On 17 April 2014 21:25, Joseph Bonneau <[email protected]> wrote: > To try to summarize this thread so far, Michael proposed paring down > requirements slightly, specifically allowing O(N^2) communication for each > message and collision-resolution semantics, with the goal of keeping the > protocol simple. Kurt suggests that the requirement of having a consistent > total ordering on messages for everybody is the hardest goal left. Ximin > suggests partial ordering with flags to indicate partial ordering to users. > Moxie suggest that we can already do this with a simple protocol but the UI > (threaded messages) is then too complicated for a small screen (Tom later > provided some nice examples). > > There appears to be a tension between UI from protocol complexity here. We > can imagine designing a simple protocol that requires a baroque UI with > messages threading and rejoining, or a very complicated protocol that allows > a simple UI (linearized messages). > > Personally I'd lean towards the latter approach. This seems to be what > Michael's original thinking was, admitting a lot of messages and some > latency to allow for a simpler UI in the end. Though it's definitely worth > trying to design both cases, or consider if there's anything in the middle.
Causal ordering. _______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
