toghrulmaharram

How are we still unironically saying that centralized ordering can be better than its decentralized counterpart because the former can pinky promise an outcome favoring users? I'm losing my mind here

BREAKING: The Microstrategy of Solana is announced, lead by some mysterious bald person

Twitter should switch from Proof-of-Discord consensus to Alpenglow, maybe that will fix the downtime issues.

My favorite cope in crypto is "bro, look at the project's advisors, how can they be duped?".

Tell me that you're new here without telling me that you're new here.

For the retards telling me that censorship is fine as long as you can force include your transactions: go ahead, try trading on a protocol that allows you to transact once every 24 hours and tell me how the experience is?

The whole conversation around L2 stages and decentralization is just nonsensical. Unless you want to reorg with the base layer (which you don't want to do because you don't want to offer subpar UX), you have to introduce significant delays on L1-to-L2 messages (including force inclusion). As such, you end up in a scenario in which time-sensitive use cases (such as certain lending markets, pumpdotfun-style memecoin launchpads, etc.) are rendered completely useless in case of centralized sequencer censorship. So yes, while achieving stage 2 is important, sequencer decentralization is as important.

The whole conversations surrounding L2 stages and decentralization is just nonsensical. Unless you want to reorg with the base layer (which you don't want to do because you don't want to offer subpar UX), you have to introduce significant delays on L1-to-L2 messages (including force inclusion). As such, you end up in a scenario in which time-sensitive use cases (such as certain lending markets, pumpdotfun-style memecoin launchpads, etc.) are rendered completely useless in case of centralized sequencer censorship. So yes, while achieving stage 2 is important, sequencer decentralization is as important.

> we're doing X to decentralize
> X has nothing to do with decentralization

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Reminder: if someone claims to have no MEV, then they either have no users or they don't know what MEV is

It takes 7 entities in Ethereum to control 33.4% of the total amount staked and 19 entities to control 50.1% of the total amount staked. People should stop falling for the validator count psyop. There are zero reasons for the consensus to handle 2M+ signatures to finalize a block when the majority of the stake is handled by a relatively small number of entities.

Btw, Alpenglow commits to ordering within ≈100ms with a large validator set on a happy path. This is real "latency" unlike your BS trustmebro pre-confirmations

Finished reading the paper. I can proudly say that after 4 years of trying, I finally understand how Solana's consensus works (there's a caveat though!).

Alpenglow brings lot of cool stuff, some meh stuff and stuff that I disagree with to the table. Will do a longer thread tmrw. Off to bed now.

REV denialism is retarded.
REV maximalism is also retarded.

Optimize for growth short-term and REV long-term. All of this shit is going to 0 if we don't have a single use case that can bring sustainable revenue long-term and scale to masses outside the CT circle jerk.