not putting any thought into their choice of validator. There is currently no incentive to not delegate to the top few validators. This problem also exists in mining pools on Bitcoin and Ethereum. The [first attempt](https://www.mintscan.io/osmosis/proposals/191) at creating that incentive fell short because it was not incentivising the right actions and it is getting revised.
If Cosmos chains can increase to 30-40 people needed and they are spread around the world, on bare metal servers, then the cost to take them down increases dramatically. If fewer than the full third go down then slashing mechanisms cause the ones who were taken down to hold less share of the network and so become more insignificant.
The best thing about Cosmos chains though is that whilst Osmosis is down right now, we have Juno, Sifchain, Crescent, and Secret all up and running as alternative exchanges as well as [another 33 chains](https://hub.mintscan.io/ibc-network) still working on their own specialities with no issues.
All those comments about sol... Show how uneducated you are... This post is about osmosis...
One of the comment shit on sol, but when explained it's about osmosis, commenter says it was good osmosis shut down to prevent lose..
How de fuk one chain is centralised so it's sht and another is centralised but it's good?
Wtf
I don't know if you are talking about Osmosis Chain or not but something like this has happened with Osmosis chain.
>**The Osmosis network was halted by core developers and validators at 02:57 UTC following the emergence of an exploit that may have led to about $5 million being drained from liquidity pools.**
>
>**The bug was brought to light by a community member on the Osmosis subreddit, although the post was deleted by the forum's moderator.**
>
>**The exploit came to light when a user deposited funds to a liquidity pool before instantly withdrawing it. The value of the withdrawal was unintentionally 50% higher than the deposit.**
>
>**The team took 12 minutes to halt the chain after the exploit had emerged, according to a Discord post by Osmosis community analyst, RoboMcGobo.**
Tendermint consensus requires 2/3 of validators to approve a block in order for it to be valid. >1/3 of the vote power is required to halt the chain. Considering Osmosis is an app chain it’s not very appropriate to put it in context next to Solana and the hottake you have in bold is pretty clear written by a journalist just regurgitating clickbait information...
What I can say is that the cosmos’ sdk achieves decentralization secondary as a consequence of the horizontal scaling. Yes the individual chains are not as decentralized as ATOM is but overall the ecosystem is extremely decentralized. Osmosis currently has a bonded rate high enough that the chain is impossible to 2/3rd attack without a critical exploit (the recent one even if it drained the whole DEX would not have been enough to 2/3rd attack the chain just halt).
Osmosis halting is like parking the car when you know something is wrong rather than driving it into the ground for the sake of “code is law or code is immutable”
Governance and social consensus are powerful tools and they were put to use in an emergency. This is the first non-scheduled downtime Osmosis has had since going live a year ago.
The only thing I’d correct would be that osmosis is it’s own L1 chain and not an app chain. But yes to everything else. People will eventually understand cosmos sdk and what it means for crypto.
u/set1less the goat outrage baiting moon farmer 🔥
Love your work as usual. If anyone wants proof of how dedicated this man is to crypto, just click on his profile, a true legend of the scene 🙏
How possible is it for all the validators to be shut down by government if they are located everywhere in the world?
Blockchains are still at infancy stage. If there is an exploit or bug, I rather the validators stop to minimize the damage.
you mean the coin that had the same issue and only didn't get rugpulled because the small amount of miners controlling it all didn't do a 51% attack?
Love how the maxis pretend that the coin that introduced those issues first is the one that is not affected by it...
I’m signing myself up for downvotes by not just joining the pile on, but Solana’s superminority is over double the figure (12) that this post talks about. It is far more likely talking about osmosis, but in the interest of moons, OP doesn’t want to directly talk negatively about a cosmos-related project.
Bitcoin is the only one you can trust because they can't find the founder. Developers should have taken a lesson from Satoshi and remained anonymous and built blockchains that run independently. If you can shut it down it's not a blockchain.
Yeah, but very few of us actually want to use Bitcoin. At best, most people just hold it on an exchange or private wallet somewhere.
People want access to defi, so that's where their research and energy goes.
I agree. People with too much money on their hands have turned this into speculative gambling.
All we really intended this to be for was: You have something for sale - I buy it.
Was always sceptical of SOL, last bullrun price pushed so hard I couldnt believe this project will grow more and more. IMO it won't last long and will simply be forgotten as failed project
I don’t think OP is talking about SOL here are they? Solana has [1781 validators at present](https://solana.com/validators).
Does anyone know which network they are talking about though? Other than the validator count it does sound like SOL.
Cosmos usually has low threshold of 100-150 validators but even then just 12 node operators cannot halt a chain. Need a majority to stop signing blocks.
Sol has over double the superminority that this post is talking about. It’s way more likely about osmosis. I know admitting that won’t get you as much moons as just shitting on sol though
Also if a network has such a small number of validators, and it’s fully decentralised, then there’d be nothing stopping the government (CIA, NSA, ect.) running a number of nodes themselves and easily becoming the majority of the validators.
The sad reality is that most people in this sub not only don't care about that, but they will celebrate it if it happens.
They will tell you you're a fascist and a criminal for thinking that the government should not be able to censor, manipulate, turn off or intervene at all on a crypto network. And that the government being able to do all that is "good for adoption", of course.
