Most Protocols Struggle to Ignore This Reality
The unsettling premise that networks behave predictably is frequently used in the design of decentralized systems. It is believed that messages will arrive on schedule. It is anticipated that nodes would stay operational. Delays are not considered the norm, but rather the exception.
This assumption breaks out fairly instantly in real networks.
Latency varies. Nodes abruptly detach. Messages may not arrive at all, arrive out of sequence, or arrive late. Partitions of networks occur. Churn never stops. These circumstances are the norm for decentralized infrastructure; they are not exceptions.
The majority of storage protocols view this uncertainty as an issue that should be kept to a minimum.
Walrus adopts a different strategy.
Walrus welcomes uncertainty rather than resisting it. It creates security on top of asynchrony rather than attempting to eradicate it. Walrus transforms what other systems perceive as a weakness into a structural advantage.
This paper examines how Walrus turns network unpredictability from a drawback to a crucial security feature and explains why this change signifies a significant advancement in the architecture of decentralized storage.
The Conventional Aversion to Asynchrony
Asynchrony is a risk in traditional distributed systems theory. It is challenging to discern between the following in the absence of a trustworthy global clock and a guaranteed message delivery time:
A node that is slow
An unsuccessful node
A malevolent node
Timeouts, synchronized rounds, and stringent response periods are some of the ways that many protocols address this problem. A node is deemed defective if it does not reply promptly.
This method performs rather well in controlled settings. In open, permissionless networks, it fails miserably.
Simply because of delay, honest nodes are penalized. Timing assumptions can be exploited by attackers. Network performance and security become intertwined, creating a very brittle dependency.
This entire concept is rejected by Walrus.
Walrus Core Design Change: Give Up Relying on Time
This is the most significant conceptual change in Walrus:
Time is not a trustworthy indicator of security.
Security breaks down in real-world situations if it relies on coordinated reactions. Rather than relying on timeliness, Walrus bases security on structure, redundancy, and sufficiency.
Within Walrus:
By default, late responses are not suspicious.
Up to a certain point, missing responses are accepted.
Cryptographic proof determines correctness, not speed.
The way uncertainty is handled is altered by this adjustment alone.
From Unpredictable Guarantees to Network Chaos
There are three primary dimensions of network uncertainty:
Variability in latency
Node churn
Untrustworthy communication
The majority of systems try to mitigate these problems. Walrus incorporates them into their creations.
Rather than needing:
Every node will reply
Responses must be received within a set time frame.
Worldwide cooperation
Walrus poses a more straightforward query:
Is the existence of the data in the network sufficiently supported by independent evidence?
The precise timing of responses is unimportant once that topic has been addressed.
Asynchronous Difficulties: Coordinated Security
The asynchronous challenge mechanism is crucial to Walrus' methodology.
Conventional challenge systems function in rounds. Nodes are given a challenge, given a deadline to react, and the results are assessed simultaneously. Stable connectivity is implicitly assumed in this architecture.
Walrus completely eliminates this presumption.
Difficulties in Walrus
Don't demand coordinated involvement
Don't rely on rigid deadlines
Do not punish slow but honest nodes
Nodes use the information they locally store to react on their own. Over time, proofs are accumulated. The system is safe as long as a sufficient subset of legitimate proofs is eventually gathered.
Network delays are simply absorbed by the protocol and no longer impair verification.
Why the Walrus Security Model Is Strengthened by Uncertainty
The unexpected result of this design is that increased network unpredictability can actually increase security.
This is the reason.
Predictability is often used by attackers. They take advantage of synchronized rounds, predefined timing windows, and coordination presumptions. Attackers can purposefully appear responsive only when it matters when verification relies on precise timing.
These attack surfaces are eliminated by Walrus.
Due to the asynchronous nature of challenges:
Attackers are unable to "wake up just in time."
There isn't a single opportunity to take advantage of
Coordinated conduct has no benefits.
Instead of being temporal, security becomes probabilistic and structural.
