When a blockchain consensus relies on explicitly trusted validators, would you describe such a blockchain as permissioned and centralized or permissionless and decentralized?
>>59609433Checked and confirmed didn't ripple up kek
>>59609433i would describe the blockchain as "up way more than yours, cry harder"
>fishy is literally having a meltdownKEK, see ya at $10 retards!
>>59609477checked and rekt
>>59609433If I were to need something to be validated I would very much like to trust said validators.Would you rather have validators you don't trust?
>>59610119define trust.
>>59610119Blockchain technology exists so you don't have to trust anyone.That is literally the point of it.
>>59609433i agree with you but also i dont care and nobody else cares and number goes up
cope linky
>>59610193i'm sure all the validators will do a real good job of following the advice in the red bubble
>>59610193Crowd sourcing your validator turned out to be prohibitively expensive and slow. A smaller number of trusted validators wins the day.
>>59609433depends how many validators there are and what their relationship to each other is. for instance, there are only a handful of bitcoin miners that have any significant effect on consensus, and their incentives are largely aligned, meaning the network is essentially controlled by this small group of miners, even if nominally the network is permissionless for miners to join.
>>59610185A reasonable expectation that someone or something will not THOROUGHLY FUCK YOU UP THE ASS.
the thing about the link team is they keep doubling down on their feigned arrogancejust the way they type their posts on x is such a turnoffof course they have zero real world experience and zero charisma, so they dont understand you have to first sell your product regardless of how great it isbut you cant explain this nerds who dont get laid
Nobody cares about fundamentals.
>>59610375NOOOOOOYou literally have to trust random chinks and retarded neckbeards for this!
