3 ms·

I feel like there's a way to directly derive the blockchain trilemma from the CAP theorem (or probably the more formal PACELC). Reasoning through it in my head

by treyd 2y ago

I feel like there's a way to directly derive the blockchain trilemma from the CAP theorem (or probably the more formal PACELC). Reasoning through it in my head makes sense so I've been saying that it's a corollary to CAP but I haven't actually seen it written out formally.

josh2600 2y ago
Cap is different because cap is about network planning constraints and doesn’t take into account things like security per se. I think parts of Vitalik’s points are kinda moot and break down when you examine them through the lens of “any sufficiently complicated system can and will break.” In the case of bitcoin, the breaks are few now because it is basically static. I’m sure there’s some bugs in that codebase though… (and they’re worth a very pretty penny if you can find them!!).
barnacs 2y ago
I think it all comes down to relativity and the speed of light. There is no single, universal, true ordered state (ledger/db). Participants need a conflict resolution mechanism to figure out whose truth is correct. One must rely on a localized consinstent state of some authority (leader/consensus).
- api 2y ago
  The fact that every human society ends up with some kind of centralized oligarchy is probably also due to this effect. Something has to resolve disputes about the state of the system. A solution that somehow goes around these limitations could have implications beyond computing. It could enable “headless” large scale cooperation. This would be a fundamental innovation in the evolution of intelligence generally. Proof of work is the only one we have that kind of works and it’s massively expensive. You could argue that it’s just a way to make economically irrational or short sighted collusion prohibitively expensive rather than a true solution and might only work in a domain like a currency where there is a direct mapping to cost.
  - barnacs 2y ago
    Proof of work essentially allows for a periodic leader election, where the leader has sufficient time to propagate its state update along with a verifiable proof of authority in a permissionless decentralized system. Decentralized cooperation in society likely wouldn't be permissionless, in most cases you would probably want to assign some voting power per human/citizen/share certificate/whatever. I'm also not sure if decentralized, verifiable randomness is easier to achieve outside of computer networks (for example, source some verifiable randomness from the universe based on a pre-defined algorithm).

by treyd 2y ago

josh2600 2y ago

Cap is different because cap is about network planning constraints and doesn’t take into account things like security per se. I think parts of Vitalik’s points are kinda moot and break down when you examine them through the lens of “any sufficiently complicated system can and will break.” In the case of bitcoin, the breaks are few now because it is basically static. I’m sure there’s some bugs in that codebase though… (and they’re worth a very pretty penny if you can find them!!).

barnacs 2y ago

I think it all comes down to relativity and the speed of light. There is no single, universal, true ordered state (ledger/db). Participants need a conflict resolution mechanism to figure out whose truth is correct. One must rely on a localized consinstent state of some authority (leader/consensus).

api 2y ago
The fact that every human society ends up with some kind of centralized oligarchy is probably also due to this effect. Something has to resolve disputes about the state of the system. A solution that somehow goes around these limitations could have implications beyond computing. It could enable “headless” large scale cooperation. This would be a fundamental innovation in the evolution of intelligence generally. Proof of work is the only one we have that kind of works and it’s massively expensive. You could argue that it’s just a way to make economically irrational or short sighted collusion prohibitively expensive rather than a true solution and might only work in a domain like a currency where there is a direct mapping to cost.
- barnacs 2y ago
  Proof of work essentially allows for a periodic leader election, where the leader has sufficient time to propagate its state update along with a verifiable proof of authority in a permissionless decentralized system. Decentralized cooperation in society likely wouldn't be permissionless, in most cases you would probably want to assign some voting power per human/citizen/share certificate/whatever. I'm also not sure if decentralized, verifiable randomness is easier to achieve outside of computer networks (for example, source some verifiable randomness from the universe based on a pre-defined algorithm).