2026-01-09 12:31:48

Any long-term system that can withstand the test of time will eventually reach a point—when you no longer have a second chance. Because these systems have already accumulated true value.

At this point, a completely different approach is needed to protect them.

For example, some protocols do things quite differently. They split data objects into multiple shards, then use erasure coding techniques to disperse these shards across different nodes in the network. The key point is— as long as 60% to 70% of the shards remain intact, you can fully restore the entire object.

It sounds simple, but there's an easily overlooked detail: this is not as simple as "making a few more backups." It’s a structural design that inherently resists damage.

How important is understanding this difference? The former is insurance; the latter is fundamental. One hopes bad things don’t happen, the other ensures you won’t die even if they do.

The core of long-termism is not about how comfortable you are now, but about ensuring you can survive in the future.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

8 Likes

Reward
8
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

OvertimeSquid

· 01-09 12:59

This is true anti-fragility, not just praying that the system doesn't crash. --- The erasure code system, to put it simply, is about dispersing the critical points so that no one can kill you. --- Insurance vs. fundamentals, this comparison is excellent. I never thought of this layer before. --- No wonder the big shots are all playing with distributed systems. Turns out the long-term secret is right here. --- 60% can revive you. Thinking about it the other way around, how hardcore is that? --- I don't want to just enjoy now; I want to live long... As expected, the higher the system layer, the more this mindset prevails. --- Wait, does this logic also apply to ourselves? Don't put all your eggs in one basket. --- Brilliant, finally someone explained this thoroughly. Most people are still pondering backups. --- The key is that once this system is established, it's impossible to change it. That's why the initial design must be solid.

View OriginalReply0

ZKProofEnthusiast

· 01-09 12:59

Damn, this is the real system design, not some fragile backup thinking. --- So Web3 should be done like this, with fault tolerance written into its DNA. --- 60% can revive? That logic is incredible, way higher than traditional databases. --- Finally, someone has explained this thoroughly. Long-term victory depends not on luck. --- Erasure coding is actually quite deep, but when used in decentralized networks, it's a perfect match. --- The problem is most projects don't have this awareness and are still relying on prayer. --- Got it, this is what true anti-fragile design looks like. --- An insurance mindset and structural defense are quite different. --- This approach is also applicable to ecosystem governance, but only a few projects have truly understood it.

View OriginalReply0

TrustlessMaximalist

· 01-09 12:58

This is true antifragility, not just praying that the system doesn't crash, but being able to survive even if it does collapse.

View OriginalReply0

gas_guzzler

· 01-09 12:54

A 60% recovery rate is truly resilient, much more reliable than those self-consoling backup plans.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-5854de8b

· 01-09 12:54

Oh, now that's true resilience, not just relying on luck to survive. This logic kind of gets to the essence of blockchain protection. Recovering at 60% is much better than traditional backups, but the key is having enough nodes. Exactly, long-termism is about making the system live longer than you do. It seems many projects are still just playing "hope bad things don't happen," far from this level. Fundamentally vs. insurance, this analogy is spot on.

View OriginalReply0