Read on Twitter
A retrospective on a previous thread, with updated beliefs and added nuance: https://twitter.com/_prestwich/status/966524837987475456
Still believe this, with additional nuance. We're looking to specifically un-learn traditional wisdom about computational costs, scalability, user safety, and "move fast and break things" https://twitter.com/_prestwich/status/966524838901792769
Transactions exist to order state changes. It's the state that matters https://twitter.com/_prestwich/status/966524840994721792
Never will be. Metered computation is always a thing https://twitter.com/_prestwich/status/966524843813363712
Shared state is the main barrier to both scalability and safety in smart contracts. In a few years we'll look back at the idea of a single global state with nostalgia. We'll also be incredulous that anyone thought it could work https://twitter.com/_prestwich/status/966524845855883264
Blockchains verify the result of computations. They *re-execute* things https://twitter.com/_prestwich/status/966524846803886081
Upgradability schemes create the illusion of upgrading a contract with a complex and brittle delegatecall system https://twitter.com/_prestwich/status/966524848125108225
There's no objective chainstate. There's a view of the state from a particular node. We try to ensure other nodes share this view, but cannot guarantee it https://twitter.com/_prestwich/status/966526589352595457
A corollary of this is that eth-style fast sync is just fine for _most_ users. However, we shouldn't erase the differences. Full sync provides guarantees about history that fast sync doesn't https://twitter.com/_prestwich/status/966541555761737728
The chain is largely a shared data availability layer. We define syntactic manipulations that help people imbue the state with meaning. The more more execution semantics we can pull off-chain, the better https://twitter.com/_prestwich/status/966761569110564864
Yip, other people have explained this better than me https://twitter.com/_prestwich/status/967232980589490177
This is a fun one for me, as I have to decode my precise thought process. I think my point here was that attackers and defenders are on equal footing in PoS, while PoW puts defenders on stronger footing https://twitter.com/_prestwich/status/967233202631753729
Going back to the subjectivity of consensus, your node never has total confidence that it is in consensus _right now_. Being "in consensus" means having high confidence that other nodes have substantially the same history, not the same state https://twitter.com/_prestwich/status/967508553110994944
Was true in 2018, but less so now https://twitter.com/_prestwich/status/969699260902948864
Still believe this, except there's a 3rd, much larger camp who doesn't give a shit and just wants to make money https://twitter.com/_prestwich/status/1027991936810930176
cobra effect. But also, in the past few years, I'm coming to realize that financial investment creates personal investment. and that this is powerful and dangerous https://twitter.com/_prestwich/status/1201016603741048833
