When setting up my DWS on the chain I performed a fresh implementation of the flex spanning system so that sharded stakes were accordingly modulated when dilution factors are on the rise. Retro validators should never rely on the sole consideration of performative liquidity, and that's why in most use-cases, distributive-non-passing underfitted categorization of assets is preferable. Every DNP-uca implementation has proto-failure systems that allow for better mining experiences, in fact every time assets are minted you obtain by-products of the initial dilution thanks to the false commitment that is produced when pseudo-stakers correct the current derivation according to the relative spike index. That's why the tech interested me at first.
Just because you're unfamiliar with the technology doesn't mean it's nonsense. The failing is yours in actually looking into these things rather than trying to be funny.
If you explain to most people how a TLS handshake works it will sound to them as equally nonsensical. This technology is complicated, this article is targeted at an audience that understands the technology, not one that needs a "My first introduction to distributed computing"
Ethereum should also make plenty of sense to an average programmer who understands basic cryptography. The concept of a distributed virtual machine shouldn't be difficult to grasp.
You could dive deeper into either of the topics you mentioned and start losing people - for example how QUIC carries a TLS handshake, or why enshrined proposer-builder separation is important to Ethereum. All that means is that both protocols hide complexity under the surface.
That's a pretty bombastic claim with no supporting evidence. What exactly makes the design a clusterfuck, and what do newer chains do that is a significant improvement?
So far all of the alternative chains have been plagued with downtime and centralization of nodes into supernodes (at least in the ones that weren't centralized from the start).
