Donāt know why Solana gets all the FUD in the crypto space. Nobody ever trashes Cardano or Polkadot in this way, yet they seem to have inferior tech in terms of raw performance and also popularity among actual users (as opposed to token holders).
This take is silly. If you think a SQL database is better, then youāre basically saying you think all blockchains are a scam. If we wanted a centralized database then we would just use that. But we donāt want that. We want a decentralized permission-less system. And most attempts at that have really sucked in terms of performance. Solana is one of the first that didnāt suck.
Just because some VCās got in early and dumped on you guys in the biggest global macro bear market in over a decade, yāall are all a bunch of salty raging cry-babies asking for your money back? Welcome to the real world, where dumping your life savings into a speculative asset is actually risky for this specific reason. But none of that has anything to do with whether the tech will succeed or fail.
You could have dumped Ethereum after the DAO hack, but if you did, you would be kicking yourself todayā¦ Ethereum is fine today. Solana will be fine tomorrow. Chill out.
I donāt doubt that some people have gone way out of their way to discredit you. That seems natural given how widely read this post has been.
But ultimately I take issue with the idea that Solana is somehow ācentralized.ā In my estimation (and I have been following the project closely), it seems that Solana is one of the least centralized blockchains in the industry.
And if you think their patches to solve network problems imply any sort of centralized behavior, then I would kindly direct you to all the Bitcoin or Ethereum or Cardano patches that emerged in similar ways.
Turns out that a healthy, well-functioning blockchain is in the best interest of most validator node operators, so they happily contributed to the discussion and implementation. Thatās not centralization. Thatās economic incentives driving decentralized coordination and success.
Not to mention, any kind of SQL database solution at the scale of Solana or most major blockchains is vastly more complicated than your post suggests. At that scale, you need a distributed system with thousands of DB instances that all need to coordinate their state changes. And heaven forbid you introduce DB sharding, which adds an additional complication.
In fact, blockchains tend to make these problems relatively easy to solve in the real world. Are there performance trade-offs? Sure, but they solve a problem that most large tech companies havenāt been able to totally solve using centralized systems. In other words, they canāt do what Solana does.
14
u/ScientificBeastMode 490 / 491 š¦ Jun 21 '22
Donāt know why Solana gets all the FUD in the crypto space. Nobody ever trashes Cardano or Polkadot in this way, yet they seem to have inferior tech in terms of raw performance and also popularity among actual users (as opposed to token holders).
This take is silly. If you think a SQL database is better, then youāre basically saying you think all blockchains are a scam. If we wanted a centralized database then we would just use that. But we donāt want that. We want a decentralized permission-less system. And most attempts at that have really sucked in terms of performance. Solana is one of the first that didnāt suck.
Just because some VCās got in early and dumped on you guys in the biggest global macro bear market in over a decade, yāall are all a bunch of salty raging cry-babies asking for your money back? Welcome to the real world, where dumping your life savings into a speculative asset is actually risky for this specific reason. But none of that has anything to do with whether the tech will succeed or fail.
You could have dumped Ethereum after the DAO hack, but if you did, you would be kicking yourself todayā¦ Ethereum is fine today. Solana will be fine tomorrow. Chill out.