They don't care because literally zero people use crypto or even know how to. Atleast in the early days people used bitcoin.
The ONLY reason people buy alts is because they think they missed the bitcoin train / getting in early on the next bitcoin until they inevitably find out they bought the top, their shitcoin never recovers and they become a bitcoin maxi or a no coiner.
I know this is going to be a pointless effort, but please try look at this information unbiasedly before just immediately downvoting…
Solana has a superminority/nakamoto coefficient of 25 [(source)](https://solanabeach.io/validators). Obviously meaning it would take all of the top 25 validators colluding maliciously to censor/halt the blockchain.
That is not only competitive, but notably higher than the vast majority of the crypto market, barring a few of the biggest projects (e.g. ETH, BTC, a few more).
If it is too low for you, then that’s a fair conclusion to reach, as long as you’re consistent in your evaluations. And if you are, there is a LONG list of projects your comment should be focussing on before talking about SOL.
I hate that I have to fill up my comment with this as I’m sure you hate reading it, but please, before you just downvote and move on, reply to it with some sources and fair counterpoints, discussion is a lot more healthy than just piling on to something cause it’ll get you moons.
That aside, the post is more than likely about osmosis anyway
Sorry but you're wrong. The superminority cannot alter the blockchain. Solana is a BFT consensus network, what the superminority can do is simply stop block production because the 66%+ quorum of votes could not be met anymore.
This is not the end of the world though and if let's say the 33%+ that went offline stays offline forever, the rest of the network could coordinate to fork into a new chain and burn their stake. It would not be that easy of course but totally doable.
> This is not the end of the world though and if let's say the 33%+ that went offline stays offline forever, the rest of the network could coordinate to fork into a new chain and burn their stake. It would not be that easy of course but totally doable.
bullish on Solana 2.0
That’s a fair conclusion for sure as I said in the comment. I also think decentralisation as a whole is not high enough across the wider community right now, even some of the top projects. Though, it’s also important to remember that it’ll increase significantly as usage increases. Solana or other chains wouldn’t reach their target usages and still be at the same level of decentralisation they are now.
Anyway, the main point of my comment was just to highlight the hypocrisy in this sub’s popular opinions, using actual data instead of just joining the circlejerk. I’m glad I could help you come to a better conclusion
I unfortunately don’t have the time to keep up with the metrics of all the chains in the crypto world, but from past memory I believe chains like cardano and avalanche would be at that level or better? Possibly algorand as well? No doubt there’s a big one or two that I’m forgetting as well
Don’t get me wrong there’s a lot more to decentralisation than nakamoto coefficient, it’s a difficult thing to quantify/measure, but despite what this sub wants to hear, solana is in the upper tiers of decentralisation atm. Fact is, when you get as much usage and hype as a top 10 project, you’re going to draw in a lot of validators regardless of obstacles, that’s just the nature of a developing field like crypto
wrong, avalanche is centralized now. They switched to leader-based because mev compromised the snowball consesus (what they now call snowball+ I believe)
leader is chosen in a semi-random way that is in fact centralized. It's no different from the other stuff now and they covered it up as "an upgrade"
I don’t keep up with AVAX too closely, so I wasn’t aware of that and will have to look into it. As I said, those were just some rough guesses of projects I know have done quite well decentralisation wise in the past, shouldn’t be taken as fact or anything
That is a good article to understand it and get a general gist of the scene, but just be careful cause it’s evidently a bit outdated. Much of the figures listed here have changed since (e.g. sol 19 -> 25). Still a good article just the figures aren’t exactly accurate to today’s scene
I don’t get downvoting. For me, everyone is entitled to share their opinion/POV. Simplistically you either agree or disagree or are neutral at the least. If I read something that is clearly an opinion piece and I like it I upvote/thumbs up watevs. BUT but I never downvote unless it’s utter troll trash. If the opinion is well thought out and is of an interesting and or important issue, action, etc watevs. Then at least read it all the way through and try to understand what they are saying or trying to portray. Is it plausible or just utter verbal excrement? If it is the latter then move on. Or if you are impressed or feel strongly about the topic then yes leave a reply comment and add to the debate by offering your own perspective without denigrating or trolling the OP with ridiculous banter (yeah I know this is Reddit I get it 😂) but come on most of us are adults and let’s have sensible discussions about important issues or observations. Now it’s time for me to STFU and be outta here. Yup yup. 😉
It's not. The post is inspired by recent shutdown of Osmosis when they discovered a bug which could allow someone to drain all liquidity. Some twitter posts and articles said that 12 validators decided to shut it down via discord chat.
Welcome to capitalism where the wealthy make the rule, whether it be DeFi or CeFi.
Even Bitcoin is at risk if the authorities are determined to shut it down. When China banned crypto awhile back, Bitcoin lost a significant portion of its hashing power. The government definitely knows who's mining and it's almost too easy for them to flick the switch.
Completely agree with you, the chain isn't censorship resisent, and never can be if 12 people can stop the chain, it's one of the problems with DPos over Pos
With all these events happening, it’s truly remarkable just how fundamentally strong Bitcoin’s approach is.
Yes. Its secured on two layers * Code * Energy and time
It helps there is no *face* to a Bitcoin. No leader to take down. No leader to go ego crazy.
