Jeff Burdges: > On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 12:25 +0200, Ximin Luo wrote: >> Ximin Luo: >>> Jeff Burdges: >>>> Is there even a global partial order G for typical DVCs for example? >>>> It's just the local ones that actually exist on disk, right? >>> >>> Yes, that is G the "full history". >> >> One thing to note here is that I don't mean that everyone *has already >> received G*. What I mean is the union of all events that everyone has >> committed to their local copies. > > I have not yet understood the situation : > > At each participant u, there is a local partial order G_u whose nodes > are labeled by sets U[v] are participants and whose edges are add and > remove events. >
The edges are not "add" and "remove" events; you're adding this extra "patch-like" interpretation on the model that I wrote down. This interpretation is not useful, one should only look at the model. > We've some way to view these as part of a global partial order G, yes? > How does that work? > Every message-event v embeds references to its predecessors, similar to how every message-event v embeds U[v]. When reading a message-event v, if a particular user u cannot read/decrypt one of its predecessors p, they just ignore the edge (p <- v), and don't treat it as part of G_u. There's details to be worked out for security implications, but they can be worked out and it's not relevant to the model. > We can transmit the sets U[v] with each message like you say, but those > sets are only labels, not the nodes themselves. And they can get > repeated in strange ways. > The "contents" of each node uniquely define the node's identity, via consistent hashing. I'm not sure what you mean by "repeated in strange ways". X -- GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35 GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE git://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git _______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
