Is Solana failure resistant?

[IShishkin]

Failure resistance in considered to be an important feature of the blockchain technology. Common knowledge says that a blockchain network doesn't rely on a central authority and doesn't have a single failure.

However, we observe blockchain-solutions which fail on a regular basis due to various reasons. The notorious example here is Solana.

What is wrong here? Is it true that blockchain networks are failure resistant?

Or, alternatively, is it true that we misclassify some blockchain-solutions and put a wrong label on a product? What is your opinion?

[TastyChillySauce00]

Failure resistance in considered to be an important feature of the blockchain technology. Common knowledge says that a blockchain network doesn't rely on a central authority and doesn't have a single failure.

However, we observe blockchain-solutions which fail on a regular basis due to various reasons. The notorious example here is Solana.

Solana rely on central authority which is its developer lol. Its official site claimed to have more than 2400 validator nodes but the blockchain was always getting restarted and that means solana blockchain was true centralized blockchain. Is not it failure resistance was only applicable for truly decentralized blockchain like bitcoin? So many times solana blockchain got network outage

What is wrong here? Is it true that blockchain networks are failure resistant?

Nothing wrong here. The only wrong thing is you are taking solana as an example caused by basically solana was just a centralized blockchain that fully under control by its developers.

The only blockchain is very often to be restarted by its developers

Developers who operate and maintain the Solana blockchain restarted the crypto network after a technical problem triggered an hours-long slowdown over the weekend.

[o48o]

-cut-
Is it true that blockchain networks are failure resistant?
-cut-

Nothing is failure resistant. Especially Solana. Why do you think the last network outage of solana happened? Neither do i. Neither does the team so how is it failure resistant when it last failed 1 WEEK ago. Or maybe you are trying to ask something else because network failures doesn't mean that anyone is losing money or anything like that. Just that system is down, which is one huge failure to me.

[mindrust]

Solana has stopped serving multiple times. Bitcoin has been around way loner than Solana and never ever stopped working. (Maybe only during its very early days but that doesn’t count)

Why would anybody in the right mind trust Solana with their money?

Apparently Solana’s devs aren’t competent with what they are doing. I wouldn’t touch a project like that with a 10ft pole.

[JayTrain]

I believe Solana's blockchain technology is relatively new, still imperfect and still in development.  I also remember there were some cases of unstable work in this network, so I don’t think everything is so simple with this network.

Or did everyone forget about when this network just disconnected from overload?)

[nakamura12]

Nothing is failure resistant. I think think that solana have higher failure resistant since it is not decentralized and the developer or the team behind it can prevent any situation that could be bad for solana and for the holders. There could be imperfections since it is not that old and there could be new changes or new development that the team has made. There are some devs that are not competent like the others so you can't just trust them with your money or funds.

[Jating]

As others have pointed out, Solana has been done several times since it's existence. So they are not failure resistant. But there could be projects that runs <100%.

And if I'm not mistaken, LTC for example is 100% and Bitcoin at 99.98%.

Probably there is no perfect blockchain or failure resistance project specially those that are centralized like Solana.

[crzy]

There’s a talk about being centralized with SOL and probably that’s the problem with their blockchain technology when you compare this to Bitcoin. There’s no failure resistant, what we can see right now is a test from the market and with SOL they should be able to survive this. There’s a lot of things that they need to improve with SOL blockchain technology, and I believe they are already working with this one.

[GreenStox]

In the case of Solana, there have been instances where the network experienced performance issues and downtime due to a surge in transaction volume. This has led to questions about the network's scalability and its ability to handle high levels of traffic.
but the most crutial thing that make solana dump is alameda research and ftx when both of them have a huge amount of holding solana, that make massive dump when the bad news about ftt token and ftx exchange.

[JeromeTash]

Common knowledge says that a blockchain network doesn't rely on a central authority and doesn't have a single failure.

Not all blockchains are decentralized. Decentralization is just a major feature of a few blockchains like Bitcoin.