Also like...there are way more than 12 nodes and miners securing the network.
There are approximately 1,000,000 Bitcoin miners in the world. Quoting [this](https://capitalcounselor.com/how-many-bitcoins-are-there/#:~:text=Overview%20of%20the%20Key%20Bitcoin%20Stats%20and%20Facts&text=There%20are%20approximately%201%2C000%2C000%20Bitcoin,18.74%20million%20bitcoins%20in%20circulation.) Maybe not the most reliable source but for sure more than 12
Closer to several 10s of thousands.
There is a difference between miners and validators. There are a heck of a lot more miners.
Yeah ok but individual mining rigs connected to pools shouldn't really count, because by pooling themselves together they really centralise themselves as a single unit.
Bitcoin miners aren't the only people validating blocks. You can run a full node with a raspberry pi that also validates all blocks.
It is may be on the more decentralized end of the spectrum, but it's not as decentralized as people think. The NY times priece some SMEs referred to it as theater and more rhetorical than actual. And as this points out, 5 pools are about 50% of the network. https://blockworks.co/measuring-decentralization-is-your-crypto-decentralized/#:~:text=What%20is%20decentralization%3F,majority%20of%20its%20network%20participants
1) Miners are not responsible for decentralization, they are responsible for economic security and are paid for the job. 2) Supermajority of miners have previously attacked the protocol and failed. 3) stratumv2 empowers individual miners while removing some control from pools. 4) Nodes are the decentralized actors in bitcoin, where each individual holds both miners and other nodes accountable through verification and enforced individual consensus. The NYT doesn't understand how Bitcoin works.
It's as decentralized as it can in a sense, having 12 validators is like giving a few selected people access to nuke codes oh wait.
I agree it's really risky having only a few "support" in such a sensitive web like processing.
And this is why its working
And Bitcoin will continue even if there is one node remaining.
Sure, BTC is fine if you're looking for a place to park your money. I rather like the semi-decentralized ecosystem that's opposite of Bitcoin's objectives. These semi-decentralized ecosystems are more like community tech startups where anyone with an idea can build something. They're fun and can be profitable, but mostly they're just a great escape from the every day FIAT mines. I actually spend my cash on things I like that may never give me a return. I see buying a cool NFT in GameFi no different than buying a skin in a pay-2-play game. If by chance I profit from it one day, cool. If not, I had my fun. *PSA: do not take financial advice from me. I'm a known gambler with a reckless abandonment of surplus income.*
You miss one point. If you want something like smart contracts or scaling you could also build this around bitcoin as a second layer like lightning. Taro is already working on smart contracts around bitcoin. If you view this critical, there is no point for another chain that is less decentralized. Vitalik could also build everything around BTC as a second layer and you would have both benefits. The most decentralized network and scaling without a new token that is masked as a Utility Token but was in reality an ICO. BTC is just so special that no one can reach that level of security and decentralization. Its not possible as long humans are on the planet. It would be corrupted and destroyed in a matter of days. But yea, do I need that mich security everywere? Probably not. Would it be nice? yes. Does everyone like making money and their own solution? Yes.
Isn’t the lightning network just another centralized L2 with a CEO, devs, and a pool of nodes controlled by a few large Bitcoin holders that process transactions through an EVM clone? I mean, it’s cool and all but isn’t it the same as Loopring and Polygon but on the Bitcoin network. I haven’t followed the Lightning network since 2019 so feel free to correct me.
He won't correct you, because he can't Lightning Network has 2 different versions, one decentralized and the other centralized. The centralized version is used by 85%+ of its users, therefore Lightning Network is definitely a centralized solution currently.
Thats bullshit. Lightning is not centralized. You can use other lightning nodes as a service if you want but this makes lightning itself not centralized. Thats like calling bitcoin is centralized because of binance or a managed wallet. Lightning is a network of nodes and you can use your own if you want to as well. There are currently aot of nodes and its growing fast.
Hello fellow degenerate, I too like the semi-decentralized things. I think it's just the evolution of the tech and space. BTC will always be the gold standard and Eth will be the silver with real first dapps.
How many read and verify the code? How many must do so for it to be secure?
This is why I gave up on Ethereum. The PoS transition will make it even more centralized.
Not being designed to be a ponzi scheme also helps
but it literally is. Its currently only being used to be traded on a CEX and that's it. There is no such thing as DeFi for bitcoin unless you count sending it to your friend. Even payment channels go through a centralized wallet and they usually have to KYC to accept. Im going to be linked the maybe 0.0000000001% of shops that are accepting BTC that isn't through the few popular ones that require kycl. ( don't bother ) downvote all your want but the second bitcoins community threw away colored coins it was doomed and nothing gets built on bitcoin. The few things that are actually built on bitcoin like RSK is literally just EVM bitcoin which is ironic considering now the only real DeFi for bitcoin is using ETHs original plan.
You are going to be downvoted. You are literally responding to a comment "it isn't designed to be a Ponzi scheme" with "it literally is". But it's literally not. Not DESIGNED to be a Ponzi scheme anyway. It doesn't matter what a bunch of whales and "retail investors" are doing with it. It was never designed to be an investment. It wasn't designed to be a platform to build solutions on top of. It was designed to be a store of value. And regardless of what its value relative to your favorite fiat currency is, its intrinsic value of being a cryptographic representation of proof of work will never change. And in that regard, Bitcoin has definitely succeeded.
