> As a result the chain is so centralized it actually went offline for a day
While the post-mortem [1] is lacking (mostly in terms of follow-up), my read was that the network was simply overloaded to the point where validators were crashing, not that some critical centralized component went down. I'd imagine there's similar DoS attacks one could execute against the older chains (but probably much harder to find given their maturity).
I suppose if you wanted to make an argument against decentralization on Solana it would be that it seems low-probability near-term that there would ever be an alternative validator implementation due to the complexity of Solana and VC-funded nature of the main one (it could always be forked though, I suppose).
> my read was that the network was simply overloaded to the point where validators were crashing, not that some critical centralized component went down
Solana has chosen to use the same underlying infra for consensus as for transactions. Validator votes are simply transactions in a block. This means there is no natural QoS to prioritize consensus traffic from regular traffic. This lead to massive issues when Solana underwent its first real-world load test.
While the post-mortem [1] is lacking (mostly in terms of follow-up), my read was that the network was simply overloaded to the point where validators were crashing, not that some critical centralized component went down. I'd imagine there's similar DoS attacks one could execute against the older chains (but probably much harder to find given their maturity).
I suppose if you wanted to make an argument against decentralization on Solana it would be that it seems low-probability near-term that there would ever be an alternative validator implementation due to the complexity of Solana and VC-funded nature of the main one (it could always be forked though, I suppose).
[1] https://solana.com/news/9-14-network-outage-initial-overview