However, we observe blockchain-solutions which fail on a regular basis due to various reasons. The notorious example here is Solana.
What is wrong here? Is it true that blockchain networks are failure resistant?

What do you expect from a coin that uses proof of Stake that is far from decentralization and very prone to manipulation?

Or, alternatively, is it true that we misclassify some blockchain-solutions and put a wrong label on a product? What is your opinion?

It's quite evident that people are easily misled into anything due to stupid hype.

[Captain Corporate]

People call centralized projects decentralized for some reason and I have absolutely no idea why. Like, its obvious and it's there and why are you still calling it a decentralized project. It is not failure resistant, and it's horrible the way it gets stuck as well, and yet for some reason, people still think that it could be considered decentralized. The moment you realize that Solana is not as good as you think it is will be the moment you will start making a profit, it's a second hand coin at best and should not be considered a great product. I am not saying do not invest in it, there are many people who will, and it could go up in price when it shouldn't and you can profit from that. All I am saying is, do not trust it for the long term.

[BitcoinPanther]

Failure resistance in considered to be an important feature of the blockchain technology. Common knowledge says that a blockchain network doesn't rely on a central authority and doesn't have a single failure.

There is no such thing as failure resistant.  Every project is exposed to failure, it is that the developer are just doing their best for the project not to be a failure.

However, we observe blockchain-solutions which fail on a regular basis due to various reasons. The notorious example here is Solana.

What is wrong here? Is it true that blockchain networks are failure resistant?

Or, alternatively, is it true that we misclassify some blockchain-solutions and put a wrong label on a product? What is your opinion?

As I stated there is no such thing a failure resistant. There is always a possibility that a project will fail especially if it is handled by incapable developers and leaders.

[Silberman]

Failure resistance in considered to be an important feature of the blockchain technology. Common knowledge says that a blockchain network doesn't rely on a central authority and doesn't have a single failure.

However, we observe blockchain-solutions which fail on a regular basis due to various reasons. The notorious example here is Solana.

What is wrong here? Is it true that blockchain networks are failure resistant?

Or, alternatively, is it true that we misclassify some blockchain-solutions and put a wrong label on a product? What is your opinion?

Being resistant to failures is not the same as being exempt from them, those two are completely different terms, besides as it is known solana is a centralized coin and this means that if something fails then the whole network fails, we have experimented this many times before and it is one of the reasons many investors are very skeptic about the long term prospects of solana, as  we never know when one of those failures could become critical and destroy whatever confidence is left on the coin.

[Luffygroove]

Blockchain technology is designed to be resilient against failures, but it is not entirely immune to them. While blockchain networks do not rely on a central authority, they are still vulnerable to various types of failures, including technical errors, cyber attacks, and governance issues.

Solana's recent outage highlights the importance of properly addressing these issues to ensure the resilience of the blockchain network. In Solana's case, the outage was caused by a technical issue that affected the network's validators, leading to a temporary halt in transaction processing.

While some blockchain networks may be more failure-resistant than others, it is important to recognize that no technology is completely invulnerable to failures. It is important to continuously monitor and address potential vulnerabilities and to have contingency plans in place to minimize the impact of failures.

In summary, blockchain networks are designed to be failure-resistant, but they are not completely immune to failures. It is essential to take appropriate measures to address potential vulnerabilities and to have contingency plans in place to ensure the resilience of the network.

[vv181]

I don't know fully what you mean by failure-resistant, but a perfect system is almost non-existent. We can't build things that are pitch-perfect which makes any errors or defects not exist. Taking the example of Bitcoin, there are various vulnerabilities that existed. Even in any system, that is man-made, complete perfection is unlikely to exist.

Regarding Solana, although I put high scrutiny on the latest network restart, I did not dig deeper into the actual development processes that practically happen, and its decision-making. Compared to others, Solana seems the prominent one who has the most problem with the networks, which is concerning. Suppose that Solana truly runs by its community, the foundation, and the developers, those three are surely the ones who are wrong.