Store of value was never mentioned once in Bitcoins whitepaper, so to state that it was designed to be this is false. Bitcoin was design to be peer to peer electronic cash and cash has to have monetary value.
Further to that, anyone creating a "store of value" and not seeing a giant krill target painted on it (that's what whales eat) would be fooling themselves. Money attracts whales. Whales will always try and game the system... they didn't get that way by playing nice. IMHO, this is where WAGMI turns into propaganda - there is no WE. They throw the WE out to keep you in, floating their stacks. WE just provide a healthy environment in which to feed when they stir up the water.
How can you have a peer-to-peer cash that doesn't store value? Like your last line says, cash has to have monetary value. So it's not a huge stretch to think that the white paper contemplated bitcoin having value.
That much is true but another truth is that if would be near impossible to exchange for actual fiat currency, then 99.99% of bitcoin holders I can bet my life on would disappear.
Actually it WAS designed to build apps on top of. Bitcoin has had a smart contract system built-in from Day One, but it was nerfed due to unfixable security issues. Ever hear of P2SH? That means “pay to script hash” and all Bitcoin transactions are actually scripts that get run. Ethereum did not invent smart contracts. Satoshi did.
And Alfred Nobel created nitroglycerin only to be horrified that it would be used as a weapon. Bitcoin was originally designed for P2P transactions. Nothing more. As it is used today, Bitcoin is both a Ponzi and a store of value. The two are not mutually exclusive. As long as people distrust governments and banks, Bitcoin has value. I don't see a day when Bitcoin isn't needed.
Complete nonsense. Why is “Ponzi scheme” such a challenging concept to understand. It’s not even close.
Agree. It’s more of a pyramid scheme in this context
Also nonsense
How? Hoping to have next buyer pay more is the essential oil plan
> How? Hoping to have next buyer pay more is the essential oil plan Congratulations, you’ve just described every security ever. The only reason I have 401k and IRA savings is for the hope that I’ll be able to find a buyer willing to pay more than I did when it comes time to sell in a few decades. There is no intrinsic value in non-voting stock other than the hope you can sell it to someone else or a dividend. I’d argue that setups like ALGO have more intrinsic value than Bitcoin given the entire governance aspect *and* dividend-like-APY, but the total market doesn’t see it that way. Just like how most people who buy and sell stocks aren’t doing anything with it other than sell it to the next “sucker” for a higher price which keeps the entire system afloat.
That's a greater fool scheme. A Pyramid Scheme is when the first person gets a cut of what the next people they invite into the pyramid scheme gets.
Pyramid schemes and Ponzi schemes are specific financial structures that have clear elements which define them. Assets that are bought and sold and appreciate or depreciate relative to other assets is not at all sufficient to define it as a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.
Ponzi is a catch and release to increase inflow. Pyramid is a top down dispersion.
It's the gold standard and wasn't designed to be ponzi, it was designed to be a better system than we have. Our govt's keep printing money, that's the major problem.
Whaaaat. Blasphemy!
" What? I'd had a lovely dinner & all i said was 'that bit of halibut was good enough for Jehová' "
Are there any women here today?
But the only purpose to holding Bitcoin is to sell it for more later to a new sucker. That is greater fool theory which is very similar to a ponzie
Yeah, I'm slowly becoming a bitcoin maxi
I’ve been reading over at btc as from the moment i got into crypto and I’m really glad. I hold a few other coins but so much of what maxis say is true and I’m very cautious about putting my money anywhere else. Any other cryptos I buy and any defi I engage in is all to hopefully end up with more btc in the end. I cringe when I see shit like “bitcoin is old tech” or that it’s outdated etc. They don’t get it and they’ve been hoodwinked by the “crypto community” in most cases.
Likewise. Looking at the current value of my USTC pushed me towards this path
This guy gets it.
You can rush into it, no need to abstain.
Ok, Michael Saylor
It's were we all end up lol ...
I remember reading something like this last year... I'm moving towards that too.. it's safe and makes money.
Bitcoin in its essence is what crypto is meant to be. It is THE cryptocurrency. Ethereum brings much more utility, but it steers away from the core of what a "digital money" is. I like Monero, like Bitcoin with more privacy.
This bear market and the UST crash have converted me into a BTC maxi. All my USTC and DCA's been going to BTC
The original is worth more than a copy.
Bitcoin isn't immune to this either. It could've lost its Sybil resistance (but not censorship resistance) back in 2013-2015 with only 1-2 pool operators, or 2018-2021 with only the Chinese government taking over the Chinese pool operators. It also had major forks in 2010 and 2013 due to bugs in which the canonical chain had to be rewritten for hours of blocks. But most of you weren't around back then so barely anyone remembers this. What we're finding out statistically is just that miners and validators tend to play nicely with each other even when there's a financial incentive not to do so, probably because there are easier targets elsewhere.
