The CAP theorem is a precursor of that, even if they are different [1][2][3] and Micali from Algorand claims they solved it (it is included in the original article).
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/kaspa/comments/18ieda0/there_is_a_f...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/kaspa/comments/18ieda0/there_is_a_f...
In the end I believe Algorand changed their algorithms to a more centralized approach for the sake of performance as fully distributed validation did not perform adequately. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
https://algorandtechnologies.com/technology/solving-the-bloc...
> Currently, Algorand blocks are produced in less than 3 seconds with instant finality. The network can process 10,000 transactions per second, and at a cost of a fraction of a cent per transaction.
Unless this has changed since two years ago, the relay nodes are quite centralized.
[1] https://www.coinfabrik.com/blog/uncovering-a-trove-of-algora...
I think parts of Vitalik’s points are kinda moot and break down when you examine them through the lens of “any sufficiently complicated system can and will break.”
In the case of bitcoin, the breaks are few now because it is basically static. I’m sure there’s some bugs in that codebase though… (and they’re worth a very pretty penny if you can find them!!).
There is no single, universal, true ordered state (ledger/db). Participants need a conflict resolution mechanism to figure out whose truth is correct. One must rely on a localized consinstent state of some authority (leader/consensus).
A solution that somehow goes around these limitations could have implications beyond computing. It could enable “headless” large scale cooperation. This would be a fundamental innovation in the evolution of intelligence generally.
Proof of work is the only one we have that kind of works and it’s massively expensive. You could argue that it’s just a way to make economically irrational or short sighted collusion prohibitively expensive rather than a true solution and might only work in a domain like a currency where there is a direct mapping to cost.
Decentralized cooperation in society likely wouldn't be permissionless, in most cases you would probably want to assign some voting power per human/citizen/share certificate/whatever. I'm also not sure if decentralized, verifiable randomness is easier to achieve outside of computer networks (for example, source some verifiable randomness from the universe based on a pre-defined algorithm).