| > Consensus algorithms do not solve bugs. Not yet, but that's definitely an open problem that needs good solutions, and bugs aren't an excuse for allowing centralization. The "solution" to bugs being used by Ethereum is simply: move very slowly and try very hard to not create bugs in the first place. But others, i.e. Polkadot, are trying to come up with ways of reaching consensus around reverting or patching bugs. > I would argue that many people would not have, and even if they did, they would not anticipate other potential bugs. Well, tough shit. This isn't a space with room for errors, certainly not ones this big. > This does not mean the design is centralised: it's just that it's a peer-to-peer design with bugs. Like all software, ever. It does mean it's centralized. If you are skeptical that it's even possible to avoid bugs, well yeah, me too. That's why crypto is a high-risk space: bugs aren't really acceptable, but so far we really haven't found a way to completely avoid them. |
It is. Comparable systems can and do have errors. You can attach a bunch of nines as an SLA there and Solana would do pretty well in the last months. Especially because it’s only competition in the scalable blockchain space is itself.
> > This does not mean the design is centralised: it's just that it's a peer-to-peer design with bugs. Like all software, ever.
> It does mean it's centralized.
ok.