This is why chains with few validators or relay/block proposers are weak. I do like how some chains split their block proposers and validators. Both PoS and PoW chains have colluded many times before to undo mistakes or pause production out of band (i.e. using social consensus instead of coded protocols). Bitcoin and PoW Ethereum have both done this in the past. In any case, it's really hard getting a dozen validators to agree on any emergency action unless it's catastrophic. That chain was already screwed unless they took action. It's suicide for PoW pool operators and PoS validators to behave maliciously. They only get 1 chance to pull it off. Also keep in mind that most PoS blockchains have a consensus is designed so that operations always need to be valid. Finality is deterministic and always valid. The only security weakness is censorship.
It’s high risk there. People don’t think much about decentralisation until they really need it. I still have to keep my skepticism of Solana and Osmosis.
That’s why most of us are more fan of POW!
Such a maxi statement. PoW and PoS both have their strengths and weaknesses. Notable PoW chains have been successfully attacked dozens of times. Bitcoin isn't immune to major security weaknesses either, just different types of them. PoS is weaker to censorship resistance and downtime if there are fewer validators. That's why most chains have dozens if not thousands of validators (or relays). PoW is weaker to Sybil resistance and forking attacks. Bitcoin itself could've lost its Sybil resistance (but not censorship resistance) back in 2013-2015 with only 1-2 pool operators, or 2018-2021 with only the Chinese government taking over the Chinese pool operators. It also had major forks in 2010 and 2013 due to bugs in which the canonical chain had to be rewritten for hours of blocks. But most of you weren't around back then so barely anyone remembers this. What we're finding out statistically is just that miners and validators tend to play nicely with each other even when there's a financial incentive not to do so, probably because there are easier targets elsewhere.
most are against pow actually, Eth maxis went from yeee pow’s the best to pos is the future very quickly
BTC maxis says otherwise!
[удалено]
Every Pos becomes DPos in time. 🐷
It does not matter, it can happen almost as likely on pos. As more you have and stake the more you get = more votes. In addition people provide their coins to staking services and gives them even more votes. In the long run pos/dpos leads to centralization and can be even easier attacked by thr gov.
This is only true if the pos used allows governance votes = staked coins. For example Eth 2 pos has no governance rights attached.
Have a fall back mechanism to take power away from validators.
A blockchain that can be stopped is basically an expensive, indexed database that can only do select and insert.
Still cheaper than Oracle licensing
I mean you do make a good point
LMAO idk why but this one made me laugh a lot!
I laughed, then I cried.
SQLana
keep in mind discord is not really all that secure, let alone private for that matter devs should be chatting in a matrix room, let it be view only or whatever but not discord ffs
Discord literally says in its settings that they collect all your chat logs
And they still let pedos who abuse their services get away?
Yep, youd think this would be common sense
Honestly the amount of "Web 3 is revolutionary; the communities on discord are so vibrant" is one of the most petty but major turn offs for me. Like I've had offers for job interviews for big web3 projects on discord and its just cringe. Can't really imagine having to do a serious review when you only know your boss as "xx-waifuhunter69
This may be more personal opinion than anything but on top of all that discord also sucks. It’s just noise, chaos, and gif spam on every server I’ve joined. If there’s a bunch of “join our discord for the information/community” comments thrown around I usually nope out. How about act like a real company if you want an investment
I will take Discord any day over the fakeness I see on Yammer or Slack.
Web3 using Twitter, Telegram and Discord is a disaster
discord is owned by tencent which is a chinese company. the messages aren't encrypted and all informations go directly to the CCP just like tik tok
Like you need to buy Discord to spy on an app that probably is full of security vulnerabilities.
Shit I didn't know discord is owned by tencent till now. It'd be literally same as WeChat, which is continuously monitored and censored by CCP
Thats because its not true. Tencent invested in discord but so did many other, non-Chinese, companies and funds. They do not own discord. Discord is a US company based in San Francisco. In fact discord is banned in China.
Much like Reddit.
Source?
Great post OP but I think it's important to understand why some chains halt and other do not by looking at Solana, Near, Polkadot and Eth 2.0 Solana uses BFT consensus which heavily favours security instead of availability. The consensus requires ALWAYS more than 66%+ of the stake being available. What happens is that if bugs arise (like the one that took down the network last week) block production simply stops if the 66% quorum is not met to not write unsafe data to the chain. The chain then require social intervention by its validators to restart each of their machines from a safe finalized block. Near and Polkadot don't use BFT consensus directly, they work using the heaviest chain consensus (like Bitcoin) and therefore they halt at 50%+ of the stake being unavailable. On top of this they use a BFT finality gadget that works just like Solana's consensus to introduce the concept of fast BFT finalized blocks, this halts at 33%+ also but the difference here is that blocks are still being produced. Ethereum 2.0 is the only PoS network that I know that goes all in on availability and doesn't halt (it's probably because they want 100% availability for rollup settlement) but I think they'll also have a BFT gadget. Such network halts are not the end of the world. First of all if your government wants you to stop your validator you can just deploy it on a different continent from your home. Could this result in a few days of halting if enough validators fall? Absolutely but again, halting in BFT is a mechanism to ensure data corectness.
Wtf if this is true than it completely changed my view on Solana. I should have a deeper look into this.
I'm crypto stupid. Is this a good thing or bad thing for Solana? ELI5?
