3 ms·

Distributed, byzantine fault tolerant state machines solve that. At worst, a single node will go out of sync.

by lima 5y ago

noxer 5y ago
This is a great way to say "blockchain" without getting guaranteed down votes ;)
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  The poster isn’t wrong. An entire chain shouldn’t die because of a memory error in one node.
- eitland 5y ago
  You made me smile, however: I'm one of those who can easily downvote blockchain stuff mercilessly. It is not reflexively though: I reserve it for dumb ideas, it just so happens that most blockchain ideas I see come off as dumb and/or as an attempted rip off.
- InspiredIdiot 5y ago
  Yes, and also contrary to Wikipedia it provides a solid use case for private blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain#Disadvantages_of_private_blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain#Disadvantages_of_pr... I think it is instructive to ask "why doesn't this mention guarantee downvotes?" because I don't think it's just cargo-culting. I doubt that many of those objecting to blockchain are objecting to byzantine fault tolerance, DHT, etc. Very high resource usage in the cost function, the ledger being public and permanent (long term privacy risk), negative externalities related to its use in a currency... These are commonly the objections I have and hear. And they are inapplicable. Extending what the Wikipedia article says, it's basically glorified database replication. But it also replicates and verifies the calculation to get to that data so it provides far greater fault tolerance. But since it is private you get to throw out the adversarial model (mostly the cost function) and assume failures are accidental, not malicious. It makes the problem simpler and lowers the stakes versus using blockchain for a global trustless digital currency so I don't think we should be surprised that it engenders less controversy.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
goodpoint 5y ago
No, 99% of the times you just need to do a computation twice on different hosts. You don't need quorum or other form of distributed consensus.

Distributed, byzantine fault tolerant state machines solve that. At worst, a single node will go out of sync.

by lima 5y ago

Distributed, byzantine fault tolerant state machines solve that. At worst, a single node will go out of sync.

noxer 5y ago

This is a great way to say "blockchain" without getting guaranteed down votes ;)

matthewdgreen 5y ago
The poster isn’t wrong. An entire chain shouldn’t die because of a memory error in one node.
eitland 5y ago
You made me smile, however: I'm one of those who can easily downvote blockchain stuff mercilessly. It is not reflexively though: I reserve it for dumb ideas, it just so happens that most blockchain ideas I see come off as dumb and/or as an attempted rip off.
InspiredIdiot 5y ago
Yes, and also contrary to Wikipedia it provides a solid use case for private blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain#Disadvantages_of_private_blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain#Disadvantages_of_pr... I think it is instructive to ask "why doesn't this mention guarantee downvotes?" because I don't think it's just cargo-culting. I doubt that many of those objecting to blockchain are objecting to byzantine fault tolerance, DHT, etc. Very high resource usage in the cost function, the ledger being public and permanent (long term privacy risk), negative externalities related to its use in a currency... These are commonly the objections I have and hear. And they are inapplicable. Extending what the Wikipedia article says, it's basically glorified database replication. But it also replicates and verifies the calculation to get to that data so it provides far greater fault tolerance. But since it is private you get to throw out the adversarial model (mostly the cost function) and assume failures are accidental, not malicious. It makes the problem simpler and lowers the stakes versus using blockchain for a global trustless digital currency so I don't think we should be surprised that it engenders less controversy.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

goodpoint 5y ago

No, 99% of the times you just need to do a computation twice on different hosts. You don't need quorum or other form of distributed consensus.