Conversation

SBF
@SBF_FTX
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
12) This doesn't mean it can validate the whole blockchain--it likely couldn't--but it could validate the shard of the application it was using. This means that each user could practically verify themselves that the transactions they were doing were legit.
2
74
SBF
@SBF_FTX
13) This provides a huge added layer of security: even if consensus broke down and the block producers tried to do something nefarious, each user could notice and call bullshit. Even if they didn't have 51% stakeweight, if 80% of users disagree with a block, they can hard fork.
1
64
SBF
@SBF_FTX
14) How about Solana? Well, the cost of running a node is dedicating a ~$500 machine to it. Which isn't that much, for a large player in crypto! But it is for a random user. And so in practice only people fairly interested in the ecosystem are likely to run nodes.
8
77
toly 🇺🇸
@aeyakovenko
Replying to
@lightcoin
and
@SBF_Alameda
> How quickly does that $500 cost grow? 50k TPS seems like it'd fill up hard drives and explode IBD times pretty fast on a $500 machine. History that is older than the epoch is useless for consensus, so validators don't need to store it.
3
4
toly 🇺🇸
@aeyakovenko
Replying to
@lightcoin
and
@SBF_Alameda
They don't! We could add parallel validation between checkpoints, but I don't really see the point. Booting up a new node means going through the weak subjectivity side channel checks to validate the network anyways.
2
lightcoin.btc
@lightcoin
Replying to
@aeyakovenko
and
@SBF_Alameda
I see, so the network does not aim for trust minimization and is ok with users trusting some third party to say, "don't worry all the rules were followed up to this point, we have been checking or trust someone who has been checking since the beginning and it's all good"?
1
1