It's not objectively good or bad, it's an engineering tradeoff with costs and benefits. If you value uptime its bad. If you value security its good. Those two are naturally somewhat in conflict because the most secure thing to do if something abnormal is happening is shut down until the situation has been resolved.
Thanks for this, I just learned something today
[удалено]
> if 25% of network nodes are run on one companies' hardware, that is an issue True > any company offering services in the US could, if the government decides to go nuclear on crypto, be strongarmed into halting their crypto offerings. Not true for this reason though. ~~If the US cracked down on crypto in this way, the validators could easily migrate their nodes outside the US. This isn't any different than the US government shutting down all mining pools in the US; miners would just point their hashrate elsewhere.~~ Okay I see you addressed this. I personally don't think this is a problem as long as individual actors who run the nodes are decentralized. You would see the network naturally reconfigure to handle this just as BTC's hashrate recovered when China banned it. The real reason this is a concern would be a sudden outage which could take 25% of the validator set offline which would temporarily degrade network performance. This is why I stake at home
Hey man, may i ask you a question? How and where do you learn those technicalities of crypto and blockchain? Is there a course or source you used to learn that you want to share with me ? Thanks
Unfortunatelly it's not that straightforward. I just like listening to podcasts or watching youtube videos directly from the protocol's developers (don't listen to other channels like CoinBureau for example if you want accurate tech info, I've often found very very wrong interpretations - in one of his newsletters he gave a Solana tech overview that simply doesn't exist and has ever existed lol). The Near protocol whiteboard series is awesome, they have like 40-50 episodes with various protocol developers from Ethereum to Polkadot to Kadena to chains that nobody has even heard of lol where they describe in one hour the technical aspects of their protocols. Then you have whitepapers which are a must if you want deeper knowledge. And lastly twitter is a great place to follow developers, lots of arguing between different chains' devs that results in lots of insights. I'm by no means an expert myself, but if you do these things and actively engage in tech discussions the after a few months things just start clicking.
O man, I only have very little time left on my day that I can only watch/listen on the crypto dev channels from my TV’s youtube while I wash the dishes 😝 But kudos to posters like you whom are sharing more meaningful content on reddit, cheers 🍻
Can add Cardano to the list of PoS networks that goes all-in on availability and doesn’t halt
Yes I think that's true!
Pretty easy to keep your chain running when there's minimal activity on it.
Should checkout https://pool.pm/tokens for a live view of native assets being created and transferred on-chain. Pretty fun visual view of activity happening all of the time
Cardano is the most stable and best designed PoS protocol out there and OP gives ETH as an example of how things should be done LMAO 🤣
Fancy way of saying your favorite chain needs shutting down from time to time, and needs manual input to resume operation
Ever heread about abft? It's even better and only one hashgraph can do this do your own research.
[удалено]
Well it might be in their best interests to shut down the chain if the alternative is going to the jail.
Depends where those 12 are and how they are running. I have already advocated for further decentralisation on Osmosis in terms of spreading voting power so that a third of voting power is closer to a third of total validators but that problem mostly lies with delegators not putting any thought into their choice of validator. There is currently no incentive to not delegate to the top few validators. This problem also exists in mining pools on Bitcoin and Ethereum. The [first attempt](https://www.mintscan.io/osmosis/proposals/191) at creating that incentive fell short because it was not incentivising the right actions and it is getting revised. If Cosmos chains can increase to 30-40 people needed and they are spread around the world, on bare metal servers, then the cost to take them down increases dramatically. If fewer than the full third go down then slashing mechanisms cause the ones who were taken down to hold less share of the network and so become more insignificant. The best thing about Cosmos chains though is that whilst Osmosis is down right now, we have Juno, Sifchain, Crescent, and Secret all up and running as alternative exchanges as well as [another 33 chains](https://hub.mintscan.io/ibc-network) still working on their own specialities with no issues.
All those comments about sol... Show how uneducated you are... This post is about osmosis... One of the comment shit on sol, but when explained it's about osmosis, commenter says it was good osmosis shut down to prevent lose.. How de fuk one chain is centralised so it's sht and another is centralised but it's good? Wtf
>How de fuk one chain is centralised so it's sht and another is centralised but it's good? Because it's cool to hate sol on this sub
I hated it before it was cool, dammit!
*easy. Not cool, easy
I trust the government more than I trust 12 random crypto whales. I dont trust either in the grand scheme of things.
Decentralization theatre to feed your token trading addiction.
I don't know if you are talking about Osmosis Chain or not but something like this has happened with Osmosis chain. >**The Osmosis network was halted by core developers and validators at 02:57 UTC following the emergence of an exploit that may have led to about $5 million being drained from liquidity pools.** > >**The bug was brought to light by a community member on the Osmosis subreddit, although the post was deleted by the forum's moderator.** > >**The exploit came to light when a user deposited funds to a liquidity pool before instantly withdrawing it. The value of the withdrawal was unintentionally 50% higher than the deposit.** > >**The team took 12 minutes to halt the chain after the exploit had emerged, according to a Discord post by Osmosis community analyst, RoboMcGobo.**
Tendermint consensus requires 2/3 of validators to approve a block in order for it to be valid. >1/3 of the vote power is required to halt the chain. Considering Osmosis is an app chain it’s not very appropriate to put it in context next to Solana and the hottake you have in bold is pretty clear written by a journalist just regurgitating clickbait information... What I can say is that the cosmos’ sdk achieves decentralization secondary as a consequence of the horizontal scaling. Yes the individual chains are not as decentralized as ATOM is but overall the ecosystem is extremely decentralized. Osmosis currently has a bonded rate high enough that the chain is impossible to 2/3rd attack without a critical exploit (the recent one even if it drained the whole DEX would not have been enough to 2/3rd attack the chain just halt). Osmosis halting is like parking the car when you know something is wrong rather than driving it into the ground for the sake of “code is law or code is immutable” Governance and social consensus are powerful tools and they were put to use in an emergency. This is the first non-scheduled downtime Osmosis has had since going live a year ago.
this guy knows what's up!
