korone_stan

the blockchain trilemma isn't real certainly not remotely as real as something as rigorous and fundamental as the CAP theorem it's a loose framework on a random blog post by Vitalik to justify sharding years ago it is crazy how often this thing still gets misused even Dankrad has acknowledged that it's very outdated and inaccurate it *is* a useful construct for thinking about the extreme end states of each vector — i.e., if something is as fast as humanly possible, you have to sacrifice some amount of max decentralization to get there importantly, this doesn't mean that you have to be "centralized" to be fast — that's just not knowing basic reading comprehension, these aren't binary there are currently many, many inefficiencies in blockchain architectures and system implementations to take the blockchain trilemma literally is to assume that no further advancements are possible (i.e., you assume you can't tune software or existing hardware to get more performance out of it, it also even means being bearish data availability sampling) if you have a system and all you've done is improve the software to suck less while keeping everything the same — you've improved scalability while not reducing security or decentralization (in fact you probably have increased it because now people have more incentives to run the nodes) the trilemma should be reformulated as: "you can't be as maximally performant as humanly possible while being as secure as humanly possible while also being as decentralized as humanly possible" you can still absolutely be very decentralized, very secure, and very scalable I understand nuance is hard on this app but thinking of these things as binary and then using it as some mental superiority complex for marketing is snake-oil behaviour