PoW consensus algorithm is a backbone of a decentralised blockchain network. It's robust and unstoppable.

PoS reward distribution mechanism is a backbone of an unregistered security market. It's often used to conceal a central authority and distribute profits to shareholders in a public company.

I wish next hype to be around decentralisation.

I think "the problem with AWS" is infinitesimally small compared to other centralization issues of ETH. If the network is truly decentralized, it should tolerate events when 50% of nodes go offline. Why do we even discuss this "problem"? Maybe we see a symptom of bigger problems with ETH.

I believe people will respect those rules. Those, who are tired of dull shitcoin advertising, will appreciate that.

I propose you to describe your ideal altcoin. Please, focus on the product and technology. Follow these rules:

1) Don't mention cryptocurrencies, project names, brands, etc.

2) Don't mention potential revenue, high returns, limited supply, deflationary economics, staking revenues, benefits to early adopters, airdrops or any other form of benefits associated with tokenomics.

3) Don't mention people behind the project and their qualities.

4) Don't mention wide adoption, exposure in media, good perception of the product, faithful community, listings on exchanges, and etc.

5) Wishful thinking is not prohibited but try to be realistic.

Could you, please, define what is "blockchain sharding" based on those good resources? Could you answer the question of the topic starter:

Yes. Notice, your argument highlights the fact that blockchain network != database
All these points are relevant to blockchain networks. Databases don't necessarily have those steps and bottlenecks. Although blockchain network has a database under the hood, it's not everything. Some people oversimplify a blockchain network to a database which could be optimised by sharding. This viewpoint is inaccurate.

If some step of the process gets optimised, it doesn't mean the whole process gets optimised, especially, if optimisation of the one part goes ar the cost of other components. 

Such papers often confuse people. Before diving into this topic, you should understand that the database is not a blockchain network. "Database sharding" has nothing to do with "blockchain sharding". Think about this and don't get confused by plausible reasoning of prominent blockchain gurus.


No, it doesn't work that way.


No, it doesn't work that way. Let's put aside decentralized blockchain networks and consider original "database sharding". Database sharding is not always an improvement. It's a trade-off that is helpful only in certain cases in certain circumstances. When you split data into "shards", split processes into threads and distribute everything between separate hardware devices you might get some benefit from parallelism. However, you often get an overhead created by managing concurrent threads and associated delays. Sometimes this overhead is so huge that gains from parallelisation can't outperform it.

Therefore, database sharding is often a trade-off. It might be acceptable and it might be unacceptable. Database sharding is not a magic stick which solves all problems of databases. Neither it's not a magic stick in the context of decentralised blockchain networks. On top of that, as I said, the concept "database sharding in blockchain context" is not clear and straightforward.


What you call "data sharding" has been already implemented in Bitcoin from the day one. In Bitcoin, transactions within one block often could be processed in parallel by a node.

1) Full ASIC-resistance is a myth.

2) The belief that ASIC-resistance might improve decentralisation is another myth.

3) Alternative utility for mining equipment reduces the cost of the 51% attack. So it simplifies 51% attacks.

Is ASIC-resistance necessary? It depends on what is your goal.

Let me try.

1) Is LayerZero compatible with decentralized blockchain networks such as Bitcoin? What are prerequisites for compatibility of LayerZero with existing or future blockchain networks?

2) > LayerZero is a communication protocol

Who is supposed to use this protocol? Could you list all groups of participants based on their role? What data they should poses in order to be able to play their role in the network?

3) > Its core function is to ensure "valid delivery." This means the receiving chain correctly matches and verifies transactions from the sender chain, eliminating the need for middlemen.

What it means to "verify the transaction"? What verification steps can LayerZero support and what steps it can't support?

4) > The protocol implements generic messaging that provides trustless valid delivery of arbitrary data.

What means "trustless valid delivery of arbitrary data"?

I think the stability of any coin is relative. In order to be stable, a coin should be widely adopted. Its adoption should be comparable to fiat currencies like USD. Only in this case it could become stable from everyone perspective. In this scenario, it could be used as an etalon for the assessment of other coin stability.

You pretend to know much more than we do. Could you tell us
1) what algorithm does SEC use to perform the analysis of the technology?
2) how does the result of this analysis influence the decision of SEC to declare a coin security now or any time later?
3) what is a legal definition of decentralisation used by SEC?
4) what is a legal definition of scalability used by SEC?
5) is it possible that SEC conceal information about its procedures from the public?

I don't think SEC is measuring decentralisation by counting full nodes. There is no doubt, full node count is important for the decentralisation. However, it's not a proof of decentralisation and there is no transparent way to count full nodes and prove their independence. Majority full node could be controlled by one entity. Full node owners might collude and so on. It very easy to forge full node count if you can afford the support of the expensive infrastructure.

I doubt anyone can suggest a transparent legal procedure to assess altcoin decentralisation by counting full nodes unless SEC will obligate full node owners to register themselves and comply with all current and future regulations.

Well, there are thousands of altcoins and hundreds of new altcoins created every year. Many of them are listed on CEXs. Obviously, many of them are insufficiently decentralized and could be considered as securities by SEC due to whatever reason. However, SEC has not listed them in the lawsuit.

Does that mean that SEC will not consider them as securities in its future lawsuits?

I don't see much difference between Ethereum and "affected altcoins". I don't think that SEC see this difference either. Could you suggest a theory why SEC shouldn't treat Ethereum and Avalanche as securities? If you believe that SEC finds them "sufficiently decentralized", then, please, share with us the definition of decentralisation used by SEC.

A scheme in which a central authority distributes rewards to participants "based on their X" is not a consensus. I think a usage of the word "consensus" in such cases is a mistake.

The only true use-case of the true consensus is building a trustless decentralized network where there is no central authority.

The only purpose of "proof of X" pseudo-consensuses is to conceal centralisation.

Private businesses might prefer a "centralised consensus" only if they can tolerate the risk related to centralisation and can't afford paying a premium for the decentralisation. Also a private business might be this central authority in this "centralised consensus". Central authority often has an opportunity to build a monopoly and squeeze more revenue out of the market.

Before writing a long list of "many different consensus types", you should answer the question "what is consensus?"

1) According Bitcoin Proof-of-Work consensus, Miners follow the valid chain with the most accumulated Proof-of-Work

2) Traditionally this chain is called "the longest chain". However, this name is confusing.

3) Often the heaviest valid chain coincide with the longest valid chain in Bitcoin. However, in general case it might not be true.

4) There are theorems which claim that under certain conditions heaviest chain coincide with the longest chain.

5) In this context, other rules of Bitcoin protocol has an important role too. For example, Bitcoin client doesn't append into the blockchain blocks which have timestamps more than 2 hours into the future.

If this rule is discarded, then a solo miner can mine a longest chain by systematically putting timestamps far into the future. In this scenario, the block difficulty will decrease and this solo miner will be able to mine blocks with a little effort. However, his personal longest chain won't have the most accumulated Proof-of-Work, unless he has more computational power than the rest of the network.

If this solo miner poses more computational power than the rest of the network, he may generate the longest and the heaviest chain in the network. However, his chain might be truncated by peers, who will discard those blocks whose timestamps are far in the future. After this truncation his chain might be not as long and difficult as it was before. In this edge case scenario miners might follow the chain which is neither the longest, nor the heaviest.   

Apparently, Dogecoin is the biggest decentralised altcoin by market cap. It's a first alternative to Bitcoin. If you hate bullshit and do understand the true purpose of crypto, Dogecoin might be a good option.

I think it's a job of SEC to go after Algorand. I have no doubt Algorand deserves a status of the security.