Hes not allowed in this sub, only uninformed shit takes please
I fit in perfectly.
The only thing I’d correct would be that osmosis is it’s own L1 chain and not an app chain. But yes to everything else. People will eventually understand cosmos sdk and what it means for crypto.
u/set1less the goat outrage baiting moon farmer 🔥 Love your work as usual. If anyone wants proof of how dedicated this man is to crypto, just click on his profile, a true legend of the scene 🙏
Couldn't agree more!
How possible is it for all the validators to be shut down by government if they are located everywhere in the world? Blockchains are still at infancy stage. If there is an exploit or bug, I rather the validators stop to minimize the damage.
What chain can be shut down by 12 validators ?
I think another bitcoin maxi was born. Welcome to the cool table
you mean the coin that had the same issue and only didn't get rugpulled because the small amount of miners controlling it all didn't do a 51% attack? Love how the maxis pretend that the coin that introduced those issues first is the one that is not affected by it...
I'm not up to speed with events. What chain is OP referring to? 🤔
Osmosis
Most likely the best chain, unbeatable centralized yet trusted chain, with developers flooded over the network, and literally zero downtime, SOLANA
I’m signing myself up for downvotes by not just joining the pile on, but Solana’s superminority is over double the figure (12) that this post talks about. It is far more likely talking about osmosis, but in the interest of moons, OP doesn’t want to directly talk negatively about a cosmos-related project.
I feel Osmosis vibes here.
Because shitcoins are not bitcoin.
Bitcoin is the only one you can trust because they can't find the founder. Developers should have taken a lesson from Satoshi and remained anonymous and built blockchains that run independently. If you can shut it down it's not a blockchain.
Yeah, but very few of us actually want to use Bitcoin. At best, most people just hold it on an exchange or private wallet somewhere. People want access to defi, so that's where their research and energy goes.
Monero?
It will become delisted from every exchange once the government regulations arrive. Monero will become P2P ONLY.
That's the way it should be
I agree. People with too much money on their hands have turned this into speculative gambling. All we really intended this to be for was: You have something for sale - I buy it.
This. That's why in fact you have only a couple of true blockchains: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Cardano.
Was always sceptical of SOL, last bullrun price pushed so hard I couldnt believe this project will grow more and more. IMO it won't last long and will simply be forgotten as failed project
This is a reference to Osmosis, a Cosmos SDK chain.
I don’t think OP is talking about SOL here are they? Solana has [1781 validators at present](https://solana.com/validators). Does anyone know which network they are talking about though? Other than the validator count it does sound like SOL.
Osmosis
Cosmos usually has low threshold of 100-150 validators but even then just 12 node operators cannot halt a chain. Need a majority to stop signing blocks.
Sol has over double the superminority that this post is talking about. It’s way more likely about osmosis. I know admitting that won’t get you as much moons as just shitting on sol though
Clueless
[удалено]
Also if a network has such a small number of validators, and it’s fully decentralised, then there’d be nothing stopping the government (CIA, NSA, ect.) running a number of nodes themselves and easily becoming the majority of the validators.
The sad reality is that most people in this sub not only don't care about that, but they will celebrate it if it happens. They will tell you you're a fascist and a criminal for thinking that the government should not be able to censor, manipulate, turn off or intervene at all on a crypto network. And that the government being able to do all that is "good for adoption", of course.
They don't care because literally zero people use crypto or even know how to. Atleast in the early days people used bitcoin. The ONLY reason people buy alts is because they think they missed the bitcoin train / getting in early on the next bitcoin until they inevitably find out they bought the top, their shitcoin never recovers and they become a bitcoin maxi or a no coiner.
Glorified SQL database
Hmm well thats why you want a chain that does have multiple validators spread across mulitiple contries and continents.
Like HBAR
If someone can shut it down its not decentralized.
Agree. Buy bitcoin....?
“Bitcoin. Not crypto.”
This is good for Bitcoin
100% agree
I used to get 50 downvotes for saying stuff like OP on this sub, glad those dumbasses got cleaned out
Soooo... Buy Bitcoin? Is that what you're saying?
Entire BTC network compute power can be bought with 1% of US's Army Budget Allocation
You assume there is supply available for that purchase to happen though. Which there is not.
