A Dfinity consensus competitor or copy cat?

Has anyone reviewed this to see if the theory is similar to or better than Dfinity’s? They claim they’re the first to use randomness to solve the scalability trilemma but it appears Dominic and Dr Hanke were discussion this at least since 2015 which may have been before Vitalik coined “scalability trilemma”. I have not seen a proof of the trilemma’s existence. Vlad’s 2017 tradeoff triangle is a restatement in more precise terms because “decentralized” is replaced by “number of nodes” and “decentralized” is as provable in a network as the existence of God because different identities can collude to be one mind, so.all systems resort to “proof of financial loss if cheating” to replace any requirement or proof of decentralization. All POS governing systems that pay overly-competitive rewards like Facebook shareholders and Definity NNS ICP holders [I fear] are a “proof of an expectation towards centralization until maximum value has been extracted”. Paying to vote instead of rewarding seems to drive an increase in decentralization. Giving governing power to users paying communication+computation fees is taxation with representation, but like POW & POS it still requires votes to occur over a long enough timespan to be more costly than in the sum of fees than the potential profits from cheats paying excess fees to drive the vote.

1 Like