Cosmos vs ETH 2.0 - On Forks and Network Partitions

Summary

In the discussion, we delve into the concept of network partitions within blockchain systems, particularly focusing on how these networks can "self-heal" during major disruptions, such as extensive internet outages. I explain how, even in scenarios where validators are isolated for weeks, both sides of a partitioned chain can continue to function and eventually finalize through the loss of stake from inactive validators. I use the example of the Great Firewall to illustrate how these chains can evolve separately, potentially leading to the existence of two distinct versions of Ethereum. The conversation also touches on the balance between automated processes and social consensus in resolving such situations, acknowledging that while social coordination is possible within a three-week timeframe, extreme global conditions could complicate matters, necessitating a robust mechanism for maintaining utility on both branches of the chain.

Key Takeaways

In the event of a major network partition, the blockchain can continue to operate and provide utility for users on both sides of the partition.
The concept of 'self-healing' refers to the network's ability to finalize chains over time, even if validators lose stake due to inactivity.
Extreme scenarios, such as global conflicts, may hinder social coordination, which is why automated processes are essential for decision-making in blockchain governance.
If chains become aware of each other before finalization, they can use social consensus to resolve the situation, potentially avoiding a permanent split.
The potential for divergent ledgers highlights the importance of planning for extreme tail risk scenarios in blockchain networks.

Detailed Analysis

The discussion in the video revolves around the concept of network partitions within blockchain systems, particularly focusing on how these networks can self-heal in extreme circumstances. The speaker outlines a scenario where a significant event, such as the Great Firewall, could result in a split within the Ethereum network. Despite the potential chaos, both sides of the partition could continue to operate independently, eventually reconciling through a loss of stake by the inactive validators. This notion of self-healing is not just a technical mechanism but also a philosophical stance on decentralization and resilience in the face of adversity.

As I reflect on the implications of this self-healing mechanism, it becomes clear that it highlights a broader trend in blockchain technology: the push towards resilience and autonomy. In a world increasingly fraught with global tensions and uncertainties, the ability for a network to adapt and persist independently is crucial. Traditional systems often falter under pressure, but blockchain's decentralized nature offers a promising alternative. This resilience is particularly relevant as we witness the rise of geopolitical tensions that could disrupt digital economies and infrastructure, making the conversation about self-healing networks not just theoretical but essential.

However, while the concept is compelling, I can’t help but scrutinize its limitations. The idea that two chains could coexist and build their ecosystems raises questions about resource allocation, community cohesion, and potential fragmentation. The speaker acknowledges the importance of social coordination, hinting at the challenges that arise when automated processes take precedence over human consensus. In situations where social consensus is not reached—especially during extreme crises—should we trust automated mechanisms to dictate the future of our networks? This tension between automation and human governance presents a critical challenge that needs to be addressed as we move forward.

The insights shared in this video are particularly useful for developers, blockchain enthusiasts, and policymakers who are navigating the complexities of decentralized ecosystems. Understanding how networks can self-heal not only equips us with knowledge about the technology’s inner workings but also prepares us for potential crises that could arise in the future. For those of us invested in the future of blockchain, these discussions are crucial for shaping the protocols and governance structures that will define our digital landscapes.

In conclusion, the video serves as a thought-provoking exploration of network resilience in blockchain technology. The speaker's points encourage us to consider both the possibilities and the challenges of self-healing mechanisms. As we continue to innovate, we must remain vigilant about the balance between automated processes and human governance, ensuring that our systems not only survive but thrive, even in the most trying circumstances.

Transcript

Speakers: A, B

**A** (0:04): The mechanism, in the event that there is some sort of like major network partition, the network is kind of kind of self healing on the order of multiple weeks in which validators begin to like lose stake so that the mechanism, in the event that the chain cannot come to come to finality eventually it kind of these branches that go off on their own assume there's a major network Internet partition in which like half the validators are, you know, I don't know what global there's a lot of. In today's age. There could be any number of reasons that we have these like major network faults across the entire Internet. These chains can continue to be built and provide some amount of utility to those that are using them and eventually kind of self heal and finalize and ultimately be partitioned indefinitely. **B** (1:04): Can you describe what you mean by self heal in this case? **A** (1:07): That's like a very scientific term. **B** (1:12): It feels like self healing usually. What happens in this case usually is one side has to get thrown out and the other side has to. And so does that kind of suck for the side that was making transactions on the. That got thrown out? **A** (1:28): Not necessarily. So when I say that, I mean this is like a network partition has happened on the order of three weeks or so in which user activities continue to exist on both sides and both sides can ultimately eventually finalize via the loss of stake from the non active validators on each of those branches. Take for example, there's probably a number, this is like an easy example. But say the Great Firewall goes up real hard and Chinese validators on E2 are existing in a vacuum for more than three weeks on the order of months. This chain can continue to exists for those that can interact with it on that side of the Great Firewall and similarly outside of it. And eventually I think on the order of many weeks the chains can finalize and ultimately now have two Ethereums, which there are two Ethereums in some extent today. You have the ledgers would diverge unless there was some sort of social coordination to try to do something otherwise. **B** (2:42): Right, I was just gonna bring that up where. Why do you want an automated process to do this rather than allowing social consensus to make the decision that okay, you know what? These aren't gonna resolve, let's become two chains. Because especially because this has happened already before on Ethereum and you have plenty. **A** (3:01): Of time for social consensus. Right. Three weeks is a lot of time and likely enough time for community members to be like, what the hell? One, what the hell's going on? Two, how is this going to resolve three. Like, can we resolve this before? Because, again, if the chains become aware of each other before this time of, like, both being able to finalize, they'll use the fourth choice and they're resolved. Whereas in this event, there's, we're also planning for, like, very extreme global conditions, aka like World War 3 and things in which social coordination might be difficult. You know, it's, it's a social coordination exists, and on the order of three weeks, I think, is a reasonable time to coordinate. But in the event that it cannot, that these chains can continue to build, they can still provide utility users. You know, there's, there's, like, I think we could sit here and debate this for a long time, and it's really like extreme, extreme tail risk scenarios that it comes in. But, you know.