Complexity by itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but *unnecessary* complexity (layers & layers of indirection/obfuscation) usually is indicative of a much bigger problem.https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/1029919205859020800 …
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi @wheatpond and
I get your point, a lot of people is saying that LN is a needless adding of complexity. (Although I agree with it) so, I don’t see the problem of ppl working on new ways of reaching consensus
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emivelazquez6 @wheatpond and
LN might be more complex than layer 1, and in some sense resemble aspects of a PoS system, but the important thing is that it doesn't try to solve everything at once. Rather, it builds on the consensus foundation of the base layer protocol, and doesn't harm the base layer.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @emivelazquez6 and
This is a well known approach to building software that we have decades of experience to draw from: a layered architecture. Each layer focuses on one problem & one problem only. You don't build complex things right from the beginning. That has proven to _never_ work well.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
This is the Unix design philosophy. In short, "flexibility, simplicity, and freedom are the foremost considerations".
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.