[fzkto]

In the case of Solana, there have been instances where the network experienced performance issues and downtime due to a surge in transaction volume. This has led to questions about the network's scalability and its ability to handle high levels of traffic.
but the most crutial thing that make solana dump is alameda research and ftx when both of them have a huge amount of holding solana, that make massive dump when the bad news about ftt token and ftx exchange.

I think it is simply time to forget about this project, just as eos, xem, and even bch were forgotten in their time. I agree that the Alameda fund has ruined Solana's reputation, but apart from that there will be new projects for the next cycle, for example Aptos has already managed to create a new hype.

[wheelz1200]

Failure resistance in considered to be an important feature of the blockchain technology. Common knowledge says that a blockchain network doesn't rely on a central authority and doesn't have a single failure.

However, we observe blockchain-solutions which fail on a regular basis due to various reasons. The notorious example here is Solana.

What is wrong here? Is it true that blockchain networks are failure resistant?

Or, alternatively, is it true that we misclassify some blockchain-solutions and put a wrong label on a product? What is your opinion?

Nothing is failure resistant.  If something is claiming that it is I'd be weary and steer clear.  Just because their are possible holes or entries for exploit doesn't make something bad either.  I'm not completely up on Solana but have heard great things about the project.

[IShishkin]

Solana rely on central authority which is its developer lol. Its official site claimed to have more than 2400 validator nodes but the blockchain was always getting restarted and that means solana blockchain was true centralized blockchain. Is not it failure resistance was only applicable for truly decentralized blockchain like bitcoin? So many times solana blockchain got network outage

Nothing wrong here. The only wrong thing is you are taking solana as an example caused by basically solana was just a centralized blockchain that fully under control by its developers.

Thank you for your response.

I appeal to popular "educational content" which is full of vague descriptions. As we know, decentralised blockchain is more reliable alternative to centralised databases. Solana is called "blockchain" simply because its data is organised into blocks linked by hashes. Sometimes it's called "decentralized" due to whatever reason. However, we observe that Solana is quite unreliable. Could Solana be anywhere better or more reliable than centralised database from any perspective?

[IShishkin]

Blockchain technology is designed to be resilient against failures, but it is not entirely immune to them. While blockchain networks do not rely on a central authority, they are still vulnerable to various types of failures, including technical errors, cyber attacks, and governance issues.

Solana's recent outage highlights the importance of properly addressing these issues to ensure the resilience of the blockchain network. In Solana's case, the outage was caused by a technical issue that affected the network's validators, leading to a temporary halt in transaction processing.

While some blockchain networks may be more failure-resistant than others, it is important to recognize that no technology is completely invulnerable to failures. It is important to continuously monitor and address potential vulnerabilities and to have contingency plans in place to minimize the impact of failures.

In summary, blockchain networks are designed to be failure-resistant, but they are not completely immune to failures. It is essential to take appropriate measures to address potential vulnerabilities and to have contingency plans in place to ensure the resilience of the network.

In the blockchain network, a failure or byzantine behaviour of few nodes shouldn't affect the rest of the network. The network can continue working despite technical issues on few nodes. Can we say the same thing about Solana?

[FireDAOJackie_Z]

-cut-
Is it true that blockchain networks are failure resistant?
-cut-

Nothing is failure resistant. Especially Solana. Why do you think the last network outage of solana happened? Neither do i. Neither does the team so how is it failure resistant when it last failed 1 WEEK ago. Or maybe you are trying to ask something else because network failures doesn't mean that anyone is losing money or anything like that. Just that system is down, which is one huge failure to me.

Exactly. If any system frequently fails, how can we trust its reliability ? To me, any use of blockchain technology can not be separated from the use case in any product. The reasons we feel safe about where to put our money lie on not only the security of that place itself, but also the sense of security coming from how investors feel. Too much trouble means too many hidden problems for users' perspective and I am clear on this point.