Algorand CTO responds to criticism of centralization and permissioning of the blockchain
John Woods, CTO of the Algorand Foundation, has responded to criticism from Justin Bons of Cyber Capital that Algorand is “centralized and permissioned.” Woods accepted some “critical views” but argued that the chain remains decentralized or permissionless.
While I obviously disagree with Algorand being centralized and permissioned – there are a number of fair criticisms in this thread. It is important to be able to evaluate and accept critical points of view!
Thanks for the thoughts Justin.
Opening up the Relay program is part of my 2023 strategies. https://t.co/RaoxAxR7A5— John Woods (@JohnAlanWoods) 21 October 2022
Centralization and censorship at Algorand
Bons took to Twitter on October 21 to praise Algorand for its “groundbreaking” technology, but claimed that “permissive gatekeepers can censor any TX on a whim.” The 25 tweet thread went into detail to say that Algorand is a centralized blockchain controlled by the Algorand Foundation.
“Although consensus is run through “participating nodes”, which are permissionless, the “relay nodes” are hand-picked by the foundation, which gives them permission!
According to Bons, the relays can act as “gatekeepers to the entire system,” since they are “solely responsible for block mediation.”
In a tweet, Bons accepted that “full decentralization is only a few relatively small code changes away” for Algorand. However, he believes that the current state of the blockchain, as he postulates that “relay nodes” could be forced to comply with the OFAC sanctions list” just like we have seen with Ethereum.
Bons also commented on claims that Algorand had solved the trilemma problem with blockchains. The trilemma is a problem where achieving sufficient levels of security, decentralization and scalability is a limitation of the blockchain’s composition. His claim is that Algorand’s approach to the trilemma may be “good enough” but has “some major limitations.”
It solves it with some major limitations
This means that it is still within the trilemma, but it may well be good enough
It’s if the relay nodes ever become fully decentralized that’s the big question mark here
— Justin Bons (@Justin_Bons) 21 October 2022
John Woods’ answer
While Woods denied Bon’s central thesis, the Algorand Foundation CTO affirmed that “It is important to be able to consider and accept critical views!” to accept some of the current failures in the chain.
Woods also retweeted a response from Patrick Bennett, CEO of TxnLabs, who claimed that “to censor, ALL relays would have to censor… the 4 random relays my node is talking to at *that* point would have to censor.” Bennett argued that “a plurality of relay nodes” is not an easy task to achieve, given the randomness built into the relay system.
Furthermore, Woods confirmed that opening up the relay program will be a “priority for 2023” in a small concession to the limitations of the current closed system. Woods too tired a need to “make it more open”, agreeing that the problem is “non-trivial”.
Relays are equivalent to network switches, but nodes gossip to 4 random relays. To censor, ALL relays would have to censor, or at least for me, the 4 random relays my node is talking to at *that* point would have to censor. So the “majority of relay nodes” is the key here.
— patrick.algo (@patrickbennett) 21 October 2022
Overall, Bons’ criticism is based on an appreciation of the Algoran blockchain as he stated that features such as “ALGO’s on-chain governance … are excellent.” The conversation between Bons and Woods in the thread also showed the possibility for real dialogue and progression to occur on Crypto Twitter from time to time.
Although the conversation was highly technical at times, it is fascinating to see high-level discussions about technology improvement with a market value of over $2 billion being discussed so openly in public. Furthermore, the public interaction with the topic illustrates the technical expertise of the web3 community in general.
