Not sure about other blockchains but with Bitcoin, you only need one node to connect via satellite and the chain is good. In fact, there are satellites that broadcast blocks from space (no ISP required). [0]
replyI think people conflate decentralization with redundancy or resilience. IMO it just means you have multiple points of failure instead of one.
reply10 years ago the talk of hackers partitioning the internet to double spend BTC all seemed a bit far fetched. But now crypto has trillions in market cap and governments involved -- governments that sometimes cut network cables just to send a message. The "means" and "motive" exploded by 100x, did anyone find a way to close the "opportunity" or did people just stop talking about it lol?
replyYou'd also need to take down a fleet of satellites in space. Double-spends are not easy to profit from either.
replyI think the issue is that centralization is more economical due to scale, but that assumes all else (geopolitics or other black swan events) don't impact things.
replyWe saw a similar thing with supply chains and chip suppliers.
> reading articles like this does underscore how vulnerable global traffic is.
replyThen also remember that the internet haven't seen a global outage since forever, worst parts have been when some submarine cables break and traffic has to route around it, but never has the entire thing fully went down. Considering how most of it is built with bandaids, silver-tape and WD40, it's surprising it is as resilient as it is.