2026-01-12 00:29:50

Centralized sequencers are really a big problem, yet we keep pretending it's okay. Giving control of transaction ordering worth billions of dollars to a single node is an outrageously risky move.

Espresso's shared ordering solution directly addresses this pain point. By integrating a distributed operator network into LitecoinVM, it completely changes the game. It's no longer about single-point control, but multiple parties jointly participating in ordering. What's the most important? True censorship resistance. Supported by cryptographic proofs, transactions are genuinely processed on a first-come, first-served basis, no one can cut in line, no one can censor. This is how it should be.

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.

17 Likes

Reward
17
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

just_here_for_vibes

· 01-12 00:59

Centralized sorters have always annoyed me, and finally someone dares to speak out If this can really be implemented, it would be awesome, but it's still uncertain how long Espresso can hold up Cryptographic proofs sound good, is the era of truly decentralized sorting coming? The days of single-point control should end, I support this direction Espresso really hits the pain point, but could it also be another over-promising project? I like the idea of multi-party participation in sorting, it's definitely better than a single person calling the shots The selling point of resistance to censorship is very powerful; if it can truly be achieved, it would completely change the game First-come, first-served sounds simple, but there will definitely be pitfalls in technical implementation But it's just a change to a centralized approach, the problem isn't fully solved, right? This time it's finally not empty talk, let's see how far it can go

View OriginalReply0

ProofOfNothing

· 01-12 00:57

Single-point control of transaction order, this is indeed outrageous, but can Espresso's distributed sorting really solve it? I'm a bit curious to see the actual results.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHuntress

· 01-12 00:53

After research and analysis, Espresso indeed hits the core vulnerability of the current sorter... However, monitoring the flow of these wallet addresses raises doubts about the project's background. Cryptographic proofs sound good, but once implemented, could they become a new centralized trap?

View OriginalReply0

failed_dev_successful_ape

· 01-12 00:49

Single-point sorting is indeed a pain, but can Espresso's approach really be implemented in practice, or is it just another PPT proposal?

View OriginalReply0

MidnightSeller

· 01-12 00:47

It should have been done this way long ago. Single-point ranking is just a ticking time bomb, waiting to explode.

View OriginalReply0