On 17/12/13 00:19, Trevor Perrin wrote: > We should all pause and read this paper: > > http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/mickens/thesaddestmoment.pdf >
Haha, yes I saw this on Hacker News too. However, I'm pretty sure that (the consistency part of) what we're talking about is emphatically *not* the Byzantine problem. (I mentioned this in an earlier email but it probably got lost with the rest of what I wrote.) What makes the Byzantine problem so hard is that the parties cannot make a commitment until they are sure everyone else has made the same commitment. By contrast, we (and git) do *not* have this problem. When A commits a new message M on top of parents (P[i]), this is *independent* of everyone else and is a firm commitment that will *never change in the future*. Likewise, when I receive message M from A with parents P[i], I am *certain* that A wrote this message and that they have seen the messages P[i], and no future information can possibly change my knowledge regarding this matter. (These properties are why I believe my "agreement" protocols mentioned previously work, but no-one has reviewed them yet, and why this periodic-broadcasting eventually achieves consistency.) X -- GPG: 4096R/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE git://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OTR-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-dev