Using Structural Redundancy Instead of Temporal Promises
Walrus uses redundancy rather than timeliness when encoding data to guarantee availability.
Rather, depending on:
One node that reacts fast
It indicates:
Individual failures don't matter.
Correctness is not compromised by delays.
It is structure, not timing, that adversaries must compromise.
Uncertainty turns into noise rather than a danger.
Separating Network Performance from Security
Coupling security and performance is one of the riskiest design decisions in decentralized systems.
If low latency is essential for security:
Congestion turns into a point of assault
DDoS assaults are equivalent to security assaults.
During peak load, honest nodes suffer.
Walrus completely avoids this trap.
Due to asynchronous verification:
Security is not diminished by high latency.
Speed is impacted by congestion, not accuracy.
False penalties do not result from performance decrease.
The system is far more stress-resistant as a result of this separation.
Churn Is Not an Issue Any More
In decentralized networks, node churn—the joining and departing of nodes—is a reality. When participation fluctuates, many protocols find it difficult to maintain security guarantees.
Churn is considered normal behavior for walruses.
Due to:
Storage accountability is divided.
Proofs are independent of fixed participants.
It is not necessary to fully participate in challenges.
Nodes can move around without causing the system to become unstable.
Actually, by avoiding persistent data concentration, churn might enhance decentralization.
Uncertainty Is Strengthened by Dynamic Shard Migration
By purposefully introducing controlled unpredictability through dynamic shard migration, Walrus goes even farther.
When stake amounts fluctuate:
Shards travel between nodes.
Shifts in storage responsibility
Disruption to long-term data control
It is challenging for any participant to gain long-term control over certain data because of this continuous movement.
Put differently, Walrus doesn't only
Stability is essential to centralization. If data placement is static, powerful actors can optimize around it. Influence builds up when duties are predictable.
This pattern is broken by walrus.
Due to:
The state of the network changes
Changes in storage assignments
The verification process is asynchronous.
There's no steady target to seize.
Ossification is prevented by uncertainty. It maintains the flow and distribution of power.
Economic Responsibility Without Timing Presumptions
Even incentives and penalties in Walrus are designed to function under uncertainty.
Slow nodes are not penalized. They are penalized for their mistakes.
This distinction is important.
The basis for penalties is:
Lack of reliable evidence
Absence of structural data
Cryptographic proof
Not on:
Deadlines missed
Temporary disconnections
Network outages
Therefore, even when networks operate improperly, economic security is nonetheless equitable.
The Significance of This at Scale
As decentralized storage expands:
Data volumes rise
Participation grows worldwide
Diversity in networks is exploding.
Predictability vanishes in these circumstances.
Synchrony-dependent protocols deteriorate. Protocols that rely on uncertainty are successful.
Walrus was created with this future in mind.
A Change in Perspective in the Design of Distributed Systems
Walrus symbolizes a shift in philosophy on a deeper level.
As an alternative to asking:
"How can we manage the network?"
Walrus queries:
"How do we stay safe when we lose control?"
This way of thinking is in line with reality. Open systems need to be robust since they are uncontrollable.
From Vulnerable Assurances to Sturdy Security
Strong guarantees are provided by traditional systems under specific circumstances. Under ideal circumstances, Walrus's assurances are marginally weaker, but under actual circumstances, they are significantly stronger.
This is a thoughtful and prudent trade-off.
When security breaks down under pressure, it's not security at all.
Creating with Reality in Mind, Not Perfection
By not challenging the inherent characteristics of decentralized systems, Walrus transforms network uncertainty into a security benefit.
By:
Getting rid of timing presumptions
Acknowledging asynchrony
Increasing the redundancy of the structure
Separating performance from security
As things get more chaotic, Walrus develops a storage protocol that gets stronger.
Certainty is brittle in a decentralized society.
Walrus demonstrates that when properly planned, uncertainty can be a strength.@Walrus 🦭/acc $WAL