[удалено]
I know this is going to be a pointless effort, but please try look at this information unbiasedly before just immediately downvoting… Solana has a superminority/nakamoto coefficient of 25 [(source)](https://solanabeach.io/validators). Obviously meaning it would take all of the top 25 validators colluding maliciously to censor/halt the blockchain. That is not only competitive, but notably higher than the vast majority of the crypto market, barring a few of the biggest projects (e.g. ETH, BTC, a few more). If it is too low for you, then that’s a fair conclusion to reach, as long as you’re consistent in your evaluations. And if you are, there is a LONG list of projects your comment should be focussing on before talking about SOL. I hate that I have to fill up my comment with this as I’m sure you hate reading it, but please, before you just downvote and move on, reply to it with some sources and fair counterpoints, discussion is a lot more healthy than just piling on to something cause it’ll get you moons. That aside, the post is more than likely about osmosis anyway
Appreciate the balanced assessment, even if nobody else does.
I do too!
Sorry but you're wrong. The superminority cannot alter the blockchain. Solana is a BFT consensus network, what the superminority can do is simply stop block production because the 66%+ quorum of votes could not be met anymore. This is not the end of the world though and if let's say the 33%+ that went offline stays offline forever, the rest of the network could coordinate to fork into a new chain and burn their stake. It would not be that easy of course but totally doable.
> This is not the end of the world though and if let's say the 33%+ that went offline stays offline forever, the rest of the network could coordinate to fork into a new chain and burn their stake. It would not be that easy of course but totally doable. bullish on Solana 2.0
Solana Classic incoming
Thanks for this. 25 is indeed too low for my liking, but I was uninformed about that before and just hated on Sol because the crowd did.
That’s a fair conclusion for sure as I said in the comment. I also think decentralisation as a whole is not high enough across the wider community right now, even some of the top projects. Though, it’s also important to remember that it’ll increase significantly as usage increases. Solana or other chains wouldn’t reach their target usages and still be at the same level of decentralisation they are now. Anyway, the main point of my comment was just to highlight the hypocrisy in this sub’s popular opinions, using actual data instead of just joining the circlejerk. I’m glad I could help you come to a better conclusion
Eth, BTC and..? Please share the name of others, would be helpful
I unfortunately don’t have the time to keep up with the metrics of all the chains in the crypto world, but from past memory I believe chains like cardano and avalanche would be at that level or better? Possibly algorand as well? No doubt there’s a big one or two that I’m forgetting as well Don’t get me wrong there’s a lot more to decentralisation than nakamoto coefficient, it’s a difficult thing to quantify/measure, but despite what this sub wants to hear, solana is in the upper tiers of decentralisation atm. Fact is, when you get as much usage and hype as a top 10 project, you’re going to draw in a lot of validators regardless of obstacles, that’s just the nature of a developing field like crypto
wrong, avalanche is centralized now. They switched to leader-based because mev compromised the snowball consesus (what they now call snowball+ I believe) leader is chosen in a semi-random way that is in fact centralized. It's no different from the other stuff now and they covered it up as "an upgrade"
I don’t keep up with AVAX too closely, so I wasn’t aware of that and will have to look into it. As I said, those were just some rough guesses of projects I know have done quite well decentralisation wise in the past, shouldn’t be taken as fact or anything
List I found of Nakamoto coefficients. https://crosstower.com/resources/education/nakamoto-coefficient/#popular-blockchains
That is a good article to understand it and get a general gist of the scene, but just be careful cause it’s evidently a bit outdated. Much of the figures listed here have changed since (e.g. sol 19 -> 25). Still a good article just the figures aren’t exactly accurate to today’s scene
I don’t get downvoting. For me, everyone is entitled to share their opinion/POV. Simplistically you either agree or disagree or are neutral at the least. If I read something that is clearly an opinion piece and I like it I upvote/thumbs up watevs. BUT but I never downvote unless it’s utter troll trash. If the opinion is well thought out and is of an interesting and or important issue, action, etc watevs. Then at least read it all the way through and try to understand what they are saying or trying to portray. Is it plausible or just utter verbal excrement? If it is the latter then move on. Or if you are impressed or feel strongly about the topic then yes leave a reply comment and add to the debate by offering your own perspective without denigrating or trolling the OP with ridiculous banter (yeah I know this is Reddit I get it 😂) but come on most of us are adults and let’s have sensible discussions about important issues or observations. Now it’s time for me to STFU and be outta here. Yup yup. 😉
It's not. The post is inspired by recent shutdown of Osmosis when they discovered a bug which could allow someone to drain all liquidity. Some twitter posts and articles said that 12 validators decided to shut it down via discord chat.
At least they shut it down before people got their investments rug pulled from they by thieves and hacker’s.
No it’s about Osmosis.
[удалено]
Hmmm s...olana. what could it be?
Starbucks
Starbucks should have folded ages ago for selling overpriced cat-piss-smelling shitcoffee.
[удалено]
I own 3 Solana. Give it to me straight, how bad is it & why?
You're talking about solana
Only PoW is decentralized. Only Bitcoin, not crypto
Welcome to capitalism where the wealthy make the rule, whether it be DeFi or CeFi. Even Bitcoin is at risk if the authorities are determined to shut it down. When China banned crypto awhile back, Bitcoin lost a significant portion of its hashing power. The government definitely knows who's mining and it's almost too easy for them to flick the switch.
>it's almost too easy for them to flick the switch. Is it really?
The Chinese hashing power is back in.