Distributed Consensus is hard and expensive. But it's only needed in case of disagreement: to enable exit and enter in a market of otherwise competing fast centralized chains -- using denunciations and timeouts.
-
Show this thread
-
Using the Distributed Consensus to publish each and every transaction is like going to Court every time you want to pay for coffee.
1 reply 4 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Note that Distributed Consensus isn't necessary to detect fraud. A decentralized chat network can do that just fine without expensive consensus. Then the multiply spent assets and any descendants can be frozen.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
The issue is how to unfreeze the dispute assets, especially since double-spending messages can be signed or revealed arbitrarily long after the fact. Malicious actors could retroactively poison large parts of the ledger; and title insurance would not be possible.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread
A robust Distributed Consensus allows to declare a specific version of the ledger as Canonical not just against immediately discovered double-spend attempts, but also against future retroactive claims of prior spending.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Read my blog!