Here's the thing about the argument that the industry always missed: It is inherently detrimental to the health of a network if a validator participates in consensus when they are poorly suited to it. Instead of enhancing network security, such participation weakens it.
In the traditional blockchain networks, there is a problem of client diversity bottleneck. Performance of the networks is bounded by that of the clients. While client diversity can give some network security advantage, it may also lead to performance issues because of the necessity to support client's performance and optimization.
* Validator running consensus in NY at 3am on Singapore time doesn't improve the network; instead, it worsens the problem.
* It is a leftover of the thought that "the more validators there are, the better."
Fogo differs by operating on curated validator sets that permitlayer enforcementof network beneficial behaviors that are often hard to enforce via protocol rules.
* A correct set of validators, in correct place and time, should result in faster and cleaner consensus.
* And that's better than any validator everywhere all time.
This is not a sacrifice of decentralization, but rather a refinement of decentralization's intended purpose. The purpose of decentralization isn't about participation per se, but about an integrity in the outcome. Decentralization aims at well-operating network.
Deeper Implication: A Controlled Rest as a Competitive Edge
Fogo's mainnet uses a different validator model. Active validators are currently running inside of high-performance data centers in Asia near to crypto exchange infrastructure. A page taken from financial trading systems-this minimizes physical distance data must travel from one validator to another.
* Comparison with finance makes perfect sense.
* It does not require a market maker to keep quoting around the clock, unlike in exchanges.
* Instead they have a well-structured window design, maintenance times and membership tiers, with controlled participation designed as a risk-management tool.
* Fogo is doing something similar in the context of its consensus architecture.
What emerges is a network that resembles a trained sports team; each individual member is operating optimally in their respective performance windows; planned not spontaneous transitions between these periods.
A wake-up call the industry is neither prepared to hear nor accept.
Over the past decade, the blockchain community has conflated availability and security. However, these two notions are fundamentally different. A network that expects every node to be available all times with no regard for performance level or geographical utility, is not the most secure. It is the most noisy.
* This challenges the deeply entrenched perception that the meaning of decentralization must translate into always-on and uniformed participation.
* It redefines the notion of resilience as a function of coordination and performance rather than of presence;
Fogo provides the protocol for the phrase: stop forcing it. Let your nodes get rest, let your time zones rotate, let silence be the key component of your design.
* It is expected that the industry will push back on this concept.
* Mythology around on decentralization is too deeply rooted.
* It is, however, hard to dispute the logic behind Fogo's design.
* Resilience in a distributed system has always relied on not all of its components operating all of the time, but on its ability to continue to function as a whole even when parts of it can not.
This understanding of distributed $FOGO resilience is not just technologically relevant; it is a potential design philosophy to set a generation of chains apart from what has come before.
@Fogo Official #Fogo #fogo $FOGO
